Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Because these things generally don't stick around as first order issues unless there's some exacerbating factor or it has huge unforeseen negative consequences? If they did, Ed Miliband would've become PM.
The WFA and VAT on school fees in particular seem highly unlikely to blow up beyond the initial burst of anger given one those losing it will basically get back in April and was becoming more irrelevant each year, while the other made something that had already become completely unaffordable to the vast majority slightly more so.
The IHT changes could backfire if farming and landholders' lobbyists are right and the treasury wrong, and more apocalyptic scenarios come to pass - but even then negatives are likely to play out over decades.
Plus the changes mainly fall on those least likely to vote Labour. Looked at cynically, just as the Tories did in 2010-15, if you're cutting/taxing things that are going to piss people off, it might as well be those who already don't like you.
That works if you get credit for governing well from other voters. Otherwise, not so much.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
Perhaps even short of the absolute minimum.
Don't be ridiculous.
Right, because what he has done has been so effective!
Good gracious, I came out of Christmas bliss to see arguments about American labor vs H1-B imported labor and MAGA split over this issue.
Good, that means everyone is engaged in saving this country.
Here is some tough reality for some of you:
There are some big MAGA voices with large social media platforms throwing down their opinions yet they have never run a company that relies on thousands of skilled/highly trained workers with a constant need for reliable labor yet they claim authority over the subject matter.
When you spend years trying to constantly hire/train/maintain a good reliable workforce, which is a 24/7 never ending cycle, your real world experience will produce an opinion based on reality and all of your followers on X don’t translate to this.
Having owned a construction company for decades (yes I’m that old), I know firsthand our workforce issues.
However, I fully believe we must make the hard and necessary changes here in the U.S. to educate, build, and facilitate a solid foundation of knowledgeable, highly skilled, talented, well paid, AMERICAN workers.
Not having this is like having a crumbling foundation in our house and currently we are importing foreigners to hold up the foundation walls and plug the leaks.
Too many of our young people, are killing their bodies and minds on alcohol and drugs, wasting years and money earning useless college degrees, chasing unrealistic dreams, spending all their time trying to be the next you tuber/content creator/social media influencer instead of pursuing a useful skill set/trade/education in order to become a part of our much needed American workforce.
If you fall in this category, put down the selfie light, and go apply for a job and replace the H1-B visa holders and all the other skilled labor jobs that foreign workers are taking and American companies are desperately trying to hire.
It’s called building a career, you work your way up.
In order to go forward we must change our education system, create a culture that respects hard work and productivity, cut government waste/spending/regulations in order to produce a healthy robust economy that lowers inflation and pays higher wages to an American workforce, so that H1-B is no longer needed and can be done away with.
Decades of America LAST bad decisions in Washington wove a giant web of America LAST policies that created systems and structures that must be torn down and rebuilt to put America FIRST.
This requires everyone’s help to change it and we will all have to do what it takes to get it done.
It won’t be easy and it won’t be as quick as we like, but we can do it TOGETHER and the results will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN but EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE!!!
Good gracious, I came out of Christmas bliss to see arguments about American labor vs H1-B imported labor and MAGA split over this issue.
Good, that means everyone is engaged in saving this country.
Here is some tough reality for some of you:
There are some big MAGA voices with large social media platforms throwing down their opinions yet they have never run a company that relies on thousands of skilled/highly trained workers with a constant need for reliable labor yet they claim authority over the subject matter.
When you spend years trying to constantly hire/train/maintain a good reliable workforce, which is a 24/7 never ending cycle, your real world experience will produce an opinion based on reality and all of your followers on X don’t translate to this.
Having owned a construction company for decades (yes I’m that old), I know firsthand our workforce issues.
However, I fully believe we must make the hard and necessary changes here in the U.S. to educate, build, and facilitate a solid foundation of knowledgeable, highly skilled, talented, well paid, AMERICAN workers.
Not having this is like having a crumbling foundation in our house and currently we are importing foreigners to hold up the foundation walls and plug the leaks.
Too many of our young people, are killing their bodies and minds on alcohol and drugs, wasting years and money earning useless college degrees, chasing unrealistic dreams, spending all their time trying to be the next you tuber/content creator/social media influencer instead of pursuing a useful skill set/trade/education in order to become a part of our much needed American workforce.
If you fall in this category, put down the selfie light, and go apply for a job and replace the H1-B visa holders and all the other skilled labor jobs that foreign workers are taking and American companies are desperately trying to hire.
It’s called building a career, you work your way up.
In order to go forward we must change our education system, create a culture that respects hard work and productivity, cut government waste/spending/regulations in order to produce a healthy robust economy that lowers inflation and pays higher wages to an American workforce, so that H1-B is no longer needed and can be done away with.
Decades of America LAST bad decisions in Washington wove a giant web of America LAST policies that created systems and structures that must be torn down and rebuilt to put America FIRST.
This requires everyone’s help to change it and we will all have to do what it takes to get it done.
It won’t be easy and it won’t be as quick as we like, but we can do it TOGETHER and the results will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN but EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE!!!
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
Well does it matter? Trump takes office in Jan and won't send anymore US missiles.
Zelensky will have to wait until Merz likely takes office in Feb as he has promised to send more German missiles to Ukraine if elected, then get the French and British to follow suit
The French* and British aren't making any missiles. Their capacity to send more is limited.
Trump is potentially persuadable. The Ukrainians are making a valiant effort to work on his avarice and ego to persuade him to supply more weapons to Ukraine - but even if they are successful there won't be any ATACMs missiles to send because nothing has been done to make any more of them.
Of course it matters. Superiority in ranged weaponry wins wars.
* NigelB says the French are working on making more, so that's better then nowt, but it's a far cry from the tidal wave of Western weapons you'd hope we would be producing to support a Ukrainian victory nearly three years into the war.
What happens if Western countries have to fight a proper war? We'd run out of ammunition in weeks. The complacency is off the scale.
The problem is that governments in the Western world have no money for the reasons I elucidated below.
Britain is committing a mere £3bn a year to Ukraine. A Ukrainian victory is eminently affordable.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
Perhaps even short of the absolute minimum.
Don't be ridiculous.
I don't think that's ridiculous. With even half-hearted American support Ukraine could have prevailed. But it suited America to have a stalemate, not least due to its impact on POO.
No, sorry, but that's a nonsense. The policy was support (against serious domestic opposition btw) but be wary of escalation. You can argue the toss on whether more support was both preferable and possible but it was not a deliberate and cynical creation of a stalemate.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
For some value of "supported".
Obviously. It was higher than nothing and lower than everything. Like most things.
It wasn't as high as "enough", and that's what matters.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
The Guardian, 27th Jan, 2028
“Row over Private School VAT
A row has erupted since he revelation that VAT on private schools has raised little tax and a number are *receiving* VAT rebates.
John Pipsqueck, MP for Nether Bollocks claimed that this is “fraud against the taxpayer”
The Bursar of Eton in a reply, pointed out that there had been multiple audits of the tax affairs of the school. The last one of which had revealed that the school was actually owed a further rebate of three thousand, four hundred and eighty-four pounds. And six pence. “
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
The Tories didn't want to join the EU for half a century. In the 70s most of them supported joining the Common Market, which was very different from the EU, despite Ted Heath's lies about retaining sovereignty.
In the 90s Major just about got his party to pass the Maastricht treated, which spawned the EU.
And their policy in the 2010s was to have a referendum and implement the results, which they did, backed by the biggest democractic vote in this country's history, and endorsed by three general elections.
So there's no continuity in European policy for them to go back to, nor could there have been, as the EU has mutated and metastacised so much over that time.
Insofar as there was a consistent policy for that half century, it was "lie about what the European project was actually about".
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
Perhaps even short of the absolute minimum.
Don't be ridiculous.
I don't think that's ridiculous. With even half-hearted American support Ukraine could have prevailed. But it suited America to have a stalemate, not least due to its impact on POO.
I don't think this is true at all.
I think Biden would much rather that Ukraine had prevailed, because it would have led to the downfall of Putin, which would hugely of been in his interests.
It's more accurate to say - as @williamglenn does - that Biden was excessively concerned about the risks of escalation, and overestimated Russia's strength. And that was a mistake.
A mistake, for what it's worth, that many others made too.
William is more interested in claiming Trump will be better.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
Perhaps even short of the absolute minimum.
Don't be ridiculous.
I don't think that's ridiculous. With even half-hearted American support Ukraine could have prevailed. But it suited America to have a stalemate, not least due to its impact on POO.
I don't think this is true at all.
I think Biden would much rather that Ukraine had prevailed, because it would have led to the downfall of Putin, which would hugely of been in his interests.
It's more accurate to say - as @williamglenn does - that Biden was excessively concerned about the risks of escalation, and overestimated Russia's strength. And that was a mistake.
A mistake, for what it's worth, that many others made too.
I'm really not sure it is in America's interests for Putin to be replaced. Tge chances of Putin being replaced with someone who is better for America seem quite a long way lessthan 50%.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Because these things generally don't stick around as first order issues unless there's some exacerbating factor or it has huge unforeseen negative consequences? If they did, Ed Miliband would've become PM.
The WFA and VAT on school fees in particular seem highly unlikely to blow up beyond the initial burst of anger given one those losing it will basically get back in April and was becoming more irrelevant each year, while the other made something that had already become completely unaffordable to the vast majority slightly more so.
The IHT changes could backfire if farming and landholders' lobbyists are right and the treasury wrong, and more apocalyptic scenarios come to pass - but even then negatives are likely to play out over decades.
Plus the changes mainly fall on those least likely to vote Labour. Looked at cynically, just as the Tories did in 2010-15, if you're cutting/taxing things that are going to piss people off, it might as well be those who already don't like you.
The problem Labour have is they are alienating various voting groups whilst failing to articulate how it all fits into an overall vision or strategy, because it doesn't.
It risks looking vindictive, which will be noticed and impress itself upon a far wider group of voters, and means they will get little credit even if things do improve.
I'd disagree with that - the overall strategy is fairly clear I think, if you listen to some of the bigger thinkers in the Labour millieu. It's to basically take that working age cohorts that won Labour the last election as had become so anti-Tory, and pursue policies that favour them. That's planning reform, the increased minimum wage, Rayners' workers' right stuff, restoring public services generally rely on to a level where they're not in a permacrisis, as well as a bit of populism on transport, and so on. Then a more reconciliatory attitude towards the EU and so on.
The overall theory being that politics has become scleroritc because vested interests with large megaphones (and in the case of homeowning pensioners, voting power) mean we take counterproductive decisions to privilege them, over ones which benefit the public at large and working people in particular.
At the next election, Labour would likely love to run as a party that was fixing things for working people against a Tory party that's stuck in the past and is beholden to its asset rich elderly base of blockers.
But it is slow to emerge as the 'negative' bits you'd say look vindictive - but defenders would argue are simply refusing to exclude those with powerful supporters from tough tax and spending decisions - are frontloaded while the potential positives are more of a process.
It's worth noticing there is a similar strand of thinking among young Tories (though obviously less statist) but gets rather drowned out by culture wars stuff, Farage, and the oppositional campaigns that cut against it.
