Listening to Jenrick on T4 about his claims the special forces are killing terrorists because of ECHR and he’s being mullered by Mishal. Why do politicians tell such silly stories which they can’t stand by factually? Surely they aren’t that stupid that they don’t think they will be picked apart on it?
Instead of saying “this is happening” he could simply have said “this could be an issue”. What a dick.
That's good focus by La Mishal.
If Generic Bob gets the job, the Great Frothing Noise will be replaced with a Great Flushing Noise.
"Particularly striking has been the strange implosion of Kemi Badenoch. The former business minister was once touted as the obvious party leader of the next generation and the “brain” of New Conservatism. It feels a lifetime ago that she exploded on the scene during the 2022 leadership contest. Like Mrs Thatcher, she seemed to radiate sharp lucidity. Like Blair, she seemed to interpret the world prophetically from high ground, capturing in her rhetoric the West’s tectonic populist shifts, the dismal drift towards an ever-greater state and the self-mutilating tendencies of liberalism."
"...It has transmogrified from a dynamic “freedom civilisation” imbued with a romantic reverence for individual flourishing, personal responsibility and self-respect into a stagnant “security civilisation”. Now the state pretends it can protect citizens in a challenging and volatile world from all human uncertainty, risk and misery. It aspires to efficiently run every aspect of people’s lives..." Telegraph, Sherelle Jacobs, 30 September 2024 7:52pm
Compare to
"...But a darker thought occurs: do people actually *want* to fix the Blob at all? In my thirteen-year time at PB I have become uncomfortably convinced that the British do not want freedom but safety, and that the Blob bodies are retained not thru inertia but deliberately...The Blob gives employment to civil servants, comfort to those afraid of change, succor (sic) to those who desire power without Government oversight, excuses to those who have failed, and protects those who desire safety over freedom. That’s a rather large section of the British public and they have votes..." Politicalbetting.com, "viewcode", 28 September 2024, 7:00am
That’s a very suboptimal poll for Labour (to put it mildly) after the first change election in 14 years and the general disaster that was the Tories.
Even if people dislike the policies of a new government they should really be seeing it as a bit of a fresh new broom at this stage in proceedings. For whatever reason, Labour have really naffed up their honeymoon period.
Interesting video on what's gone wrong for the Conservatives electorally. As with much else it's all the fault of Brexit. That's when they lost the graduates, who are the key demographic in Britain now. Talk in the video about how the Tories can work their way back with an offer to graduates but it feels hypothetical.
Even Corbyn won graduates, they aren't the key swing voters now, the key swing voters now are white lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters with a mortgage who voted for Boris in 2019 but for Starmer or Farage this time. Mostly living in the Midlands and North and Essex and Kent.
Graduate swing voters are Remainers primarily in the South who voted for Cameron but LD in July however they are not enough on their own to win a general election
Graduates aren't the key swing voters; they are the most important voting demographic period. The video makes the point that it gets increasingly hard for the Conservatives to win without swinging graduates.
Graduates are large in number and efficiently distributed. This is the killer combo under FPTP.
They are distributed across cities, suburbs, the countryside and increasingly into post industrial northern towns, the so called Red Wall.
Since Brexit they have mostly voted Labour and rarely Conservative. They vote more than non graduates.
Except they aren't, if they were Corbyn would now be PM as most graduates voted for him.
As I said the key swing voters are lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters who voted for Boris then Starmer or Farage NOT graduates.
Graduates voted 42% Labour, 18% Conservative, 15% Liberal Democrat, 9% Green and 8% Reform in July. As might be expected, the strongest groups for Labour, the LDs and Greens, the weakest for Conservative and Reform.
Whether that's an example of education or political indoctrination at Universities is a matter for debate of course and I'm sure everyone has a view (or perhaps not).
Cameron won graduates but since they have voted Labour mostly, however Boris won without graduates as did May
It’s an interesting thought experiment what happens if the Left depose Mr Ming Vase. As many on Twitter without fear of libel law seem to be predicting.
It would be pretty easy for any competent Conservative in the next 20 years to make the argument that Labour can never be trusted in office, even if their leader appears like a relatively soft left metro type.
In turn perhaps this should be a consideration in the next PM market. There’s not a precedent for a contested labour leadership process while in office. Are the left able to force a members process, knowing their candidate (Raynor?) wins? Or is there a cabinet stitch up and a coalescing around perhaps Streeting?
It's virtually impossible to depose a sitting Labour leader. 20% of the PLP have to nominate a rival, and no sign of that happening, not least because the usual subjects are not taking the Labour whip at present.
There are lots of folk on Twitter who believe too much on Twitter.
Starmer is rubbish at retail politics, but very good at consolidating power.
I agree - that's why he'll resign. He'll have to. There's really no way back I don't think.
Yes this is right isn’t it. But what then.
Personally I think the best candidate in the Labour Party is Andy Burnham, but he's not in Parliament, and if there were a byelection to get him in, Reform would fancy their chances of an upset. So it looks like Reeves or Cooper, neither of whom have covered themselves in glory since Labour have come to power.
What’s the mechanism for that, when there’s a huge new intake of MPs that are potentially quite fringey in their political views and who might not want a cabinet stitch up in favour of those two? Perhaps it’s going to be done US style. A cabinet nominee who assumes PM, a vote of confidence in the house and a total bypassing of the usual labour leadership rules?
I would love to have what you are having.
It simply isn't possible unless
1) SKS resigns 2) only one candidate puts their name forward.
And so far we have a few stories about receiving gifts and a very dodgy super injection story that even I know is a pile of kack..
It's copium on the right.
It's not easy to dump a PM mid-term and rightly so. Major survived Black Wednesday, Blair survived Iraq.
For the Conservatives to have lost two PMs in quick succession was unprecedented. Until the party has a good story for how they screwed up so much twice in a row, they aren't a serious party of government. And the only one that really works is "I wasn't around then".
So any current Conservative who wants their exile to be less than a decade has to normalise the idea that both sides are equally bad at choosing suitable PMs.
Trouble is, that even if Starmer does turn out to be a Johnsonesque sleazeball (I rather doubt it), he needs to be followed by a nutter who only lasts seven weeks.
Unlikely.
Very unlikely - because Labour MPs won't be stupid enough to let just their membership pick the next PM - so you would see a stitch up like 2007, or at most, 2 centrist candidates getting nominated.
What you won't see is a left wing candidate getting enough nominations to stand after Corbyn...
I'm still trying to grasp how Tory MPs thought Truss was a suitable candidate..
That’s a very suboptimal poll for Labour (to put it mildly) after the first change election in 14 years and the general disaster that was the Tories.
Even if people dislike the policies of a new government they should really be seeing it as a bit of a fresh new broom at this stage in proceedings. For whatever reason, Labour have really naffed up their honeymoon period.
We all knew the honeymoon wasn’t going to be anywhere exotic. A week in a nice Airbnb in Cornwall, or perhaps a city break to Prague. But what they’ve done is tell us on our wedding night that theyre cancelling the honeymoon because we can’t afford it
It’s an interesting thought experiment what happens if the Left depose Mr Ming Vase. As many on Twitter without fear of libel law seem to be predicting.
It would be pretty easy for any competent Conservative in the next 20 years to make the argument that Labour can never be trusted in office, even if their leader appears like a relatively soft left metro type.
In turn perhaps this should be a consideration in the next PM market. There’s not a precedent for a contested labour leadership process while in office. Are the left able to force a members process, knowing their candidate (Raynor?) wins? Or is there a cabinet stitch up and a coalescing around perhaps Streeting?
It's virtually impossible to depose a sitting Labour leader. 20% of the PLP have to nominate a rival, and no sign of that happening, not least because the usual subjects are not taking the Labour whip at present.
There are lots of folk on Twitter who believe too much on Twitter.
Starmer is rubbish at retail politics, but very good at consolidating power.
I agree - that's why he'll resign. He'll have to. There's really no way back I don't think.
Yes this is right isn’t it. But what then.
Personally I think the best candidate in the Labour Party is Andy Burnham, but he's not in Parliament, and if there were a byelection to get him in, Reform would fancy their chances of an upset. So it looks like Reeves or Cooper, neither of whom have covered themselves in glory since Labour have come to power.
What’s the mechanism for that, when there’s a huge new intake of MPs that are potentially quite fringey in their political views and who might not want a cabinet stitch up in favour of those two? Perhaps it’s going to be done US style. A cabinet nominee who assumes PM, a vote of confidence in the house and a total bypassing of the usual labour leadership rules?
I would love to have what you are having.
It simply isn't possible unless
1) SKS resigns 2) only one candidate puts their name forward.
And so far we have a few stories about receiving gifts and a very dodgy super injection story that even I know is a pile of kack..
It's copium on the right.
It's not easy to dump a PM mid-term and rightly so. Major survived Black Wednesday, Blair survived Iraq.
For the Conservatives to have lost two PMs in quick succession was unprecedented. Until the party has a good story for how they screwed up so much twice in a row, they aren't a serious party of government. And the only one that really works is "I wasn't around then".
So any current Conservative who wants their exile to be less than a decade has to normalise the idea that both sides are equally bad at choosing suitable PMs.
Trouble is, that even if Starmer does turn out to be a Johnsonesque sleazeball (I rather doubt it), he needs to be followed by a nutter who only lasts seven weeks.
Unlikely.
Very unlikely - because Labour MPs won't be stupid enough to let just their membership pick the next PM - so you would see a stitch up like 2007, or at most, 2 centrist candidates getting nominated.
What you won't see is a left wing candidate getting enough nominations to stand after Corbyn...
I'm still trying to grasp how Tory MPs thought Truss was a suitable candidate..
When I was at university, the left nutters were the SWP. And upfront about who they were. A pathetic cult, with a tendency to violence.
The Death To The West crowd were also In Your Face about it.
The fascists were always trying odd new organisations to try and get people to join.
The easiest tell was the poor bodily hygiene. Which seemed standard for extremists of all varieties.
Philosophical question - is toothpaste, soap etc incompatible with being a political extremist? Or is it some other correlation?
It's probably money and priorities.
Toothpaste and deodorant aren't free and people who can't afford either are more likely to be attracted to extremism.
Also if you're devoting your life to political activism, that necessarily restricts the time you have to attend to your personal hygeine - serious computer gamers often have similar issues.
Oh and a lot of the most extreme philosophies are inspired by the French, who have notoriously terrible habits in this respect, so maybe there's a bit of imitation of their habits with obvious odorific consequences for the rest of us.
As an illustration, here's the Lidar scan of part of the Flatlands - Ed Miliband's patch.
