Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

This explains so much – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,212
edited November 24 in General
This explains so much – politicalbetting.com

2. Extract from Levido memo to Sunak, 3 weeks before he decided to call the election: “It is strategically most beneficial to have an autumn election in October or November. We need as much time as possible for economic metrics to improve and for voters to feel better off.”…

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • Also from Shipman.

    Liz Truss psychologically unfit to be PM, say aides

    Pleas to slow down went unheeded. Aides leaked stories to The Times in an effort to avoid disaster in the mini-budget. It didn’t work


    alfway through the Tory leadership contest in 2022, Liz Truss knew she was going to win. She gathered her team at Chevening, the Palladian house in Kent which is the grace-and-favour home of the foreign secretary, on August 13. Details of what would become the mini-budget were thrashed out in meetings at Chevening between Truss and a quad of economic ministers, which included the future chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng, Chris Philp, who was to be chief secretary to the Treasury, and Simon Clarke, the current chief secretary. Economists, ministers and civil servants all advised her to tread cautiously. She ignored them all.

    Economists Gerard Lyons and Julian Jessop presented a paper on ways of boosting growth, but it also warned: “The markets are nervous … if immediate economic policy announcements are handled badly then a market crash is possible.” Truss ignored the caveats. One conviction they did reinforce — particularly Lyons — was Truss’s decision not to ask the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to do a formal forecast of the public finances ahead of the mini-budget.

    Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, and senior Treasury officials Cat Little, the acting permanent secretary at the Treasury, Beth Russell, the director-general of tax and welfare, and Philip Duffy, the director-general of growth and productivity, “made clear there was a risk” in not using the OBR, a Tory said.

    Truss’s original plan had been for a three-year spending review to identify cuts in Whitehall budgets to balance out the tax cuts Truss wanted. Kwarteng, Clarke and Philp all saw them as a package. The need for spending cuts was Kwarteng’s one clear disagreement with Truss before the mini-budget. His adviser Celia McSwaine recalled: “He raised that point repeatedly, but unfortunately just lost the battle.” A cabinet minister observed: “She wasn’t interested in spending reductions at all. She literally wouldn’t talk about it, in a way that was quite weird. I think she thought it would be unpopular.”

    Clare Lombardelli, the Treasury’s chief economist, was “unbelievably nervous” about the issue, a political aide recalled — “sweating spinal fluids”. In one meeting Case said: “Shouldn’t we have a conversation about spending cuts? Otherwise, people will see through it instantly.” Truss appeared to concede the point, suggesting a list of potential cuts was drawn up, but nothing came of it. Another aide said: “Simon Case was really pissed off.” The cabinet secretary told a colleague “this is economically illiterate” and described Truss as “completely mad”
  • A cabinet minister said Truss became “massively emboldened”, getting a “head rush” combining “dangerous levels of self-confidence and a nagging insecurity that she didn’t have much time”. Truss decided to abolish the cap on bankers’ bonuses and cut stamp duty.

    One of Truss’s team suggested that what came over her was effectively the manic state of a mental breakdown: “She wasn’t depressed, but she had a breakdown. She was giddy with expectations. She developed a serious detachment from reality, she was more demanding and intolerant of people. She didn’t want to be challenged. Two things change people — power and money. Those are the two torches of life which tell you what a person is about. At the start of the leadership campaign, she listened to a lot of people because she was unsure of herself. When it dawned on her she was going to win, she jettisoned this approach and it made her psychologically unfit to be prime minister.”


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/liz-truss-psychologically-unfit-to-be-pm-say-aides-ttqgdfz8b
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,895
    edited November 17
    There's a lot to digest in all that.

    Public policy as a means to manage the psychological state of the PM. Imagine cancelling a decades-long infrastructure project in an attempt to gee up the Prime Minister.

    The short answer then is that Sunak called an early election because he fundamentally doesn't understand politics.

    I do have to give him credit for sticking around as Tory leader for an extended leadership election despite obviously being beyond sick of the whole thing.
  • There's a lot to digest in all that.

    Public policy as a means to manage the psychological state of the PM. Imagine cancelling a decades-long infrastructure project in an attempt to gee up the Prime Minister.

    The short answer then is that Sunak called an early election because he fundamentally doesn't understand politics.

    I do have to give him credit for sticking around as Tory leader for an extended leadership election despite obviously being beyond sick of the whole thing.

    It was done because as Chief Secretary and Chancellor often complained HS2 was a waste of money.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,143
    The transport secretary Haigh said: "This represents record capital investment to the majority of places and a once-in-a-generation reform plan that aims to deliver London-style buses to every corner of the country - including those areas that are usually overlooked."

    Rebalance things a bit sure, but of course you can't have London style buses in every corner of the country, you have more frequent and regular buses where there are more people looking to travel! Absurd.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,826

    There's a lot to digest in all that.

    Public policy as a means to manage the psychological state of the PM. Imagine cancelling a decades-long infrastructure project in an attempt to gee up the Prime Minister.

    The short answer then is that Sunak called an early election because he fundamentally doesn't understand politics.

    I do have to give him credit for sticking around as Tory leader for an extended leadership election despite obviously being beyond sick of the whole thing.

    It was done because as Chief Secretary and Chancellor often complained HS2 was a waste of money.
    Which it is.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,143

    A cabinet minister said Truss became “massively emboldened”, getting a “head rush” combining “dangerous levels of self-confidence and a nagging insecurity that she didn’t have much time”. Truss decided to abolish the cap on bankers’ bonuses and cut stamp duty.

    One of Truss’s team suggested that what came over her was effectively the manic state of a mental breakdown: “She wasn’t depressed, but she had a breakdown. She was giddy with expectations. She developed a serious detachment from reality, she was more demanding and intolerant of people. She didn’t want to be challenged. Two things change people — power and money. Those are the two torches of life which tell you what a person is about. At the start of the leadership campaign, she listened to a lot of people because she was unsure of herself. When it dawned on her she was going to win, she jettisoned this approach and it made her psychologically unfit to be prime minister.”


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/liz-truss-psychologically-unfit-to-be-pm-say-aides-ttqgdfz8b

    Good job the last Tory leadership campaign was full of high calibre, experienced leaders who have been battle tested so we won't see a repeat.
  • Couldn't we just have given him a couple of days on holiday off rather than cancelled the main infrastructure project of the last couple of decades? Might have been cheaper, just saying.

    See if I was PM and in a similar funk the only thing that would get me out of that funk would be to nuke France.

    The French are lucky I didn't choose a career in politics.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,125
    edited November 17

    Stereodog said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.

    But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.

    Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.

    Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb

    https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
    Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
    Probably.
    I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station.
    The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
    You don't build one, you build a dozen.

    And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."

    One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.

    Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
    Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
    It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
    As I've pointed out many times, the west giving in to Putin's nuclear blackmail has made the world a much more dangerous place. Now every tinpot regime with expansionist ideas will realise that having nukes means the civilised world will just give in to whatever they wish. Why spend billions on a military that can often be defeated - and which can turn against you - and which puts you in hock to supplier countries, when you can build a nuke for less?
    Of the many, many problems inflicted by an old fool's dithering, that's obviously not one. It's been blindingly obvious since the 40s that nuclear weapons have a powerful deterrent effect, and ghastly regimes haven't needed the Ukraine war to demonstrate that to them. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa are varying examples of tinpot regimes who realised this long before 2022.

    What the war and Biden's dithering has done is demonstrate to democracies like Ukraine, but perhaps also South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Japan and others, that they can't rely on the US shield. Again, some have been realising that since 2016 or before - Ukraine is not the only example of America's chronic unreliability as an ally. That is where the true damage to the nuclear proliferation framework lies.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,286
    I've heard much the same thing about Sunak: there was no strategy about election timing it was just the point at which he had won the battle he'd been fighting since late 2023 to get the damn thing over with.

    And FPT:
    Cookie said:

    How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.

    I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
    What direct evidence I have contradicts your perception: NEU balloted teacher members, recommending we accept the 5.5% recommended pay rise this as a reasonable compromise after settlements last year. I was quite relieved by this as I think teachers pay has caught up (a bit) with the cost of living.

    I don't doubt that some union activists were outraged by this (in fact our local NEU branch recommended that we reject it), but if you think of a union as a bunch of normal-ish members with agency rather than the sometimes-crazies at the
    top, you get a better picture of its behaviour.
  • I bet he was getting contrary advice as well: that going sooner was better.

    I really cannot see a delay as having improved things for the Tories - their problems were far more structural than just people feeling better off or not. The changes there would have been tiny, and would have been dwarfed by the fact that people simply wanted change.

    So if he had delayed, we would see a threader with other stories about the contrary advice: that going earlier would have been better,

    The Tories were doomed.

    edit: and first with an on-topic post!

    The issue was with going earlier was that it really hadn't been planned for, everybody had assumed an October/November election, when your chief election strategist disagrees with you on the date, you've got major problems.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,143
    maxh said:

    I've heard much the same thing about Sunak: there was no strategy about election timing it was just the point at which he had won the battle he'd been fighting since late 2023 to get the damn thing over with.

    And FPT:

    Cookie said:

    How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.

    I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
    What direct evidence I have contradicts your perception: NEU balloted teacher members, recommending we accept the 5.5% recommended pay rise this as a reasonable compromise after settlements last year. I was quite relieved by this as I think teachers pay has caught up (a bit) with the cost of living.

    I don't doubt that some union activists were outraged by this (in fact our local NEU branch recommended that we reject it), but if you think of a union as a bunch of normal-ish members with agency rather than the sometimes-crazies at the
    top, you get a better picture of its behaviour.
    I think there is also a wider respect thing. Pay disputes become harder and more expensive to settle when it becomes clear there is a lack of mutual respect between staff and employer. That was the mess the Tories had gotten themselves into.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,433
    Fishing said:

    Stereodog said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.

    But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.

    Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.

    Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb

    https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
    Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
    Probably.
    I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station.
    The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
    You don't build one, you build a dozen.

    And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."

    One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.

    Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
    Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
    It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
    As I've pointed out many times, the west giving in to Putin's nuclear blackmail has made the world a much more dangerous place. Now every tinpot regime with expansionist ideas will realise that having nukes means the civilised world will just give in to whatever they wish. Why spend billions on a military that can often be defeated - and which can turn against you - and which puts you in hock to supplier countries, when you can build a nuke for less?
    Of the many, many problems inflicted by an old fool's dithering, that's obviously not one. It's been blindingly obvious since the 40s that nuclear weapons have a powerful deterrent effect, and ghastly regimes haven't needed the Ukraine war to demonstrate that to them. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa are varying examples of tinpot regimes who realised this long before 2022.

    What the war and Biden's dithering has done is demonstrate to democracies like Ukraine, but perhaps also South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Japan and others, that they can't rely on the US shield. Again, some have been realising that since 2016 or before - Ukraine is not the only example of America's chronic unreliability as an ally. That is where the true damage to the nuclear proliferation framework lies.
    I fundamentally disagree with your first paragraph. Russia has forcibly used that deterrent effect on the world stage to startling effect. Even people on here saying shit like: "We can't get involved, Russia has nukes!!!!" Deterrence has turned from a defensive to an offensive weapon that allows Putin to do what he wants.

    And that's why it's so dangerous. It isn't classic MAD deterrence; it's "let me do what I want" deterrence.

    I pretty much agree with your second.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,220
    Twitter getting better by the day...

    https://x.com/mrjamesob/status/1857714581361066350

    James O'Brien
    @mrjamesob
    Don't think I'll be here much longer.
    And I *never* read replies.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,112

    Couldn't we just have given him a couple of days on holiday off rather than cancelled the main infrastructure project of the last couple of decades? Might have been cheaper, just saying.

    These bits on Sunak and Truss show how unfit for government the Tories had become, having been hollowed out by Johnson and Brexitism.

    For all his faults Starmer was the far better option in July, though not one that the voters were enthused by.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,144

    maxh said:

    I've heard much the same thing about Sunak: there was no strategy about election timing it was just the point at which he had won the battle he'd been fighting since late 2023 to get the damn thing over with.

    And FPT:

    Cookie said:

    How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.

    I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
    What direct evidence I have contradicts your perception: NEU balloted teacher members, recommending we accept the 5.5% recommended pay rise this as a reasonable compromise after settlements last year. I was quite relieved by this as I think teachers pay has caught up (a bit) with the cost of living.

    I don't doubt that some union activists were outraged by this (in fact our local NEU branch recommended that we reject it), but if you think of a union as a bunch of normal-ish members with agency rather than the sometimes-crazies at the
    top, you get a better picture of its behaviour.
    I think there is also a wider respect thing. Pay disputes become harder and more expensive to settle when it becomes clear there is a lack of mutual respect between staff and employer. That was the mess the Tories had gotten themselves into.
    Which is the key point. The combination of economic and political vulnerability, on top of issues like the prisons crisis (which it is quite clear the Tories just wanted to ignore) and industrial unrest, plus incoming abject failure on the boats, and they could have been heading for a summer of discontent.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082

    Couldn't we just have given him a couple of days on holiday off rather than cancelled the main infrastructure project of the last couple of decades? Might have been cheaper, just saying.

    See if I was PM and in a similar funk the only thing that would get me out of that funk would be to nuke France.

    The French are lucky I didn't choose a career in politics.
    Hmmmm

    You seem to think that nuking France is a less than optimal policy.

    When did you become a cheese eating surrender monkey?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,521
    Fishing said:

    Stereodog said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.

    But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.

    Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.

    Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb

    https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
    Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
    Probably.
    I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station.
    The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
    You don't build one, you build a dozen.

    And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."

    One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.

    Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
    Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
    It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
    As I've pointed out many times, the west giving in to Putin's nuclear blackmail has made the world a much more dangerous place. Now every tinpot regime with expansionist ideas will realise that having nukes means the civilised world will just give in to whatever they wish. Why spend billions on a military that can often be defeated - and which can turn against you - and which puts you in hock to supplier countries, when you can build a nuke for less?
    Of the many, many problems inflicted by an old fool's dithering, that's obviously not one. It's been blindingly obvious since the 40s that nuclear weapons have a powerful deterrent effect, and ghastly regimes haven't needed the Ukraine war to demonstrate that to them. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa are varying examples of tinpot regimes who realised this long before 2022.

    What the war and Biden's dithering has done is demonstrate to democracies like Ukraine, but perhaps also South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Japan and others, that they can't rely on the US shield. Again, some have been realising that since 2016 or before - Ukraine is not the only example of America's chronic unreliability as an ally. That is where the true damage to the nuclear proliferation framework lies.
    “To be America’s enemy is dangerous. To be America’s friend is fatal.”
  • Also from Shipman.

    Liz Truss psychologically unfit to be PM, say aides

    Pleas to slow down went unheeded. Aides leaked stories to The Times in an effort to avoid disaster in the mini-budget. It didn’t work


    alfway through the Tory leadership contest in 2022, Liz Truss knew she was going to win. She gathered her team at Chevening, the Palladian house in Kent which is the grace-and-favour home of the foreign secretary, on August 13. Details of what would become the mini-budget were thrashed out in meetings at Chevening between Truss and a quad of economic ministers, which included the future chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng, Chris Philp, who was to be chief secretary to the Treasury, and Simon Clarke, the current chief secretary. Economists, ministers and civil servants all advised her to tread cautiously. She ignored them all.

    Economists Gerard Lyons and Julian Jessop presented a paper on ways of boosting growth, but it also warned: “The markets are nervous … if immediate economic policy announcements are handled badly then a market crash is possible.” Truss ignored the caveats. One conviction they did reinforce — particularly Lyons — was Truss’s decision not to ask the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to do a formal forecast of the public finances ahead of the mini-budget.

    Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, and senior Treasury officials Cat Little, the acting permanent secretary at the Treasury, Beth Russell, the director-general of tax and welfare, and Philip Duffy, the director-general of growth and productivity, “made clear there was a risk” in not using the OBR, a Tory said.