They also got a bit snookered by the Tories' scorched earth NI cut - which left them a choice between an honest but electorally risky pledge to reverse it, abandoning pledges to start fixing public services (you couldn't do much without pay deals), or what they did, putting it on employers in a way that isn't necessarily helpful to their aims. The first would've been the correct choice I think, but you can see why they didn't - and that's exactly why the Tories brought in the tax cut in the first place.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
The Tories don't have the luxury of a few election defeats to find a better leader. Labour are doing badly enough that there's a chance the voters will want a new government sooner than that.
If the Tories aren't able to provide an alternative, will the voters turn elsewhere?
Depends what "credible" means. If it means "will do fundamentally what governments have been doing since 2001" then what's the point?
I think it's about the personal qualities of leadership.
Consider Corbyn in 2017 and 2019. I don't think the electorate thought that his policies in 2019 were less credible than in 2017. I think that he, personally, was seen as a less credible person to implement them.
The biggest difference was how close he was seen as being to power. You do remember 2017 and Labour MPs on doorsteps telling people it was safe to re-elect them because Corbyn couldn't possibly win?
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Because these things generally don't stick around as first order issues unless there's some exacerbating factor or it has huge unforeseen negative consequences? If they did, Ed Miliband would've become PM.
The WFA and VAT on school fees in particular seem highly unlikely to blow up beyond the initial burst of anger given one those losing it will basically get back in April and was becoming more irrelevant each year, while the other made something that had already become completely unaffordable to the vast majority slightly more so.
The IHT changes could backfire if farming and landholders' lobbyists are right and the treasury wrong, and more apocalyptic scenarios come to pass - but even then negatives are likely to play out over decades.
Plus the changes mainly fall on those least likely to vote Labour. Looked at cynically, just as the Tories did in 2010-15, if you're cutting/taxing things that are going to piss people off, it might as well be those who already don't like you.
The problem Labour have is they are alienating various voting groups whilst failing to articulate how it all fits into an overall vision or strategy, because it doesn't.
It risks looking vindictive, which will be noticed and impress itself upon a far wider group of voters, and means they will get little credit even if things do improve.
Voting groups that all vote Tory anyway. So nothing to be lost in shafting well off pensioners and fans of the Worzels.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
Well does it matter? Trump takes office in Jan and won't send anymore US missiles.
Zelensky will have to wait until Merz likely takes office in Feb as he has promised to send more German missiles to Ukraine if elected, then get the French and British to follow suit
The French* and British aren't making any missiles. Their capacity to send more is limited.
Trump is potentially persuadable. The Ukrainians are making a valiant effort to work on his avarice and ego to persuade him to supply more weapons to Ukraine - but even if they are successful there won't be any ATACMs missiles to send because nothing has been done to make any more of them.
Of course it matters. Superiority in ranged weaponry wins wars.
* NigelB says the French are working on making more, so that's better then nowt, but it's a far cry from the tidal wave of Western weapons you'd hope we would be producing to support a Ukrainian victory nearly three years into the war.
What happens if Western countries have to fight a proper war? We'd run out of ammunition in weeks. The complacency is off the scale.
The problem is that governments in the Western world have no money for the reasons I elucidated below.
Indeed
Most of the stuff sent to Ukraine was about to time expire. And you don’t want to muck with solid rocket motors past their sell buy date. Disposing of them would actually have cost serious money - dissecting weapons that consist of a solid rocket motor and an HE warhead is a fiddly job, done by a small number of specialists. Using them for the Russian Tank Turret Tossing Olympics saved a fortune…
The problem is one that has been true since before WWII - cutting ammunition stocks is loved by finance departments of government everywhere.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Oh, so you mean you won't support a party that doesn't want to re-join the EU? That's really something quite different (as indeed was supporting Brexit pre-June 2016 and after it).
Well he obviously meant that. Brexit is a historical event. Nobody can pretend it didn't happen.
Mmm, but there is more than one possible "does not support" take on that historical event, e.g:
* consider it a bad idea and want to reverse it to whatever extent possible * consider it in retrospect a mistake but that the best thing in the current circumstances is not to try to reverse it
On the "holding a grudge" front, I was never likely to vote Tory anyway, but I'm really not going to vote for the clowns who blew a decade on their pet political bogeyman when they could have been addressing the real problems the country was and still is facing -- even if they did have a sudden change of mind on the question.
Yes, opposing has 2 strands, let's reverse it vs let's make the best of it. I'm not sure which I'm in. I think the biggest cost was the distraction. All that political energy dissipated on something producing benefits only in the heads of a fringe sect of reactionary right wingers.
At this point, those don't have to be contradictory (with the caveat that it isn't reversible as such, we won't be allowed to be half in again).
Certainly the country would have been better off if the losers had pursued the second option from 2016, but that's water long since under the bridge.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
(b). If he can't cope with this he is in the wrong job.
Footnotes: Vicars who start off from John's gospel are often uncritical of how ancient texts work. It is a dense work rooted in a culture modern Christians can't comprehend. It's relationship to what we call history is very complicated.
The historical Jesus is substantially more than a decent itinerant. For a highly informed and critically acute view, EP Sanders 'The historical figure of Jesus' publ by Penguin is outstanding. Worth a read.
If your vicar hasn't read it then he probably hasn't read very much decent stuff. A lot just read American pop paperbacks by fundamentalists.
All Christians (including me) are agnostics, just like all the human race. Religion is not a knowable item.
Maybe get off the agnostic fence...And become an atheist..😏
All atheists are agnostics. Just like all theists (including me). Whether some subject is knowable depends on the the nature of the subject, not the opinion of the putative knower.
This is one of the trillion interesting insights of Kant's first critique.
That's not true though.
a true atheist actively disbelieves in god while an agnostic doesn't know if god exists but may actively disbelieve in the organised religions.
No amount of belief or disbelief amounts to knowledge. Neither atheists nor theists are in any position to correctly claim to 'know'. To know something is to have a justified true belief. Both theism and atheism are properly believable and both have abundant justification. But which (if either) is true remains entirely open.
Good gracious, I came out of Christmas bliss to see arguments about American labor vs H1-B imported labor and MAGA split over this issue.
Good, that means everyone is engaged in saving this country.
Here is some tough reality for some of you:
There are some big MAGA voices with large social media platforms throwing down their opinions yet they have never run a company that relies on thousands of skilled/highly trained workers with a constant need for reliable labor yet they claim authority over the subject matter.
When you spend years trying to constantly hire/train/maintain a good reliable workforce, which is a 24/7 never ending cycle, your real world experience will produce an opinion based on reality and all of your followers on X don’t translate to this.
Having owned a construction company for decades (yes I’m that old), I know firsthand our workforce issues.
However, I fully believe we must make the hard and necessary changes here in the U.S. to educate, build, and facilitate a solid foundation of knowledgeable, highly skilled, talented, well paid, AMERICAN workers.
Not having this is like having a crumbling foundation in our house and currently we are importing foreigners to hold up the foundation walls and plug the leaks.
Too many of our young people, are killing their bodies and minds on alcohol and drugs, wasting years and money earning useless college degrees, chasing unrealistic dreams, spending all their time trying to be the next you tuber/content creator/social media influencer instead of pursuing a useful skill set/trade/education in order to become a part of our much needed American workforce.
If you fall in this category, put down the selfie light, and go apply for a job and replace the H1-B visa holders and all the other skilled labor jobs that foreign workers are taking and American companies are desperately trying to hire.
It’s called building a career, you work your way up.
In order to go forward we must change our education system, create a culture that respects hard work and productivity, cut government waste/spending/regulations in order to produce a healthy robust economy that lowers inflation and pays higher wages to an American workforce, so that H1-B is no longer needed and can be done away with.
Decades of America LAST bad decisions in Washington wove a giant web of America LAST policies that created systems and structures that must be torn down and rebuilt to put America FIRST.
This requires everyone’s help to change it and we will all have to do what it takes to get it done.
It won’t be easy and it won’t be as quick as we like, but we can do it TOGETHER and the results will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN but EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE!!!
That's remarkably articulate.
Are we sure she really wrote that?
It (mostly) makes sense as well. Plus doesn’t hate on anyone.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Because these things generally don't stick around as first order issues unless there's some exacerbating factor or it has huge unforeseen negative consequences? If they did, Ed Miliband would've become PM.
The WFA and VAT on school fees in particular seem highly unlikely to blow up beyond the initial burst of anger given one those losing it will basically get back in April and was becoming more irrelevant each year, while the other made something that had already become completely unaffordable to the vast majority slightly more so.
The IHT changes could backfire if farming and landholders' lobbyists are right and the treasury wrong, and more apocalyptic scenarios come to pass - but even then negatives are likely to play out over decades.
Plus the changes mainly fall on those least likely to vote Labour. Looked at cynically, just as the Tories did in 2010-15, if you're cutting/taxing things that are going to piss people off, it might as well be those who already don't like you.
The problem Labour have is they are alienating various voting groups whilst failing to articulate how it all fits into an overall vision or strategy, because it doesn't.
It risks looking vindictive, which will be noticed and impress itself upon a far wider group of voters, and means they will get little credit even if things do improve.
Voting groups that all vote Tory anyway. So nothing to be lost in shafting well off pensioners and fans of the Worzels.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
The Tories don't have the luxury of a few election defeats to find a better leader. Labour are doing badly enough that there's a chance the voters will want a new government sooner than that.
If the Tories aren't able to provide an alternative, will the voters turn elsewhere?
Depends what "credible" means. If it means "will do fundamentally what governments have been doing since 2001" then what's the point?
I think it's about the personal qualities of leadership.
Consider Corbyn in 2017 and 2019. I don't think the electorate thought that his policies in 2019 were less credible than in 2017. I think that he, personally, was seen as a less credible person to implement them.
My deepest fear is that a hard-left government wins in the next 20 years and utterly shafts everyone's homes, savings, equities and pensions.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
For some value of "supported".
Obviously. It was higher than nothing and lower than everything. Like most things.
It wasn't as high as "enough", and that's what matters.
How would it be looking with zero US support, do you think?
Good gracious, I came out of Christmas bliss to see arguments about American labor vs H1-B imported labor and MAGA split over this issue.
Good, that means everyone is engaged in saving this country.
Here is some tough reality for some of you:
There are some big MAGA voices with large social media platforms throwing down their opinions yet they have never run a company that relies on thousands of skilled/highly trained workers with a constant need for reliable labor yet they claim authority over the subject matter.
When you spend years trying to constantly hire/train/maintain a good reliable workforce, which is a 24/7 never ending cycle, your real world experience will produce an opinion based on reality and all of your followers on X don’t translate to this.
Having owned a construction company for decades (yes I’m that old), I know firsthand our workforce issues.
However, I fully believe we must make the hard and necessary changes here in the U.S. to educate, build, and facilitate a solid foundation of knowledgeable, highly skilled, talented, well paid, AMERICAN workers.
Not having this is like having a crumbling foundation in our house and currently we are importing foreigners to hold up the foundation walls and plug the leaks.
Too many of our young people, are killing their bodies and minds on alcohol and drugs, wasting years and money earning useless college degrees, chasing unrealistic dreams, spending all their time trying to be the next you tuber/content creator/social media influencer instead of pursuing a useful skill set/trade/education in order to become a part of our much needed American workforce.