Top right, an old coal fired power station, with its associated ash dump.
Blue land has subsided due to coal extraction - the big blue area is currently flooding after yesterday's rain. Some of the subsided land is inhabited and flooded badly in 2007 (Toll Bar) as it is now a bowl and reliant on pumping.
The mine (pit) waste is lower centre left and is currently a nature reserve / park.
The east coast main line goes straight through the middle and as far as I know was not undermined.
Decades ago, when my son was young, we decided to try and grow a peanut bush, so we bought a bag or (unroasted) peanuts and gave it a go. Not only did it grow (in his bedroom) we actually got a few fully grown peanuts when we dug it up.
Completely failed with a pineapple top, but I still consider that a success for making a young lad's day.
The Shadow Minister seems to have had a very good, if over-imaginative, lawyer who obtained damages over what was imo a highly exaggerated inference from the original tweet.
Sad to say I heard that Jenrick interview on Today and I’m not so confident he crashed and burned.
Sure, intellectually she had him bang to rights, but what would listeners have heard? An articulate man with a slightly posh voice telling us that terrorists and paedophiles are coming across the seas to kidnap our children. This sort of nonsense works. Ask Trump.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Interesting video on what's gone wrong for the Conservatives electorally. As with much else it's all the fault of Brexit. That's when they lost the graduates, who are the key demographic in Britain now. Talk in the video about how the Tories can work their way back with an offer to graduates but it feels hypothetical.
Even Corbyn won graduates, they aren't the key swing voters now, the key swing voters now are white lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters with a mortgage who voted for Boris in 2019 but for Starmer or Farage this time. Mostly living in the Midlands and North and Essex and Kent.
Graduate swing voters are Remainers primarily in the South who voted for Cameron but LD in July however they are not enough on their own to win a general election
Graduates aren't the key swing voters; they are the most important voting demographic period. The video makes the point that it gets increasingly hard for the Conservatives to win without swinging graduates.
Graduates are large in number and efficiently distributed. This is the killer combo under FPTP.
They are distributed across cities, suburbs, the countryside and increasingly into post industrial northern towns, the so called Red Wall.
Since Brexit they have mostly voted Labour and rarely Conservative. They vote more than non graduates.
Except they aren't, if they were Corbyn would now be PM as most graduates voted for him.
As I said the key swing voters are lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters who voted for Boris then Starmer or Farage NOT graduates.
Graduates voted 42% Labour, 18% Conservative, 15% Liberal Democrat, 9% Green and 8% Reform in July. As might be expected, the strongest groups for Labour, the LDs and Greens, the weakest for Conservative and Reform.
Whether that's an example of education or political indoctrination at Universities is a matter for debate of course and I'm sure everyone has a view (or perhaps not).
Cameron won graduates but since they have voted Labour mostly, however Boris won without graduates as did May
According to Yougov Labour was also at >40% with high earners, 50-100k bracket.
Utterly offtopic but it's very rare to see a company change it's business model after 25 years, however, Ebay today has removed all fees for private sellers.
Given that they've often charged me £100+ as a transaction fee that's a massive change..
It’s an interesting thought experiment what happens if the Left depose Mr Ming Vase. As many on Twitter without fear of libel law seem to be predicting.
It would be pretty easy for any competent Conservative in the next 20 years to make the argument that Labour can never be trusted in office, even if their leader appears like a relatively soft left metro type.
In turn perhaps this should be a consideration in the next PM market. There’s not a precedent for a contested labour leadership process while in office. Are the left able to force a members process, knowing their candidate (Raynor?) wins? Or is there a cabinet stitch up and a coalescing around perhaps Streeting?
It's virtually impossible to depose a sitting Labour leader. 20% of the PLP have to nominate a rival, and no sign of that happening, not least because the usual subjects are not taking the Labour whip at present.
There are lots of folk on Twitter who believe too much on Twitter.
Starmer is rubbish at retail politics, but very good at consolidating power.
I agree - that's why he'll resign. He'll have to. There's really no way back I don't think.
Yes this is right isn’t it. But what then.
Personally I think the best candidate in the Labour Party is Andy Burnham, but he's not in Parliament, and if there were a byelection to get him in, Reform would fancy their chances of an upset. So it looks like Reeves or Cooper, neither of whom have covered themselves in glory since Labour have come to power.
What’s the mechanism for that, when there’s a huge new intake of MPs that are potentially quite fringey in their political views and who might not want a cabinet stitch up in favour of those two? Perhaps it’s going to be done US style. A cabinet nominee who assumes PM, a vote of confidence in the house and a total bypassing of the usual labour leadership rules?
I would love to have what you are having.
It simply isn't possible unless
1) SKS resigns 2) only one candidate puts their name forward.
And so far we have a few stories about receiving gifts and a very dodgy super injection story that even I know is a pile of kack..
It's copium on the right.
It's not easy to dump a PM mid-term and rightly so. Major survived Black Wednesday, Blair survived Iraq.
For the Conservatives to have lost two PMs in quick succession was unprecedented. Until the party has a good story for how they screwed up so much twice in a row, they aren't a serious party of government. And the only one that really works is "I wasn't around then".
So any current Conservative who wants their exile to be less than a decade has to normalise the idea that both sides are equally bad at choosing suitable PMs.
Trouble is, that even if Starmer does turn out to be a Johnsonesque sleazeball (I rather doubt it), he needs to be followed by a nutter who only lasts seven weeks.
Unlikely.
Very unlikely - because Labour MPs won't be stupid enough to let just their membership pick the next PM - so you would see a stitch up like 2007, or at most, 2 centrist candidates getting nominated.
What you won't see is a left wing candidate getting enough nominations to stand after Corbyn...
I'm still trying to grasp how Tory MPs thought Truss was a suitable candidate..
Twitter’s value now estimated to be down 79% since Musk took over.
It has become unusable for me. I never did use it much but now I can't even look at it unless I give them some personal details. Since I do not wish to, it no longer exists for me.
This has on the whole made a small improvement in the quality of my life.
The date of birth thing? I thought I'd given them my standard fake birth date for organisations with no business knowing it, but I still get asked, so maybe I didn't. But I can simply close the prompt by clicking the cross and it doesn't seem to stop me doing anything.
Still, being off Twitter may still be a net improvement I only really use it for two things, professionally as mainly a broadcast medium (publicising research outputs, calling for participants etc) and following links posted on here (for the latter, the need to be logged in to see any context beyond the immediately linked tweet does bug me).
In the more civilised areas of my twitter niches, which is active travel not infested by plagues of auto-bros, it still seems pleasant.
But more people are cross-posting elsewhere, and it seems to be Bluesky that is benefitting. One decent example is @rantyhighwayman .
One could call twitter a $44bn cesspit, but afaics it's down to about $10bn or less.
It’s an interesting thought experiment what happens if the Left depose Mr Ming Vase. As many on Twitter without fear of libel law seem to be predicting.
It would be pretty easy for any competent Conservative in the next 20 years to make the argument that Labour can never be trusted in office, even if their leader appears like a relatively soft left metro type.
In turn perhaps this should be a consideration in the next PM market. There’s not a precedent for a contested labour leadership process while in office. Are the left able to force a members process, knowing their candidate (Raynor?) wins? Or is there a cabinet stitch up and a coalescing around perhaps Streeting?
It's virtually impossible to depose a sitting Labour leader. 20% of the PLP have to nominate a rival, and no sign of that happening, not least because the usual subjects are not taking the Labour whip at present.
There are lots of folk on Twitter who believe too much on Twitter.
Starmer is rubbish at retail politics, but very good at consolidating power.
I agree - that's why he'll resign. He'll have to. There's really no way back I don't think.
Yes this is right isn’t it. But what then.
Personally I think the best candidate in the Labour Party is Andy Burnham, but he's not in Parliament, and if there were a byelection to get him in, Reform would fancy their chances of an upset. So it looks like Reeves or Cooper, neither of whom have covered themselves in glory since Labour have come to power.
What’s the mechanism for that, when there’s a huge new intake of MPs that are potentially quite fringey in their political views and who might not want a cabinet stitch up in favour of those two? Perhaps it’s going to be done US style. A cabinet nominee who assumes PM, a vote of confidence in the house and a total bypassing of the usual labour leadership rules?
I would love to have what you are having.
It simply isn't possible unless
1) SKS resigns 2) only one candidate puts their name forward.
And so far we have a few stories about receiving gifts and a very dodgy super injection story that even I know is a pile of kack..
It's copium on the right.
It's not easy to dump a PM mid-term and rightly so. Major survived Black Wednesday, Blair survived Iraq.
For the Conservatives to have lost two PMs in quick succession was unprecedented. Until the party has a good story for how they screwed up so much twice in a row, they aren't a serious party of government. And the only one that really works is "I wasn't around then".
So any current Conservative who wants their exile to be less than a decade has to normalise the idea that both sides are equally bad at choosing suitable PMs.
Trouble is, that even if Starmer does turn out to be a Johnsonesque sleazeball (I rather doubt it), he needs to be followed by a nutter who only lasts seven weeks.
Unlikely.
Very unlikely - because Labour MPs won't be stupid enough to let just their membership pick the next PM - so you would see a stitch up like 2007, or at most, 2 centrist candidates getting nominated.
What you won't see is a left wing candidate getting enough nominations to stand after Corbyn...
I'm still trying to grasp how Tory MPs thought Truss was a suitable candidate..
Relatedly: heretofore unseen levels of Cope on display by the Truss on the deep state that evicted her from her Prime Ministerial post: https://x.com/PoliticoForYou/status/1840723236499137012 Liz Truss claims “Underground transgender mafia” were plotting against her and brought her leadership to an end.
Decades ago, when my son was young, we decided to try and grow a peanut bush, so we bought a bag or (unroasted) peanuts and gave it a go. Not only did it grow (in his bedroom) we actually got a few fully grown peanuts when we dug it up.
Completely failed with a pineapple top, but I still consider that a success for making a young lad's day.
Do you remember (prob not, too young) the harebrained Labour (Attlee/Strachey) groundnut scheme for Tanganyika? Jimmy C did it better in deepest Georgia
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
When I was at university, the left nutters were the SWP. And upfront about who they were. A pathetic cult, with a tendency to violence.
The Death To The West crowd were also In Your Face about it.
The fascists were always trying odd new organisations to try and get people to join.
The easiest tell was the poor bodily hygiene. Which seemed standard for extremists of all varieties.
Philosophical question - is toothpaste, soap etc incompatible with being a political extremist? Or is it some other correlation?
It's probably money and priorities.
Toothpaste and deodorant aren't free and people who can't afford either are more likely to be attracted to extremism.