    Truss’s original plan had been for a three-year spending review to identify cuts in Whitehall budgets to balance out the tax cuts Truss wanted. Kwarteng, Clarke and Philp all saw them as a package. The need for spending cuts was Kwarteng’s one clear disagreement with Truss before the mini-budget. His adviser Celia McSwaine recalled: “He raised that point repeatedly, but unfortunately just lost the battle.” A cabinet minister observed: “She wasn’t interested in spending reductions at all. She literally wouldn’t talk about it, in a way that was quite weird. I think she thought it would be unpopular.”

    Clare Lombardelli, the Treasury’s chief economist, was “unbelievably nervous” about the issue, a political aide recalled — “sweating spinal fluids”. In one meeting Case said: “Shouldn’t we have a conversation about spending cuts? Otherwise, people will see through it instantly.” Truss appeared to concede the point, suggesting a list of potential cuts was drawn up, but nothing came of it. Another aide said: “Simon Case was really pissed off.” The cabinet secretary told a colleague “this is economically illiterate” and described Truss as “completely mad”

    This also explains Rachel Reeves' do-nothing summer. Labour recognised and was terrified of repeating Liz Truss's mistake of sidelining the OBR so the budget had to be delayed while that august body deliberated.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,521

    There's a lot to digest in all that.

    Public policy as a means to manage the psychological state of the PM. Imagine cancelling a decades-long infrastructure project in an attempt to gee up the Prime Minister.

    The short answer then is that Sunak called an early election because he fundamentally doesn't understand politics.

    I do have to give him credit for sticking around as Tory leader for an extended leadership election despite obviously being beyond sick of the whole thing.

    It makes you wonder why he went into politics.
  • SNP staff to lose jobs a week before Christmas

    Falling donations have left the party’s HQ short of cash, prompting voluntary redundancy scheme to lose more than a third of staff


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/snp-staff-to-lose-jobs-a-week-before-christmas-2rrr8jqft
  • In other words, Isaac Levido still wants to be taken seriously as an campaign guru, so it's vital that everyone knows that it wasn't his fault.

    Sunak was right- the government was running on a "hold it in until we reach the toilets at the service station election" strategy, but that was clearly about to fail, leading to unpleasant bodily fluids everywhere.

    The Conservatives would have had to climb down on public sector pay. Rwanda flights would have happened and achieved nothing. The sugar rush of the NI reductions would have worn off. Most importantly, a Conservative government would have had to release prisoners early. All of those things were completely predictable.

    They would have been utterly doomed.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,877
    edited November 17
    FPT:
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 30% (-1)
    CON: 24% (=)
    RFM: 21% (+1)
    LDM: 12% (+2)
    GRN: 8% (-2)
    SNP: 3% (+1)

    Via @OpiniumResearch, 11-13 Nov.
    Changes w/ 30-31 Oct.

    https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/1857877965356315070

    Given an election campaign Labour will be back up to where they were before.

    Hardly given Labour began on over 40% and ended up on 33% in July.

    Opinium not brilliant for Kemi but still a swing of just under 2% from Labour to the Tories since the GE so not great for Starmer either.

    Brilliant poll for Farage whose Reform party is up 7% on the 14% they got at the GE to 21%. LDs and SNP basically unchanged since the GE like the Tories in voteshare, Greens up but by just 1%
    Opposition parties flourish at this stage of a Parliament, and in local elections it can be any of them who do well. But it's hard to see the Conservative election win evolving from those figures.
    I think Starmer is taking an interestingly honest approach to government.

    A large part of the disillusionment that voters have for politics is down to their experience of populist politicians that promise loads, but fail to deliver. Often because their proposed solutions are undeliverable, and while those work to get elected they are a problem in government.

    Starmer is staking his government on under-promising, but over-delivering, and gambling that voters are mature enough to recognise this in 2029.

    Of course, he has to actually deliver for this to work, and voters to be grateful rather than just bank the gains and demand more.
    Good comment.

    However he doesn't have the "swat the Opposition BS-artists", and his own marketing, in place, I don't think, yet.

    That concerns me a little - he could end up with a trajectory like Biden where much is achieved but is swallowed up in a fog of misleading, oppositionalist waffle.

    In the USA, the people who fell for Trump's shtick are about to get bent over and Trumped good and proper, by the look of it so far. Afaics Trump is appointing some of the nutters to his own cabinet completely over the head of his Chief of Staff.

    One thing that surprises me is how soft Mr Starmer is being on the previous not-a-Government, and not specifically identifying all the sticky-plaster things he is having to do to cover the gaping wounds they left.

    An example are that Tuition fees were cut by inflation in real terms between 2018 and 2024 - that is, 13%. Another is the scores of local authorities in financial trouble, largely because an institutionalisation of significant funding cuts for year after year after year.

    We see that latter in the public realm - even things as simple as white lines markings on roads which have not been maintained, or weeds growing across pavements compared with how it was on Streetview in 2009..

    Plus obviously, unfunded tax breaks which fell straight through onto increasing the national debt.

    Politically, I think they need far stronger on holding the Opposition responsible for the wreckage they created. Even though the Conservative itself is reduced to a collection of pygmies balanced atop a pile of rubble.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082

    Fishing said:

    Stereodog said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.

    But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.

    Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.

    Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb

    https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
    Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
    Probably.
    I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station.
    The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
    You don't build one, you build a dozen.

    And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."

    One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.

    Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
    Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
    It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
    As I've pointed out many times, the west giving in to Putin's nuclear blackmail has made the world a much more dangerous place. Now every tinpot regime with expansionist ideas will realise that having nukes means the civilised world will just give in to whatever they wish. Why spend billions on a military that can often be defeated - and which can turn against you - and which puts you in hock to supplier countries, when you can build a nuke for less?
    Of the many, many problems inflicted by an old fool's dithering, that's obviously not one. It's been blindingly obvious since the 40s that nuclear weapons have a powerful deterrent effect, and ghastly regimes haven't needed the Ukraine war to demonstrate that to them. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa are varying examples of tinpot regimes who realised this long before 2022.

    What the war and Biden's dithering has done is demonstrate to democracies like Ukraine, but perhaps also South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Japan and others, that they can't rely on the US shield. Again, some have been realising that since 2016 or before - Ukraine is not the only example of America's chronic unreliability as an ally. That is where the true damage to the nuclear proliferation framework lies.
    I fundamentally disagree with your first paragraph. Russia has forcibly used that deterrent effect on the world stage to startling effect. Even people on here saying shit like: "We can't get involved, Russia has nukes!!!!" Deterrence has turned from a defensive to an offensive weapon that allows Putin to do what he wants.

    And that's why it's so dangerous. It isn't classic MAD deterrence; it's "let me do what I want" deterrence.

    I pretty much agree with your second.
    Herman Kahn pointed out the dangers of asymmetry in deterrence in the late 1950s

    Which got him labelled a warmonger by the Disarm! Now! types
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709

    SNP staff to lose jobs a week before Christmas

    Falling donations have left the party’s HQ short of cash, prompting voluntary redundancy scheme to lose more than a third of staff


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/snp-staff-to-lose-jobs-a-week-before-christmas-2rrr8jqft

    Couldn't they give up the office space and use a campervan instead?
  • To be cynical, this is how decolonisation of the curriculum is made harmless. Academics do not need to change anything about current practice but merely add in an historical (or ahistorical) module on the roles of those beastly Victorians and noble foreigners in the foundations of their subject.

    Also, what use is financial math if the professor cannot even count how many maths there are?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,144
    Almost on topic, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Chalk [the impending Scholz loss] up to another lash of the anti-incumbent fury that has been raging around the world in this year of many elections. The trend is so unmistakable that you can probably see it from outer space. It is certainly visible to, and being twitched over, by Number 10. Labour was the happy beneficiary of anti-incumbency at the July election when the intensity of the loathing for the Conservatives buried them under a landslide defeat. After barely four months in the saddle, now public opinion is bucking like a bronco against Labour.

    Phobia towards incumbents in the western democracies is connected to the stagnation in living standards that has persisted in most developed countries since the financial crisis. Politicians find it very hard to persuade people to feel well disposed towards government when they are not feeling happy about their own circumstances. Discontent has been exacerbated by the post-pandemic spike in inflation.

    Borders are a big obsession with the recast team in Downing Street. So is another b-word, “bills”. One of Number 10’s responses to anti-incumbency will be to talk less about the “five missions”, a concept that Labour MPs complain has never caught the imagination of voters, and focus more intensely on living standards. The improvement in median incomes in the UK has been so meagre since 2009 that earnings growth over the past quarter of a century was probably the slowest in more than 200 years. If you want a core explanation for why so many voters have been feeling so down on politicians for such a long time, then this is good place to look.

    In the first flush of victory in July, many Labour people thought they had time on their side because the size of the parliamentary majority could be interpreted as a 10-year mandate for Sir Keir’s “decade of national renewal”. The paucity of the vote share was a warning against that kind of complacent thinking. Some, even from within the party’s own ranks, are already catastrophising that this is doomed to be a one-term administration. It is way too early to forecast that the Starmer government is destined to suffer that fate. But the Labour leader and his cabinet must try to learn from the growing heap of cast-aside incumbents if they are not to be added to it.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    ydoethur said:

    SNP staff to lose jobs a week before Christmas

    Falling donations have left the party’s HQ short of cash, prompting voluntary redundancy scheme to lose more than a third of staff


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/snp-staff-to-lose-jobs-a-week-before-christmas-2rrr8jqft

    Couldn't they give up the office space and use a campervan instead?
    Ask the police to borrow a tent and put it in the leader’s front garden?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,330
    maxh said:

    I've heard much the same thing about Sunak: there was no strategy about election timing it was just the point at which he had won the battle he'd been fighting since late 2023 to get the damn thing over with.

    And FPT:

    Cookie said:

    How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.

    I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
    What direct evidence I have contradicts your perception: NEU balloted teacher members, recommending we accept the 5.5% recommended pay rise this as a reasonable compromise after settlements last year. I was quite relieved by this as I think teachers pay has caught up (a bit) with the cost of living.

    I don't doubt that some union activists were outraged by this (in fact our local NEU branch recommended that we reject it), but if you think of a union as a bunch of normal-ish members with agency rather than the sometimes-crazies at the
    top, you get a better picture of its behaviour.
    Also: Scottish doctors have been getting in with their work for a year and more since the settlement by the SG. On @Cookie 's model, they'd still be marching down the Royal Mile in Edinburgh.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,112
    edited November 17
    MattW said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 30% (-1)
    CON: 24% (=)
    RFM: 21% (+1)
    LDM: 12% (+2)
    GRN: 8% (-2)
    SNP: 3% (+1)

    Via @OpiniumResearch, 11-13 Nov.
    Changes w/ 30-31 Oct.

    https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/1857877965356315070

    Given an election campaign Labour will be back up to where they were before.

    Hardly given Labour began on over 40% and ended up on 33% in July.

    Opinium not brilliant for Kemi but still a swing of just under 2% from Labour to the Tories since the GE so not great for Starmer either.

    Brilliant poll for Farage whose Reform party is up 7% on the 14% they got at the GE to 21%. LDs and SNP basically unchanged since the GE like the Tories in voteshare, Greens up but by just 1%
    Opposition parties flourish at this stage of a Parliament, and in local elections it can be any of them who do well. But it's hard to see the Conservative election win evolving from those figures.
    I think Starmer is taking an interestingly honest approach to government.

    A large part of the disillusionment that voters have for politics is down to their experience of populist politicians that promise loads, but fail to deliver. Often because their proposed solutions are undeliverable, and while those work to get elected they are a problem in government.

    Starmer is staking his government on under-promising, but over-delivering, and gambling that voters are mature enough to recognise this in 2029.

    Of course, he has to actually deliver for this to work, and voters to be grateful rather than just bank the gains and demand more.
    Good comment.

    However he doesn't have the "swat the Opposition BS-artists", and his own marketing, in place, I don't think, yet.

    That concerns me a little - he could end up with a trajectory like Biden where much is achieved but is swallowed up in a fog of misleading, oppositionalist waffle.

    In the USA, the people who fell for Trump's shtick are about to get bent over and Trumped good and proper, by the look of it so far. Afaics Trump is appointing some of the nutters to his own cabinet completely over the head of his Chief of Staff.

    One thing that surprises me is how soft Mr Starmer is being on the previous not-a-Government, and not specifically identifying all the sticky-plaster things he is having to do to cover the gaping wounds they left.

    An example are that Tuition fees were cut by inflation in real terms between 2018 and 2024 - that is, 13%. Another is the scores of local authorities in financial trouble, largely because an institutionalisation of significant funding cuts for year after year after year.

    We see that latter in the public realm - even things as simple as white lines markings on roads which have not been maintained, or weeds growing across pavements compared with how it was on Streetview in 2009..

    Plus obviously, unfunded tax breaks which fell straight through onto increasing the national debt.

    Politically, I think they need far stronger on holding the Opposition responsible for the wreckage they created. Even though the Conservative itself is reduced to a collection of pygmies balanced atop a pile of rubble.
    Starmer demonstrates a lot of political naivety in how he approaches things. I think his plan is broadly what I posted, but he has hamstrung himself via the Ming Vase strategy of promising no income tax, VAT or employee NI rises and to keep the Triple Lock.

    Clearly money was going to be needed to repair the dilapidated public realm, and it would have been so much better to have more flexibility. Instead we had a budget of stealth taxes that distort economic activity.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,125
    IanB2 said:

    Almost on topic, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Chalk [the impending Scholz loss] up to another lash of the anti-incumbent fury that has been raging around the world in this year of many elections. The trend is so unmistakable that you can probably see it from outer space. It is certainly visible to, and being twitched over, by Number 10. Labour was the happy beneficiary of anti-incumbency at the July election when the intensity of the loathing for the Conservatives buried them under a landslide defeat. After barely four months in the saddle, now public opinion is bucking like a bronco against Labour.

    Phobia towards incumbents in the western democracies is connected to the stagnation in living standards that has persisted in most developed countries since the financial crisis. Politicians find it very hard to persuade people to feel well disposed towards government when they are not feeling happy about their own circumstances. Discontent has been exacerbated by the post-pandemic spike in inflation.

    Borders are a big obsession with the recast team in Downing Street. So is another b-word, “bills”. One of Number 10’s responses to anti-incumbency will be to talk less about the “five missions”, a concept that Labour MPs complain has never caught the imagination of voters, and focus more intensely on living standards. The improvement in median incomes in the UK has been so meagre since 2009 that earnings growth over the past quarter of a century was probably the slowest in more than 200 years. If you want a core explanation for why so many voters have been feeling so down on politicians for such a long time, then this is good place to look.

    In the first flush of victory in July, many Labour people thought they had time on their side because the size of the parliamentary majority could be interpreted as a 10-year mandate for Sir Keir’s “decade of national renewal”. The paucity of the vote share was a warning against that kind of complacent thinking. Some, even from within the party’s own ranks, are already catastrophising that this is doomed to be a one-term administration. It is way too early to forecast that the Starmer government is destined to suffer that fate. But the Labour leader and his cabinet must try to learn from the growing heap of cast-aside incumbents if they are not to be added to it.

    [Much] shorter Rawnsley: voters don't like falling living standards and blame the government but we don't yet know what will happen at the next election.

    Not sure that's much of an insight and did he really need 389 words to tell us that?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805

    There's a lot to digest in all that.

    Public policy as a means to manage the psychological state of the PM. Imagine cancelling a decades-long infrastructure project in an attempt to gee up the Prime Minister.

    The short answer then is that Sunak called an early election because he fundamentally doesn't understand politics.

    I do have to give him credit for sticking around as Tory leader for an extended leadership election despite obviously being beyond sick of the whole thing.

    It was done because as Chief Secretary and Chancellor often complained HS2 was a waste of money.
    Which it is.
    It certainly was once cancelled.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,330
    edited November 17
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/17/farmers-have-hoarded-land-for-too-long-inheritance-tax-will-bring-new-life-to-rural-britain

    Will Hutton has a look at IHT.

    And - why do people keep going on about family farms? The IHT rule in question applies to the owner not the farmer. Just so long as *someone* is using it for farming. I inherited a very small field (of historic/landscape and sentimental value) and was surprised to find it was IHT free just because it was rented out to the local farmer.