If you fall in this category, put down the selfie light, and go apply for a job and replace the H1-B visa holders and all the other skilled labor jobs that foreign workers are taking and American companies are desperately trying to hire.
It’s called building a career, you work your way up.
In order to go forward we must change our education system, create a culture that respects hard work and productivity, cut government waste/spending/regulations in order to produce a healthy robust economy that lowers inflation and pays higher wages to an American workforce, so that H1-B is no longer needed and can be done away with.
Decades of America LAST bad decisions in Washington wove a giant web of America LAST policies that created systems and structures that must be torn down and rebuilt to put America FIRST.
This requires everyone’s help to change it and we will all have to do what it takes to get it done.
It won’t be easy and it won’t be as quick as we like, but we can do it TOGETHER and the results will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN but EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE!!!
That's remarkably articulate.
Are we sure she really wrote that?
It (mostly) makes sense as well. Plus doesn’t hate on anyone.
I’m calling it - fake.
It does hate on wannabe YouTubers and content creators.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
Perhaps even short of the absolute minimum.
Don't be ridiculous.
I don't think that's ridiculous. With even half-hearted American support Ukraine could have prevailed. But it suited America to have a stalemate, not least due to its impact on POO.
I don't think this is true at all.
I think Biden would much rather that Ukraine had prevailed, because it would have led to the downfall of Putin, which would hugely of been in his interests.
It's more accurate to say - as @williamglenn does - that Biden was excessively concerned about the risks of escalation, and overestimated Russia's strength. And that was a mistake.
A mistake, for what it's worth, that many others made too.
I'm really not sure it is in America's interests for Putin to be replaced. Tge chances of Putin being replaced with someone who is better for America seem quite a long way lessthan 50%.
Political instability in nuclear powers is contraindicated.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
For some value of "supported".
Obviously. It was higher than nothing and lower than everything. Like most things.
It wasn't as high as "enough", and that's what matters.
How would it be looking with zero US support, do you think?
Kids needed an airing today. The fog didn't strike me as overly conducive to a hill walk so we went up to the reservoirs at Longdendale Pleasantly atmospheric. But at the top reservoir, there was some blue sky overhead - and it became apparent that the top of the cloud was only about 250m or so. So on the way home we went via Charlesworth and took a detour up the Hayfield road, from where there was a magnificent sunset over the clouds.
The fog looks set to last another 24 hours, but if you have any high land close to you it's well worth getting above it. Looking down on cloud is a delicious experience.
Fog and low cloud here in Burgundy for the last couple of days, but clear above about 500m. We got up to a hilltop at 750m yesterday and had that wonderful view of a sea of fog with a few wooded islands and archipelagos, and in the distance the Jura then Mont Blanc standing above the Eastern horizon.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
Well does it matter? Trump takes office in Jan and won't send anymore US missiles.
Zelensky will have to wait until Merz likely takes office in Feb as he has promised to send more German missiles to Ukraine if elected, then get the French and British to follow suit
The French* and British aren't making any missiles. Their capacity to send more is limited.
Trump is potentially persuadable. The Ukrainians are making a valiant effort to work on his avarice and ego to persuade him to supply more weapons to Ukraine - but even if they are successful there won't be any ATACMs missiles to send because nothing has been done to make any more of them.
Of course it matters. Superiority in ranged weaponry wins wars.
* NigelB says the French are working on making more, so that's better then nowt, but it's a far cry from the tidal wave of Western weapons you'd hope we would be producing to support a Ukrainian victory nearly three years into the war.
What happens if Western countries have to fight a proper war? We'd run out of ammunition in weeks. The complacency is off the scale.
The problem is that governments in the Western world have no money for the reasons I elucidated below.
Indeed
Most of the stuff sent to Ukraine was about to time expire. And you don’t want to muck with solid rocket motors past their sell buy date. Disposing of them would actually have cost serious money - dissecting weapons that consist of a solid rocket motor and an HE warhead is a fiddly job, done by a small number of specialists. Using them for the Russian Tank Turret Tossing Olympics saved a fortune…
The problem is one that has been true since before WWII - cutting ammunition stocks is loved by finance departments of government everywhere.
You can never store enough ammunition. The issue is in having a plan to ramp up or restart production before your stores run out.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
(b). If he can't cope with this he is in the wrong job.
Footnotes: Vicars who start off from John's gospel are often uncritical of how ancient texts work. It is a dense work rooted in a culture modern Christians can't comprehend. It's relationship to what we call history is very complicated.
The historical Jesus is substantially more than a decent itinerant. For a highly informed and critically acute view, EP Sanders 'The historical figure of Jesus' publ by Penguin is outstanding. Worth a read.
If your vicar hasn't read it then he probably hasn't read very much decent stuff. A lot just read American pop paperbacks by fundamentalists.
All Christians (including me) are agnostics, just like all the human race. Religion is not a knowable item.
Maybe get off the agnostic fence...And become an atheist..😏
All atheists are agnostics. Just like all theists (including me). Whether some subject is knowable depends on the the nature of the subject, not the opinion of the putative knower.
This is one of the trillion interesting insights of Kant's first critique.
That's not true though.
a true atheist actively disbelieves in god while an agnostic doesn't know if god exists but may actively disbelieve in the organised religions.
No amount of belief or disbelief amounts to knowledge. Neither atheists nor theists are in any position to correctly claim to 'know'. To know something is to have a justified true belief. Both theism and atheism are properly believable and both have abundant justification. But which (if either) is true remains entirely open.
I was correcting All atheists are agnostics which is not true. as an Theist or Atheist I'd actively believe there is or is not a god but as an Agnostic I'd not have a firm belief either way.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
Perhaps even short of the absolute minimum.
Don't be ridiculous.
I don't think that's ridiculous. With even half-hearted American support Ukraine could have prevailed. But it suited America to have a stalemate, not least due to its impact on POO.
I don't think this is true at all.
I think Biden would much rather that Ukraine had prevailed, because it would have led to the downfall of Putin, which would hugely of been in his interests.
It's more accurate to say - as @williamglenn does - that Biden was excessively concerned about the risks of escalation, and overestimated Russia's strength. And that was a mistake.
A mistake, for what it's worth, that many others made too.
William is more interested in claiming Trump will be better.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
Well does it matter? Trump takes office in Jan and won't send anymore US missiles.
Zelensky will have to wait until Merz likely takes office in Feb as he has promised to send more German missiles to Ukraine if elected, then get the French and British to follow suit
The French* and British aren't making any missiles. Their capacity to send more is limited.
Trump is potentially persuadable. The Ukrainians are making a valiant effort to work on his avarice and ego to persuade him to supply more weapons to Ukraine - but even if they are successful there won't be any ATACMs missiles to send because nothing has been done to make any more of them.
Of course it matters. Superiority in ranged weaponry wins wars.
* NigelB says the French are working on making more, so that's better then nowt, but it's a far cry from the tidal wave of Western weapons you'd hope we would be producing to support a Ukrainian victory nearly three years into the war.
What happens if Western countries have to fight a proper war? We'd run out of ammunition in weeks. The complacency is off the scale.
The problem is that governments in the Western world have no money for the reasons I elucidated below.
Indeed
Most of the stuff sent to Ukraine was about to time expire. And you don’t want to muck with solid rocket motors past their sell buy date. Disposing of them would actually have cost serious money - dissecting weapons that consist of a solid rocket motor and an HE warhead is a fiddly job, done by a small number of specialists. Using them for the Russian Tank Turret Tossing Olympics saved a fortune…
The problem is one that has been true since before WWII - cutting ammunition stocks is loved by finance departments of government everywhere.
You can never store enough ammunition. The issue is in having a plan to ramp up or restart production before your stores run out.
That plan seems not to have existed.
It never has.
Hence the NATO plan to hold the Fulham Gal for three days. Then blow the world up.
Artillery shell bodies last forever. Lump of well made steel, no moving parts. We could have stacked up a 100 million somewhere.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
(b). If he can't cope with this he is in the wrong job.
Footnotes: Vicars who start off from John's gospel are often uncritical of how ancient texts work. It is a dense work rooted in a culture modern Christians can't comprehend. It's relationship to what we call history is very complicated.
The historical Jesus is substantially more than a decent itinerant. For a highly informed and critically acute view, EP Sanders 'The historical figure of Jesus' publ by Penguin is outstanding. Worth a read.
If your vicar hasn't read it then he probably hasn't read very much decent stuff. A lot just read American pop paperbacks by fundamentalists.
All Christians (including me) are agnostics, just like all the human race. Religion is not a knowable item.
Maybe get off the agnostic fence...And become an atheist..😏
All atheists are agnostics. Just like all theists (including me). Whether some subject is knowable depends on the the nature of the subject, not the opinion of the putative knower.
This is one of the trillion interesting insights of Kant's first critique.
That's not true though.
a true atheist actively disbelieves in god while an agnostic doesn't know if god exists but may actively disbelieve in the organised religions.
No amount of belief or disbelief amounts to knowledge. Neither atheists nor theists are in any position to correctly claim to 'know'. To know something is to have a justified true belief. Both theism and atheism are properly believable and both have abundant justification. But which (if either) is true remains entirely open.
Agree. The "agnostic v atheist' split isn't that meaningful. You believe in "God" or you don't. Anybody needing evidence for belief will be in the latter category (barring direct divine experience).
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
Perhaps even short of the absolute minimum.
Don't be ridiculous.
I don't think that's ridiculous. With even half-hearted American support Ukraine could have prevailed. But it suited America to have a stalemate, not least due to its impact on POO.
I don't think this is true at all.
I think Biden would much rather that Ukraine had prevailed, because it would have led to the downfall of Putin, which would hugely of been in his interests.
It's more accurate to say - as @williamglenn does - that Biden was excessively concerned about the risks of escalation, and overestimated Russia's strength. And that was a mistake.
A mistake, for what it's worth, that many others made too.
I'm really not sure it is in America's interests for Putin to be replaced. Tge chances of Putin being replaced with someone who is better for America seem quite a long way lessthan 50%.
Again, I don't think that's true at all.
Putin's Russia has been a constant thorn in the West. In Poland, it spent a fortune on supporting groups to get fracking banned, for example. It has constantly tried to increase division in the West.
Those actions have, historically, had no consequences.
Any new regime in Moscow is going to be concerned primarily with getting sanctions removed and rebuilding the Russian economy. On the hierarchy of needs for any regime, getting the people fed and less likely to evict you is massively more important than stirring up trouble abroad.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
Well does it matter? Trump takes office in Jan and won't send anymore US missiles.
Zelensky will have to wait until Merz likely takes office in Feb as he has promised to send more German missiles to Ukraine if elected, then get the French and British to follow suit
The French* and British aren't making any missiles. Their capacity to send more is limited.
Trump is potentially persuadable. The Ukrainians are making a valiant effort to work on his avarice and ego to persuade him to supply more weapons to Ukraine - but even if they are successful there won't be any ATACMs missiles to send because nothing has been done to make any more of them.
Of course it matters. Superiority in ranged weaponry wins wars.
* NigelB says the French are working on making more, so that's better then nowt, but it's a far cry from the tidal wave of Western weapons you'd hope we would be producing to support a Ukrainian victory nearly three years into the war.
What happens if Western countries have to fight a proper war? We'd run out of ammunition in weeks. The complacency is off the scale.