Also if you're devoting your life to political activism, that necessarily restricts the time you have to attend to your personal hygeine - serious computer gamers often have similar issues.
Oh and a lot of the most extreme philosophies are inspired by the French, who have notoriously terrible habits in this respect, so maybe there's a bit of imitation of their habits with obvious odorific consequences for the rest of us.
Actually an interesting topic. I think I have a theory. It’s related to conditions like narcissistic personality disorder and sociopathy. The lack of the normal social barriers imposed by a need to be polite, empathise with others, fit in.
It’s an interesting thought experiment what happens if the Left depose Mr Ming Vase. As many on Twitter without fear of libel law seem to be predicting.
It would be pretty easy for any competent Conservative in the next 20 years to make the argument that Labour can never be trusted in office, even if their leader appears like a relatively soft left metro type.
In turn perhaps this should be a consideration in the next PM market. There’s not a precedent for a contested labour leadership process while in office. Are the left able to force a members process, knowing their candidate (Raynor?) wins? Or is there a cabinet stitch up and a coalescing around perhaps Streeting?
It's virtually impossible to depose a sitting Labour leader. 20% of the PLP have to nominate a rival, and no sign of that happening, not least because the usual subjects are not taking the Labour whip at present.
There are lots of folk on Twitter who believe too much on Twitter.
Starmer is rubbish at retail politics, but very good at consolidating power.
I agree - that's why he'll resign. He'll have to. There's really no way back I don't think.
Yes this is right isn’t it. But what then.
Personally I think the best candidate in the Labour Party is Andy Burnham, but he's not in Parliament, and if there were a byelection to get him in, Reform would fancy their chances of an upset. So it looks like Reeves or Cooper, neither of whom have covered themselves in glory since Labour have come to power.
What’s the mechanism for that, when there’s a huge new intake of MPs that are potentially quite fringey in their political views and who might not want a cabinet stitch up in favour of those two? Perhaps it’s going to be done US style. A cabinet nominee who assumes PM, a vote of confidence in the house and a total bypassing of the usual labour leadership rules?
I would love to have what you are having.
It simply isn't possible unless
1) SKS resigns 2) only one candidate puts their name forward.
And so far we have a few stories about receiving gifts and a very dodgy super injection story that even I know is a pile of kack..
It's copium on the right.
It's not easy to dump a PM mid-term and rightly so. Major survived Black Wednesday, Blair survived Iraq.
For the Conservatives to have lost two PMs in quick succession was unprecedented. Until the party has a good story for how they screwed up so much twice in a row, they aren't a serious party of government. And the only one that really works is "I wasn't around then".
So any current Conservative who wants their exile to be less than a decade has to normalise the idea that both sides are equally bad at choosing suitable PMs.
Trouble is, that even if Starmer does turn out to be a Johnsonesque sleazeball (I rather doubt it), he needs to be followed by a nutter who only lasts seven weeks.
Unlikely.
Very unlikely - because Labour MPs won't be stupid enough to let just their membership pick the next PM - so you would see a stitch up like 2007, or at most, 2 centrist candidates getting nominated.
What you won't see is a left wing candidate getting enough nominations to stand after Corbyn...
I'm still trying to grasp how Tory MPs thought Truss was a suitable candidate..
Liz Truss claims “Underground transgender mafia” were plotting against her and brought her leadership to an end.
“They’re the ones really running this country.”
Amazing.
As pointed out upthread thats a "parody" account
More like untrue clickbait than anything humourous, as parody is supposed to be. It’s not exactly The Onion or The Babylon Bee.
Sounds like Liz was saying this sort of stuff in the US back in February though.
“Now people are joining the Civil Service who are essentially activists, they might be trans activists, they might be environmental extremists, but they are now having a voice within the Civil Service in a way I don’t think was true 30 or 40 years ago, so we just have a wholly new problem,” she said.
Twitter’s value now estimated to be down 79% since Musk took over.
It has become unusable for me. I never did use it much but now I can't even look at it unless I give them some personal details. Since I do not wish to, it no longer exists for me.
This has on the whole made a small improvement in the quality of my life.
The date of birth thing? I thought I'd given them my standard fake birth date for organisations with no business knowing it, but I still get asked, so maybe I didn't. But I can simply close the prompt by clicking the cross and it doesn't seem to stop me doing anything.
Still, being off Twitter may still be a net improvement I only really use it for two things, professionally as mainly a broadcast medium (publicising research outputs, calling for participants etc) and following links posted on here (for the latter, the need to be logged in to see any context beyond the immediately linked tweet does bug me).
In the more civilised areas of my twitter niches, which is active travel not infested by plagues of auto-bros, it still seems pleasant.
But more people are cross-posting elsewhere, and it seems to be Bluesky that is benefitting. One decent example is @rantyhighwayman .
One could call twitter a $44bn cesspit, but afaics it's down to about $10bn or less.
The way each of us gets a window or niche in social media so that we see very different things is fascinating.
I have 2 instagram accounts for example: one for the vineyard another for our French barn conversion and future holiday let. Even in those two very middle class occupations the feeds I get and the tones of voice are totally different, like two altogether different platforms (exacerbated by most of my mutuals in the latter being French).
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
The flaw is short term balance sheet considerations.
The fundamental flaw is short term thinking
(Also, presumably under the last government, an aversion to state ownership, even partial, of stuff. Although oneweb speaks against that.)
My forecast shows 70%+ chance of rain every hour for another 24!!!
Hang on, if you only have a 70% chance of rain in any given hour, there's a 30% chance of any given hour being dry.
Glass half full....
A pedant writes - it's a good deal more than half full.
(0.7 ^ 24) = 0.00019, which is the probability that there will be be rain every hour (various assumptions around independent events), so there is a 99%+ change that you will have one non-rainy hour in the next day.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
AIU it appears to go back to failed investments in industry from the sixties and seventies such that investment has become a bad thing for a couple of generations of politicians.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
What actual completed investments has the state made over the past 30 years though ?
Crossrail & I can't think of much else. Plenty on repairs and maintenance, but actual new completed big projects... ??
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
The flaw in the reasoning is that we don't have the capacity to borrow the money and that we structured the deals so that the builders of the wind farms bid on the price at which they electricity was sold - we couldn't have done that if the government was (part) building the farms.
You have to say that Jenrick has played a blinder. No point poncing around throwing a few crumbs to moderation and respectability - just go full jackboot. He'll romp home.
My forecast shows 70%+ chance of rain every hour for another 24!!!
Hang on, if you only have a 70% chance of rain in any given hour, there's a 30% chance of any given hour being dry.
Glass half full....
A pedant writes - it's a good deal more than half full.
(0.7 ^ 24) = 0.00019, which is the probability that there will be be rain every hour (various assumptions around independent events), so there is a 99%+ change that you will have one non-rainy hour in the next day.
Does that help?
Big (and wrong) assumptions about independence of weather from one hour to the next
But let's not spoil that chance of sunny optimism for rottenborough
ETA: But anyway, if the rain carries on like this, that glass will be way more than half full. Probably overflowing
Interesting video on what's gone wrong for the Conservatives electorally. As with much else it's all the fault of Brexit. That's when they lost the graduates, who are the key demographic in Britain now. Talk in the video about how the Tories can work their way back with an offer to graduates but it feels hypothetical.
Even Corbyn won graduates, they aren't the key swing voters now, the key swing voters now are white lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters with a mortgage who voted for Boris in 2019 but for Starmer or Farage this time. Mostly living in the Midlands and North and Essex and Kent.
Graduate swing voters are Remainers primarily in the South who voted for Cameron but LD in July however they are not enough on their own to win a general election
Graduates aren't the key swing voters; they are the most important voting demographic period. The video makes the point that it gets increasingly hard for the Conservatives to win without swinging graduates.
Graduates are large in number and efficiently distributed. This is the killer combo under FPTP.
They are distributed across cities, suburbs, the countryside and increasingly into post industrial northern towns, the so called Red Wall.
Since Brexit they have mostly voted Labour and rarely Conservative. They vote more than non graduates.
Except they aren't, if they were Corbyn would now be PM as most graduates voted for him.
As I said the key swing voters are lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters who voted for Boris then Starmer or Farage NOT graduates.
Graduates voted 42% Labour, 18% Conservative, 15% Liberal Democrat, 9% Green and 8% Reform in July. As might be expected, the strongest groups for Labour, the LDs and Greens, the weakest for Conservative and Reform.
Whether that's an example of education or political indoctrination at Universities is a matter for debate of course and I'm sure everyone has a view (or perhaps not).
Cameron won graduates but since they have voted Labour mostly, however Boris won without graduates as did May
According to Yougov Labour was also at >40% with high earners, 50-100k bracket.
Pre tax rises, though Boris did best with average earners not high earners and it is average earners who decide elections.
Only 10% of voters earn more than £50k and the LDs percentage wise get the highest percentage of their voters from high earners now not Labour or the Tories
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
The flaw in the reasoning is that we don't have the capacity to borrow the money and that we structured the deals so that the builders of the wind farms bid on the price at which they electricity was sold - we couldn't have done that if the Danish government was (part) building the farms.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
What actual completed investments has the state made over the past 30 years though ?
Crossrail & I can't think of much else.
Staying with transport, isn't there also stuff like the West Coast mainline?
And perhaps a couple of hundred billion on making roads bigger, to attract more traffic, to make them more clogged than they were before .
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
The flaw in the reasoning is that we don't have the capacity to borrow the money and that we structured the deals so that the builders of the wind farms bid on the price at which they electricity was sold - we couldn't have done that if the government was (part) building the farms.
We absolutely do have the capacity - there’s nothing stopping the government selling bonds backed by the revenue stream from a wind farm to fund its construction. That’s what the wind farm builders are doing after all & the government can always borrow more cheaply in it’s own currency than a private venture can.
But the UK government shies away from that approach to funding national infrastructure for a mix of good & bad reasons.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
What actual completed investments has the state made over the past 30 years though ?
Crossrail & I can't think of much else.
Staying with transport, isn't there also stuff like the West Coast mainline?
And perhaps a couple of hundred billion on making roads bigger, to attract more traffic, to make them more clogged than they were before .
West Coast mainline didn't involve new track. I'd classify it as repairs and maintenance at the macro level tbh.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
What actual completed investments has the state made over the past 30 years though ?
Crossrail & I can't think of much else. Plenty on repairs and maintenance, but actual new completed big projects... ??
Queensferry Crossing & Borders Railway, both opened by QEII so must be REALLY important.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
What actual completed investments has the state made over the past 30 years though ?
Crossrail & I can't think of much else.