    And this also applies to agribusiness shares.

    To be more precise, one needed to meet certain conditions to get 100% relief, but they aren't that onerous.

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/agricultural-relief-on-inheritance-tax
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    edited November 17
    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 30% (-1)
    CON: 24% (=)
    RFM: 21% (+1)
    LDM: 12% (+2)
    GRN: 8% (-2)
    SNP: 3% (+1)

    Via @OpiniumResearch, 11-13 Nov.
    Changes w/ 30-31 Oct.

    https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/1857877965356315070

    Given an election campaign Labour will be back up to where they were before.

    Hardly given Labour began on over 40% and ended up on 33% in July.

    Opinium not brilliant for Kemi but still a swing of just under 2% from Labour to the Tories since the GE so not great for Starmer either.

    Brilliant poll for Farage whose Reform party is up 7% on the 14% they got at the GE to 21%. LDs and SNP basically unchanged since the GE like the Tories in voteshare, Greens up but by just 1%
    Opposition parties flourish at this stage of a Parliament, and in local elections it can be any of them who do well. But it's hard to see the Conservative election win evolving from those figures.
    I think Starmer is taking an interestingly honest approach to government.

    A large part of the disillusionment that voters have for politics is down to their experience of populist politicians that promise loads, but fail to deliver. Often because their proposed solutions are undeliverable, and while those work to get elected they are a problem in government.

    Starmer is staking his government on under-promising, but over-delivering, and gambling that voters are mature enough to recognise this in 2029.

    Of course, he has to actually deliver for this to work, and voters to be grateful rather than just bank the gains and demand more.
    Good comment.

    However he doesn't have the "swat the Opposition BS-artists", and his own marketing, in place, I don't think, yet.

    That concerns me a little - he could end up with a trajectory like Biden where much is achieved but is swallowed up in a fog of misleading, oppositionalist waffle.

    In the USA, the people who fell for Trump's shtick are about to get bent over and Trumped good and proper, by the look of it so far. Afaics Trump is appointing some of the nutters to his own cabinet completely over the head of his Chief of Staff.

    One thing that surprises me is how soft Mr Starmer is being on the previous not-a-Government, and not specifically identifying all the sticky-plaster things he is having to do to cover the gaping wounds they left.

    An example are that Tuition fees were cut by inflation in real terms between 2018 and 2024 - that is, 13%. Another is the scores of local authorities in financial trouble, largely because an institutionalisation of significant funding cuts for year after year after year.

    We see that latter in the public realm - even things as simple as white lines markings on roads which have not been maintained, or weeds growing across pavements compared with how it was on Streetview in 2009..

    Plus obviously, unfunded tax breaks which fell straight through onto increasing the national debt.

    Politically, I think they need far stronger on holding the Opposition responsible for the wreckage they created. Even though the Conservative itself is reduced to a collection of pygmies balanced atop a pile of rubble.
    I think Starmer demonstrates a lot of political naivety in how he approaches things. I think his plan is broadly what I posted, but he has hamstrung himself via the Ming Vase strategy of promising no income tax, VAT or employee NI rises and to keep the Triple Lock.

    Clearly money was going to be needed to repair the dilapidated public realm, and it would have been so much better to have more flexibility. Instead we had a budget of stealth taxes that distort economic activity.
    The employer NI increase isn't a stealth tax (but then again given how I get paid I probably pay more attention to it than other people would) but I do question if the decision to charge NI on everyone working more than 8 hours is by design or whether they didn't realise / think about the consequences..
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,945
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Fishing, sometimes I've had to write stuff that could be very concise but to hit a word count threshold had to elaborate far beyond that.

    A column that's a sentence might involve some sort of pay reduction.
  • IanB2 said:

    Almost on topic, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Chalk [the impending Scholz loss] up to another lash of the anti-incumbent fury that has been raging around the world in this year of many elections. The trend is so unmistakable that you can probably see it from outer space. It is certainly visible to, and being twitched over, by Number 10. Labour was the happy beneficiary of anti-incumbency at the July election when the intensity of the loathing for the Conservatives buried them under a landslide defeat. After barely four months in the saddle, now public opinion is bucking like a bronco against Labour.

    Phobia towards incumbents in the western democracies is connected to the stagnation in living standards that has persisted in most developed countries since the financial crisis. Politicians find it very hard to persuade people to feel well disposed towards government when they are not feeling happy about their own circumstances. Discontent has been exacerbated by the post-pandemic spike in inflation.

    Borders are a big obsession with the recast team in Downing Street. So is another b-word, “bills”. One of Number 10’s responses to anti-incumbency will be to talk less about the “five missions”, a concept that Labour MPs complain has never caught the imagination of voters, and focus more intensely on living standards. The improvement in median incomes in the UK has been so meagre since 2009 that earnings growth over the past quarter of a century was probably the slowest in more than 200 years. If you want a core explanation for why so many voters have been feeling so down on politicians for such a long time, then this is good place to look.

    In the first flush of victory in July, many Labour people thought they had time on their side because the size of the parliamentary majority could be interpreted as a 10-year mandate for Sir Keir’s “decade of national renewal”. The paucity of the vote share was a warning against that kind of complacent thinking. Some, even from within the party’s own ranks, are already catastrophising that this is doomed to be a one-term administration. It is way too early to forecast that the Starmer government is destined to suffer that fate. But the Labour leader and his cabinet must try to learn from the growing heap of cast-aside incumbents if they are not to be added to it.

    Anti-incumbency rather than Leon's preferred shift to the right. But our economic problem is not just low earnings growth but also increased prices of staples like housing (rent or buy), food and fuel. And for younger generations, we have the scarcity and depressed salaries of early-career jobs coupled with record levels of income tax (once you add in student loan repayments).
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Fishing, sometimes I've had to write stuff that could be very concise but to hit a word count threshold had to elaborate far beyond that.

    A column that's a sentence might involve some sort of pay reduction.

    And a very annoyed subeditor scrabbling round to fill the rest of that printed page...
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,857
    IanB2 said:

    Almost on topic, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Chalk [the impending Scholz loss] up to another lash of the anti-incumbent fury that has been raging around the world in this year of many elections. The trend is so unmistakable that you can probably see it from outer space. It is certainly visible to, and being twitched over, by Number 10. Labour was the happy beneficiary of anti-incumbency at the July election when the intensity of the loathing for the Conservatives buried them under a landslide defeat. After barely four months in the saddle, now public opinion is bucking like a bronco against Labour.

    Phobia towards incumbents in the western democracies is connected to the stagnation in living standards that has persisted in most developed countries since the financial crisis. Politicians find it very hard to persuade people to feel well disposed towards government when they are not feeling happy about their own circumstances. Discontent has been exacerbated by the post-pandemic spike in inflation.

    Borders are a big obsession with the recast team in Downing Street. So is another b-word, “bills”. One of Number 10’s responses to anti-incumbency will be to talk less about the “five missions”, a concept that Labour MPs complain has never caught the imagination of voters, and focus more intensely on living standards. The improvement in median incomes in the UK has been so meagre since 2009 that earnings growth over the past quarter of a century was probably the slowest in more than 200 years. If you want a core explanation for why so many voters have been feeling so down on politicians for such a long time, then this is good place to look.

    In the first flush of victory in July, many Labour people thought they had time on their side because the size of the parliamentary majority could be interpreted as a 10-year mandate for Sir Keir’s “decade of national renewal”. The paucity of the vote share was a warning against that kind of complacent thinking. Some, even from within the party’s own ranks, are already catastrophising that this is doomed to be a one-term administration. It is way too early to forecast that the Starmer government is destined to suffer that fate. But the Labour leader and his cabinet must try to learn from the growing heap of cast-aside incumbents if they are not to be added to it.

    Rawnsley, generally a very decent commentator here joins the growing ranks of pretty boring off the shelf stuff. It's formulaic and typical:

    Incumbent governments are unpopular
    There are reasons for this that everyone knows
    Something must be done to reverse this/help Labour win next time
    I have not the tiniest idea what that is.

    All true in a way but getting boring.
  • FPT
    Foxy said:
    This is more evidence for the decades-old, politically inconvenient finding that smokers were less susceptible to Parkinson's.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709

    ydoethur said:

    SNP staff to lose jobs a week before Christmas

    Falling donations have left the party’s HQ short of cash, prompting voluntary redundancy scheme to lose more than a third of staff


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/snp-staff-to-lose-jobs-a-week-before-christmas-2rrr8jqft

    Couldn't they give up the office space and use a campervan instead?
    Ask the police to borrow a tent and put it in the leader’s front garden?
    They say they haven't any to spare today, but they might be able to find one to lend to Murrell.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,942
    edited November 17

    The transport secretary Haigh said: "This represents record capital investment to the majority of places and a once-in-a-generation reform plan that aims to deliver London-style buses to every corner of the country - including those areas that are usually overlooked."

    Rebalance things a bit sure, but of course you can't have London style buses in every corner of the country, you have more frequent and regular buses where there are more people looking to travel! Absurd.

    Yes - just reading the Mirror article, I'm nervous about this. The funding appears to be based on things like deprivation and "need", older people and rural communities. We get into this muddle all the time in transport - you end up with a patchwork of incoherent services, each argued over for years by endless committees.

    I would provide the buses and driver training to LA-owned but arms-length independent bus companies, with a condition that they must achieve an operating profit within 5 years or have the buses reallocated to those that are profitable. Any surplus cash cannot be extracted by councils and must be invested in more bus services.

    Separately, a rural service that is subsidised on an ongoing basis.
  • IanB2 said:

    Almost on topic, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Chalk [the impending Scholz loss] up to another lash of the anti-incumbent fury that has been raging around the world in this year of many elections. The trend is so unmistakable that you can probably see it from outer space. It is certainly visible to, and being twitched over, by Number 10. Labour was the happy beneficiary of anti-incumbency at the July election when the intensity of the loathing for the Conservatives buried them under a landslide defeat. After barely four months in the saddle, now public opinion is bucking like a bronco against Labour.

    Phobia towards incumbents in the western democracies is connected to the stagnation in living standards that has persisted in most developed countries since the financial crisis. Politicians find it very hard to persuade people to feel well disposed towards government when they are not feeling happy about their own circumstances. Discontent has been exacerbated by the post-pandemic spike in inflation.

    Borders are a big obsession with the recast team in Downing Street. So is another b-word, “bills”. One of Number 10’s responses to anti-incumbency will be to talk less about the “five missions”, a concept that Labour MPs complain has never caught the imagination of voters, and focus more intensely on living standards. The improvement in median incomes in the UK has been so meagre since 2009 that earnings growth over the past quarter of a century was probably the slowest in more than 200 years. If you want a core explanation for why so many voters have been feeling so down on politicians for such a long time, then this is good place to look.

    In the first flush of victory in July, many Labour people thought they had time on their side because the size of the parliamentary majority could be interpreted as a 10-year mandate for Sir Keir’s “decade of national renewal”. The paucity of the vote share was a warning against that kind of complacent thinking. Some, even from within the party’s own ranks, are already catastrophising that this is doomed to be a one-term administration. It is way too early to forecast that the Starmer government is destined to suffer that fate. But the Labour leader and his cabinet must try to learn from the growing heap of cast-aside incumbents if they are not to be added to it.

    Anti-incumbency rather than Leon's preferred shift to the right. But our economic problem is not just low earnings growth but also increased prices of staples like housing (rent or buy), food and fuel. And for younger generations, we have the scarcity and depressed salaries of early-career jobs coupled with record levels of income tax (once you add in student loan repayments).
    Depends on whether the problem was the inflation spike (acute, but now over) or the ongoing stodginess of the economy almost everywhere (chronic and probably quite hard to solve).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    IanB2 said:

    Almost on topic, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Chalk [the impending Scholz loss] up to another lash of the anti-incumbent fury that has been raging around the world in this year of many elections. The trend is so unmistakable that you can probably see it from outer space. It is certainly visible to, and being twitched over, by Number 10. Labour was the happy beneficiary of anti-incumbency at the July election when the intensity of the loathing for the Conservatives buried them under a landslide defeat. After barely four months in the saddle, now public opinion is bucking like a bronco against Labour.

    Phobia towards incumbents in the western democracies is connected to the stagnation in living standards that has persisted in most developed countries since the financial crisis. Politicians find it very hard to persuade people to feel well disposed towards government when they are not feeling happy about their own circumstances. Discontent has been exacerbated by the post-pandemic spike in inflation.

    Borders are a big obsession with the recast team in Downing Street. So is another b-word, “bills”. One of Number 10’s responses to anti-incumbency will be to talk less about the “five missions”, a concept that Labour MPs complain has never caught the imagination of voters, and focus more intensely on living standards. The improvement in median incomes in the UK has been so meagre since 2009 that earnings growth over the past quarter of a century was probably the slowest in more than 200 years. If you want a core explanation for why so many voters have been feeling so down on politicians for such a long time, then this is good place to look.

    In the first flush of victory in July, many Labour people thought they had time on their side because the size of the parliamentary majority could be interpreted as a 10-year mandate for Sir Keir’s “decade of national renewal”. The paucity of the vote share was a warning against that kind of complacent thinking. Some, even from within the party’s own ranks, are already catastrophising that this is doomed to be a one-term administration. It is way too early to forecast that the Starmer government is destined to suffer that fate. But the Labour leader and his cabinet must try to learn from the growing heap of cast-aside incumbents if they are not to be added to it.

    As ever, a very good article, by that gentleman.

    I’d further suggest that we’ve been seeing a massive decrease in tribal loyalty to parties, in countries where this is a thing.

    The American election actually fits into that pattern, when you realise that since the Republican / Democrat duopoly emerged, change has happened by takeover of the parties.

    MAGA took over the Republicans and expelled the existing hierarchy.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,895
    Sean_F said:

    There's a lot to digest in all that.

    Public policy as a means to manage the psychological state of the PM. Imagine cancelling a decades-long infrastructure project in an attempt to gee up the Prime Minister.

    The short answer then is that Sunak called an early election because he fundamentally doesn't understand politics.

    I do have to give him credit for sticking around as Tory leader for an extended leadership election despite obviously being beyond sick of the whole thing.

    It makes you wonder why he went into politics.
    I think it was the one thing he could do that his wife couldn't outdo him on.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,125
    edited November 17
    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Almost on topic, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Chalk [the impending Scholz loss] up to another lash of the anti-incumbent fury that has been raging around the world in this year of many elections. The trend is so unmistakable that you can probably see it from outer space. It is certainly visible to, and being twitched over, by Number 10. Labour was the happy beneficiary of anti-incumbency at the July election when the intensity of the loathing for the Conservatives buried them under a landslide defeat. After barely four months in the saddle, now public opinion is bucking like a bronco against Labour.

    Phobia towards incumbents in the western democracies is connected to the stagnation in living standards that has persisted in most developed countries since the financial crisis. Politicians find it very hard to persuade people to feel well disposed towards government when they are not feeling happy about their own circumstances. Discontent has been exacerbated by the post-pandemic spike in inflation.

    Borders are a big obsession with the recast team in Downing Street. So is another b-word, “bills”. One of Number 10’s responses to anti-incumbency will be to talk less about the “five missions”, a concept that Labour MPs complain has never caught the imagination of voters, and focus more intensely on living standards. The improvement in median incomes in the UK has been so meagre since 2009 that earnings growth over the past quarter of a century was probably the slowest in more than 200 years. If you want a core explanation for why so many voters have been feeling so down on politicians for such a long time, then this is good place to look.

    In the first flush of victory in July, many Labour people thought they had time on their side because the size of the parliamentary majority could be interpreted as a 10-year mandate for Sir Keir’s “decade of national renewal”. The paucity of the vote share was a warning against that kind of complacent thinking. Some, even from within the party’s own ranks, are already catastrophising that this is doomed to be a one-term administration. It is way too early to forecast that the Starmer government is destined to suffer that fate. But the Labour leader and his cabinet must try to learn from the growing heap of cast-aside incumbents if they are not to be added to it.