The problem is that governments in the Western world have no money for the reasons I elucidated below.
Indeed
Most of the stuff sent to Ukraine was about to time expire. And you don’t want to muck with solid rocket motors past their sell buy date. Disposing of them would actually have cost serious money - dissecting weapons that consist of a solid rocket motor and an HE warhead is a fiddly job, done by a small number of specialists. Using them for the Russian Tank Turret Tossing Olympics saved a fortune…
The problem is one that has been true since before WWII - cutting ammunition stocks is loved by finance departments of government everywhere.
You can never store enough ammunition. The issue is in having a plan to ramp up or restart production before your stores run out.
That plan seems not to have existed.
It never has.
Hence the NATO plan to hold the Fulham Gal for three days. Then blow the world up.
Artillery shell bodies last forever. Lump of well made steel, no moving parts. We could have stacked up a 100 million somewhere.
I think I met the Fulham Gal in the 151... why did NATO need to hold her again?
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Oh, so you mean you won't support a party that doesn't want to re-join the EU? That's really something quite different (as indeed was supporting Brexit pre-June 2016 and after it).
Well he obviously meant that. Brexit is a historical event. Nobody can pretend it didn't happen.
Mmm, but there is more than one possible "does not support" take on that historical event, e.g:
* consider it a bad idea and want to reverse it to whatever extent possible * consider it in retrospect a mistake but that the best thing in the current circumstances is not to try to reverse it
On the "holding a grudge" front, I was never likely to vote Tory anyway, but I'm really not going to vote for the clowns who blew a decade on their pet political bogeyman when they could have been addressing the real problems the country was and still is facing -- even if they did have a sudden change of mind on the question.
Yes, opposing has 2 strands, let's reverse it vs let's make the best of it. I'm not sure which I'm in. I think the biggest cost was the distraction. All that political energy dissipated on something producing benefits only in the heads of a fringe sect of reactionary right wingers.
At this point, those don't have to be contradictory (with the caveat that it isn't reversible as such, we won't be allowed to be half in again).
Certainly the country would have been better off if the losers had pursued the second option from 2016, but that's water long since under the bridge.
I don't think one can predict what the reentry terms would be.
But whatever, it's a long ways off as a realistic prospect.
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
You are writing a very expensive manifesto a long way out from the GE. Restoring unlimited agricultural relief, restoring WFP, reversing VAT on private schools, cutting Employers NI. No doubt wanting to continue the Triple Lock and increasing military spending.
What are you planning to cut to fund that lot?
I think Labour has played a very clever game by making these changes now. They have a strategy, it's just in the "unpopular" phase.
Has Leon been banned for good?
Leon is not currently banned sfaict.
He's on Cornwall. They don't have the Internet in such remote places.
Don't underestimate people's ability to connect to the Internet.
HYUFD is in 1954 and he has the Internet.
That was about the time I learned semaphore (messages with flags) in the Scouts.
Aw, I didn't have that when I was playing with my woggle and sleeping on top of a few sheets of newspaper in an old army tent a decade or two later.
#deprivedchildhood
Has one of Leon or TSE hacked your account?
Ever admitted being a former Scout? Someone is bound to ask about the woggle, so I just preempted it.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
Well does it matter? Trump takes office in Jan and won't send anymore US missiles.
Zelensky will have to wait until Merz likely takes office in Feb as he has promised to send more German missiles to Ukraine if elected, then get the French and British to follow suit
The French* and British aren't making any missiles. Their capacity to send more is limited.
Trump is potentially persuadable. The Ukrainians are making a valiant effort to work on his avarice and ego to persuade him to supply more weapons to Ukraine - but even if they are successful there won't be any ATACMs missiles to send because nothing has been done to make any more of them.
Of course it matters. Superiority in ranged weaponry wins wars.
* NigelB says the French are working on making more, so that's better then nowt, but it's a far cry from the tidal wave of Western weapons you'd hope we would be producing to support a Ukrainian victory nearly three years into the war.
What happens if Western countries have to fight a proper war? We'd run out of ammunition in weeks. The complacency is off the scale.
The problem is that governments in the Western world have no money for the reasons I elucidated below.
Indeed
Most of the stuff sent to Ukraine was about to time expire. And you don’t want to muck with solid rocket motors past their sell buy date. Disposing of them would actually have cost serious money - dissecting weapons that consist of a solid rocket motor and an HE warhead is a fiddly job, done by a small number of specialists. Using them for the Russian Tank Turret Tossing Olympics saved a fortune…
The problem is one that has been true since before WWII - cutting ammunition stocks is loved by finance departments of government everywhere.
You can never store enough ammunition. The issue is in having a plan to ramp up or restart production before your stores run out.
That plan seems not to have existed.
It never has.
Hence the NATO plan to hold the Fulham Gal for three days. Then blow the world up.
Artillery shell bodies last forever. Lump of well made steel, no moving parts. We could have stacked up a 100 million somewhere.
I think I met the Fulham Gal in the 151... why did NATO need to hold her again?
Auto incorrect strikes again. Probably AI driven….
Good gracious, I came out of Christmas bliss to see arguments about American labor vs H1-B imported labor and MAGA split over this issue.
Good, that means everyone is engaged in saving this country.
Here is some tough reality for some of you:
There are some big MAGA voices with large social media platforms throwing down their opinions yet they have never run a company that relies on thousands of skilled/highly trained workers with a constant need for reliable labor yet they claim authority over the subject matter.
When you spend years trying to constantly hire/train/maintain a good reliable workforce, which is a 24/7 never ending cycle, your real world experience will produce an opinion based on reality and all of your followers on X don’t translate to this.
Having owned a construction company for decades (yes I’m that old), I know firsthand our workforce issues.
However, I fully believe we must make the hard and necessary changes here in the U.S. to educate, build, and facilitate a solid foundation of knowledgeable, highly skilled, talented, well paid, AMERICAN workers.
Not having this is like having a crumbling foundation in our house and currently we are importing foreigners to hold up the foundation walls and plug the leaks.
Too many of our young people, are killing their bodies and minds on alcohol and drugs, wasting years and money earning useless college degrees, chasing unrealistic dreams, spending all their time trying to be the next you tuber/content creator/social media influencer instead of pursuing a useful skill set/trade/education in order to become a part of our much needed American workforce.
If you fall in this category, put down the selfie light, and go apply for a job and replace the H1-B visa holders and all the other skilled labor jobs that foreign workers are taking and American companies are desperately trying to hire.
It’s called building a career, you work your way up.
In order to go forward we must change our education system, create a culture that respects hard work and productivity, cut government waste/spending/regulations in order to produce a healthy robust economy that lowers inflation and pays higher wages to an American workforce, so that H1-B is no longer needed and can be done away with.
Decades of America LAST bad decisions in Washington wove a giant web of America LAST policies that created systems and structures that must be torn down and rebuilt to put America FIRST.
This requires everyone’s help to change it and we will all have to do what it takes to get it done.
It won’t be easy and it won’t be as quick as we like, but we can do it TOGETHER and the results will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN but EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE!!!
That's remarkably articulate.
Are we sure she really wrote that?
Is she running against Haley in 28 then?
I think there's more chance of a woman winning in GOP colours actually.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
(b). If he can't cope with this he is in the wrong job.
Footnotes: Vicars who start off from John's gospel are often uncritical of how ancient texts work. It is a dense work rooted in a culture modern Christians can't comprehend. It's relationship to what we call history is very complicated.
The historical Jesus is substantially more than a decent itinerant. For a highly informed and critically acute view, EP Sanders 'The historical figure of Jesus' publ by Penguin is outstanding. Worth a read.
If your vicar hasn't read it then he probably hasn't read very much decent stuff. A lot just read American pop paperbacks by fundamentalists.
All Christians (including me) are agnostics, just like all the human race. Religion is not a knowable item.
Maybe get off the agnostic fence...And become an atheist..😏
All atheists are agnostics. Just like all theists (including me). Whether some subject is knowable depends on the the nature of the subject, not the opinion of the putative knower.
This is one of the trillion interesting insights of Kant's first critique.
erm sorry to disagree...some theists are agnostics...the ones told you have to have faith
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
The universal WFP will not be reinstated, and there will be a very different set of problems and issues that will need innovative ways to resolve by 2029
Mel Stride has already said the triple lock is unaffordable and that will not be in the manifesto as it is unaffordable
To be honest, you should join reform as that is where your heart is and where they live, back in the 1950s, whereas the country has moved on and frankly I expect reform to become quite unpopular if they take Musk's money and side with Trump and his crazy ideas
In which case the Starmer government will be thrown out of office once it loses its majority as the LDs will hold the balance of power on current polls and want the universal WFP reinstated let alone Reform.
The Tories are a million miles from a majority too so Stride can say what he wants he won't be able to implement it without LD or Reform backing either
The Scots have a wonderful expression for you
You are just 'havering'
Look it up
It is just reality, the Tories, LDs, Reform and SNP would all back a no confidence vote in a Labour minority government unless it reverses the tractor tax and WFA cut. So unless Labour retains its majority at the next GE both those policies are doomed
You assume far too much there. The SNP will never (again) put the Tories in over Labour. The Lib Dems are very unlikely to with the Tories in their current state. And we can't have endless general elections so if it is a Con-/Lab-led govt choice then they'd go with Labour.
You don't need to No Confidence a minority government to get your preferred policies when you can oppose vote-by-vote.
That said, the Winter Fuel issue will be very old news by 2028/9.
The LDs if Kingmakers could simply restore the WFA and reverse the IHT exemption removal for family farms via amendment to a Labour minority government's Budget and threaten to vote down the entire budget unless included
Except that its not going to be on their agenda by 2029.
The only reason its talked about today is its in the news today, come 2029 they'll have whatever priorities suit 2029 and not today's news.
Just like Labour screamed and screamed about the bedroom tax but once in office it wasn't their priority anymore.
At least half the LD seats are in rural areas and almost half LD voters are pensioners, it will be far more of an issue for them reversing the tractor tax and WFA cut than the bedroom tax will be for Labour now given the size of their majority. The LDs learnt their lesson from 2010-15 and will want more of a pound of flesh from any minority government before agreeing to support them.
Though Labour have managed to find huge payrises for their core voters such as train drivers and NHS GPs the Tories didn't even so. Reversing the bedroom tax was also never in Starmer's manifesto anyway
Interesting that Steve Baker said this evening that the Tories would never get anywhere until they start being serious and realise that such things as supporting the winter fuel payments for pensioners is unsustainable. I thought he was quite impressive.
Yes well if they lose all their pensioner core vote to the LDs and Reform the 2 remaining Tory MPs can be as serious as they like but nobody will be listening
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
The universal WFP will not be reinstated, and there will be a very different set of problems and issues that will need innovative ways to resolve by 2029
Mel Stride has already said the triple lock is unaffordable and that will not be in the manifesto as it is unaffordable
To be honest, you should join reform as that is where your heart is and where they live, back in the 1950s, whereas the country has moved on and frankly I expect reform to become quite unpopular if they take Musk's money and side with Trump and his crazy ideas
In which case the Starmer government will be thrown out of office once it loses its majority as the LDs will hold the balance of power on current polls and want the universal WFP reinstated let alone Reform.