Staying with transport, isn't there also stuff like the West Coast mainline?
And perhaps a couple of hundred billion on making roads bigger, to attract more traffic, to make them more clogged than they were before .
I'd say London Bridge counts as quite a big investment. A lot of pain to get here, but it's fantastic now.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
What actual completed investments has the state made over the past 30 years though ?
Crossrail & I can't think of much else. Plenty on repairs and maintenance, but actual new completed big projects... ??
Eurostar first public service November 1994 so just squeaks in. Will be plenty of schools, hospitals, telecoms, water and roads, just not enough.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
The flaw in the reasoning is that we don't have the capacity to borrow the money and that we structured the deals so that the builders of the wind farms bid on the price at which they electricity was sold - we couldn't have done that if the government was (part) building the farms.
I seriously doubt that's true.
We have the capacity to borrow, and the deals could still face been similarly structured with government as a part shareholder. Indeed that might well have reduced the financial risk for the developers.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
What actual completed investments has the state made over the past 30 years though ?
Crossrail & I can't think of much else.
Staying with transport, isn't there also stuff like the West Coast mainline?
And perhaps a couple of hundred billion on making roads bigger, to attract more traffic, to make them more clogged than they were before .
I'd say London Bridge counts as quite a big investment. A lot of pain to get here, but it's fantastic now.
Interesting video on what's gone wrong for the Conservatives electorally. As with much else it's all the fault of Brexit. That's when they lost the graduates, who are the key demographic in Britain now. Talk in the video about how the Tories can work their way back with an offer to graduates but it feels hypothetical.
Even Corbyn won graduates, they aren't the key swing voters now, the key swing voters now are white lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters with a mortgage who voted for Boris in 2019 but for Starmer or Farage this time. Mostly living in the Midlands and North and Essex and Kent.
Graduate swing voters are Remainers primarily in the South who voted for Cameron but LD in July however they are not enough on their own to win a general election
Graduates aren't the key swing voters; they are the most important voting demographic period. The video makes the point that it gets increasingly hard for the Conservatives to win without swinging graduates.
Graduates are large in number and efficiently distributed. This is the killer combo under FPTP.
They are distributed across cities, suburbs, the countryside and increasingly into post industrial northern towns, the so called Red Wall.
Since Brexit they have mostly voted Labour and rarely Conservative. They vote more than non graduates.
Except they aren't, if they were Corbyn would now be PM as most graduates voted for him.
As I said the key swing voters are lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters who voted for Boris then Starmer or Farage NOT graduates.
Graduates voted 42% Labour, 18% Conservative, 15% Liberal Democrat, 9% Green and 8% Reform in July. As might be expected, the strongest groups for Labour, the LDs and Greens, the weakest for Conservative and Reform.
Whether that's an example of education or political indoctrination at Universities is a matter for debate of course and I'm sure everyone has a view (or perhaps not).
I don't think it's a useful question unless you have figures where you've corrected for age and housing tenure.
I suspect that, of those three, housing tenure is most important, followed by age, and education level bringing up the rear.
This is why the sneering at universities and graduates from Tories is particularly self-defeating. It's not university that is creating anti-Tory voters, it's an economy that systematically makes it hard for young people to get on, and it has done for a long time now, so the oldest of those young people are entering their forties. It's just a coincidence of timing that this cohort is also more educated.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
What actual completed investments has the state made over the past 30 years though ?
Crossrail & I can't think of much else. Plenty on repairs and maintenance, but actual new completed big projects... ??
The M40 was completed in 1991. That’s the last massive new public project that springs to mind.
Twitter’s value now estimated to be down 79% since Musk took over.
It has become unusable for me. I never did use it much but now I can't even look at it unless I give them some personal details. Since I do not wish to, it no longer exists for me.
This has on the whole made a small improvement in the quality of my life.
The date of birth thing? I thought I'd given them my standard fake birth date for organisations with no business knowing it, but I still get asked, so maybe I didn't. But I can simply close the prompt by clicking the cross and it doesn't seem to stop me doing anything.
Still, being off Twitter may still be a net improvement I only really use it for two things, professionally as mainly a broadcast medium (publicising research outputs, calling for participants etc) and following links posted on here (for the latter, the need to be logged in to see any context beyond the immediately linked tweet does bug me).
In the more civilised areas of my twitter niches, which is active travel not infested by plagues of auto-bros, it still seems pleasant.
But more people are cross-posting elsewhere, and it seems to be Bluesky that is benefitting. One decent example is @rantyhighwayman .
One could call twitter a $44bn cesspit, but afaics it's down to about $10bn or less.
It's much improved once you using lists - use them to create custom feeds. I've mentioned before that I realised I was myself on a list that was followed by thousands of far-right accounts, which was how they coordinate these huge attacks. Blocking everyone who follows you via those lists really helps.
My forecast shows 70%+ chance of rain every hour for another 24!!!
Hang on, if you only have a 70% chance of rain in any given hour, there's a 30% chance of any given hour being dry.
Glass half full....
A pedant writes - it's a good deal more than half full.
(0.7 ^ 24) = 0.00019, which is the probability that there will be be rain every hour (various assumptions around independent events), so there is a 99%+ change that you will have one non-rainy hour in the next day.
Does that help?
Big (and wrong) assumptions about independence of weather from one hour to the next
But let's not spoil that chance of sunny optimism for rottenborough
ETA: But anyway, if the rain carries on like this, that glass will be way more than half full. Probably overflowing
Given that the actual number is 99.981%, I've given an error margin of 2 orders of magnitude (100x), so I maintain that that accounts for your assumptions about my assumptions.
Anyhoo - coming from an engineering background I did not define my assumptions, so you can't make a judgement.
@rottenborough can invest in a brolly and a patio heater, or go to Manchester for 15 minutes to remind himself how fortunate he is where rain is concerned.
@dominicgrieve_ I now want to look in more detail at Jenrick's nasty propaganda video. It starts with a few examples of cases to make people angry. But those examples are in fact irrelevant to the case he is trying to make.
Jenrick has been an Immigration minister. He must know that the main problem with illegal or irregular migration is that when a person comes here and claims asylum, they may get it as a bona fide refugee in which case they can stay. That has nothing to do with the ECHR. It is a consequence of our domestic law and the Refugee Convention. He makes no suggestion we should leave it. For those whose application is refused the main problem is that it is very difficult to return them to their countries of origin which will often not co-operate particularly if documents have been destroyed. So leaving the ECHR will have minimal impact on the problem he claims to be addressing.
Interesting video on what's gone wrong for the Conservatives electorally. As with much else it's all the fault of Brexit. That's when they lost the graduates, who are the key demographic in Britain now. Talk in the video about how the Tories can work their way back with an offer to graduates but it feels hypothetical.
Even Corbyn won graduates, they aren't the key swing voters now, the key swing voters now are white lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters with a mortgage who voted for Boris in 2019 but for Starmer or Farage this time. Mostly living in the Midlands and North and Essex and Kent.
Graduate swing voters are Remainers primarily in the South who voted for Cameron but LD in July however they are not enough on their own to win a general election
Graduates aren't the key swing voters; they are the most important voting demographic period. The video makes the point that it gets increasingly hard for the Conservatives to win without swinging graduates.
Graduates are large in number and efficiently distributed. This is the killer combo under FPTP.
They are distributed across cities, suburbs, the countryside and increasingly into post industrial northern towns, the so called Red Wall.
Since Brexit they have mostly voted Labour and rarely Conservative. They vote more than non graduates.
Except they aren't, if they were Corbyn would now be PM as most graduates voted for him.
As I said the key swing voters are lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters who voted for Boris then Starmer or Farage NOT graduates.
Graduates voted 42% Labour, 18% Conservative, 15% Liberal Democrat, 9% Green and 8% Reform in July. As might be expected, the strongest groups for Labour, the LDs and Greens, the weakest for Conservative and Reform.
Whether that's an example of education or political indoctrination at Universities is a matter for debate of course and I'm sure everyone has a view (or perhaps not).
University students are encouraged to weigh up the arguments for and against, and make a reasoned decision, as opposed to just believing everything they read. No doubt a similar poll of regular newspaper readers would show the opposite effect.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
AIU it appears to go back to failed investments in industry from the sixties and seventies such that investment has become a bad thing for a couple of generations of politicians.
But government was pretty well guaranteeing a return, by setting a guaranteed price for the electricity.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
What actual completed investments has the state made over the past 30 years though ?
Crossrail & I can't think of much else. Plenty on repairs and maintenance, but actual new completed big projects... ??
Eurostar first public service November 1994 so just squeaks in. Will be plenty of schools, hospitals, telecoms, water and roads, just not enough.
Chunnel was completed 6 May 1994 so I wasn't counting that in the 30 year band. Schools, hospitals, Telecoms, water & roads are repairs maintenance & upgrades to keep pace with our rising population (Or not ) (And heavier cars) to my mind. Our power generation capacity has decreased from the previous 30 years though and that's a first order approximation to industrial capacity. Offshore wind replacing coal is a modal shift in power generation so that might count. On a slight tangent I have no idea how we get to net zero for power generation by 2030 is it. I mean I can see how we get 70 +, 80 or even 90% there but there's just not the storage for stillish & gloomy winter conditions to get to 100% to my mind.
They are as I have been saying for over 3 years as bad as each other under SKS
BJO is still affiliated to Socialists for Boris.
No I am in the Green Party. Plenty of Socialists there too.
You are a fully fledged red Tory
Own it
You supported Boris and therefore more Tory than I’ve ever been.
I have never voted Tory ever
You did it 2 months ago
You’re on record repeatedly supporting a Tory PM. You loved a bit of Boris. Whilst I’m sure you regret that like a summer fling, it does somewhat disqualify you from credibly calling out anyone else as a Tory. Ever.
Interesting video on what's gone wrong for the Conservatives electorally. As with much else it's all the fault of Brexit. That's when they lost the graduates, who are the key demographic in Britain now. Talk in the video about how the Tories can work their way back with an offer to graduates but it feels hypothetical.
Even Corbyn won graduates, they aren't the key swing voters now, the key swing voters now are white lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters with a mortgage who voted for Boris in 2019 but for Starmer or Farage this time. Mostly living in the Midlands and North and Essex and Kent.
Graduate swing voters are Remainers primarily in the South who voted for Cameron but LD in July however they are not enough on their own to win a general election
Graduates aren't the key swing voters; they are the most important voting demographic period. The video makes the point that it gets increasingly hard for the Conservatives to win without swinging graduates.
Graduates are large in number and efficiently distributed. This is the killer combo under FPTP.