    Rawnsley, generally a very decent commentator here joins the growing ranks of pretty boring off the shelf stuff. It's formulaic and typical:

    Incumbent governments are unpopular
    There are reasons for this that everyone knows
    Something must be done to reverse this/help Labour win next time
    I have not the tiniest idea what that is.

    All true in a way but getting boring.
    Rawnsley is good when it comes to internal Labour Party machinations and gossip. He obviously has good contacts there. But when it comes to writing about other parties, especially the Conservatives, or more general themes like economics or social policy, you can tell he doesn't really have any insight or much of a clue, at least little more than the man on the street.

    And, like so many left of centre people, he agrees with the former UK political editor for the "impartial" BBC, Andrew Marr, who said many years ago that he couldn't understand how a nice person could be a Conservative. So he can't really understand or empathise with them.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,668

    I bet he was getting contrary advice as well: that going sooner was better.

    I really cannot see a delay as having improved things for the Tories - their problems were far more structural than just people feeling better off or not. The changes there would have been tiny, and would have been dwarfed by the fact that people simply wanted change.

    So if he had delayed, we would see a threader with other stories about the contrary advice: that going earlier would have been better,

    The Tories were doomed.

    edit: and first with an on-topic post!

    I think it was pretty mad the Tories went in July rather than October, but I concede there may have been further drip-drip-drip by-elections and defections.

    However, I don't think they'd have done worse than 120 seats had they waited another 3 months - and the economy would have certainly improved.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 30% (-1)
    CON: 24% (=)
    RFM: 21% (+1)
    LDM: 12% (+2)
    GRN: 8% (-2)
    SNP: 3% (+1)

    Via @OpiniumResearch, 11-13 Nov.
    Changes w/ 30-31 Oct.

    https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/1857877965356315070

    Given an election campaign Labour will be back up to where they were before.

    Hardly given Labour began on over 40% and ended up on 33% in July.

    Opinium not brilliant for Kemi but still a swing of just under 2% from Labour to the Tories since the GE so not great for Starmer either.

    Brilliant poll for Farage whose Reform party is up 7% on the 14% they got at the GE to 21%. LDs and SNP basically unchanged since the GE like the Tories in voteshare, Greens up but by just 1%
    Opposition parties flourish at this stage of a Parliament, and in local elections it can be any of them who do well. But it's hard to see the Conservative election win evolving from those figures.
    I think Starmer is taking an interestingly honest approach to government.

    A large part of the disillusionment that voters have for politics is down to their experience of populist politicians that promise loads, but fail to deliver. Often because their proposed solutions are undeliverable, and while those work to get elected they are a problem in government.

    Starmer is staking his government on under-promising, but over-delivering, and gambling that voters are mature enough to recognise this in 2029.

    Of course, he has to actually deliver for this to work, and voters to be grateful rather than just bank the gains and demand more.
    Good comment.

    However he doesn't have the "swat the Opposition BS-artists", and his own marketing, in place, I don't think, yet.

    That concerns me a little - he could end up with a trajectory like Biden where much is achieved but is swallowed up in a fog of misleading, oppositionalist waffle.

    In the USA, the people who fell for Trump's shtick are about to get bent over and Trumped good and proper, by the look of it so far. Afaics Trump is appointing some of the nutters to his own cabinet completely over the head of his Chief of Staff.

    One thing that surprises me is how soft Mr Starmer is being on the previous not-a-Government, and not specifically identifying all the sticky-plaster things he is having to do to cover the gaping wounds they left.

    An example are that Tuition fees were cut by inflation in real terms between 2018 and 2024 - that is, 13%. Another is the scores of local authorities in financial trouble, largely because an institutionalisation of significant funding cuts for year after year after year.

    We see that latter in the public realm - even things as simple as white lines markings on roads which have not been maintained, or weeds growing across pavements compared with how it was on Streetview in 2009..

    Plus obviously, unfunded tax breaks which fell straight through onto increasing the national debt.

    Politically, I think they need far stronger on holding the Opposition responsible for the wreckage they created. Even though the Conservative itself is reduced to a collection of pygmies balanced atop a pile of rubble.
    I think Starmer demonstrates a lot of political naivety in how he approaches things. I think his plan is broadly what I posted, but he has hamstrung himself via the Ming Vase strategy of promising no income tax, VAT or employee NI rises and to keep the Triple Lock.

    Clearly money was going to be needed to repair the dilapidated public realm, and it would have been so much better to have more flexibility. Instead we had a budget of stealth taxes that distort economic activity.
    The employer NI increase isn't a stealth tax (but then again given how I get paid I probably pay more attention to it than other people would) but I do question if the decision to charge NI on everyone working more than 8 hours is by design or whether they didn't realise / think about the consequences..
    It’s a stealth tax in the sense of not being immediately apparent to the person in the street.

    This is why it was picked as a tax to raise.

    And, once again, we have the amusing populism of “they will just have to take it out of profits”.
  • IanB2 said:

    Almost on topic, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Chalk [the impending Scholz loss] up to another lash of the anti-incumbent fury that has been raging around the world in this year of many elections. The trend is so unmistakable that you can probably see it from outer space. It is certainly visible to, and being twitched over, by Number 10. Labour was the happy beneficiary of anti-incumbency at the July election when the intensity of the loathing for the Conservatives buried them under a landslide defeat. After barely four months in the saddle, now public opinion is bucking like a bronco against Labour.

    Phobia towards incumbents in the western democracies is connected to the stagnation in living standards that has persisted in most developed countries since the financial crisis. Politicians find it very hard to persuade people to feel well disposed towards government when they are not feeling happy about their own circumstances. Discontent has been exacerbated by the post-pandemic spike in inflation.

    Borders are a big obsession with the recast team in Downing Street. So is another b-word, “bills”. One of Number 10’s responses to anti-incumbency will be to talk less about the “five missions”, a concept that Labour MPs complain has never caught the imagination of voters, and focus more intensely on living standards. The improvement in median incomes in the UK has been so meagre since 2009 that earnings growth over the past quarter of a century was probably the slowest in more than 200 years. If you want a core explanation for why so many voters have been feeling so down on politicians for such a long time, then this is good place to look.

    In the first flush of victory in July, many Labour people thought they had time on their side because the size of the parliamentary majority could be interpreted as a 10-year mandate for Sir Keir’s “decade of national renewal”. The paucity of the vote share was a warning against that kind of complacent thinking. Some, even from within the party’s own ranks, are already catastrophising that this is doomed to be a one-term administration. It is way too early to forecast that the Starmer government is destined to suffer that fate. But the Labour leader and his cabinet must try to learn from the growing heap of cast-aside incumbents if they are not to be added to it.

    Anti-incumbency rather than Leon's preferred shift to the right. But our economic problem is not just low earnings growth but also increased prices of staples like housing (rent or buy), food and fuel. And for younger generations, we have the scarcity and depressed salaries of early-career jobs coupled with record levels of income tax (once you add in student loan repayments).
    Depends on whether the problem was the inflation spike (acute, but now over) or the ongoing stodginess of the economy almost everywhere (chronic and probably quite hard to solve).
    The inflation spike may be over but the resultant cost of living crisis remains. See this 30-second TUC video:-
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/coAnaLQtNh0
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,609
    edited November 17

    I bet he was getting contrary advice as well: that going sooner was better.

    I really cannot see a delay as having improved things for the Tories - their problems were far more structural than just people feeling better off or not. The changes there would have been tiny, and would have been dwarfed by the fact that people simply wanted change.

    So if he had delayed, we would see a threader with other stories about the contrary advice: that going earlier would have been better,

    The Tories were doomed.

    edit: and first with an on-topic post!

    I think it was pretty mad the Tories went in July rather than October, but I concede there may have been further drip-drip-drip by-elections and defections.

    However, I don't think they'd have done worse than 120 seats had they waited another 3 months - and the economy would have certainly improved.
    Good morning

    Agreed but personally I am relieved we have moved on and it must be remembered that Labour’s landslide is based on 33.7% and they are far from popular

    Trump is going to be the story in 2025 and how Starmer handles events and indeed everyone, will be interesting
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,208

    IanB2 said:

    Almost on topic, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Chalk [the impending Scholz loss] up to another lash of the anti-incumbent fury that has been raging around the world in this year of many elections. The trend is so unmistakable that you can probably see it from outer space. It is certainly visible to, and being twitched over, by Number 10. Labour was the happy beneficiary of anti-incumbency at the July election when the intensity of the loathing for the Conservatives buried them under a landslide defeat. After barely four months in the saddle, now public opinion is bucking like a bronco against Labour.

    Phobia towards incumbents in the western democracies is connected to the stagnation in living standards that has persisted in most developed countries since the financial crisis. Politicians find it very hard to persuade people to feel well disposed towards government when they are not feeling happy about their own circumstances. Discontent has been exacerbated by the post-pandemic spike in inflation.

    Borders are a big obsession with the recast team in Downing Street. So is another b-word, “bills”. One of Number 10’s responses to anti-incumbency will be to talk less about the “five missions”, a concept that Labour MPs complain has never caught the imagination of voters, and focus more intensely on living standards. The improvement in median incomes in the UK has been so meagre since 2009 that earnings growth over the past quarter of a century was probably the slowest in more than 200 years. If you want a core explanation for why so many voters have been feeling so down on politicians for such a long time, then this is good place to look.

    In the first flush of victory in July, many Labour people thought they had time on their side because the size of the parliamentary majority could be interpreted as a 10-year mandate for Sir Keir’s “decade of national renewal”. The paucity of the vote share was a warning against that kind of complacent thinking. Some, even from within the party’s own ranks, are already catastrophising that this is doomed to be a one-term administration. It is way too early to forecast that the Starmer government is destined to suffer that fate. But the Labour leader and his cabinet must try to learn from the growing heap of cast-aside incumbents if they are not to be added to it.

    As ever, a very good article, by that gentleman.

    I’d further suggest that we’ve been seeing a massive decrease in tribal loyalty to parties, in countries where this is a thing.

    The American election actually fits into that pattern, when you realise that since the Republican / Democrat duopoly emerged, change has happened by takeover of the parties.

    MAGA took over the Republicans and expelled the existing hierarchy.

    Special circumstances maybe, but current Italian opinion polling somewhat bucks the anti-incumbency trend
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,704

    I bet he was getting contrary advice as well: that going sooner was better.

    I really cannot see a delay as having improved things for the Tories - their problems were far more structural than just people feeling better off or not. The changes there would have been tiny, and would have been dwarfed by the fact that people simply wanted change.

    So if he had delayed, we would see a threader with other stories about the contrary advice: that going earlier would have been better,

    The Tories were doomed.

    edit: and first with an on-topic post!

    I think it was pretty mad the Tories went in July rather than October, but I concede there may have been further drip-drip-drip by-elections and defections.

    However, I don't think they'd have done worse than 120 seats had they waited another 3 months - and the economy would have certainly improved.
    A post trump election would have been a very different election to July.
  • I bet he was getting contrary advice as well: that going sooner was better.

    I really cannot see a delay as having improved things for the Tories - their problems were far more structural than just people feeling better off or not. The changes there would have been tiny, and would have been dwarfed by the fact that people simply wanted change.

    So if he had delayed, we would see a threader with other stories about the contrary advice: that going earlier would have been better,

    The Tories were doomed.

    edit: and first with an on-topic post!

    I think it was pretty mad the Tories went in July rather than October, but I concede there may have been further drip-drip-drip by-elections and defections.

    However, I don't think they'd have done worse than 120 seats had they waited another 3 months - and the economy would have certainly improved.
    And if Rishi had waited another three months, or even till January, then Conservatives would have enjoyed an extra three or six months in office, with jobs and wages to pay their mortgages. That many Conservative colleagues are not very well off and depend on their salaries is often lost on millionaire Conservative leaders from Mrs Thatcher through David Cameron to Rishi Sunak.
  • Does Shipman explain the real mystery of the July election: why Rishi stood in the pouring rain without an umbrella?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,942
    edited November 17
    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 30% (-1)
    CON: 24% (=)
    RFM: 21% (+1)
    LDM: 12% (+2)
    GRN: 8% (-2)
    SNP: 3% (+1)

    Via @OpiniumResearch, 11-13 Nov.
    Changes w/ 30-31 Oct.

    https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/1857877965356315070

    Given an election campaign Labour will be back up to where they were before.

    Hardly given Labour began on over 40% and ended up on 33% in July.

    Opinium not brilliant for Kemi but still a swing of just under 2% from Labour to the Tories since the GE so not great for Starmer either.

    Brilliant poll for Farage whose Reform party is up 7% on the 14% they got at the GE to 21%. LDs and SNP basically unchanged since the GE like the Tories in voteshare, Greens up but by just 1%
    Opposition parties flourish at this stage of a Parliament, and in local elections it can be any of them who do well. But it's hard to see the Conservative election win evolving from those figures.
    I think Starmer is taking an interestingly honest approach to government.

    A large part of the disillusionment that voters have for politics is down to their experience of populist politicians that promise loads, but fail to deliver. Often because their proposed solutions are undeliverable, and while those work to get elected they are a problem in government.

    Starmer is staking his government on under-promising, but over-delivering, and gambling that voters are mature enough to recognise this in 2029.

    Of course, he has to actually deliver for this to work, and voters to be grateful rather than just bank the gains and demand more.
    Good comment.

    However he doesn't have the "swat the Opposition BS-artists", and his own marketing, in place, I don't think, yet.

    That concerns me a little - he could end up with a trajectory like Biden where much is achieved but is swallowed up in a fog of misleading, oppositionalist waffle.

    In the USA, the people who fell for Trump's shtick are about to get bent over and Trumped good and proper, by the look of it so far. Afaics Trump is appointing some of the nutters to his own cabinet completely over the head of his Chief of Staff.

    One thing that surprises me is how soft Mr Starmer is being on the previous not-a-Government, and not specifically identifying all the sticky-plaster things he is having to do to cover the gaping wounds they left.

    An example are that Tuition fees were cut by inflation in real terms between 2018 and 2024 - that is, 13%. Another is the scores of local authorities in financial trouble, largely because an institutionalisation of significant funding cuts for year after year after year.

    We see that latter in the public realm - even things as simple as white lines markings on roads which have not been maintained, or weeds growing across pavements compared with how it was on Streetview in 2009..

    Plus obviously, unfunded tax breaks which fell straight through onto increasing the national debt.

    Politically, I think they need far stronger on holding the Opposition responsible for the wreckage they created. Even though the Conservative itself is reduced to a collection of pygmies balanced atop a pile of rubble.
    I think Starmer demonstrates a lot of political naivety in how he approaches things. I think his plan is broadly what I posted, but he has hamstrung himself via the Ming Vase strategy of promising no income tax, VAT or employee NI rises and to keep the Triple Lock.

    Clearly money was going to be needed to repair the dilapidated public realm, and it would have been so much better to have more flexibility. Instead we had a budget of stealth taxes that distort economic activity.
    The employer NI increase isn't a stealth tax (but then again given how I get paid I probably pay more attention to it than other people would) but I do question if the decision to charge NI on everyone working more than 8 hours is by design or whether they didn't realise / think about the consequences..
    I had a dig into the stats on hours worked a week and the change in the secondary threshold affects surprisingly few people (though that impact is quite high on people on or around £10,000 per annum). This is taking the OBR's assumption on pass-through as a given.

    The much bigger impact will be on those who work at the minimum wage which is 1) quite high compared with the median wage, with a slow convergence over time 2) cannot be squeezed by employers in the same way other salaries can be. I'd expect lower employment rates and lower hour contracts in this part of the market.

    The other interesting thing is how progressive the change is. People in the lowest income deciles tend to have lower earnings from employment, so in general it is progressive. However, at the top you have lots of very high earners who are self-employed, and are therefore immune to the change.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805

    IanB2 said:

    Almost on topic, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Chalk [the impending Scholz loss] up to another lash of the anti-incumbent fury that has been raging around the world in this year of many elections. The trend is so unmistakable that you can probably see it from outer space. It is certainly visible to, and being twitched over, by Number 10. Labour was the happy beneficiary of anti-incumbency at the July election when the intensity of the loathing for the Conservatives buried them under a landslide defeat. After barely four months in the saddle, now public opinion is bucking like a bronco against Labour.