The Tories are a million miles from a majority too so Stride can say what he wants he won't be able to implement it without LD or Reform backing either
The Scots have a wonderful expression for you
You are just 'havering'
Look it up
It is just reality, the Tories, LDs, Reform and SNP would all back a no confidence vote in a Labour minority government unless it reverses the tractor tax and WFA cut. So unless Labour retains its majority at the next GE both those policies are doomed
You assume far too much there. The SNP will never (again) put the Tories in over Labour. The Lib Dems are very unlikely to with the Tories in their current state. And we can't have endless general elections so if it is a Con-/Lab-led govt choice then they'd go with Labour.
You don't need to No Confidence a minority government to get your preferred policies when you can oppose vote-by-vote.
That said, the Winter Fuel issue will be very old news by 2028/9.
The LDs if Kingmakers could simply restore the WFA and reverse the IHT exemption removal for family farms via amendment to a Labour minority government's Budget and threaten to vote down the entire budget unless included
Except that its not going to be on their agenda by 2029.
The only reason its talked about today is its in the news today, come 2029 they'll have whatever priorities suit 2029 and not today's news.
Just like Labour screamed and screamed about the bedroom tax but once in office it wasn't their priority anymore.
At least half the LD seats are in rural areas and almost half LD voters are pensioners, it will be far more of an issue for them reversing the tractor tax and WFA cut than the bedroom tax will be for Labour now given the size of their majority. The LDs learnt their lesson from 2010-15 and will want more of a pound of flesh from any minority government before agreeing to support them.
Though Labour have managed to find huge payrises for their core voters such as train drivers and NHS GPs the Tories didn't even so. Reversing the bedroom tax was also never in Starmer's manifesto anyway
Interesting that Steve Baker said this evening that the Tories would never get anywhere until they start being serious and realise that such things as supporting the winter fuel payments for pensioners is unsustainable. I thought he was quite impressive.
Yes well if they lose all their pensioner core vote to the LDs and Reform the 2 remaining Tory MPs can be as serious as they like but nobody will be listening
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
The universal WFP will not be reinstated, and there will be a very different set of problems and issues that will need innovative ways to resolve by 2029
Mel Stride has already said the triple lock is unaffordable and that will not be in the manifesto as it is unaffordable
To be honest, you should join reform as that is where your heart is and where they live, back in the 1950s, whereas the country has moved on and frankly I expect reform to become quite unpopular if they take Musk's money and side with Trump and his crazy ideas
In which case the Starmer government will be thrown out of office once it loses its majority as the LDs will hold the balance of power on current polls and want the universal WFP reinstated let alone Reform.
The Tories are a million miles from a majority too so Stride can say what he wants he won't be able to implement it without LD or Reform backing either
The Scots have a wonderful expression for you
You are just 'havering'
Look it up
It is just reality, the Tories, LDs, Reform and SNP would all back a no confidence vote in a Labour minority government unless it reverses the tractor tax and WFA cut. So unless Labour retains its majority at the next GE both those policies are doomed
You assume far too much there. The SNP will never (again) put the Tories in over Labour. The Lib Dems are very unlikely to with the Tories in their current state. And we can't have endless general elections so if it is a Con-/Lab-led govt choice then they'd go with Labour.
You don't need to No Confidence a minority government to get your preferred policies when you can oppose vote-by-vote.
That said, the Winter Fuel issue will be very old news by 2028/9.
The LDs if Kingmakers could simply restore the WFA and reverse the IHT exemption removal for family farms via amendment to a Labour minority government's Budget and threaten to vote down the entire budget unless included
Except that its not going to be on their agenda by 2029.
The only reason its talked about today is its in the news today, come 2029 they'll have whatever priorities suit 2029 and not today's news.
Just like Labour screamed and screamed about the bedroom tax but once in office it wasn't their priority anymore.
At least half the LD seats are in rural areas and almost half LD voters are pensioners, it will be far more of an issue for them reversing the tractor tax and WFA cut than the bedroom tax will be for Labour now given the size of their majority. The LDs learnt their lesson from 2010-15 and will want more of a pound of flesh from any minority government before agreeing to support them.
Though Labour have managed to find huge payrises for their core voters such as train drivers and NHS GPs the Tories didn't even so. Reversing the bedroom tax was also never in Starmer's manifesto anyway
Interesting that Steve Baker said this evening that the Tories would never get anywhere until they start being serious and realise that such things as supporting the winter fuel payments for pensioners is unsustainable. I thought he was quite impressive.
Yes well if they lose all their pensioner core vote to the LDs and Reform the 2 remaining Tory MPs can be as serious as they like but nobody will be listening
Steve Baker is correct and you simply are stuck in reform
On another topic. Do you know a Welsh musician called Karl Jenkins? I worked with him and his partner Mike Ratledge many times. He was my first choice for composing jingles particularly for cars and he was super cool.
What I didn't know till this evening is that he's now been knighted and has written the most popular piece of classical music written by a living composer. I'm shocked!
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
(b). If he can't cope with this he is in the wrong job.
Footnotes: Vicars who start off from John's gospel are often uncritical of how ancient texts work. It is a dense work rooted in a culture modern Christians can't comprehend. It's relationship to what we call history is very complicated.
The historical Jesus is substantially more than a decent itinerant. For a highly informed and critically acute view, EP Sanders 'The historical figure of Jesus' publ by Penguin is outstanding. Worth a read.
If your vicar hasn't read it then he probably hasn't read very much decent stuff. A lot just read American pop paperbacks by fundamentalists.
All Christians (including me) are agnostics, just like all the human race. Religion is not a knowable item.
Maybe get off the agnostic fence...And become an atheist..😏
All atheists are agnostics. Just like all theists (including me). Whether some subject is knowable depends on the the nature of the subject, not the opinion of the putative knower.
This is one of the trillion interesting insights of Kant's first critique.
That's not true though.
a true atheist actively disbelieves in god while an agnostic doesn't know if god exists but may actively disbelieve in the organised religions.
No amount of belief or disbelief amounts to knowledge. Neither atheists nor theists are in any position to correctly claim to 'know'. To know something is to have a justified true belief. Both theism and atheism are properly believable and both have abundant justification. But which (if either) is true remains entirely open.
Agree. The "agnostic v atheist' split isn't that meaningful. You believe in "God" or you don't. Anybody needing evidence for belief will be in the latter category (barring direct divine experience).
I believe even a certain number of C of E Bishops have been privately agnostic. They just like writing learned sermons, working in a magnificent often medieval cathedral, bossing their staff and the diocese about and if they are lucky living in a Palace like this (the only other people in the UK who get to live in a Palace are the royal family and Duke of Marlborough) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolvesey_Palace
You even probably get some Roman Catholic Cardinals and Bishops who are similar on the quiet
For the second time this year I have discovered that somebody who I was quite close to but had lost touch with died of cancer, some years ago. Still quite a deep sense of loss.
Also just learned someone I am very much still in contact with (who I saw in their new home a couple of months ago) was on his bike and struck by a hit-and-run driver just before Christmas. Smashed leg, still concerned about ongoing back pain too.
Makes me feel very fortunate heading into a new year.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
Biden appears to be equally scared of a Russian victory and a Russian defeat. Since he was unable to choose between what he saw as equally unpalatable options, then other actors would make that choice, and so he would bear some responsibility for not choosing to support a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think he was at all ambivalent between those two things. He had a calculus to manage involving domestic politics and military and geopolitical risk. He did that, and it involved very considerable support without which Ukraine would probably be gone. He has very little to apologise for on this one imo.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
He did more than the minimum and had to fight to get it through at home. Trump is about to show us what a genuinely useless (to Ukraine) American president looks like.
two cheeks of the same arse, time Europe woke up and sorted themselves out and UK especially stopped licking butt.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
The Tories don't have the luxury of a few election defeats to find a better leader. Labour are doing badly enough that there's a chance the voters will want a new government sooner than that.
If the Tories aren't able to provide an alternative, will the voters turn elsewhere?
Depends what "credible" means. If it means "will do fundamentally what governments have been doing since 2001" then what's the point?
I think it's about the personal qualities of leadership.
Consider Corbyn in 2017 and 2019. I don't think the electorate thought that his policies in 2019 were less credible than in 2017. I think that he, personally, was seen as a less credible person to implement them.
Salisbury was bad for Corbyn. That really damaged him.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
France is making some efforts to step up production of their version. I think we're still in the process of reviewing (yet again) whatever the hell our defence policy is.
On the subject of Reform. The problem all governments (in essentially all developed countries) have is this:
(1) The number of old people is rising faster than the number of workers (2) The cost of healthcare and pensions to the retirees is therefore rising faster than the economic output of the workers
To add to which
(3) It is retirees who wield electoral power
This toxic combination has completely fucked up Japan and Italy. It's currently fucking up the UK too.
If you don't promise the moon on the stick to retirees, you don't get elected.
If you deliver the moon the stick to retirees, you fuck up your economy even more.
In the UK, we've made this even worse by having a tax and benefits system that discourages people at the lower end of the income spectrum from working, because effective tax rates (including withdrawal of benefits) are close to 100%. This therefore means we've artificially lowered the number of potential workers (and we're actually paying them to stay home).
And oh... it gets worse... it also means that governments have had to import large numbers of people to do low paid jobs in the care sector. Which means that housing - already expensive - has gotten even more expensive. Further fucking the economy.
None of the political parties actually seem to have any interest in dealing with the issues. Kemi (as @HYUFD has pointed out) seems mostly interested in promising to refeather the nests of the retired. SKS, by contrast, has chosen to raise employer's NI contributions, which makes employing the lower skilled even more expensive. Reform have promised to treat the symptoms, but without even acknowledging the causes. And the Liberal Democrats (who actually used to have real thinkers like David Laws) have discovered the route to electoral success is simply opposing everything.
Universal Credit has improved the situation somewhat so you no longer lose all your benefits if you find part time work and the Coalition also took the lowest earners out of income tax.You also have to look for work and accept jobs offered or lose your benefits.
Boris ended free movement from the EU and Rishi raised the visa wage requirement for migrants so fewer low skilled migrants can come in
Paragraph 2. Whoosh. Who will clear the wee and poo up after incontinent Tory voting pensioners if you are sending all the low skilled "foreigners" home?
They won't be needed. That's what the euthanasia bill is for.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
Well, she's not. But membership numbers are not something the general public gives a damn about. It's a Westminster Village story. That said, we shouldn't entirely dismiss it on that basis: the story is not of itself insignificant. Membership is a meaningful source of both money and activists and the relative size of the parties will influence MPs in both in their thinking and actions.
But Badenoch's bigger strategic question, which she's not come close to answering, is whether she wants to distance the Tories from Reform or imply she could implement their manifesto more effectively. Those are not entirely mutually contradictory positions but they're pretty difficult to reconcile and without serious political skills and energy (and the Tories lack both), then they just end up letting Reform drive the right.
In what way are Reform in relation to The Tories any different from the SDP in relation to Labour? The SDP were once media darlings, had a good number of MPs and councillors and got good opinion poll numbers.
Luck.
The times favour insurgent right wing parties, in a way they did not favour the SDP.
Social Democratic parties could do very well now if they outflanked the Right on immigration. But, they are not willing to do that.