They are distributed across cities, suburbs, the countryside and increasingly into post industrial northern towns, the so called Red Wall.
Since Brexit they have mostly voted Labour and rarely Conservative. They vote more than non graduates.
Except they aren't, if they were Corbyn would now be PM as most graduates voted for him.
As I said the key swing voters are lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters who voted for Boris then Starmer or Farage NOT graduates.
Graduates voted 42% Labour, 18% Conservative, 15% Liberal Democrat, 9% Green and 8% Reform in July. As might be expected, the strongest groups for Labour, the LDs and Greens, the weakest for Conservative and Reform.
Whether that's an example of education or political indoctrination at Universities is a matter for debate of course and I'm sure everyone has a view (or perhaps not).
I don't think it's a useful question unless you have figures where you've corrected for age and housing tenure.
I suspect that, of those three, housing tenure is most important, followed by age, and education level bringing up the rear.
This is why the sneering at universities and graduates from Tories is particularly self-defeating. It's not university that is creating anti-Tory voters, it's an economy that systematically makes it hard for young people to get on, and it has done for a long time now, so the oldest of those young people are entering their forties. It's just a coincidence of timing that this cohort is also more educated.
Cameron won graduates, it can be done if they get on the housing ladder though Brexit is the main reason they no longer largely vote Tory.
White working class voters who own a home outright or with a mortgage are much more likely to vote Conservative than they were a generation ago though, albeit many of them who voted for Boris in 2019 voted for Farage in July
Interesting video on what's gone wrong for the Conservatives electorally. As with much else it's all the fault of Brexit. That's when they lost the graduates, who are the key demographic in Britain now. Talk in the video about how the Tories can work their way back with an offer to graduates but it feels hypothetical.
Even Corbyn won graduates, they aren't the key swing voters now, the key swing voters now are white lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters with a mortgage who voted for Boris in 2019 but for Starmer or Farage this time. Mostly living in the Midlands and North and Essex and Kent.
Graduate swing voters are Remainers primarily in the South who voted for Cameron but LD in July however they are not enough on their own to win a general election
Graduates aren't the key swing voters; they are the most important voting demographic period. The video makes the point that it gets increasingly hard for the Conservatives to win without swinging graduates.
Graduates are large in number and efficiently distributed. This is the killer combo under FPTP.
They are distributed across cities, suburbs, the countryside and increasingly into post industrial northern towns, the so called Red Wall.
Since Brexit they have mostly voted Labour and rarely Conservative. They vote more than non graduates.
Except they aren't, if they were Corbyn would now be PM as most graduates voted for him.
As I said the key swing voters are lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters who voted for Boris then Starmer or Farage NOT graduates.
Graduates voted 42% Labour, 18% Conservative, 15% Liberal Democrat, 9% Green and 8% Reform in July. As might be expected, the strongest groups for Labour, the LDs and Greens, the weakest for Conservative and Reform.
Whether that's an example of education or political indoctrination at Universities is a matter for debate of course and I'm sure everyone has a view (or perhaps not).
Cameron won graduates but since they have voted Labour mostly, however Boris won without graduates as did May
According to Yougov Labour was also at >40% with high earners, 50-100k bracket.
Pre tax rises, though Boris did best with average earners not high earners and it is average earners who decide elections.
Only 10% of voters earn more than £50k and the LDs percentage wise get the highest percentage of their voters from high earners now not Labour or the Tories
So according to Yougov, the largest cohort is Labour voting, that LDs get a smaller cohort overall but that it makes up a larger % of their total vote ... shrugs I'm a bit dubious about how accurate the Yougov sub setting is tbh, they're filtering very finely from a relatively small sample. Others might have more knowledgeable insight.
My photo quota today is a Britain First activist called Andrew Edge, suited and booted for a demo in Belfast that apparently drew 23 people (that number could have been ironic, meaning "flop").
Who is the jowly chap in the photo on the wall. I think I recognise it - I was wondering if it was a Monday Club character or someone like John Tyndall. Any ideas?
Lol by the time Hinkley C rolls around we'll probably have less nuclear capacity than we do now. Hartlepool, Heysham (1 & 2) and Torness all due to close by then with a loss of 4842 (Net) Mwe - Hinkley only giving 3200 MWe back
My forecast shows 70%+ chance of rain every hour for another 24!!!
Hang on, if you only have a 70% chance of rain in any given hour, there's a 30% chance of any given hour being dry.
Glass half full....
A pedant writes - it's a good deal more than half full.
(0.7 ^ 24) = 0.00019, which is the probability that there will be be rain every hour (various assumptions around independent events), so there is a 99%+ change that you will have one non-rainy hour in the next day.
Does that help?
Big (and wrong) assumptions about independence of weather from one hour to the next
But let's not spoil that chance of sunny optimism for rottenborough
ETA: But anyway, if the rain carries on like this, that glass will be way more than half full. Probably overflowing
Given that the actual number is 99.981%, I've given an error margin of 2 orders of magnitude (100x), so I maintain that that accounts for your assumptions about my assumptions.
Anyhoo - coming from an engineering background I did not define my assumptions, so you can't make a judgement.
@rottenborough can invest in a brolly and a patio heater, or go to Manchester for 15 minutes to remind himself how fortunate he is where rain is concerned.
Sadly I have a roof leak which is why I am so wound up about another 24 hours of this!
Interesting video on what's gone wrong for the Conservatives electorally. As with much else it's all the fault of Brexit. That's when they lost the graduates, who are the key demographic in Britain now. Talk in the video about how the Tories can work their way back with an offer to graduates but it feels hypothetical.
Even Corbyn won graduates, they aren't the key swing voters now, the key swing voters now are white lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters with a mortgage who voted for Boris in 2019 but for Starmer or Farage this time. Mostly living in the Midlands and North and Essex and Kent.
Graduate swing voters are Remainers primarily in the South who voted for Cameron but LD in July however they are not enough on their own to win a general election
Graduates aren't the key swing voters; they are the most important voting demographic period. The video makes the point that it gets increasingly hard for the Conservatives to win without swinging graduates.
Graduates are large in number and efficiently distributed. This is the killer combo under FPTP.
They are distributed across cities, suburbs, the countryside and increasingly into post industrial northern towns, the so called Red Wall.
Since Brexit they have mostly voted Labour and rarely Conservative. They vote more than non graduates.
Except they aren't, if they were Corbyn would now be PM as most graduates voted for him.
As I said the key swing voters are lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters who voted for Boris then Starmer or Farage NOT graduates.
Graduates voted 42% Labour, 18% Conservative, 15% Liberal Democrat, 9% Green and 8% Reform in July. As might be expected, the strongest groups for Labour, the LDs and Greens, the weakest for Conservative and Reform.
Whether that's an example of education or political indoctrination at Universities is a matter for debate of course and I'm sure everyone has a view (or perhaps not).
Cameron won graduates but since they have voted Labour mostly, however Boris won without graduates as did May
According to Yougov Labour was also at >40% with high earners, 50-100k bracket.
Pre tax rises, though Boris did best with average earners not high earners and it is average earners who decide elections.
Only 10% of voters earn more than £50k and the LDs percentage wise get the highest percentage of their voters from high earners now not Labour or the Tories
So according to Yougov, the largest cohort is Labour voting, that LDs get a smaller cohort overall but that it makes up a larger % of their total vote ... shrugs I'm a bit dubious about how accurate the Yougov sub setting is tbh, they're filtering very finely from a relatively small sample. Others might have more knowledgeable insight.
Look at the poshest home counties seats now Esher and Walton, Epsom and Ewell, St Albans, Winchester, Henley, Maidenhead, Tunbridge Wells, Chesham and Amersham etc all now have LD MPs. As do some of the wealthiest parts of London like Wimbledon, Richmond Park and Twickenham
They are as I have been saying for over 3 years as bad as each other under SKS
BJO is still affiliated to Socialists for Boris.
No I am in the Green Party. Plenty of Socialists there too.
You are a fully fledged red Tory
Own it
You supported Boris and therefore more Tory than I’ve ever been.
I have never voted Tory ever
You did it 2 months ago
You’re on record repeatedly supporting a Tory PM. You loved a bit of Boris. Whilst I’m sure you regret that like a summer fling, it does somewhat disqualify you from credibly calling out anyone else as a Tory. Ever.
No PB legend it may have become.
Its not true. Never voted Tory, never voted Boris
I only ever said I thought Boris's levelling up in my local Community was an excellent thing and had produced more benefits than 20 years of Labour councillors. Which still remains true despite SKS fans expectations
I also said thousands of times SKS was a horrible human being and a Tory that was no better than Boris and i thank PM SKS for proving me correct both in terms of freebie greed and Tory policies.
Enjoy your 5 years of Red Tory shite then a lifetime of regrets.
IMO this will be the last ever LAB (in name only obvs) Government ever.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
What actual completed investments has the state made over the past 30 years though ?
Crossrail & I can't think of much else.
Staying with transport, isn't there also stuff like the West Coast mainline?
And perhaps a couple of hundred billion on making roads bigger, to attract more traffic, to make them more clogged than they were before .
I'd say London Bridge counts as quite a big investment. A lot of pain to get here, but it's fantastic now.
Kings Cross an even better regeneration.
There are also things like the new station in Sunderland, but that depends slightly where you draw your lines. Are the new defence ship-building things in Scotland public or private - it is on the basis of long term contracts from the Government. And then there are things like the school building programme, which is significant. And our new District Hospital was something like £200m, done via PFI in the Cameron period, but perhaps planned before.
And all those cycle tracks that the motor lobby keeps whining about, but there are very few of those (except in a handful of places where "very few" becomes "few") and in the scheme of things they cost little to very little.
My photo quota today is a Britain First activist called Andrew Edge, suited and booted for a demo in Belfast that apparently drew 23 people (that number could have been ironic, meaning "flop").
Who is the jowly chap in the photo on the wall. I think I recognise it - I was wondering if it was a Monday Club character or someone like John Tyndall. Any ideas?
I thought it was John Travolta in his Pulp Fiction role.
Interesting video on what's gone wrong for the Conservatives electorally. As with much else it's all the fault of Brexit. That's when they lost the graduates, who are the key demographic in Britain now. Talk in the video about how the Tories can work their way back with an offer to graduates but it feels hypothetical.
Even Corbyn won graduates, they aren't the key swing voters now, the key swing voters now are white lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters with a mortgage who voted for Boris in 2019 but for Starmer or Farage this time. Mostly living in the Midlands and North and Essex and Kent.
Graduate swing voters are Remainers primarily in the South who voted for Cameron but LD in July however they are not enough on their own to win a general election
Graduates aren't the key swing voters; they are the most important voting demographic period. The video makes the point that it gets increasingly hard for the Conservatives to win without swinging graduates.