    Phobia towards incumbents in the western democracies is connected to the stagnation in living standards that has persisted in most developed countries since the financial crisis. Politicians find it very hard to persuade people to feel well disposed towards government when they are not feeling happy about their own circumstances. Discontent has been exacerbated by the post-pandemic spike in inflation.

    Borders are a big obsession with the recast team in Downing Street. So is another b-word, “bills”. One of Number 10’s responses to anti-incumbency will be to talk less about the “five missions”, a concept that Labour MPs complain has never caught the imagination of voters, and focus more intensely on living standards. The improvement in median incomes in the UK has been so meagre since 2009 that earnings growth over the past quarter of a century was probably the slowest in more than 200 years. If you want a core explanation for why so many voters have been feeling so down on politicians for such a long time, then this is good place to look.

    In the first flush of victory in July, many Labour people thought they had time on their side because the size of the parliamentary majority could be interpreted as a 10-year mandate for Sir Keir’s “decade of national renewal”. The paucity of the vote share was a warning against that kind of complacent thinking. Some, even from within the party’s own ranks, are already catastrophising that this is doomed to be a one-term administration. It is way too early to forecast that the Starmer government is destined to suffer that fate. But the Labour leader and his cabinet must try to learn from the growing heap of cast-aside incumbents if they are not to be added to it.

    Anti-incumbency rather than Leon's preferred shift to the right. But our economic problem is not just low earnings growth but also increased prices of staples like housing (rent or buy), food and fuel. And for younger generations, we have the scarcity and depressed salaries of early-career jobs coupled with record levels of income tax (once you add in student loan repayments).
    We have to get used to the idea that significant standard of living growth is a thing of the past for the West, imo.

    Reasons: 1. our aging demographics, 2. the rest of the world can do anything we can but (currently) much cheaper, 3. finite resources.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,668
    Sean_F said:

    There's a lot to digest in all that.

    Public policy as a means to manage the psychological state of the PM. Imagine cancelling a decades-long infrastructure project in an attempt to gee up the Prime Minister.

    The short answer then is that Sunak called an early election because he fundamentally doesn't understand politics.

    I do have to give him credit for sticking around as Tory leader for an extended leadership election despite obviously being beyond sick of the whole thing.

    It makes you wonder why he went into politics.
    For some, at major public schools, it's just a future career path - and the Conservatives feel a better social fit than the alternatives.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805

    Does Shipman explain the real mystery of the July election: why Rishi stood in the pouring rain without an umbrella?

    Some things defy explanation.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,668

    In other words, Isaac Levido still wants to be taken seriously as an campaign guru, so it's vital that everyone knows that it wasn't his fault.

    That's a fair point, actually.
  • IanB2 said:

    Almost on topic, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Chalk [the impending Scholz loss] up to another lash of the anti-incumbent fury that has been raging around the world in this year of many elections. The trend is so unmistakable that you can probably see it from outer space. It is certainly visible to, and being twitched over, by Number 10. Labour was the happy beneficiary of anti-incumbency at the July election when the intensity of the loathing for the Conservatives buried them under a landslide defeat. After barely four months in the saddle, now public opinion is bucking like a bronco against Labour.

    Phobia towards incumbents in the western democracies is connected to the stagnation in living standards that has persisted in most developed countries since the financial crisis. Politicians find it very hard to persuade people to feel well disposed towards government when they are not feeling happy about their own circumstances. Discontent has been exacerbated by the post-pandemic spike in inflation.

    Borders are a big obsession with the recast team in Downing Street. So is another b-word, “bills”. One of Number 10’s responses to anti-incumbency will be to talk less about the “five missions”, a concept that Labour MPs complain has never caught the imagination of voters, and focus more intensely on living standards. The improvement in median incomes in the UK has been so meagre since 2009 that earnings growth over the past quarter of a century was probably the slowest in more than 200 years. If you want a core explanation for why so many voters have been feeling so down on politicians for such a long time, then this is good place to look.

    In the first flush of victory in July, many Labour people thought they had time on their side because the size of the parliamentary majority could be interpreted as a 10-year mandate for Sir Keir’s “decade of national renewal”. The paucity of the vote share was a warning against that kind of complacent thinking. Some, even from within the party’s own ranks, are already catastrophising that this is doomed to be a one-term administration. It is way too early to forecast that the Starmer government is destined to suffer that fate. But the Labour leader and his cabinet must try to learn from the growing heap of cast-aside incumbents if they are not to be added to it.

    As ever, a very good article, by that gentleman.

    I’d further suggest that we’ve been seeing a massive decrease in tribal loyalty to parties, in countries where this is a thing.

    The American election actually fits into that pattern, when you realise that since the Republican / Democrat duopoly emerged, change has happened by takeover of the parties.

    MAGA took over the Republicans and expelled the existing hierarchy.

    Not quite right. Maga took over from the Tea Party which had taken over the Republicans.
  • FPT, but too interesting to leave there:

    Sean_F said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories' problem is that they had 14 years to do something about thought-non-crime and didn't.

    So often, they were all talk and no action. Repeatedly, I’m left wondering what the Conservatives thought they were there for, other than enjoying the fruits of office.
    I think many were secretly embarrassed at being Conservatives and couldn't bring themselves to act to deliver for their base; the fact their members and voters were not only increased the contempt.

    In that sense, it's a bit similar to the difference between the CofE clergy and laity.

    Wonder if the two organisations have something of the same underlying problem. Namely, the generation gap between the supporters (mostly retired in both cases) and the staff/leadership (mostly not retired). If you are a post-boomer, you tend to look at both institutions as fundamentally strange.

    That leads to a couple of questions which neither institution seems to be answering convincingly.
    First is what to do about that- go all-in on serving the minority that you do get (red meat Conservatism, or full-on evangelism or traditional Anglo catholicism), or think about the ninety five percent who never darken your door?

    The other is what's the right attitude to the future? Aim to pass on a functional institution or society, or spend it all on us now?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,877
    edited November 17
    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    In response to @Leon 's enquiry yesterday about Bluesky.

    I've just dropped a toe in the water for the last few weeks, and just tipped over 100 followers. For those familiar with the Twitter timeline, I'd say it is in roughly autumn 2007 by comparison. UK politicos going onto Twitter started in about spring 2007 with early adopters or media tarts, and the process was largely done by about autumn 2008.

    I like there being an absence of deliberate manipulation by Musk and the Muskovites.

    I have a decent Twitter community of a little under 5k followers, since I have been cross-partisan and cross-cutting by design since I started my blog in 2007, and I have maintained my community by trimming dormant follows and followers every year or so. It's going to take some effort to rebuild on Bluesky, but that is currently possible - with lots of new people around. I get follow backs from most.

    On Twitter strategy-type people (eg Mark Pack) are putting in the plumbing interconnection and future influence for their communities. A different set of hub / distributor accounts will emerge from Twitter.

    Automated and ease-of-use tools are not so available. Remember the difference made by Tweetdeck and Hootsuite? I'm not sure how this will go.

    I'm also not sure about Bluesky's future business model.

    One test will be what happens when people who have other platforms to cross-promote from start feeling they have to be on Bluesky, and take their followers with them.

    For me, a couple of my current core niches are shifting to Bluesky - active travel and disabled. Which makes the decision to transfer more likely.

    From my point of view, if I lose the "patriots" and the trolls I won't miss them. Nor the Pfaffers - people focused on football, autos, flags and the far right, which seem to go together, including the Usonian types who have never left Alabama and think their laws rule everywhere. Reform UK can have them.

    An absence of drive by abuse artists posting "the pedestrian should have got out of the way" (tbf I don't get that many), every time someone is run down on a zebra crossing, will be welcome. And they are irrelevant in the UK for the next several years, as in my niche it is all about delivery not diversionary debates.

    Equally, an account with a small number of followers is great for self-expression, just like a blog which only gets 100 readers a week.

    What do you want from it ,and what do you want to put in?

    Further note:

    For people who feel somewhat marginal on Twitter, and want to build a community, now is probably a creative time to be starting on Bluesky; I have one friend working for a charity I support who has built her followers from 500 to nearly 2k+ in the time I have gone from 0 to 100+. She is well-respected with a platform, high quality material, and separate network via the small charity, but has clearly been doing some deliberate promotion to put herself in a position to get things into the more general debate beyond her niche more effectively. In 12 months time that will be more difficult to build die to the sheer number of accounts - if Bluesky gets traction.

    If I were someone like @RochdalePioneers , who I think is trying to build himself up as a local influencer / community hub person (who also happens to be a LibDem) in order to be a 'semi-independent' local councillor with a strong personal mandate, I would take a careful look at this point. It's like people who created Internet Forums (Grant Shapps), Facebook Groups, Blogs, or Twitter Accounts early received some advantage from being a first mover; they get to help write the agenda.

    On numbers, aiui Twitter is smaller than we might think - 300m to 400m monthly active users. Threads is about 250 million, driven by the Meta ecosystem. Bluesky is currently heading towards 20m, so has some way to go in weight. Compare those numbers again in a fortnight or on Christmas day.

    Bluesky's account counter is here (different metric, but not that different):
    https://bsky-users.theo.io/

    There may also be differences by geographical territory, depending on what happens to Twitter. eg Twitter was clamped down on by Brazil. Could it happen in Europe?

    HTH.
  • I bet he was getting contrary advice as well: that going sooner was better.

    I really cannot see a delay as having improved things for the Tories - their problems were far more structural than just people feeling better off or not. The changes there would have been tiny, and would have been dwarfed by the fact that people simply wanted change.

    So if he had delayed, we would see a threader with other stories about the contrary advice: that going earlier would have been better,

    The Tories were doomed.

    edit: and first with an on-topic post!

    Agreed, JJ. They might have held another twenty or thirty seats, or maybe not. They certainly wouldn't hae retained power.

    Strangely, this news,if correct,makes me think better of Sunak (and I've always had a soft spot for him.) It confirms my impression that he was both genuine and independent in his thinking. That doesn't always work, but then he was handed an extreme hospital pass and I don't think he did much to make mattes worse for the country, if not the Party.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,330
    O/T but it's Sunday - interesting piece, definitely not Richard III this time no sir:

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/nov/17/mystery-surrounds-800-year-old-leicester-burial-pit-containing-123-bodies

    Dumped in three cartloads apparently, which points to some very careful excavation and recording.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,521

    FPT, but too interesting to leave there:

    Sean_F said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories' problem is that they had 14 years to do something about thought-non-crime and didn't.

    So often, they were all talk and no action. Repeatedly, I’m left wondering what the Conservatives thought they were there for, other than enjoying the fruits of office.
    I think many were secretly embarrassed at being Conservatives and couldn't bring themselves to act to deliver for their base; the fact their members and voters were not only increased the contempt.

    In that sense, it's a bit similar to the difference between the CofE clergy and laity.

    Wonder if the two organisations have something of the same underlying problem. Namely, the generation gap between the supporters (mostly retired in both cases) and the staff/leadership (mostly not retired). If you are a post-boomer, you tend to look at both institutions as fundamentally strange.

    That leads to a couple of questions which neither institution seems to be answering convincingly.
    First is what to do about that- go all-in on serving the minority that you do get (red meat Conservatism, or full-on evangelism or traditional Anglo catholicism), or think about the ninety five percent who never darken your door?

    The other is what's the right attitude to the future? Aim to pass on a functional institution or society, or spend it all on us now?
    In the case of the Conservatives (unlike the C of E), there’s a big potential support base.

    39% voted for right of centre parties in July, and polling suggests their support is about 45% now. Neither immigration, nor death, is destroying popular support for the right.

    But, a lot of Conservative MP’s give the impression of being uneasy about trying to appeal to that body of support.

    I think it’s mostly due to growing up in an era where upper middle class people and graduates still tended to vote right, and quite abruptly finding that is not the case. They find that many of their peers thoroughly disapprove of them and their supporters.

    Political loyalty now runs vertically, through social classes, rather than horizontally, across them.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,443

    I bet he was getting contrary advice as well: that going sooner was better.

    I really cannot see a delay as having improved things for the Tories - their problems were far more structural than just people feeling better off or not. The changes there would have been tiny, and would have been dwarfed by the fact that people simply wanted change.

    So if he had delayed, we would see a threader with other stories about the contrary advice: that going earlier would have been better,

    The Tories were doomed.

    edit: and first with an on-topic post!

    I think it was pretty mad the Tories went in July rather than October, but I concede there may have been further drip-drip-drip by-elections and defections.

    However, I don't think they'd have done worse than 120 seats had they waited another 3 months - and the economy would have certainly improved.
    Given the last quarter can you be so certain on the economy?

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    edited November 17
    Yes Rishi was a perfectly intelligent and competent person for an elite high pressure technocratic job like PM, if you ignored the voters and having a clear ideology. He had an elite education at Winchester, Oxford and Stanford and had worked at elite investment bank Goldman Sachs where he made lots of money. He did an OK job getting the finances back in order and tightening visa requirements at No 10 in the period he was there.

    As a political campaigner however Rishi was hopeless, arguably even Truss was a better campaigner given she beat him in the 2022 party leadership election. His lack of political instinct also meant he went for a summer rather than autumn election despite the advice of the likes of Levido against that. Rishi was simply not in the same league as the best vote winning campaigners and party leaders like Blair, Cameron and Boris, indeed even Corbyn was a better campaigner than Rishi was.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 30% (-1)
    CON: 24% (=)
    RFM: 21% (+1)
    LDM: 12% (+2)
    GRN: 8% (-2)
    SNP: 3% (+1)

    Via @OpiniumResearch, 11-13 Nov.
    Changes w/ 30-31 Oct.

    https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/1857877965356315070

    Given an election campaign Labour will be back up to where they were before.

    Hardly given Labour began on over 40% and ended up on 33% in July.

    Opinium not brilliant for Kemi but still a swing of just under 2% from Labour to the Tories since the GE so not great for Starmer either.

    Brilliant poll for Farage whose Reform party is up 7% on the 14% they got at the GE to 21%. LDs and SNP basically unchanged since the GE like the Tories in voteshare, Greens up but by just 1%
    Opposition parties flourish at this stage of a Parliament, and in local elections it can be any of them who do well. But it's hard to see the Conservative election win evolving from those figures.
    I think Starmer is taking an interestingly honest approach to government.

    A large part of the disillusionment that voters have for politics is down to their experience of populist politicians that promise loads, but fail to deliver. Often because their proposed solutions are undeliverable, and while those work to get elected they are a problem in government.

    Starmer is staking his government on under-promising, but over-delivering, and gambling that voters are mature enough to recognise this in 2029.

    Of course, he has to actually deliver for this to work, and voters to be grateful rather than just bank the gains and demand more.
    Good comment.

    However he doesn't have the "swat the Opposition BS-artists", and his own marketing, in place, I don't think, yet.

    That concerns me a little - he could end up with a trajectory like Biden where much is achieved but is swallowed up in a fog of misleading, oppositionalist waffle.

    In the USA, the people who fell for Trump's shtick are about to get bent over and Trumped good and proper, by the look of it so far. Afaics Trump is appointing some of the nutters to his own cabinet completely over the head of his Chief of Staff.

    One thing that surprises me is how soft Mr Starmer is being on the previous not-a-Government, and not specifically identifying all the sticky-plaster things he is having to do to cover the gaping wounds they left.

    An example are that Tuition fees were cut by inflation in real terms between 2018 and 2024 - that is, 13%. Another is the scores of local authorities in financial trouble, largely because an institutionalisation of significant funding cuts for year after year after year.

    We see that latter in the public realm - even things as simple as white lines markings on roads which have not been maintained, or weeds growing across pavements compared with how it was on Streetview in 2009..

    Plus obviously, unfunded tax breaks which fell straight through onto increasing the national debt.