Labour have said they will reduce immigration compared to the preceding Tory government. So, they appear to be doing exactly what you say none are willing to do.
believe it when they actually do something, boat people invasion is up yet again and no doubt the other methods will be similar. You cannot get 10lb into a 5lb bag, it has to stop at some point before we are bankrupted.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
(b). If he can't cope with this he is in the wrong job.
Footnotes: Vicars who start off from John's gospel are often uncritical of how ancient texts work. It is a dense work rooted in a culture modern Christians can't comprehend. It's relationship to what we call history is very complicated.
The historical Jesus is substantially more than a decent itinerant. For a highly informed and critically acute view, EP Sanders 'The historical figure of Jesus' publ by Penguin is outstanding. Worth a read.
If your vicar hasn't read it then he probably hasn't read very much decent stuff. A lot just read American pop paperbacks by fundamentalists.
All Christians (including me) are agnostics, just like all the human race. Religion is not a knowable item.
Maybe get off the agnostic fence...And become an atheist..😏
All atheists are agnostics. Just like all theists (including me). Whether some subject is knowable depends on the the nature of the subject, not the opinion of the putative knower.
This is one of the trillion interesting insights of Kant's first critique.
That's not true though.
a true atheist actively disbelieves in god while an agnostic doesn't know if god exists but may actively disbelieve in the organised religions.
No amount of belief or disbelief amounts to knowledge. Neither atheists nor theists are in any position to correctly claim to 'know'. To know something is to have a justified true belief. Both theism and atheism are properly believable and both have abundant justification. But which (if either) is true remains entirely open.
Agree. The "agnostic v atheist' split isn't that meaningful. You believe in "God" or you don't. Anybody needing evidence for belief will be in the latter category (barring direct divine experience).
I believe even a certain number of C of E Bishops have been privately agnostic. They just like writing learned sermons, working in a magnificent often medieval cathedral, bossing their staff and the diocese about and if they are lucky living in a Palace like this (the only other people in the UK who get to live in a Palace are the royal family and Duke of Marlborough) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolvesey_Palace
You even probably get some Roman Catholic Cardinals and Bishops who are similar on the quiet
Plus for most diocesan Bishops you still get a seat in the House of Lords as well
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
For some value of "supported".
Obviously. It was higher than nothing and lower than everything. Like most things.
It wasn't as high as "enough", and that's what matters.
How would it be looking with zero US support, do you think?
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
(b). If he can't cope with this he is in the wrong job.
Footnotes: Vicars who start off from John's gospel are often uncritical of how ancient texts work. It is a dense work rooted in a culture modern Christians can't comprehend. It's relationship to what we call history is very complicated.
The historical Jesus is substantially more than a decent itinerant. For a highly informed and critically acute view, EP Sanders 'The historical figure of Jesus' publ by Penguin is outstanding. Worth a read.
If your vicar hasn't read it then he probably hasn't read very much decent stuff. A lot just read American pop paperbacks by fundamentalists.
All Christians (including me) are agnostics, just like all the human race. Religion is not a knowable item.
Maybe get off the agnostic fence...And become an atheist..😏
All atheists are agnostics. Just like all theists (including me). Whether some subject is knowable depends on the the nature of the subject, not the opinion of the putative knower.
This is one of the trillion interesting insights of Kant's first critique.
That's not true though.
a true atheist actively disbelieves in god while an agnostic doesn't know if god exists but may actively disbelieve in the organised religions.
No amount of belief or disbelief amounts to knowledge. Neither atheists nor theists are in any position to correctly claim to 'know'. To know something is to have a justified true belief. Both theism and atheism are properly believable and both have abundant justification. But which (if either) is true remains entirely open.
Agree. The "agnostic v atheist' split isn't that meaningful. You believe in "God" or you don't. Anybody needing evidence for belief will be in the latter category (barring direct divine experience).
I believe even a certain number of C of E Bishops have been privately agnostic. They just like writing learned sermons, working in a magnificent often medieval cathedral, bossing their staff and the diocese about and if they are lucky living in a Palace like this (the only other people in the UK who get to live in a Palace are the royal family and Duke of Marlborough) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolvesey_Palace
You even probably get some Roman Catholic Cardinals and Bishops who are similar on the quiet
Plus for most diocesan Bishops you still get a seat in the House of Lords as well
It's about half - 42 dioceses, 24 Lords Spiritual.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
(b). If he can't cope with this he is in the wrong job.
Footnotes: Vicars who start off from John's gospel are often uncritical of how ancient texts work. It is a dense work rooted in a culture modern Christians can't comprehend. It's relationship to what we call history is very complicated.
The historical Jesus is substantially more than a decent itinerant. For a highly informed and critically acute view, EP Sanders 'The historical figure of Jesus' publ by Penguin is outstanding. Worth a read.
If your vicar hasn't read it then he probably hasn't read very much decent stuff. A lot just read American pop paperbacks by fundamentalists.
All Christians (including me) are agnostics, just like all the human race. Religion is not a knowable item.
Maybe get off the agnostic fence...And become an atheist..😏
All atheists are agnostics. Just like all theists (including me). Whether some subject is knowable depends on the the nature of the subject, not the opinion of the putative knower.
This is one of the trillion interesting insights of Kant's first critique.
That's not true though.
a true atheist actively disbelieves in god while an agnostic doesn't know if god exists but may actively disbelieve in the organised religions.
No amount of belief or disbelief amounts to knowledge. Neither atheists nor theists are in any position to correctly claim to 'know'. To know something is to have a justified true belief. Both theism and atheism are properly believable and both have abundant justification. But which (if either) is true remains entirely open.
Agree. The "agnostic v atheist' split isn't that meaningful. You believe in "God" or you don't. Anybody needing evidence for belief will be in the latter category (barring direct divine experience).
I believe even a certain number of C of E Bishops have been privately agnostic. They just like writing learned sermons, working in a magnificent often medieval cathedral, bossing their staff and the diocese about and if they are lucky living in a Palace like this (the only other people in the UK who get to live in a Palace are the royal family and Duke of Marlborough) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolvesey_Palace
You even probably get some Roman Catholic Cardinals and Bishops who are similar on the quiet
Plus for most diocesan Bishops you still get a seat in the House of Lords as well
It's about half - 42 dioceses, 24 Lords Spiritual.
It also goes on seniority so even if you are not in now you may still get in after a few retirements
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
He did more than the minimum and had to fight to get it through at home. Trump is about to show us what a genuinely useless (to Ukraine) American president looks like.
two cheeks of the same arse, time Europe woke up and sorted themselves out and UK especially stopped licking butt.
Trump/Biden are not "two cheeks". Cmon.
But, yes, agree on Europe. There's a crunch coming if America are going to shed their Big Protector role.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
(b). If he can't cope with this he is in the wrong job.
Footnotes: Vicars who start off from John's gospel are often uncritical of how ancient texts work. It is a dense work rooted in a culture modern Christians can't comprehend. It's relationship to what we call history is very complicated.
The historical Jesus is substantially more than a decent itinerant. For a highly informed and critically acute view, EP Sanders 'The historical figure of Jesus' publ by Penguin is outstanding. Worth a read.
If your vicar hasn't read it then he probably hasn't read very much decent stuff. A lot just read American pop paperbacks by fundamentalists.
All Christians (including me) are agnostics, just like all the human race. Religion is not a knowable item.
Maybe get off the agnostic fence...And become an atheist..😏
All atheists are agnostics. Just like all theists (including me). Whether some subject is knowable depends on the the nature of the subject, not the opinion of the putative knower.
This is one of the trillion interesting insights of Kant's first critique.
That's not true though.
a true atheist actively disbelieves in god while an agnostic doesn't know if god exists but may actively disbelieve in the organised religions.
No amount of belief or disbelief amounts to knowledge. Neither atheists nor theists are in any position to correctly claim to 'know'. To know something is to have a justified true belief. Both theism and atheism are properly believable and both have abundant justification. But which (if either) is true remains entirely open.
Agree. The "agnostic v atheist' split isn't that meaningful. You believe in "God" or you don't. Anybody needing evidence for belief will be in the latter category (barring direct divine experience).
I believe even a certain number of C of E Bishops have been privately agnostic. They just like writing learned sermons, working in a magnificent often medieval cathedral, bossing their staff and the diocese about and if they are lucky living in a Palace like this (the only other people in the UK who get to live in a Palace are the royal family and Duke of Marlborough) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolvesey_Palace
You even probably get some Roman Catholic Cardinals and Bishops who are similar on the quiet
Plus for most diocesan Bishops you still get a seat in the House of Lords as well
It's about half - 42 dioceses, 24 Lords Spiritual.
It also goes on seniority so even if you are not in now you may still get in after a few retirements
Slightly complicated by the current fast-tracking of female bishops.
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
You are writing a very expensive manifesto a long way out from the GE. Restoring unlimited agricultural relief, restoring WFP, reversing VAT on private schools, cutting Employers NI. No doubt wanting to continue the Triple Lock and increasing military spending.
What are you planning to cut to fund that lot?
Well you could start by axing the above inflation payrise for GPs and train drivers but the LDs for starters now agree with the Tories on almost everything you have set out and Reform also agree with the Tories and LDs on most of those policies too
I am questioning you on the Tory policies that you are proposing.
It would be impossible to reverse the public sector payrises, unless you propose a major pay cut for all in the public sector.
Is that what your manifesto plans? Including armed forces, police etc?
Even so, that wouldn't fund the gap.
Certainly no rises for any public sector employee above inflation
Well, that's what Labour did. Where are you going to find the difference?
Tax rises? In which case what are they? Spending cuts? Where and how much? Or ramping up borrowing?
No one ever seems to suggest the state should do less
We are having to release prisoners early because there aren't enough places and schools are literally falling down. That really doesn't suggest the state is doing too much.
money being squandered on the wrong things , ie 5 billion on hotels alone for economic migrants , that we know of. They could save 10-15% if they cut the waste, got some productivity going and spent the proceeds on improving things.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Whilst I understand that point of view there's also a risk you relight anachronistic battles of the past.
The EU of the 2030s won't be the same one we left in the 2010s.
Well, let's see.
If we ever rejoin the eu I hope to see the rise of a gb republican army fighting it
If we don't sort it out we will be a banana republic in short order.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
Well does it matter? Trump takes office in Jan and won't send anymore US missiles.
Zelensky will have to wait until Merz likely takes office in Feb as he has promised to send more German missiles to Ukraine if elected, then get the French and British to follow suit
The French* and British aren't making any missiles. Their capacity to send more is limited.
Trump is potentially persuadable. The Ukrainians are making a valiant effort to work on his avarice and ego to persuade him to supply more weapons to Ukraine - but even if they are successful there won't be any ATACMs missiles to send because nothing has been done to make any more of them.
Of course it matters. Superiority in ranged weaponry wins wars.
* NigelB says the French are working on making more, so that's better then nowt, but it's a far cry from the tidal wave of Western weapons you'd hope we would be producing to support a Ukrainian victory nearly three years into the war.
What happens if Western countries have to fight a proper war? We'd run out of ammunition in weeks. The complacency is off the scale.
The problem is that governments in the Western world have no money for the reasons I elucidated below.