Graduates are large in number and efficiently distributed. This is the killer combo under FPTP.
They are distributed across cities, suburbs, the countryside and increasingly into post industrial northern towns, the so called Red Wall.
Since Brexit they have mostly voted Labour and rarely Conservative. They vote more than non graduates.
Except they aren't, if they were Corbyn would now be PM as most graduates voted for him.
As I said the key swing voters are lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters who voted for Boris then Starmer or Farage NOT graduates.
Graduates voted 42% Labour, 18% Conservative, 15% Liberal Democrat, 9% Green and 8% Reform in July. As might be expected, the strongest groups for Labour, the LDs and Greens, the weakest for Conservative and Reform.
Whether that's an example of education or political indoctrination at Universities is a matter for debate of course and I'm sure everyone has a view (or perhaps not).
University students are encouraged to weigh up the arguments for and against, and make a reasoned decision, as opposed to just believing everything they read. No doubt a similar poll of regular newspaper readers would show the opposite effect.
Really ?
I thought the problems Universities were facing were shutting down debate, monopolitics and stifling conformity dressed up as diversity.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
AIU it appears to go back to failed investments in industry from the sixties and seventies such that investment has become a bad thing for a couple of generations of politicians.
But government was pretty well guaranteeing a return, by setting a guaranteed price for the electricity.
UK gov makes consistently terrible investment decisions and this doesn't change much by party. I think the main reasons are previous examples of failure and the positive pay offs happen after the politicians are judged.
It is much harder to be criticised for something you never did, than something you championed which ended up over budget or somehow went wrong.
My photo quota today is a Britain First activist called Andrew Edge, suited and booted for a demo in Belfast that apparently drew 23 people (that number could have been ironic, meaning "flop").
Who is the jowly chap in the photo on the wall. I think I recognise it - I was wondering if it was a Monday Club character or someone like John Tyndall. Any ideas?
I thought it was John Travolta in his Pulp Fiction role.
Interesting video on what's gone wrong for the Conservatives electorally. As with much else it's all the fault of Brexit. That's when they lost the graduates, who are the key demographic in Britain now. Talk in the video about how the Tories can work their way back with an offer to graduates but it feels hypothetical.
Even Corbyn won graduates, they aren't the key swing voters now, the key swing voters now are white lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters with a mortgage who voted for Boris in 2019 but for Starmer or Farage this time. Mostly living in the Midlands and North and Essex and Kent.
Graduate swing voters are Remainers primarily in the South who voted for Cameron but LD in July however they are not enough on their own to win a general election
Graduates aren't the key swing voters; they are the most important voting demographic period. The video makes the point that it gets increasingly hard for the Conservatives to win without swinging graduates.
Graduates are large in number and efficiently distributed. This is the killer combo under FPTP.
They are distributed across cities, suburbs, the countryside and increasingly into post industrial northern towns, the so called Red Wall.
Since Brexit they have mostly voted Labour and rarely Conservative. They vote more than non graduates.
Except they aren't, if they were Corbyn would now be PM as most graduates voted for him.
As I said the key swing voters are lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters who voted for Boris then Starmer or Farage NOT graduates.
Graduates voted 42% Labour, 18% Conservative, 15% Liberal Democrat, 9% Green and 8% Reform in July. As might be expected, the strongest groups for Labour, the LDs and Greens, the weakest for Conservative and Reform.
Whether that's an example of education or political indoctrination at Universities is a matter for debate of course and I'm sure everyone has a view (or perhaps not).
Cameron won graduates but since they have voted Labour mostly, however Boris won without graduates as did May
According to Yougov Labour was also at >40% with high earners, 50-100k bracket.
Pre tax rises, though Boris did best with average earners not high earners and it is average earners who decide elections.
Only 10% of voters earn more than £50k and the LDs percentage wise get the highest percentage of their voters from high earners now not Labour or the Tories
So according to Yougov, the largest cohort is Labour voting, that LDs get a smaller cohort overall but that it makes up a larger % of their total vote ... shrugs I'm a bit dubious about how accurate the Yougov sub setting is tbh, they're filtering very finely from a relatively small sample. Others might have more knowledgeable insight.
Look at the poshest home counties seats now Esher and Walton, Epsom and Ewell, St Albans, Winchester, Henley, Maidenhead, Tunbridge Wells, Chesham and Amersham etc all now have LD MPs. As do some of the wealthiest parts of London like Wimbledon, Richmond Park and Twickenham
They'll all return to the blues when the LibDems can do sod all about them getting taxed until the pips squeak...
My photo quota today is a Britain First activist called Andrew Edge, suited and booted for a demo in Belfast that apparently drew 23 people (that number could have been ironic, meaning "flop").
Who is the jowly chap in the photo on the wall. I think I recognise it - I was wondering if it was a Monday Club character or someone like John Tyndall. Any ideas?
Interesting video on what's gone wrong for the Conservatives electorally. As with much else it's all the fault of Brexit. That's when they lost the graduates, who are the key demographic in Britain now. Talk in the video about how the Tories can work their way back with an offer to graduates but it feels hypothetical.
Even Corbyn won graduates, they aren't the key swing voters now, the key swing voters now are white lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters with a mortgage who voted for Boris in 2019 but for Starmer or Farage this time. Mostly living in the Midlands and North and Essex and Kent.
Graduate swing voters are Remainers primarily in the South who voted for Cameron but LD in July however they are not enough on their own to win a general election
Graduates aren't the key swing voters; they are the most important voting demographic period. The video makes the point that it gets increasingly hard for the Conservatives to win without swinging graduates.
Graduates are large in number and efficiently distributed. This is the killer combo under FPTP.
They are distributed across cities, suburbs, the countryside and increasingly into post industrial northern towns, the so called Red Wall.
Since Brexit they have mostly voted Labour and rarely Conservative. They vote more than non graduates.
Except they aren't, if they were Corbyn would now be PM as most graduates voted for him.
As I said the key swing voters are lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters who voted for Boris then Starmer or Farage NOT graduates.
Graduates voted 42% Labour, 18% Conservative, 15% Liberal Democrat, 9% Green and 8% Reform in July. As might be expected, the strongest groups for Labour, the LDs and Greens, the weakest for Conservative and Reform.
Whether that's an example of education or political indoctrination at Universities is a matter for debate of course and I'm sure everyone has a view (or perhaps not).
Cameron won graduates but since they have voted Labour mostly, however Boris won without graduates as did May
According to Yougov Labour was also at >40% with high earners, 50-100k bracket.
Pre tax rises, though Boris did best with average earners not high earners and it is average earners who decide elections.
Only 10% of voters earn more than £50k and the LDs percentage wise get the highest percentage of their voters from high earners now not Labour or the Tories
So according to Yougov, the largest cohort is Labour voting, that LDs get a smaller cohort overall but that it makes up a larger % of their total vote ... shrugs I'm a bit dubious about how accurate the Yougov sub setting is tbh, they're filtering very finely from a relatively small sample. Others might have more knowledgeable insight.
Look at the poshest home counties seats now Esher and Walton, Epsom and Ewell, St Albans, Winchester, Henley, Maidenhead, Tunbridge Wells, Chesham and Amersham etc all now have LD MPs. As do some of the wealthiest parts of London like Wimbledon, Richmond Park and Twickenham
When I was at university, the left nutters were the SWP. And upfront about who they were. A pathetic cult, with a tendency to violence.
The Death To The West crowd were also In Your Face about it.
The fascists were always trying odd new organisations to try and get people to join.
The easiest tell was the poor bodily hygiene. Which seemed standard for extremists of all varieties.
Philosophical question - is toothpaste, soap etc incompatible with being a political extremist? Or is it some other correlation?
It's probably money and priorities.
Toothpaste and deodorant aren't free and people who can't afford either are more likely to be attracted to extremism.
Also if you're devoting your life to political activism, that necessarily restricts the time you have to attend to your personal hygeine - serious computer gamers often have similar issues.
Oh and a lot of the most extreme philosophies are inspired by the French, who have notoriously terrible habits in this respect, so maybe there's a bit of imitation of their habits with obvious odorific consequences for the rest of us.
Actually an interesting topic. I think I have a theory. It’s related to conditions like narcissistic personality disorder and sociopathy. The lack of the normal social barriers imposed by a need to be polite, empathise with others, fit in.
Interesting theory. Is there any research in this area that someone can point me to? Surely the sociology types must have studied this in depth?
As a socialist are you not worried about the fact that only Tories win elections in this country in recent times, I mean Blair and Starmer are Tories,
You have to back fifty years since a socialist last won a general election in the UK.
They have sent in the Revolutionary Communists to reverse takeover the Tory party. Unfortunately for them the LDs sleeper agent destroyed the Tories first.
My photo quota today is a Britain First activist called Andrew Edge, suited and booted for a demo in Belfast that apparently drew 23 people (that number could have been ironic, meaning "flop").
Who is the jowly chap in the photo on the wall. I think I recognise it - I was wondering if it was a Monday Club character or someone like John Tyndall. Any ideas?
I thought it was John Travolta in his Pulp Fiction role.
Very possible. That's why I'm asking - hat would be the right period, perhaps. Not sure about the hairdo for John Travolta.
Update: I have 2 answers concurring, so that' settled. Thanks.
Interesting video on what's gone wrong for the Conservatives electorally. As with much else it's all the fault of Brexit. That's when they lost the graduates, who are the key demographic in Britain now. Talk in the video about how the Tories can work their way back with an offer to graduates but it feels hypothetical.
Even Corbyn won graduates, they aren't the key swing voters now, the key swing voters now are white lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters with a mortgage who voted for Boris in 2019 but for Starmer or Farage this time. Mostly living in the Midlands and North and Essex and Kent.
Graduate swing voters are Remainers primarily in the South who voted for Cameron but LD in July however they are not enough on their own to win a general election
Graduates aren't the key swing voters; they are the most important voting demographic period. The video makes the point that it gets increasingly hard for the Conservatives to win without swinging graduates.
Graduates are large in number and efficiently distributed. This is the killer combo under FPTP.
They are distributed across cities, suburbs, the countryside and increasingly into post industrial northern towns, the so called Red Wall.
Since Brexit they have mostly voted Labour and rarely Conservative. They vote more than non graduates.
Except they aren't, if they were Corbyn would now be PM as most graduates voted for him.
As I said the key swing voters are lower middle class and skilled working class middle aged voters who voted for Boris then Starmer or Farage NOT graduates.