    Politically, I think they need far stronger on holding the Opposition responsible for the wreckage they created. Even though the Conservative itself is reduced to a collection of pygmies balanced atop a pile of rubble.
    I think Starmer demonstrates a lot of political naivety in how he approaches things. I think his plan is broadly what I posted, but he has hamstrung himself via the Ming Vase strategy of promising no income tax, VAT or employee NI rises and to keep the Triple Lock.

    Clearly money was going to be needed to repair the dilapidated public realm, and it would have been so much better to have more flexibility. Instead we had a budget of stealth taxes that distort economic activity.
    The employer NI increase isn't a stealth tax (but then again given how I get paid I probably pay more attention to it than other people would) but I do question if the decision to charge NI on everyone working more than 8 hours is by design or whether they didn't realise / think about the consequences..
    I had a dig into the stats on hours worked a week and the change in the secondary threshold affects surprisingly few people (though that impact is quite high on people on or around £10,000 per annum). This is taking the OBR's assumption on pass-through as a given.

    The much bigger impact will be on those who work at the minimum wage which is 1) quite high compared with the median wage, with a slow convergence over time 2) cannot be squeezed by employers in the same way other salaries can be. I'd expect lower employment rates and lower hour contracts in this part of the market.

    The other interesting thing is how progressive the change is. People in the lowest income deciles tend to have lower earnings from employment, so in general it is progressive. However, at the top you have lots of very high earners who are self-employed, and are therefore immune to the change.
    I wouldn't say that the those very high earners are self-employed. Most will be contractors (working either via a limited company or an umbrella) so will be impacted to some extent.

    I was very surprised that the employer NI change didn't impact dividend tax which shows that HMRC remembers that the last time they cut Employer NI they didn't cut the dividend tax increase they implemented at the same time as the last increase...
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    In response to @Leon 's enquiry yesterday about Bluesky.

    I've just dropped a toe in the water for the last few weeks, and just tipped over 100 followers. For those familiar with the Twitter timeline, I'd say it is in roughly autumn 2007 by comparison. UK politicos going onto Twitter started in about spring 2007 with early adopters or media tarts, and the process was largely done by about autumn 2008.

    I like there being an absence of deliberate manipulation by Musk and the Muskovites.

    I have a decent Twitter community of a little under 5k followers, since I have been cross-partisan and cross-cutting by design since I started my blog in 2007, and I have maintained my community by trimming dormant follows and followers every year or so. It's going to take some effort to rebuild on Bluesky, but that is currently possible - with lots of new people around. I get follow backs from most.

    On Twitter strategy-type people (eg Mark Pack) are putting in the plumbing interconnection and future influence for their communities. A different set of hub / distributor accounts will emerge from Twitter.

    Automated and ease-of-use tools are not so available. Remember the difference made by Tweetdeck and Hootsuite? I'm not sure how this will go.

    I'm also not sure about Bluesky's future business model.

    One test will be what happens when people who have other platforms to cross-promote from start feeling they have to be on Bluesky, and take their followers with them.

    For me, a couple of my current core niches are shifting to Bluesky - active travel and disabled. Which makes the decision to transfer more likely.

    From my point of view, if I lose the "patriots" and the trolls I won't miss them. Nor the Pfaffers - people focused on football, autos, flags and the far right, which seem to go together, including the Usonian types who have never left Alabama and think their laws rule everywhere. Reform UK can have them.

    An absence of drive by abuse artists posting "the pedestrian should have got out of the way" (tbf I don't get that many), every time someone is run down on a zebra crossing, will be welcome. And they are irrelevant in the UK for the next several years, as in my niche it is all about delivery not diversionary debates.

    Equally, an account with a small number of followers is great for self-expression, just like a blog which only gets 100 readers a week.

    What do you want from it ,and what do you want to put in?

    Further note:

    For people who feel somewhat marginal on Twitter, and want to build a community, now is probably a creative time to be starting on Bluesky; I have one friend working for a charity I support who has built her followers from 500 to nearly 2k+ in the time I have gone from 0 to 100+. She is well-respected with a platform, high quality material, and separate network via the small charity, but has clearly been doing some deliberate promotion to put herself in a position to get things into the more general debate beyond her niche more effectively. In 12 months time that will be more difficult to build die to the sheer number of accounts - if Bluesky gets traction.

    If I were someone like @RochdalePioneers , who I think is trying to build himself up as a local influencer / community hub person (who also happens to be a LibDem) in order to be a 'semi-independent' local councillor with a strong personal mandate, I would take a careful look at this point. It's like people who created Internet Forums (Grant Shapps), Facebook Groups, Blogs, or Twitter Accounts early received some advantage from being a first mover; they get to help write the agenda.

    On numbers, aiui Twitter is smaller than we might think - 300m to 400m monthly active users. Threads is about 250 million, driven by the Meta ecosystem. Bluesky is currently heading towards 20m, so has some way to go in weight. Compare those numbers again in a fortnight or on Christmas day.

    Bluesky's account counter is here (different metric, but not that different):
    https://bsky-users.theo.io/

    There may also be differences by geographical territory, depending on what happens to Twitter. eg Twitter was clamped down on by Brazil. Could it happen in Europe?

    HTH.
    What if Musk buys Bluesky ?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    In response to @Leon 's enquiry yesterday about Bluesky.

    I've just dropped a toe in the water for the last few weeks, and just tipped over 100 followers. For those familiar with the Twitter timeline, I'd say it is in roughly autumn 2007 by comparison. UK politicos going onto Twitter started in about spring 2007 with early adopters or media tarts, and the process was largely done by about autumn 2008.

    I like there being an absence of deliberate manipulation by Musk and the Muskovites.

    I have a decent Twitter community of a little under 5k followers, since I have been cross-partisan and cross-cutting by design since I started my blog in 2007, and I have maintained my community by trimming dormant follows and followers every year or so. It's going to take some effort to rebuild on Bluesky, but that is currently possible - with lots of new people around. I get follow backs from most.

    On Twitter strategy-type people (eg Mark Pack) are putting in the plumbing interconnection and future influence for their communities. A different set of hub / distributor accounts will emerge from Twitter.

    Automated and ease-of-use tools are not so available. Remember the difference made by Tweetdeck and Hootsuite? I'm not sure how this will go.

    I'm also not sure about Bluesky's future business model.

    One test will be what happens when people who have other platforms to cross-promote from start feeling they have to be on Bluesky, and take their followers with them.

    For me, a couple of my current core niches are shifting to Bluesky - active travel and disabled. Which makes the decision to transfer more likely.

    From my point of view, if I lose the "patriots" and the trolls I won't miss them. Nor the Pfaffers - people focused on football, autos, flags and the far right, which seem to go together, including the Usonian types who have never left Alabama and think their laws rule everywhere. Reform UK can have them.

    An absence of drive by abuse artists posting "the pedestrian should have got out of the way" (tbf I don't get that many), every time someone is run down on a zebra crossing, will be welcome. And they are irrelevant in the UK for the next several years, as in my niche it is all about delivery not diversionary debates.

    Equally, an account with a small number of followers is great for self-expression, just like a blog which only gets 100 readers a week.

    What do you want from it ,and what do you want to put in?

    Further note:

    For people who feel somewhat marginal on Twitter, and want to build a community, now is probably a creative time to be starting on Bluesky; I have one friend working for a charity I support who has built her followers from 500 to nearly 2k+ in the time I have gone from 0 to 100+. She is well-respected with a platform, high quality material, and separate network via the small charity, but has clearly been doing some deliberate promotion to put herself in a position to get things into the more general debate beyond her niche more effectively. In 12 months time that will be more difficult to build die to the sheer number of accounts - if Bluesky gets traction.

    If I were someone like @RochdalePioneers , who I think is trying to build himself up as a local influencer / community hub person (who also happens to be a LibDem) in order to be a 'semi-independent' local councillor with a strong personal mandate, I would take a careful look at this point. It's like people who created Internet Forums (Grant Shapps), Facebook Groups, Blogs, or Twitter Accounts early received some advantage from being a first mover; they get to help write the agenda.

    On numbers, aiui Twitter is smaller than we might think - 300m to 400m monthly active users. Threads is about 250 million, driven by the Meta ecosystem. Bluesky is currently heading towards 20m, so has some way to go in weight. Compare those numbers again in a fortnight or on Christmas day.

    Bluesky's account counter is here (different metric, but not that different):
    https://bsky-users.theo.io/

    There may also be differences by geographical territory, depending on what happens to Twitter. eg Twitter was clamped down on by Brazil. Could it happen in Europe?

    HTH.
    What if Musk buys Bluesky ?
    He can't because the network is open source and open ended - people could just move to another company using the same data feed.

    It's basically designed to be a modern day usenet
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,668

    FPT, but too interesting to leave there:

    Sean_F said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories' problem is that they had 14 years to do something about thought-non-crime and didn't.

    So often, they were all talk and no action. Repeatedly, I’m left wondering what the Conservatives thought they were there for, other than enjoying the fruits of office.
    I think many were secretly embarrassed at being Conservatives and couldn't bring themselves to act to deliver for their base; the fact their members and voters were not only increased the contempt.

    In that sense, it's a bit similar to the difference between the CofE clergy and laity.

    Wonder if the two organisations have something of the same underlying problem. Namely, the generation gap between the supporters (mostly retired in both cases) and the staff/leadership (mostly not retired). If you are a post-boomer, you tend to look at both institutions as fundamentally strange.

    That leads to a couple of questions which neither institution seems to be answering convincingly.
    First is what to do about that- go all-in on serving the minority that you do get (red meat Conservatism, or full-on evangelism or traditional Anglo catholicism), or think about the ninety five percent who never darken your door?

    The other is what's the right attitude to the future? Aim to pass on a functional institution or society, or spend it all on us now?
    I don't think it's generational.

    I'm a Millennial, am mildly interested in some aspects of traditional services, and feel alienated by CofE leadership that seems to be embarrassed by the institution, and its history, and has totally different values to me.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,668

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    In response to @Leon 's enquiry yesterday about Bluesky.

    I've just dropped a toe in the water for the last few weeks, and just tipped over 100 followers. For those familiar with the Twitter timeline, I'd say it is in roughly autumn 2007 by comparison. UK politicos going onto Twitter started in about spring 2007 with early adopters or media tarts, and the process was largely done by about autumn 2008.

    I like there being an absence of deliberate manipulation by Musk and the Muskovites.

    I have a decent Twitter community of a little under 5k followers, since I have been cross-partisan and cross-cutting by design since I started my blog in 2007, and I have maintained my community by trimming dormant follows and followers every year or so. It's going to take some effort to rebuild on Bluesky, but that is currently possible - with lots of new people around. I get follow backs from most.

    On Twitter strategy-type people (eg Mark Pack) are putting in the plumbing interconnection and future influence for their communities. A different set of hub / distributor accounts will emerge from Twitter.

    Automated and ease-of-use tools are not so available. Remember the difference made by Tweetdeck and Hootsuite? I'm not sure how this will go.

    I'm also not sure about Bluesky's future business model.

    One test will be what happens when people who have other platforms to cross-promote from start feeling they have to be on Bluesky, and take their followers with them.

    For me, a couple of my current core niches are shifting to Bluesky - active travel and disabled. Which makes the decision to transfer more likely.

    From my point of view, if I lose the "patriots" and the trolls I won't miss them. Nor the Pfaffers - people focused on football, autos, flags and the far right, which seem to go together, including the Usonian types who have never left Alabama and think their laws rule everywhere. Reform UK can have them.

    An absence of drive by abuse artists posting "the pedestrian should have got out of the way" (tbf I don't get that many), every time someone is run down on a zebra crossing, will be welcome. And they are irrelevant in the UK for the next several years, as in my niche it is all about delivery not diversionary debates.

    Equally, an account with a small number of followers is great for self-expression, just like a blog which only gets 100 readers a week.

    What do you want from it ,and what do you want to put in?

    Further note:

    For people who feel somewhat marginal on Twitter, and want to build a community, now is probably a creative time to be starting on Bluesky; I have one friend working for a charity I support who has built her followers from 500 to nearly 2k+ in the time I have gone from 0 to 100+. She is well-respected with a platform, high quality material, and separate network via the small charity, but has clearly been doing some deliberate promotion to put herself in a position to get things into the more general debate beyond her niche more effectively. In 12 months time that will be more difficult to build die to the sheer number of accounts - if Bluesky gets traction.

    If I were someone like @RochdalePioneers , who I think is trying to build himself up as a local influencer / community hub person (who also happens to be a LibDem) in order to be a 'semi-independent' local councillor with a strong personal mandate, I would take a careful look at this point. It's like people who created Internet Forums (Grant Shapps), Facebook Groups, Blogs, or Twitter Accounts early received some advantage from being a first mover; they get to help write the agenda.

    On numbers, aiui Twitter is smaller than we might think - 300m to 400m monthly active users. Threads is about 250 million, driven by the Meta ecosystem. Bluesky is currently heading towards 20m, so has some way to go in weight. Compare those numbers again in a fortnight or on Christmas day.

    Bluesky's account counter is here (different metric, but not that different):
    https://bsky-users.theo.io/

    There may also be differences by geographical territory, depending on what happens to Twitter. eg Twitter was clamped down on by Brazil. Could it happen in Europe?

    HTH.
    What if Musk buys Bluesky ?
    What happened to Mastadon?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,668

    I bet he was getting contrary advice as well: that going sooner was better.

    I really cannot see a delay as having improved things for the Tories - their problems were far more structural than just people feeling better off or not. The changes there would have been tiny, and would have been dwarfed by the fact that people simply wanted change.

    So if he had delayed, we would see a threader with other stories about the contrary advice: that going earlier would have been better,

    The Tories were doomed.

    edit: and first with an on-topic post!

    I think it was pretty mad the Tories went in July rather than October, but I concede there may have been further drip-drip-drip by-elections and defections.

    However, I don't think they'd have done worse than 120 seats had they waited another 3 months - and the economy would have certainly improved.
    Given the last quarter can you be so certain on the economy?

    Well, I don't think the Tories would have spent a whole 3 months talking it down and building up to a Budget of Doom that delayed all hiring and investment decisions before, and suppressed them after.

    So there is that.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,668
    Sean_F said:

    FPT, but too interesting to leave there:

    Sean_F said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories' problem is that they had 14 years to do something about thought-non-crime and didn't.

    So often, they were all talk and no action. Repeatedly, I’m left wondering what the Conservatives thought they were there for, other than enjoying the fruits of office.
    I think many were secretly embarrassed at being Conservatives and couldn't bring themselves to act to deliver for their base; the fact their members and voters were not only increased the contempt.

    In that sense, it's a bit similar to the difference between the CofE clergy and laity.

    Wonder if the two organisations have something of the same underlying problem. Namely, the generation gap between the supporters (mostly retired in both cases) and the staff/leadership (mostly not retired). If you are a post-boomer, you tend to look at both institutions as fundamentally strange.

    That leads to a couple of questions which neither institution seems to be answering convincingly.
    First is what to do about that- go all-in on serving the minority that you do get (red meat Conservatism, or full-on evangelism or traditional Anglo catholicism), or think about the ninety five percent who never darken your door?

    The other is what's the right attitude to the future? Aim to pass on a functional institution or society, or spend it all on us now?
    In the case of the Conservatives (unlike the C of E), there’s a big potential support base.

    39% voted for right of centre parties in July, and polling suggests their support is about 45% now. Neither immigration, nor death, is destroying popular support for the right.

    But, a lot of Conservative MP’s give the impression of being uneasy about trying to appeal to that body of support.

    I think it’s mostly due to growing up in an era where upper middle class people and graduates still tended to vote right, and quite abruptly finding that is not the case. They find that many of their peers thoroughly disapprove of them and their supporters.

    Political loyalty now runs vertically, through social classes, rather than horizontally, across them.
    I think the Conservatives are in big trouble if Labour get a better grip of immigration than they did.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,668
    @Sean_F that suggests they either need to get over it or a new generation of Conservative leaders is needed who don't have the same hang-ups.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    In the wake of Welby's resignation, Sir Ed Davey on Kuenssberg says the Leader of the Welsh LDs, Jane Dodds should consider her position given her role as C of E safeguarding manager and a previous failure to arrange a follow up meeting on safeguarding issues related to a now deceased former Bishop of Chester and a young male ordinand

    https://nation.cymru/news/welsh-lib-dem-leader-committed-grave-error-of-judgement-in-handling-of-sex-abuse-case/
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,141
    edited November 17
    eek said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    In response to @Leon 's enquiry yesterday about Bluesky.