Indeed
Most of the stuff sent to Ukraine was about to time expire. And you don’t want to muck with solid rocket motors past their sell buy date. Disposing of them would actually have cost serious money - dissecting weapons that consist of a solid rocket motor and an HE warhead is a fiddly job, done by a small number of specialists. Using them for the Russian Tank Turret Tossing Olympics saved a fortune…
The problem is one that has been true since before WWII - cutting ammunition stocks is loved by finance departments of government everywhere.
You can never store enough ammunition. The issue is in having a plan to ramp up or restart production before your stores run out.
That plan seems not to have existed.
I am sure reports have been written, consultations had, plans about plans formed. All "on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'"
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
The Tories don't have the luxury of a few election defeats to find a better leader. Labour are doing badly enough that there's a chance the voters will want a new government sooner than that.
If the Tories aren't able to provide an alternative, will the voters turn elsewhere?
Depends what "credible" means. If it means "will do fundamentally what governments have been doing since 2001" then what's the point?
I think it's about the personal qualities of leadership.
Consider Corbyn in 2017 and 2019. I don't think the electorate thought that his policies in 2019 were less credible than in 2017. I think that he, personally, was seen as a less credible person to implement them.
Salisbury was bad for Corbyn. That really damaged him.
Rightly so. The casual use (and even more reckless disposal) of deadly military-grade nerve agents in an English city is one thing your politics should never find a way to excuse.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
Biden appears to be equally scared of a Russian victory and a Russian defeat. Since he was unable to choose between what he saw as equally unpalatable options, then other actors would make that choice, and so he would bear some responsibility for not choosing to support a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think he was at all ambivalent between those two things. He had a calculus to manage involving domestic politics and military and geopolitical risk. He did that, and it involved very considerable support without which Ukraine would probably be gone. He has very little to apologise for on this one imo.
He was wrong.
He delayed providing Ukraine with necessary weapons numerous times and was wrong to do so, and had to be dragged into doing so by the Ukrainians or the British.
His fears over the escalation risk were shown to be unfounded over and over again, and he did not learn from this experience. He does not have a strategy for Ukrainian victory. He acts only to prevent Ukrainian defeat. That is why I say that he is equally scared of Russian defeat and Russian victory.
He's hoping that Russia will tire of the war and call it quits. That's his strategy.
It may turn out to be better than Trump's "strategy", but it was never good enough.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
Biden appears to be equally scared of a Russian victory and a Russian defeat. Since he was unable to choose between what he saw as equally unpalatable options, then other actors would make that choice, and so he would bear some responsibility for not choosing to support a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think he was at all ambivalent between those two things. He had a calculus to manage involving domestic politics and military and geopolitical risk. He did that, and it involved very considerable support without which Ukraine would probably be gone. He has very little to apologise for on this one imo.
He was wrong.
He delayed providing Ukraine with necessary weapons numerous times and was wrong to do so, and had to be dragged into doing so by the Ukrainians or the British.
His fears over the escalation risk were shown to be unfounded over and over again, and he did not learn from this experience. He does not have a strategy for Ukrainian victory. He acts only to prevent Ukrainian defeat. That is why I say that he is equally scared of Russian defeat and Russian victory.
He's hoping they Russia will tire of the war and can it quits. That's all.
It may turn out to be better than Trump's "strategy", but it was never good enough.
As an aside, I think this is one of the corrosive effects of Trump on politics. It's made anti-Trumpists have really low standards. Simply not being Trump is good enough for them when there is plenty to criticise in non-Trump policy.
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
The universal WFP will not be reinstated, and there will be a very different set of problems and issues that will need innovative ways to resolve by 2029
Mel Stride has already said the triple lock is unaffordable and that will not be in the manifesto as it is unaffordable
To be honest, you should join reform as that is where your heart is and where they live, back in the 1950s, whereas the country has moved on and frankly I expect reform to become quite unpopular if they take Musk's money and side with Trump and his crazy ideas
In which case the Starmer government will be thrown out of office once it loses its majority as the LDs will hold the balance of power on current polls and want the universal WFP reinstated let alone Reform.
The Tories are a million miles from a majority too so Stride can say what he wants he won't be able to implement it without LD or Reform backing either
The Scots have a wonderful expression for you
You are just 'havering'
Look it up
It is just reality, the Tories, LDs, Reform and SNP would all back a no confidence vote in a Labour minority government unless it reverses the tractor tax and WFA cut. So unless Labour retains its majority at the next GE both those policies are doomed
You assume far too much there. The SNP will never (again) put the Tories in over Labour. The Lib Dems are very unlikely to with the Tories in their current state. And we can't have endless general elections so if it is a Con-/Lab-led govt choice then they'd go with Labour.
You don't need to No Confidence a minority government to get your preferred policies when you can oppose vote-by-vote.
That said, the Winter Fuel issue will be very old news by 2028/9.
The LDs if Kingmakers could simply restore the WFA and reverse the IHT exemption removal for family farms via amendment to a Labour minority government's Budget and threaten to vote down the entire budget unless included
Except that its not going to be on their agenda by 2029.
The only reason its talked about today is its in the news today, come 2029 they'll have whatever priorities suit 2029 and not today's news.
Just like Labour screamed and screamed about the bedroom tax but once in office it wasn't their priority anymore.
At least half the LD seats are in rural areas and almost half LD voters are pensioners, it will be far more of an issue for them reversing the tractor tax and WFA cut than the bedroom tax will be for Labour now given the size of their majority. The LDs learnt their lesson from 2010-15 and will want more of a pound of flesh from any minority government before agreeing to support them.
Though Labour have managed to find huge payrises for their core voters such as train drivers and NHS GPs the Tories didn't even so. Reversing the bedroom tax was also never in Starmer's manifesto anyway
Interesting that Steve Baker said this evening that the Tories would never get anywhere until they start being serious and realise that such things as supporting the winter fuel payments for pensioners is unsustainable. I thought he was quite impressive.
Yes well if they lose all their pensioner core vote to the LDs and Reform the 2 remaining Tory MPs can be as serious as they like but nobody will be listening
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
The universal WFP will not be reinstated, and there will be a very different set of problems and issues that will need innovative ways to resolve by 2029
Mel Stride has already said the triple lock is unaffordable and that will not be in the manifesto as it is unaffordable
To be honest, you should join reform as that is where your heart is and where they live, back in the 1950s, whereas the country has moved on and frankly I expect reform to become quite unpopular if they take Musk's money and side with Trump and his crazy ideas
In which case the Starmer government will be thrown out of office once it loses its majority as the LDs will hold the balance of power on current polls and want the universal WFP reinstated let alone Reform.
The Tories are a million miles from a majority too so Stride can say what he wants he won't be able to implement it without LD or Reform backing either
The Scots have a wonderful expression for you
You are just 'havering'
Look it up
It is just reality, the Tories, LDs, Reform and SNP would all back a no confidence vote in a Labour minority government unless it reverses the tractor tax and WFA cut. So unless Labour retains its majority at the next GE both those policies are doomed
You assume far too much there. The SNP will never (again) put the Tories in over Labour. The Lib Dems are very unlikely to with the Tories in their current state. And we can't have endless general elections so if it is a Con-/Lab-led govt choice then they'd go with Labour.
You don't need to No Confidence a minority government to get your preferred policies when you can oppose vote-by-vote.
That said, the Winter Fuel issue will be very old news by 2028/9.
The LDs if Kingmakers could simply restore the WFA and reverse the IHT exemption removal for family farms via amendment to a Labour minority government's Budget and threaten to vote down the entire budget unless included
Except that its not going to be on their agenda by 2029.
The only reason its talked about today is its in the news today, come 2029 they'll have whatever priorities suit 2029 and not today's news.
Just like Labour screamed and screamed about the bedroom tax but once in office it wasn't their priority anymore.
At least half the LD seats are in rural areas and almost half LD voters are pensioners, it will be far more of an issue for them reversing the tractor tax and WFA cut than the bedroom tax will be for Labour now given the size of their majority. The LDs learnt their lesson from 2010-15 and will want more of a pound of flesh from any minority government before agreeing to support them.
Though Labour have managed to find huge payrises for their core voters such as train drivers and NHS GPs the Tories didn't even so. Reversing the bedroom tax was also never in Starmer's manifesto anyway
Interesting that Steve Baker said this evening that the Tories would never get anywhere until they start being serious and realise that such things as supporting the winter fuel payments for pensioners is unsustainable. I thought he was quite impressive.
Yes well if they lose all their pensioner core vote to the LDs and Reform the 2 remaining Tory MPs can be as serious as they like but nobody will be listening
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
The universal WFP will not be reinstated, and there will be a very different set of problems and issues that will need innovative ways to resolve by 2029
Mel Stride has already said the triple lock is unaffordable and that will not be in the manifesto as it is unaffordable
To be honest, you should join reform as that is where your heart is and where they live, back in the 1950s, whereas the country has moved on and frankly I expect reform to become quite unpopular if they take Musk's money and side with Trump and his crazy ideas
In which case the Starmer government will be thrown out of office once it loses its majority as the LDs will hold the balance of power on current polls and want the universal WFP reinstated let alone Reform.
The Tories are a million miles from a majority too so Stride can say what he wants he won't be able to implement it without LD or Reform backing either
The Scots have a wonderful expression for you
You are just 'havering'
Look it up
It is just reality, the Tories, LDs, Reform and SNP would all back a no confidence vote in a Labour minority government unless it reverses the tractor tax and WFA cut. So unless Labour retains its majority at the next GE both those policies are doomed
You assume far too much there. The SNP will never (again) put the Tories in over Labour. The Lib Dems are very unlikely to with the Tories in their current state. And we can't have endless general elections so if it is a Con-/Lab-led govt choice then they'd go with Labour.
You don't need to No Confidence a minority government to get your preferred policies when you can oppose vote-by-vote.
That said, the Winter Fuel issue will be very old news by 2028/9.
The LDs if Kingmakers could simply restore the WFA and reverse the IHT exemption removal for family farms via amendment to a Labour minority government's Budget and threaten to vote down the entire budget unless included
Except that its not going to be on their agenda by 2029.
The only reason its talked about today is its in the news today, come 2029 they'll have whatever priorities suit 2029 and not today's news.
Just like Labour screamed and screamed about the bedroom tax but once in office it wasn't their priority anymore.
At least half the LD seats are in rural areas and almost half LD voters are pensioners, it will be far more of an issue for them reversing the tractor tax and WFA cut than the bedroom tax will be for Labour now given the size of their majority. The LDs learnt their lesson from 2010-15 and will want more of a pound of flesh from any minority government before agreeing to support them.
Though Labour have managed to find huge payrises for their core voters such as train drivers and NHS GPs the Tories didn't even so. Reversing the bedroom tax was also never in Starmer's manifesto anyway
Interesting that Steve Baker said this evening that the Tories would never get anywhere until they start being serious and realise that such things as supporting the winter fuel payments for pensioners is unsustainable. I thought he was quite impressive.
Yes well if they lose all their pensioner core vote to the LDs and Reform the 2 remaining Tory MPs can be as serious as they like but nobody will be listening
Steve Baker is correct and you simply are stuck in reform
On another topic. Do you know a Welsh musician called Karl Jenkins? I worked with him and his partner Mike Ratledge many times. He was my first choice for composing jingles particularly for cars and he was super cool.
What I didn't know till this evening is that he's now been knighted and has written the most popular piece of classical music written by a living composer. I'm shocked!