Graduates voted 42% Labour, 18% Conservative, 15% Liberal Democrat, 9% Green and 8% Reform in July. As might be expected, the strongest groups for Labour, the LDs and Greens, the weakest for Conservative and Reform.
Whether that's an example of education or political indoctrination at Universities is a matter for debate of course and I'm sure everyone has a view (or perhaps not).
Cameron won graduates but since they have voted Labour mostly, however Boris won without graduates as did May
According to Yougov Labour was also at >40% with high earners, 50-100k bracket.
Pre tax rises, though Boris did best with average earners not high earners and it is average earners who decide elections.
Only 10% of voters earn more than £50k and the LDs percentage wise get the highest percentage of their voters from high earners now not Labour or the Tories
So according to Yougov, the largest cohort is Labour voting, that LDs get a smaller cohort overall but that it makes up a larger % of their total vote ... shrugs I'm a bit dubious about how accurate the Yougov sub setting is tbh, they're filtering very finely from a relatively small sample. Others might have more knowledgeable insight.
Look at the poshest home counties seats now Esher and Walton, Epsom and Ewell, St Albans, Winchester, Henley, Maidenhead, Tunbridge Wells, Chesham and Amersham etc all now have LD MPs. As do some of the wealthiest parts of London like Wimbledon, Richmond Park and Twickenham
They'll all return to the blues when the LibDems can do sod all about them getting taxed until the pips squeak...
Really? Because the Tories aren't going to stop them getting taxed until the pips squeak
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
What actual completed investments has the state made over the past 30 years though ?
Crossrail & I can't think of much else. Plenty on repairs and maintenance, but actual new completed big projects... ??
Queensferry Crossing & Borders Railway, both opened by QEII so must be REALLY important.
Bathgate electrification through to the Wild West.
Edit: I won't suggest the electrification of the London-Bristol main line as that was so badly screwed up.
Decades ago, when my son was young, we decided to try and grow a peanut bush, so we bought a bag or (unroasted) peanuts and gave it a go. Not only did it grow (in his bedroom) we actually got a few fully grown peanuts when we dug it up.
Completely failed with a pineapple top, but I still consider that a success for making a young lad's day.
Do you remember (prob not, too young) the harebrained Labour (Attlee/Strachey) groundnut scheme for Tanganyika? Jimmy C did it better in deepest Georgia
I actually sold an MP on reviving the scheme to make biofuel from the nuts, to go zero emissions.
It’s an interesting thought experiment what happens if the Left depose Mr Ming Vase. As many on Twitter without fear of libel law seem to be predicting.
It would be pretty easy for any competent Conservative in the next 20 years to make the argument that Labour can never be trusted in office, even if their leader appears like a relatively soft left metro type.
In turn perhaps this should be a consideration in the next PM market. There’s not a precedent for a contested labour leadership process while in office. Are the left able to force a members process, knowing their candidate (Raynor?) wins? Or is there a cabinet stitch up and a coalescing around perhaps Streeting?
It's virtually impossible to depose a sitting Labour leader. 20% of the PLP have to nominate a rival, and no sign of that happening, not least because the usual subjects are not taking the Labour whip at present.
There are lots of folk on Twitter who believe too much on Twitter.
Starmer is rubbish at retail politics, but very good at consolidating power.
I agree - that's why he'll resign. He'll have to. There's really no way back I don't think.
Yes this is right isn’t it. But what then.
Personally I think the best candidate in the Labour Party is Andy Burnham, but he's not in Parliament, and if there were a byelection to get him in, Reform would fancy their chances of an upset. So it looks like Reeves or Cooper, neither of whom have covered themselves in glory since Labour have come to power.
What’s the mechanism for that, when there’s a huge new intake of MPs that are potentially quite fringey in their political views and who might not want a cabinet stitch up in favour of those two? Perhaps it’s going to be done US style. A cabinet nominee who assumes PM, a vote of confidence in the house and a total bypassing of the usual labour leadership rules?
I would love to have what you are having.
It simply isn't possible unless
1) SKS resigns 2) only one candidate puts their name forward.
And so far we have a few stories about receiving gifts and a very dodgy super injection story that even I know is a pile of kack..
It's copium on the right.
It's not easy to dump a PM mid-term and rightly so. Major survived Black Wednesday, Blair survived Iraq.
For the Conservatives to have lost two PMs in quick succession was unprecedented. Until the party has a good story for how they screwed up so much twice in a row, they aren't a serious party of government. And the only one that really works is "I wasn't around then".
So any current Conservative who wants their exile to be less than a decade has to normalise the idea that both sides are equally bad at choosing suitable PMs.
Trouble is, that even if Starmer does turn out to be a Johnsonesque sleazeball (I rather doubt it), he needs to be followed by a nutter who only lasts seven weeks.
Unlikely.
I shouldn't be finding all this so funny, but I'll be honest, I am.
Found this yesterday and just spent the last 10 minutes checking the facts (it's true but finding income tax rates prior to 1990 is hard work).
A person on the average wage now pays less income tax (in the @BartholomewRoberts way of Income Tax + employee Ni) as a percentage of income than at any time since 1975...
Decades ago, when my son was young, we decided to try and grow a peanut bush, so we bought a bag or (unroasted) peanuts and gave it a go. Not only did it grow (in his bedroom) we actually got a few fully grown peanuts when we dug it up.
Completely failed with a pineapple top, but I still consider that a success for making a young lad's day.
Do you remember (prob not, too young) the harebrained Labour (Attlee/Strachey) groundnut scheme for Tanganyika? Jimmy C did it better in deepest Georgia
I actually sold an MP on reviving the scheme to make biofuel from the nuts, to go zero emissions.
Oh, what did you suggest for tractors instead of old war surplus Shermans? Not zero emissions if new, tbf.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
AIU it appears to go back to failed investments in industry from the sixties and seventies such that investment has become a bad thing for a couple of generations of politicians.
But government was pretty well guaranteeing a return, by setting a guaranteed price for the electricity.
UK gov makes consistently terrible investment decisions and this doesn't change much by party. I think the main reasons are previous examples of failure and the positive pay offs happen after the politicians are judged.
It is much harder to be criticised for something you never did, than something you championed which ended up over budget or somehow went wrong.
When I was younger and more ignorant, I actually tried selling the DARPA idea to various MPs.
I eventually noticed that, while they claimed to like the idea, they actually wanted to “improve” it by
1) picking the winners 2) throw big money into 1)
As in, the complete reverse of the DARPA idea. Which is small amounts of seed money to a range of ideas in a space, see which ones actually work…
It’s an interesting thought experiment what happens if the Left depose Mr Ming Vase. As many on Twitter without fear of libel law seem to be predicting.
It would be pretty easy for any competent Conservative in the next 20 years to make the argument that Labour can never be trusted in office, even if their leader appears like a relatively soft left metro type.
In turn perhaps this should be a consideration in the next PM market. There’s not a precedent for a contested labour leadership process while in office. Are the left able to force a members process, knowing their candidate (Raynor?) wins? Or is there a cabinet stitch up and a coalescing around perhaps Streeting?
It's virtually impossible to depose a sitting Labour leader. 20% of the PLP have to nominate a rival, and no sign of that happening, not least because the usual subjects are not taking the Labour whip at present.
There are lots of folk on Twitter who believe too much on Twitter.
Starmer is rubbish at retail politics, but very good at consolidating power.
I agree - that's why he'll resign. He'll have to. There's really no way back I don't think.
Yes this is right isn’t it. But what then.
Personally I think the best candidate in the Labour Party is Andy Burnham, but he's not in Parliament, and if there were a byelection to get him in, Reform would fancy their chances of an upset. So it looks like Reeves or Cooper, neither of whom have covered themselves in glory since Labour have come to power.
Streeting and Rayner would also fancy their chances
I don't think Rayner has much of a chance, but Streeting perhaps. I think he's risky - I see him as the golden boy who would have succeeded Starmer in good times as an orderly handover after some success, not as someone to steady the ship after disaster.
When I was at university, the left nutters were the SWP. And upfront about who they were. A pathetic cult, with a tendency to violence.
The Death To The West crowd were also In Your Face about it.
The fascists were always trying odd new organisations to try and get people to join.
The easiest tell was the poor bodily hygiene. Which seemed standard for extremists of all varieties.
Philosophical question - is toothpaste, soap etc incompatible with being a political extremist? Or is it some other correlation?
It's probably money and priorities.
Toothpaste and deodorant aren't free and people who can't afford either are more likely to be attracted to extremism.
Also if you're devoting your life to political activism, that necessarily restricts the time you have to attend to your personal hygeine - serious computer gamers often have similar issues.
Oh and a lot of the most extreme philosophies are inspired by the French, who have notoriously terrible habits in this respect, so maybe there's a bit of imitation of their habits with obvious odorific consequences for the rest of us.
Actually an interesting topic. I think I have a theory. It’s related to conditions like narcissistic personality disorder and sociopathy. The lack of the normal social barriers imposed by a need to be polite, empathise with others, fit in.
My forecast shows 70%+ chance of rain every hour for another 24!!!
Hang on, if you only have a 70% chance of rain in any given hour, there's a 30% chance of any given hour being dry.
Glass half full....
A pedant writes - it's a good deal more than half full.
(0.7 ^ 24) = 0.00019, which is the probability that there will be be rain every hour (various assumptions around independent events), so there is a 99%+ change that you will have one non-rainy hour in the next day.
Does that help?
Big (and wrong) assumptions about independence of weather from one hour to the next
But let's not spoil that chance of sunny optimism for rottenborough
ETA: But anyway, if the rain carries on like this, that glass will be way more than half full. Probably overflowing
Given that the actual number is 99.981%, I've given an error margin of 2 orders of magnitude (100x), so I maintain that that accounts for your assumptions about my assumptions.
Anyhoo - coming from an engineering background I did not define my assumptions, so you can't make a judgement.
@rottenborough can invest in a brolly and a patio heater, or go to Manchester for 15 minutes to remind himself how fortunate he is where rain is concerned.
Hey, I've got a physics background. So I'm assuming spherical rain clouds in a vacuum
It’s an interesting thought experiment what happens if the Left depose Mr Ming Vase. As many on Twitter without fear of libel law seem to be predicting.
It would be pretty easy for any competent Conservative in the next 20 years to make the argument that Labour can never be trusted in office, even if their leader appears like a relatively soft left metro type.
In turn perhaps this should be a consideration in the next PM market. There’s not a precedent for a contested labour leadership process while in office. Are the left able to force a members process, knowing their candidate (Raynor?) wins? Or is there a cabinet stitch up and a coalescing around perhaps Streeting?