    I've just dropped a toe in the water for the last few weeks, and just tipped over 100 followers. For those familiar with the Twitter timeline, I'd say it is in roughly autumn 2007 by comparison. UK politicos going onto Twitter started in about spring 2007 with early adopters or media tarts, and the process was largely done by about autumn 2008.

    I like there being an absence of deliberate manipulation by Musk and the Muskovites.

    I have a decent Twitter community of a little under 5k followers, since I have been cross-partisan and cross-cutting by design since I started my blog in 2007, and I have maintained my community by trimming dormant follows and followers every year or so. It's going to take some effort to rebuild on Bluesky, but that is currently possible - with lots of new people around. I get follow backs from most.

    On Twitter strategy-type people (eg Mark Pack) are putting in the plumbing interconnection and future influence for their communities. A different set of hub / distributor accounts will emerge from Twitter.

    Automated and ease-of-use tools are not so available. Remember the difference made by Tweetdeck and Hootsuite? I'm not sure how this will go.

    I'm also not sure about Bluesky's future business model.

    One test will be what happens when people who have other platforms to cross-promote from start feeling they have to be on Bluesky, and take their followers with them.

    For me, a couple of my current core niches are shifting to Bluesky - active travel and disabled. Which makes the decision to transfer more likely.

    From my point of view, if I lose the "patriots" and the trolls I won't miss them. Nor the Pfaffers - people focused on football, autos, flags and the far right, which seem to go together, including the Usonian types who have never left Alabama and think their laws rule everywhere. Reform UK can have them.

    An absence of drive by abuse artists posting "the pedestrian should have got out of the way" (tbf I don't get that many), every time someone is run down on a zebra crossing, will be welcome. And they are irrelevant in the UK for the next several years, as in my niche it is all about delivery not diversionary debates.

    Equally, an account with a small number of followers is great for self-expression, just like a blog which only gets 100 readers a week.

    What do you want from it ,and what do you want to put in?

    Further note:

    For people who feel somewhat marginal on Twitter, and want to build a community, now is probably a creative time to be starting on Bluesky; I have one friend working for a charity I support who has built her followers from 500 to nearly 2k+ in the time I have gone from 0 to 100+. She is well-respected with a platform, high quality material, and separate network via the small charity, but has clearly been doing some deliberate promotion to put herself in a position to get things into the more general debate beyond her niche more effectively. In 12 months time that will be more difficult to build die to the sheer number of accounts - if Bluesky gets traction.

    If I were someone like @RochdalePioneers , who I think is trying to build himself up as a local influencer / community hub person (who also happens to be a LibDem) in order to be a 'semi-independent' local councillor with a strong personal mandate, I would take a careful look at this point. It's like people who created Internet Forums (Grant Shapps), Facebook Groups, Blogs, or Twitter Accounts early received some advantage from being a first mover; they get to help write the agenda.

    On numbers, aiui Twitter is smaller than we might think - 300m to 400m monthly active users. Threads is about 250 million, driven by the Meta ecosystem. Bluesky is currently heading towards 20m, so has some way to go in weight. Compare those numbers again in a fortnight or on Christmas day.

    Bluesky's account counter is here (different metric, but not that different):
    https://bsky-users.theo.io/

    There may also be differences by geographical territory, depending on what happens to Twitter. eg Twitter was clamped down on by Brazil. Could it happen in Europe?

    HTH.
    What if Musk buys Bluesky ?
    He can't because the network is open source and open ended - people could just move to another company using the same data feed.

    It's basically designed to be a modern day usenet
    I saw a suggestion that Bluesky should just rename themselves Twitter. I assume Musk will own the copyright but surely in his adolescent desire to rebrand as X he’ll be happy to dump the name and wee blue bird.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, but too interesting to leave there:

    Sean_F said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories' problem is that they had 14 years to do something about thought-non-crime and didn't.

    So often, they were all talk and no action. Repeatedly, I’m left wondering what the Conservatives thought they were there for, other than enjoying the fruits of office.
    I think many were secretly embarrassed at being Conservatives and couldn't bring themselves to act to deliver for their base; the fact their members and voters were not only increased the contempt.

    In that sense, it's a bit similar to the difference between the CofE clergy and laity.

    Wonder if the two organisations have something of the same underlying problem. Namely, the generation gap between the supporters (mostly retired in both cases) and the staff/leadership (mostly not retired). If you are a post-boomer, you tend to look at both institutions as fundamentally strange.

    That leads to a couple of questions which neither institution seems to be answering convincingly.
    First is what to do about that- go all-in on serving the minority that you do get (red meat Conservatism, or full-on evangelism or traditional Anglo catholicism), or think about the ninety five percent who never darken your door?

    The other is what's the right attitude to the future? Aim to pass on a functional institution or society, or spend it all on us now?
    In the case of the Conservatives (unlike the C of E), there’s a big potential support base.

    39% voted for right of centre parties in July, and polling suggests their support is about 45% now. Neither immigration, nor death, is destroying popular support for the right.

    But, a lot of Conservative MP’s give the impression of being uneasy about trying to appeal to that body of support.

    I think it’s mostly due to growing up in an era where upper middle class people and graduates still tended to vote right, and quite abruptly finding that is not the case. They find that many of their peers thoroughly disapprove of them and their supporters.

    Political loyalty now runs vertically, through social classes, rather than horizontally, across them.
    I think the Conservatives are in big trouble if Labour get a better grip of immigration than they did.
    They won't, Farage might
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,894

    Sean_F said:

    Fishing said:

    Stereodog said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.

    But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.

    Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.

    Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb

    https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
    Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
    Probably.
    I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station.
    The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
    You don't build one, you build a dozen.

    And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."

    One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.

    Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
    Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
    It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
    As I've pointed out many times, the west giving in to Putin's nuclear blackmail has made the world a much more dangerous place. Now every tinpot regime with expansionist ideas will realise that having nukes means the civilised world will just give in to whatever they wish. Why spend billions on a military that can often be defeated - and which can turn against you - and which puts you in hock to supplier countries, when you can build a nuke for less?
    Of the many, many problems inflicted by an old fool's dithering, that's obviously not one. It's been blindingly obvious since the 40s that nuclear weapons have a powerful deterrent effect, and ghastly regimes haven't needed the Ukraine war to demonstrate that to them. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa are varying examples of tinpot regimes who realised this long before 2022.


    What the war and Biden's dithering has done is demonstrate to democracies like Ukraine, but perhaps also South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Japan and others, that they can't rely on the US shield. Again, some have been realising that since 2016 or before - Ukraine is not the only example of America's chronic unreliability as an ally. That is where the true damage to the nuclear proliferation framework lies.
    “To be America’s enemy is dangerous. To be America’s friend is fatal.”
    The original was better:

    I would rather be the Englishman’s enemy than their friend. For they buy their enemies and sell their friends.
    Who said/wrote that?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,888
    Sean_F said:

    FPT, but too interesting to leave there:

    Sean_F said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories' problem is that they had 14 years to do something about thought-non-crime and didn't.

    So often, they were all talk and no action. Repeatedly, I’m left wondering what the Conservatives thought they were there for, other than enjoying the fruits of office.
    I think many were secretly embarrassed at being Conservatives and couldn't bring themselves to act to deliver for their base; the fact their members and voters were not only increased the contempt.

    In that sense, it's a bit similar to the difference between the CofE clergy and laity.

    Wonder if the two organisations have something of the same underlying problem. Namely, the generation gap between the supporters (mostly retired in both cases) and the staff/leadership (mostly not retired). If you are a post-boomer, you tend to look at both institutions as fundamentally strange.

    That leads to a couple of questions which neither institution seems to be answering convincingly.
    First is what to do about that- go all-in on serving the minority that you do get (red meat Conservatism, or full-on evangelism or traditional Anglo catholicism), or think about the ninety five percent who never darken your door?

    The other is what's the right attitude to the future? Aim to pass on a functional institution or society, or spend it all on us now?
    In the case of the Conservatives (unlike the C of E), there’s a big potential support base.

    39% voted for right of centre parties in July, and polling suggests their support is about 45% now. Neither immigration, nor death, is destroying popular support for the right.

    But, a lot of Conservative MP’s give the impression of being uneasy about trying to appeal to that body of support.

    I think it’s mostly due to growing up in an era where upper middle class people and graduates still tended to vote right, and quite abruptly finding that is not the case. They find that many of their peers thoroughly disapprove of them and their supporters.

    Political loyalty now runs vertically, through social classes, rather than horizontally, across them.
    I suspect you are wrong in assuming RefCon combined are as a unit between 39% and 45% of the voting public. Moderate Conservatives who supported Sunak will not be minded to support MAGA- lite Faragista Conservatives.

    Seat by seat electoral arrangements between Farage and Badenoch on the other hand could well eviscerate an unpopular Labour Party. However you can't guarantee which of Farage or Badenoch will be in the driving seat after such an event.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,141
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, but too interesting to leave there:

    Sean_F said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories' problem is that they had 14 years to do something about thought-non-crime and didn't.

    So often, they were all talk and no action. Repeatedly, I’m left wondering what the Conservatives thought they were there for, other than enjoying the fruits of office.
    I think many were secretly embarrassed at being Conservatives and couldn't bring themselves to act to deliver for their base; the fact their members and voters were not only increased the contempt.

    In that sense, it's a bit similar to the difference between the CofE clergy and laity.

    Wonder if the two organisations have something of the same underlying problem. Namely, the generation gap between the supporters (mostly retired in both cases) and the staff/leadership (mostly not retired). If you are a post-boomer, you tend to look at both institutions as fundamentally strange.

    That leads to a couple of questions which neither institution seems to be answering convincingly.
    First is what to do about that- go all-in on serving the minority that you do get (red meat Conservatism, or full-on evangelism or traditional Anglo catholicism), or think about the ninety five percent who never darken your door?

    The other is what's the right attitude to the future? Aim to pass on a functional institution or society, or spend it all on us now?
    In the case of the Conservatives (unlike the C of E), there’s a big potential support base.

    39% voted for right of centre parties in July, and polling suggests their support is about 45% now. Neither immigration, nor death, is destroying popular support for the right.

    But, a lot of Conservative MP’s give the impression of being uneasy about trying to appeal to that body of support.

    I think it’s mostly due to growing up in an era where upper middle class people and graduates still tended to vote right, and quite abruptly finding that is not the case. They find that many of their peers thoroughly disapprove of them and their supporters.

    Political loyalty now runs vertically, through social classes, rather than horizontally, across them.
    I think the Conservatives are in big trouble if Labour get a better grip of immigration than they did.
    They won't, Farage might
    Is there much evidence of Farage being a master of the tedious, administrative grind necessary to sort out the immigration/migrant problem?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    edited November 17
    Sean_F said:

    FPT, but too interesting to leave there:

    Sean_F said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories' problem is that they had 14 years to do something about thought-non-crime and didn't.

    So often, they were all talk and no action. Repeatedly, I’m left wondering what the Conservatives thought they were there for, other than enjoying the fruits of office.
    I think many were secretly embarrassed at being Conservatives and couldn't bring themselves to act to deliver for their base; the fact their members and voters were not only increased the contempt.

    In that sense, it's a bit similar to the difference between the CofE clergy and laity.

    Wonder if the two organisations have something of the same underlying problem. Namely, the generation gap between the supporters (mostly retired in both cases) and the staff/leadership (mostly not retired). If you are a post-boomer, you tend to look at both institutions as fundamentally strange.

    That leads to a couple of questions which neither institution seems to be answering convincingly.
    First is what to do about that- go all-in on serving the minority that you do get (red meat Conservatism, or full-on evangelism or traditional Anglo catholicism), or think about the ninety five percent who never darken your door?

    The other is what's the right attitude to the future? Aim to pass on a functional institution or society, or spend it all on us now?
    In the case of the Conservatives (unlike the C of E), there’s a big potential support base.

    39% voted for right of centre parties in July, and polling suggests their support is about 45% now. Neither immigration, nor death, is destroying popular support for the right.

    But, a lot of Conservative MP’s give the impression of being uneasy about trying to appeal to that body of support.

    I think it’s mostly due to growing up in an era where upper middle class people and graduates still tended to vote right, and quite abruptly finding that is not the case. They find that many of their peers thoroughly disapprove of them and their supporters.

    Political loyalty now runs vertically, through social classes, rather than horizontally, across them.
    The C of E don't need to get a majority to form a government (although on the last census 46% in England and Wales still described themselves as Christian which is even higher than the 45% now backing the Tories and Reform combined).

    However again with the C of E like the Tories their upper middle class often Oxbridge and private school educated senior leadership are somewhat suspicious of the growth in their area. With the right the biggest growth in support in the UK is amongst white working class ex Labour Leave voters who are ferociously anti immigration and couldn't give a toss about reaching net zero (and now often voting Reform having voted for Boris in 2019 and often pro Trump). With Christianity the biggest growth in the UK is amongst hardline evangelica,l very informal Pentecostal and charismatic independent evangelical churches with multi ethnic congregations but which often take a hard line in opposing same sex marriage etc.

    However most of the peers of senior Tory MPs and frontbenchers and Anglican Bishops will be upper middle class Remainers, open to immigration and concerned about climate change and liberal on LGBT issues and pro same sex marriage and who despise Trump and everything he stands for. So their snobbery holds them back from appealing to the growth area in their core market
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,471

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, but too interesting to leave there:

    Sean_F said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories' problem is that they had 14 years to do something about thought-non-crime and didn't.

    So often, they were all talk and no action. Repeatedly, I’m left wondering what the Conservatives thought they were there for, other than enjoying the fruits of office.
    I think many were secretly embarrassed at being Conservatives and couldn't bring themselves to act to deliver for their base; the fact their members and voters were not only increased the contempt.

    In that sense, it's a bit similar to the difference between the CofE clergy and laity.

    Wonder if the two organisations have something of the same underlying problem. Namely, the generation gap between the supporters (mostly retired in both cases) and the staff/leadership (mostly not retired). If you are a post-boomer, you tend to look at both institutions as fundamentally strange.

    That leads to a couple of questions which neither institution seems to be answering convincingly.
    First is what to do about that- go all-in on serving the minority that you do get (red meat Conservatism, or full-on evangelism or traditional Anglo catholicism), or think about the ninety five percent who never darken your door?

    The other is what's the right attitude to the future? Aim to pass on a functional institution or society, or spend it all on us now?
    In the case of the Conservatives (unlike the C of E), there’s a big potential support base.

    39% voted for right of centre parties in July, and polling suggests their support is about 45% now. Neither immigration, nor death, is destroying popular support for the right.

    But, a lot of Conservative MP’s give the impression of being uneasy about trying to appeal to that body of support.

    I think it’s mostly due to growing up in an era where upper middle class people and graduates still tended to vote right, and quite abruptly finding that is not the case. They find that many of their peers thoroughly disapprove of them and their supporters.

    Political loyalty now runs vertically, through social classes, rather than horizontally, across them.
    I think the Conservatives are in big trouble if Labour get a better grip of immigration than they did.
    They won't, Farage might
    Is there much evidence of Farage being a master of the tedious, administrative grind necessary to sort out the immigration/migrant problem?
    Given how often he crosses the Atlantic, he has a lot of direct experience of border control.
    Though finding his way to Clacton is more challenging.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    In response to @Leon 's enquiry yesterday about Bluesky.

    I've just dropped a toe in the water for the last few weeks, and just tipped over 100 followers. For those familiar with the Twitter timeline, I'd say it is in roughly autumn 2007 by comparison. UK politicos going onto Twitter started in about spring 2007 with early adopters or media tarts, and the process was largely done by about autumn 2008.

    I like there being an absence of deliberate manipulation by Musk and the Muskovites.