It's virtually impossible to depose a sitting Labour leader. 20% of the PLP have to nominate a rival, and no sign of that happening, not least because the usual subjects are not taking the Labour whip at present.
There are lots of folk on Twitter who believe too much on Twitter.
Starmer is rubbish at retail politics, but very good at consolidating power.
I agree - that's why he'll resign. He'll have to. There's really no way back I don't think.
Yes this is right isn’t it. But what then.
Personally I think the best candidate in the Labour Party is Andy Burnham, but he's not in Parliament, and if there were a byelection to get him in, Reform would fancy their chances of an upset. So it looks like Reeves or Cooper, neither of whom have covered themselves in glory since Labour have come to power.
Streeting and Rayner would also fancy their chances
I don't think Rayner has much of a chance, but Streeting perhaps. I think he's risky - I see him as the golden boy who would have succeeded Starmer in good times as an orderly handover after some success, not as someone to steady the ship after disaster.
Rayner would have a chance with Labour members if she got enough Labour MP nominations
Comments
If Generic Bob gets the job, the Great Frothing Noise will be replaced with a Great Flushing Noise.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/acid-attack-at-west-london-school-leaves-girl-14-and-boy-16-in-hospital/ar-AA1rvIFk?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=ae89d69daf3c4021af9be4505d6fddc2&ei=21
"...It has transmogrified from a dynamic “freedom civilisation” imbued with a romantic reverence for individual flourishing, personal responsibility and self-respect into a stagnant “security civilisation”. Now the state pretends it can protect citizens in a challenging and volatile world from all human uncertainty, risk and misery. It aspires to efficiently run every aspect of people’s lives..."
Telegraph, Sherelle Jacobs, 30 September 2024 7:52pm
Compare to
"...But a darker thought occurs: do people actually *want* to fix the Blob at all? In my thirteen-year time at PB I have become uncomfortably convinced that the British do not want freedom but safety, and that the Blob bodies are retained not thru inertia but deliberately...The Blob gives employment to civil servants, comfort to those afraid of change, succor (sic) to those who desire power without Government oversight, excuses to those who have failed, and protects those who desire safety over freedom. That’s a rather large section of the British public and they have votes..."
Politicalbetting.com, "viewcode", 28 September 2024, 7:00am
Plus PB has no paywall...
Even if people dislike the policies of a new government they should really be seeing it as a bit of a fresh new broom at this stage in proceedings. For whatever reason, Labour have really naffed up their honeymoon period.
The Death To The West crowd were also In Your Face about it.
The fascists were always trying odd new organisations to try and get people to join.
The easiest tell was the poor bodily hygiene. Which seemed standard for extremists of all varieties.
Philosophical question - is toothpaste, soap etc incompatible with being a political extremist? Or is it some other correlation?
You are a fully fledged red Tory
Own it
https://order-order.com/2024/10/01/gb-news-to-host-leadership-debate-between-tory-final-two/
I'm not saying that the party is doomed but it's playing to a niche audience..
As pointed out upthread thats a "parody" account
Toothpaste and deodorant aren't free and people who can't afford either are more likely to be attracted to extremism.
Also if you're devoting your life to political activism, that necessarily restricts the time you have to attend to your personal hygeine - serious computer gamers often have similar issues.
Oh and a lot of the most extreme philosophies are inspired by the French, who have notoriously terrible habits in this respect, so maybe there's a bit of imitation of their habits with obvious odorific consequences for the rest of us.
As an illustration, here's the Lidar scan of part of the Flatlands - Ed Miliband's patch.
Top right, an old coal fired power station, with its associated ash dump.
Blue land has subsided due to coal extraction - the big blue area is currently flooding after yesterday's rain. Some of the subsided land is inhabited and flooded badly in 2007 (Toll Bar) as it is now a bowl and reliant on pumping.
The mine (pit) waste is lower centre left and is currently a nature reserve / park.
The east coast main line goes straight through the middle and as far as I know was not undermined.
The legacy of coal will not be disappearing soon!
Completely failed with a pineapple top, but I still consider that a success for making a young lad's day.
The Shadow Minister seems to have had a very good, if over-imaginative, lawyer who obtained damages over what was imo a highly exaggerated inference from the original tweet.
My forecast shows 70%+ chance of rain every hour for another 24!!!
Given that they've often charged me £100+ as a transaction fee that's a massive change..
But more people are cross-posting elsewhere, and it seems to be Bluesky that is benefitting. One decent example is @rantyhighwayman .
One could call twitter a $44bn cesspit, but afaics it's down to about $10bn or less.
A reminder to check twice before posting...
narcissistic personality disorder and sociopathy. The lack of the normal social barriers imposed by a need to be polite, empathise with others, fit in.
“Now people are joining the Civil Service who are essentially activists, they might be trans activists, they might be environmental extremists, but they are now having a voice within the Civil Service in a way I don’t think was true 30 or 40 years ago, so we just have a wholly new problem,” she said.
https://www.bigissue.com/news/politics/liz-truss-trans-activists-cpac/
Glass half full....
I have 2 instagram accounts for example: one for the vineyard another for our French barn conversion and future holiday let. Even in those two very middle class occupations the feeds I get and the tones of voice are totally different, like two altogether different platforms (exacerbated by most of my mutuals in the latter being French).
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
The fundamental flaw is short term thinking
(Also, presumably under the last government, an aversion to state ownership, even partial, of stuff. Although oneweb speaks against that.)
The Met have moved most of the 70% to 90% in the last hour.
I guess this rain band is very slow moving.
(0.7 ^ 24) = 0.00019, which is the probability that there will be be rain every hour (various assumptions around independent events), so there is a 99%+ change that you will have one non-rainy hour in the next day.
Does that help?
(Sod's Law says it will be while you are asleep.)
Crossrail & I can't think of much else. Plenty on repairs and maintenance, but actual new completed big projects... ??
But let's not spoil that chance of sunny optimism for rottenborough
ETA: But anyway, if the rain carries on like this, that glass will be way more than half full. Probably overflowing
Only 10% of voters earn more than £50k and the LDs percentage wise get the highest percentage of their voters from high earners now not Labour or the Tories
And perhaps a couple of hundred billion on making roads bigger, to attract more traffic, to make them more clogged than they were before
But the UK government shies away from that approach to funding national infrastructure for a mix of good & bad reasons.
We have the capacity to borrow, and the deals could still face been similarly structured with government as a part shareholder.
Indeed that might well have reduced the financial risk for the developers.
You did it 2 months ago
I suspect that, of those three, housing tenure is most important, followed by age, and education level bringing up the rear.
This is why the sneering at universities and graduates from Tories is particularly self-defeating. It's not university that is creating anti-Tory voters, it's an economy that systematically makes it hard for young people to get on, and it has done for a long time now, so the oldest of those young people are entering their forties. It's just a coincidence of timing that this cohort is also more educated.
Edit: HS1 was a new line, wasn’t it?
Anyhoo - coming from an engineering background I did not define my assumptions, so you can't make a judgement.
@rottenborough can invest in a brolly and a patio heater, or go to Manchester for 15 minutes to remind himself how fortunate he is where rain is concerned.
Dominic Grieve
@dominicgrieve_
I now want to look in more detail at Jenrick's nasty propaganda video.
It starts with a few examples of cases to make people angry. But those examples are in fact irrelevant to the case he is trying to make.
Jenrick has been an Immigration minister. He must know that the main problem with illegal or irregular migration is that when a person comes here and claims asylum, they may get it as a bona fide refugee in which case they can stay. That has nothing to do with the ECHR. It is a consequence of our domestic law and the Refugee Convention. He makes no suggestion we should leave it.
For those whose application is refused the main problem is that it is very difficult to return them to their countries of origin which will often not co-operate particularly if documents have been destroyed.
So leaving the ECHR will have minimal impact on the problem he claims to be addressing.
https://x.com/dominicgrieve_/status/1841025459615666351
Our power generation capacity has decreased from the previous 30 years though and that's a first order approximation to industrial capacity. Offshore wind replacing coal is a modal shift in power generation so that might count.
On a slight tangent I have no idea how we get to net zero for power generation by 2030 is it. I mean I can see how we get 70 +, 80 or even 90% there but there's just not the storage for stillish & gloomy winter conditions to get to 100% to my mind.
White working class voters who own a home outright or with a mortgage are much more likely to vote Conservative than they were a generation ago though, albeit many of them who voted for Boris in 2019 voted for Farage in July
Edit to advise you all that we have unbroken blue skies in the West of Scotland.
I'm a bit dubious about how accurate the Yougov sub setting is tbh, they're filtering very finely from a relatively small sample. Others might have more knowledgeable insight.
My photo quota today is a Britain First activist called Andrew Edge, suited and booted for a demo in Belfast that apparently drew 23 people (that number could have been ironic, meaning "flop").
Who is the jowly chap in the photo on the wall. I think I recognise it - I was wondering if it was a Monday Club character or someone like John Tyndall. Any ideas?
Its not true. Never voted Tory, never voted Boris
I only ever said I thought Boris's levelling up in my local Community was an excellent thing and had produced more benefits than 20 years of Labour councillors. Which still remains true despite SKS fans expectations
I also said thousands of times SKS was a horrible human being and a Tory that was no better than Boris and i thank PM SKS for proving me correct both in terms of freebie greed and Tory policies.
Enjoy your 5 years of Red Tory shite then a lifetime of regrets.
IMO this will be the last ever LAB (in name only obvs) Government ever.
And all those cycle tracks that the motor lobby keeps whining about, but there are very few of those (except in a handful of places where "very few" becomes "few") and in the scheme of things they cost little to very little.
TT -4
RJ -7
JC -8
KB -11
By comparison
SKS -38
Most disliked Tory by a mile
I thought the problems Universities were facing were shutting down debate, monopolitics and stifling conformity dressed up as diversity.
It is much harder to be criticised for something you never did, than something you championed which ended up over budget or somehow went wrong.
https://www.fanpop.com/clubs/pulp-fiction/images/13189249/title/pulp-fiction-screencap
You have to back fifty years since a socialist last won a general election in the UK.
Update: I have 2 answers concurring, so that' settled. Thanks.
Edit: I won't suggest the electrification of the London-Bristol main line as that was so badly screwed up.
SKS brings misery and sleaze
A person on the average wage now pays less income tax (in the @BartholomewRoberts way of Income Tax + employee Ni) as a percentage of income than at any time since 1975...
I eventually noticed that, while they claimed to like the idea, they actually wanted to “improve” it by
1) picking the winners
2) throw big money into 1)
As in, the complete reverse of the DARPA idea. Which is small amounts of seed money to a range of ideas in a space, see which ones actually work…