    I have a decent Twitter community of a little under 5k followers, since I have been cross-partisan and cross-cutting by design since I started my blog in 2007, and I have maintained my community by trimming dormant follows and followers every year or so. It's going to take some effort to rebuild on Bluesky, but that is currently possible - with lots of new people around. I get follow backs from most.

    On Twitter strategy-type people (eg Mark Pack) are putting in the plumbing interconnection and future influence for their communities. A different set of hub / distributor accounts will emerge from Twitter.

    Automated and ease-of-use tools are not so available. Remember the difference made by Tweetdeck and Hootsuite? I'm not sure how this will go.

    I'm also not sure about Bluesky's future business model.

    One test will be what happens when people who have other platforms to cross-promote from start feeling they have to be on Bluesky, and take their followers with them.

    For me, a couple of my current core niches are shifting to Bluesky - active travel and disabled. Which makes the decision to transfer more likely.

    From my point of view, if I lose the "patriots" and the trolls I won't miss them. Nor the Pfaffers - people focused on football, autos, flags and the far right, which seem to go together, including the Usonian types who have never left Alabama and think their laws rule everywhere. Reform UK can have them.

    An absence of drive by abuse artists posting "the pedestrian should have got out of the way" (tbf I don't get that many), every time someone is run down on a zebra crossing, will be welcome. And they are irrelevant in the UK for the next several years, as in my niche it is all about delivery not diversionary debates.

    Equally, an account with a small number of followers is great for self-expression, just like a blog which only gets 100 readers a week.

    What do you want from it ,and what do you want to put in?

    Further note:

    For people who feel somewhat marginal on Twitter, and want to build a community, now is probably a creative time to be starting on Bluesky; I have one friend working for a charity I support who has built her followers from 500 to nearly 2k+ in the time I have gone from 0 to 100+. She is well-respected with a platform, high quality material, and separate network via the small charity, but has clearly been doing some deliberate promotion to put herself in a position to get things into the more general debate beyond her niche more effectively. In 12 months time that will be more difficult to build die to the sheer number of accounts - if Bluesky gets traction.

    If I were someone like @RochdalePioneers , who I think is trying to build himself up as a local influencer / community hub person (who also happens to be a LibDem) in order to be a 'semi-independent' local councillor with a strong personal mandate, I would take a careful look at this point. It's like people who created Internet Forums (Grant Shapps), Facebook Groups, Blogs, or Twitter Accounts early received some advantage from being a first mover; they get to help write the agenda.

    On numbers, aiui Twitter is smaller than we might think - 300m to 400m monthly active users. Threads is about 250 million, driven by the Meta ecosystem. Bluesky is currently heading towards 20m, so has some way to go in weight. Compare those numbers again in a fortnight or on Christmas day.

    Bluesky's account counter is here (different metric, but not that different):
    https://bsky-users.theo.io/

    There may also be differences by geographical territory, depending on what happens to Twitter. eg Twitter was clamped down on by Brazil. Could it happen in Europe?

    HTH.
    What if Musk buys Bluesky ?
    What happened to Mastadon?
    It was unusable - I'm techie and happy to jump through hoops but the hoops were too much for the reward.

    Mastadon also meant you could only see people on the sites your mastadon server was federated with (and most people had do choice over the servers that were connected together) which meant if you have widely different interests you needed to be on multiple servers...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,945
    Btw, F1 have put up last year's Vegas race, in full, on YouTube:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqq0AmnGwqI
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    edited November 17
    Omnium said:

    Sean_F said:

    Fishing said:

    Stereodog said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.

    But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.

    Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.

    Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb

    https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
    Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
    Probably.
    I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station.
    The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
    You don't build one, you build a dozen.

    And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."

    One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.

    Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
    Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
    It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
    As I've pointed out many times, the west giving in to Putin's nuclear blackmail has made the world a much more dangerous place. Now every tinpot regime with expansionist ideas will realise that having nukes means the civilised world will just give in to whatever they wish. Why spend billions on a military that can often be defeated - and which can turn against you - and which puts you in hock to supplier countries, when you can build a nuke for less?
    Of the many, many problems inflicted by an old fool's dithering, that's obviously not one. It's been blindingly obvious since the 40s that nuclear weapons have a powerful deterrent effect, and ghastly regimes haven't needed the Ukraine war to demonstrate that to them. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa are varying examples of tinpot regimes who realised this long before 2022.


    What the war and Biden's dithering has done is demonstrate to democracies like Ukraine, but perhaps also South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Japan and others, that they can't rely on the US shield. Again, some have been realising that since 2016 or before - Ukraine is not the only example of America's chronic unreliability as an ally. That is where the true damage to the nuclear proliferation framework lies.
    “To be America’s enemy is dangerous. To be America’s friend is fatal.”
    The original was better:

    I would rather be the Englishman’s enemy than their friend. For they buy their enemies and sell their friends.
    Who said/wrote that?
    I tried Google but it doesn't seem to be able to pin it down. It references George Orwell but doesn't give the exact quote or even anything close to it.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,894

    Omnium said:

    Sean_F said:

    Fishing said:

    Stereodog said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.

    But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.

    Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.

    Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb

    https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
    Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
    Probably.
    I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station.
    The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
    You don't build one, you build a dozen.

    And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."

    One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.

    Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
    Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
    It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
    As I've pointed out many times, the west giving in to Putin's nuclear blackmail has made the world a much more dangerous place. Now every tinpot regime with expansionist ideas will realise that having nukes means the civilised world will just give in to whatever they wish. Why spend billions on a military that can often be defeated - and which can turn against you - and which puts you in hock to supplier countries, when you can build a nuke for less?
    Of the many, many problems inflicted by an old fool's dithering, that's obviously not one. It's been blindingly obvious since the 40s that nuclear weapons have a powerful deterrent effect, and ghastly regimes haven't needed the Ukraine war to demonstrate that to them. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa are varying examples of tinpot regimes who realised this long before 2022.


    What the war and Biden's dithering has done is demonstrate to democracies like Ukraine, but perhaps also South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Japan and others, that they can't rely on the US shield. Again, some have been realising that since 2016 or before - Ukraine is not the only example of America's chronic unreliability as an ally. That is where the true damage to the nuclear proliferation framework lies.
    “To be America’s enemy is dangerous. To be America’s friend is fatal.”
    The original was better:

    I would rather be the Englishman’s enemy than their friend. For they buy their enemies and sell their friends.
    Who said/wrote that?
    I tried Google but it doesn't seem to be able to pin it down. It references George Orwell but doesn't give the exact quote or even anything close to it.
    Yep - me too.

    I guess we'll have to wait for the wisdom of @StillWaters to enlighten us.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,125
    HYUFD said:

    Yes Rishi was a perfectly intelligent and competent person for an elite high pressure technocratic job like PM, if you ignored the voters and having a clear ideology. He had an elite education at Winchester, Oxford and Stanford and had worked at elite investment bank Goldman Sachs where he made lots of money. He did an OK job getting the finances back in order and tightening visa requirements at No 10 in the period he was there.

    As a political campaigner however Rishi was hopeless, arguably even Truss was a better campaigner given she beat him in the 2022 party leadership election. His lack of political instinct also meant he went for a summer rather than autumn election despite the advice of the likes of Levido against that. Rishi was simply not in the same league as the best vote winning campaigners and party leaders like Blair, Cameron and Boris, indeed even Corbyn was a better campaigner than Rishi was.

    I agree with all that, though I would add that, when it came to persuading voters, Blair was such an off-the-scale genius that putting him in the same league as Boris or David Cameron is probably unfair.

    Sunak never really articulated why he wanted to be Prime Minister - there was no positive vision for the country that people could aspire to. The most successful politicians do that, but Sunak, for some baffling reason, hadn't grasped that a bit of technocratic competence isn't a substitute for inspirational leadership. Of course, as the electorate are now discovering, Starmer doesn't have either of those.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,032
    Yup, imagine going into the election now rather than July. Petrol prices at the lowest for over a year, economy would be growing much faster than it is now, immigration numbers would be coming down and people would have had a relatively relaxing summer to reflect on their situation. It would still have been a loss but I think the Tories would have scraped 200 seats and Labour a much smaller majority. Holding it around now so that Nige would have had to split his time between Reform and Trump would have been very beneficial to the Tories as well.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,888

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, but too interesting to leave there:

    Sean_F said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories' problem is that they had 14 years to do something about thought-non-crime and didn't.

    So often, they were all talk and no action. Repeatedly, I’m left wondering what the Conservatives thought they were there for, other than enjoying the fruits of office.
    I think many were secretly embarrassed at being Conservatives and couldn't bring themselves to act to deliver for their base; the fact their members and voters were not only increased the contempt.

    In that sense, it's a bit similar to the difference between the CofE clergy and laity.

    Wonder if the two organisations have something of the same underlying problem. Namely, the generation gap between the supporters (mostly retired in both cases) and the staff/leadership (mostly not retired). If you are a post-boomer, you tend to look at both institutions as fundamentally strange.

    That leads to a couple of questions which neither institution seems to be answering convincingly.
    First is what to do about that- go all-in on serving the minority that you do get (red meat Conservatism, or full-on evangelism or traditional Anglo catholicism), or think about the ninety five percent who never darken your door?

    The other is what's the right attitude to the future? Aim to pass on a functional institution or society, or spend it all on us now?
    In the case of the Conservatives (unlike the C of E), there’s a big potential support base.

    39% voted for right of centre parties in July, and polling suggests their support is about 45% now. Neither immigration, nor death, is destroying popular support for the right.

    But, a lot of Conservative MP’s give the impression of being uneasy about trying to appeal to that body of support.

    I think it’s mostly due to growing up in an era where upper middle class people and graduates still tended to vote right, and quite abruptly finding that is not the case. They find that many of their peers thoroughly disapprove of them and their supporters.

    Political loyalty now runs vertically, through social classes, rather than horizontally, across them.
    I think the Conservatives are in big trouble if Labour get a better grip of immigration than they did.
    After Trump's victory, Labour ignore immigration (both legal and illegal) at their peril.

    However successfully Labour handle the small boats it won't be good enough for Farage. Even if Labour bring arrival numbers down considerably that doesn't resolve the issue that vexes Farage and his racist chums, namely "foreigners" who are already here. Although that doesn't necessarily assist the Tories.

    Perhaps when it comes down to immigration ("foreigners") the Tories need to out Farage, Farage. Is Badenoch capable of such performative cruelty? If she is not we have Jenrick, who would be quite comfortable with rounding "foreigners" up and packing them on buses to Dundalk, patiently waiting for his moment.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864

    Sean_F said:

    There's a lot to digest in all that.

    Public policy as a means to manage the psychological state of the PM. Imagine cancelling a decades-long infrastructure project in an attempt to gee up the Prime Minister.

    The short answer then is that Sunak called an early election because he fundamentally doesn't understand politics.

    I do have to give him credit for sticking around as Tory leader for an extended leadership election despite obviously being beyond sick of the whole thing.

    It makes you wonder why he went into politics.
    For some, at major public schools, it's just a future career path - and the Conservatives feel a better social fit than the alternatives.
    They did, the LDs though are increasingly now the party of ex public school pupils not the Tories
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864

    I bet he was getting contrary advice as well: that going sooner was better.

    I really cannot see a delay as having improved things for the Tories - their problems were far more structural than just people feeling better off or not. The changes there would have been tiny, and would have been dwarfed by the fact that people simply wanted change.

    So if he had delayed, we would see a threader with other stories about the contrary advice: that going earlier would have been better,

    The Tories were doomed.

    edit: and first with an on-topic post!

    I think it was pretty mad the Tories went in July rather than October, but I concede there may have been further drip-drip-drip by-elections and defections.

    However, I don't think they'd have done worse than 120 seats had they waited another 3 months - and the economy would have certainly improved.
    And if Rishi had waited another three months, or even till January, then Conservatives would have enjoyed an extra three or six months in office, with jobs and wages to pay their mortgages. That many Conservative colleagues are not very well off and depend on their salaries is often lost on millionaire Conservative leaders from Mrs Thatcher through David Cameron to Rishi Sunak.
    Less so Maggie, she did not grow up rich and while Dennis was a millionaire she wasn't
  • Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Sean_F said:

    Fishing said:

    Stereodog said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.

    But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.

    Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.

    Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb

    https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
    Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
    Probably.
    I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station.
    The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
    You don't build one, you build a dozen.

    And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."

    One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.

    Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
    Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
    It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
    As I've pointed out many times, the west giving in to Putin's nuclear blackmail has made the world a much more dangerous place. Now every tinpot regime with expansionist ideas will realise that having nukes means the civilised world will just give in to whatever they wish. Why spend billions on a military that can often be defeated - and which can turn against you - and which puts you in hock to supplier countries, when you can build a nuke for less?
    Of the many, many problems inflicted by an old fool's dithering, that's obviously not one. It's been blindingly obvious since the 40s that nuclear weapons have a powerful deterrent effect, and ghastly regimes haven't needed the Ukraine war to demonstrate that to them. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa are varying examples of tinpot regimes who realised this long before 2022.


    What the war and Biden's dithering has done is demonstrate to democracies like Ukraine, but perhaps also South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Japan and others, that they can't rely on the US shield. Again, some have been realising that since 2016 or before - Ukraine is not the only example of America's chronic unreliability as an ally. That is where the true damage to the nuclear proliferation framework lies.
    “To be America’s enemy is dangerous. To be America’s friend is fatal.”
    The original was better:

    I would rather be the Englishman’s enemy than their friend. For they buy their enemies and sell their friends.
    Who said/wrote that?
    I tried Google but it doesn't seem to be able to pin it down. It references George Orwell but doesn't give the exact quote or even anything close to it.
    Yep - me too.

    I guess we'll have to wait for the wisdom of @StillWaters to enlighten us.
    I am sure I have heard it before. So surprised it is not appearing anywhere.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,645

    I bet he was getting contrary advice as well: that going sooner was better.

    I really cannot see a delay as having improved things for the Tories - their problems were far more structural than just people feeling better off or not. The changes there would have been tiny, and would have been dwarfed by the fact that people simply wanted change.

    So if he had delayed, we would see a threader with other stories about the contrary advice: that going earlier would have been better,

    The Tories were doomed.

    edit: and first with an on-topic post!

    I think it was pretty mad the Tories went in July rather than October, but I concede there may have been further drip-drip-drip by-elections and defections.

    However, I don't think they'd have done worse than 120 seats had they waited another 3 months - and the economy would have certainly improved.
    You are wrong.

    Firstly, and to be fair to you, it’s hard to compute how having an election was a reset on the mood. Things like record boat crossings, covid reports, murders in kindergarten by terrorist, are a counterfactual how they would have been received by an electorate and played out by fever pitched media on war footing awaiting an imminent General Election. But it’s likely the election and government change a reset button was pressed on mood - meaning Labour didn’t get the degree of flak for these bad news stories Sunak’s government would have done.

    To be unfair to you, you should realise the economy didn’t leap into election saving sunlit uplands, it was never going to, and the way people were going to vote the Tories down to 120 MPs was already baked in and decided a long time ago, regardless of little ticks in economic upturn.

    Inflation in US is lower on November 1st 2024 was lower, nearly halved from what Trump left Biden, but people didn’t rejoice at that news. To laugh at the highly paid Spad who wrote that memo, if they couldn’t see there would be no second hand punching due to fantastic news in economy, then they shouldn’t have been highly paid in first place. Alternatively they created the memo simply to cover their own professional arse - we shouldn’t listen to it but know they were actually pleased to cash the cheque and move on from a shit hole that theoretically could still be in place this week and everyday since July 4th.

    At turn of year it should have been obvious to all political bettors, the election was never going to be this side of the summer recess.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864

    Couldn't we just have given him a couple of days on holiday off rather than cancelled the main infrastructure project of the last couple of decades? Might have been cheaper, just saying.

    See if I was PM and in a similar funk the only thing that would get me out of that funk would be to nuke France.

    The French are lucky I didn't choose a career in politics.
    Not a good idea given the French have nukes too and an independent deterrent not originating from the US like we do with Trident
This discussion has been closed.