Jeez, Roger. I thought everyone knows The Armed Man.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
For some value of "supported".
Obviously. It was higher than nothing and lower than everything. Like most things.
It wasn't as high as "enough", and that's what matters.
How would it be looking with zero US support, do you think?
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
The universal WFP will not be reinstated, and there will be a very different set of problems and issues that will need innovative ways to resolve by 2029
Mel Stride has already said the triple lock is unaffordable and that will not be in the manifesto as it is unaffordable
To be honest, you should join reform as that is where your heart is and where they live, back in the 1950s, whereas the country has moved on and frankly I expect reform to become quite unpopular if they take Musk's money and side with Trump and his crazy ideas
In which case the Starmer government will be thrown out of office once it loses its majority as the LDs will hold the balance of power on current polls and want the universal WFP reinstated let alone Reform.
The Tories are a million miles from a majority too so Stride can say what he wants he won't be able to implement it without LD or Reform backing either
The Scots have a wonderful expression for you
You are just 'havering'
Look it up
It is just reality, the Tories, LDs, Reform and SNP would all back a no confidence vote in a Labour minority government unless it reverses the tractor tax and WFA cut. So unless Labour retains its majority at the next GE both those policies are doomed
You assume far too much there. The SNP will never (again) put the Tories in over Labour. The Lib Dems are very unlikely to with the Tories in their current state. And we can't have endless general elections so if it is a Con-/Lab-led govt choice then they'd go with Labour.
You don't need to No Confidence a minority government to get your preferred policies when you can oppose vote-by-vote.
That said, the Winter Fuel issue will be very old news by 2028/9.
The LDs if Kingmakers could simply restore the WFA and reverse the IHT exemption removal for family farms via amendment to a Labour minority government's Budget and threaten to vote down the entire budget unless included
Except that its not going to be on their agenda by 2029.
The only reason its talked about today is its in the news today, come 2029 they'll have whatever priorities suit 2029 and not today's news.
Just like Labour screamed and screamed about the bedroom tax but once in office it wasn't their priority anymore.
At least half the LD seats are in rural areas and almost half LD voters are pensioners, it will be far more of an issue for them reversing the tractor tax and WFA cut than the bedroom tax will be for Labour now given the size of their majority. The LDs learnt their lesson from 2010-15 and will want more of a pound of flesh from any minority government before agreeing to support them.
Though Labour have managed to find huge payrises for their core voters such as train drivers and NHS GPs the Tories didn't even so. Reversing the bedroom tax was also never in Starmer's manifesto anyway
Interesting that Steve Baker said this evening that the Tories would never get anywhere until they start being serious and realise that such things as supporting the winter fuel payments for pensioners is unsustainable. I thought he was quite impressive.
Yes well if they lose all their pensioner core vote to the LDs and Reform the 2 remaining Tory MPs can be as serious as they like but nobody will be listening
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
The universal WFP will not be reinstated, and there will be a very different set of problems and issues that will need innovative ways to resolve by 2029
Mel Stride has already said the triple lock is unaffordable and that will not be in the manifesto as it is unaffordable
To be honest, you should join reform as that is where your heart is and where they live, back in the 1950s, whereas the country has moved on and frankly I expect reform to become quite unpopular if they take Musk's money and side with Trump and his crazy ideas
In which case the Starmer government will be thrown out of office once it loses its majority as the LDs will hold the balance of power on current polls and want the universal WFP reinstated let alone Reform.
The Tories are a million miles from a majority too so Stride can say what he wants he won't be able to implement it without LD or Reform backing either
The Scots have a wonderful expression for you
You are just 'havering'
Look it up
It is just reality, the Tories, LDs, Reform and SNP would all back a no confidence vote in a Labour minority government unless it reverses the tractor tax and WFA cut. So unless Labour retains its majority at the next GE both those policies are doomed
You assume far too much there. The SNP will never (again) put the Tories in over Labour. The Lib Dems are very unlikely to with the Tories in their current state. And we can't have endless general elections so if it is a Con-/Lab-led govt choice then they'd go with Labour.
You don't need to No Confidence a minority government to get your preferred policies when you can oppose vote-by-vote.
That said, the Winter Fuel issue will be very old news by 2028/9.
The LDs if Kingmakers could simply restore the WFA and reverse the IHT exemption removal for family farms via amendment to a Labour minority government's Budget and threaten to vote down the entire budget unless included
Except that its not going to be on their agenda by 2029.
The only reason its talked about today is its in the news today, come 2029 they'll have whatever priorities suit 2029 and not today's news.
Just like Labour screamed and screamed about the bedroom tax but once in office it wasn't their priority anymore.
At least half the LD seats are in rural areas and almost half LD voters are pensioners, it will be far more of an issue for them reversing the tractor tax and WFA cut than the bedroom tax will be for Labour now given the size of their majority. The LDs learnt their lesson from 2010-15 and will want more of a pound of flesh from any minority government before agreeing to support them.
Though Labour have managed to find huge payrises for their core voters such as train drivers and NHS GPs the Tories didn't even so. Reversing the bedroom tax was also never in Starmer's manifesto anyway
Interesting that Steve Baker said this evening that the Tories would never get anywhere until they start being serious and realise that such things as supporting the winter fuel payments for pensioners is unsustainable. I thought he was quite impressive.
Yes well if they lose all their pensioner core vote to the LDs and Reform the 2 remaining Tory MPs can be as serious as they like but nobody will be listening
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
The universal WFP will not be reinstated, and there will be a very different set of problems and issues that will need innovative ways to resolve by 2029
Mel Stride has already said the triple lock is unaffordable and that will not be in the manifesto as it is unaffordable
To be honest, you should join reform as that is where your heart is and where they live, back in the 1950s, whereas the country has moved on and frankly I expect reform to become quite unpopular if they take Musk's money and side with Trump and his crazy ideas
In which case the Starmer government will be thrown out of office once it loses its majority as the LDs will hold the balance of power on current polls and want the universal WFP reinstated let alone Reform.
The Tories are a million miles from a majority too so Stride can say what he wants he won't be able to implement it without LD or Reform backing either
The Scots have a wonderful expression for you
You are just 'havering'
Look it up
It is just reality, the Tories, LDs, Reform and SNP would all back a no confidence vote in a Labour minority government unless it reverses the tractor tax and WFA cut. So unless Labour retains its majority at the next GE both those policies are doomed
You assume far too much there. The SNP will never (again) put the Tories in over Labour. The Lib Dems are very unlikely to with the Tories in their current state. And we can't have endless general elections so if it is a Con-/Lab-led govt choice then they'd go with Labour.
You don't need to No Confidence a minority government to get your preferred policies when you can oppose vote-by-vote.
That said, the Winter Fuel issue will be very old news by 2028/9.
The LDs if Kingmakers could simply restore the WFA and reverse the IHT exemption removal for family farms via amendment to a Labour minority government's Budget and threaten to vote down the entire budget unless included
Except that its not going to be on their agenda by 2029.
The only reason its talked about today is its in the news today, come 2029 they'll have whatever priorities suit 2029 and not today's news.
Just like Labour screamed and screamed about the bedroom tax but once in office it wasn't their priority anymore.
At least half the LD seats are in rural areas and almost half LD voters are pensioners, it will be far more of an issue for them reversing the tractor tax and WFA cut than the bedroom tax will be for Labour now given the size of their majority. The LDs learnt their lesson from 2010-15 and will want more of a pound of flesh from any minority government before agreeing to support them.
Though Labour have managed to find huge payrises for their core voters such as train drivers and NHS GPs the Tories didn't even so. Reversing the bedroom tax was also never in Starmer's manifesto anyway
Interesting that Steve Baker said this evening that the Tories would never get anywhere until they start being serious and realise that such things as supporting the winter fuel payments for pensioners is unsustainable. I thought he was quite impressive.
Yes well if they lose all their pensioner core vote to the LDs and Reform the 2 remaining Tory MPs can be as serious as they like but nobody will be listening
Steve Baker is correct and you simply are stuck in reform
On another topic. Do you know a Welsh musician called Karl Jenkins? I worked with him and his partner Mike Ratledge many times. He was my first choice for composing jingles particularly for cars and he was super cool.
What I didn't know till this evening is that he's now been knighted and has written the most popular piece of classical music written by a living composer. I'm shocked!
Yes I have heard of Karl Jenkins and he is actually just 12 days older than me !!!
I'd say they are testing the edges, and attacking resilience. The power cable will take months to repair.
I'm actually not sure what powers police and coastguards have to operate in international waters, or what sanctions can be applied to Russian-controlled ships. Iirc it's very complicated, and takes forever, if things are not done under "we need to do THIS" type powers that coastguards etc may not have.
I believe the UK now has one ship - RFA Proteus, bought second hand from Norway last year, dedicated to keeping an eye on undersea assets, amongst the other things it does.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
The Tories don't have the luxury of a few election defeats to find a better leader. Labour are doing badly enough that there's a chance the voters will want a new government sooner than that.
If the Tories aren't able to provide an alternative, will the voters turn elsewhere?
Depends what "credible" means. If it means "will do fundamentally what governments have been doing since 2001" then what's the point?
I think it's about the personal qualities of leadership.
Consider Corbyn in 2017 and 2019. I don't think the electorate thought that his policies in 2019 were less credible than in 2017. I think that he, personally, was seen as a less credible person to implement them.
Salisbury was bad for Corbyn. That really damaged him.
There was an element in 2019 that people thought he was taking the mick by the end - free broadband and WASPI pledges were laughed at in a way the more moderate 2017 offer wasn't, but it's Salisbury (and the associated sympathies it confirmed in people's minds), Brexit, and to a lesser extent the appalling way he handled antisemitism that doomed him rather than the manifesto.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
He did more than the minimum and had to fight to get it through at home. Trump is about to show us what a genuinely useless (to Ukraine) American president looks like.
two cheeks of the same arse, time Europe woke up and sorted themselves out and UK especially stopped licking butt.
Trump/Biden are not "two cheeks". Cmon.
But, yes, agree on Europe. There's a crunch coming if America are going to shed their Big Protector role.
I think they are re Ukraine. Europe should tell them to F off and stop buying any kit from them , they would shit their pants
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
The Tories don't have the luxury of a few election defeats to find a better leader. Labour are doing badly enough that there's a chance the voters will want a new government sooner than that.
If the Tories aren't able to provide an alternative, will the voters turn elsewhere?
Depends what "credible" means. If it means "will do fundamentally what governments have been doing since 2001" then what's the point?
I think it's about the personal qualities of leadership.
Consider Corbyn in 2017 and 2019. I don't think the electorate thought that his policies in 2019 were less credible than in 2017. I think that he, personally, was seen as a less credible person to implement them.
Salisbury was bad for Corbyn. That really damaged him.
Rightly so. The casual use (and even more reckless disposal) of deadly military-grade nerve agents in an English city is one thing your politics should never find a way to excuse.
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
You are writing a very expensive manifesto a long way out from the GE. Restoring unlimited agricultural relief, restoring WFP, reversing VAT on private schools, cutting Employers NI. No doubt wanting to continue the Triple Lock and increasing military spending.
What are you planning to cut to fund that lot?
Well you could start by axing the above inflation payrise for GPs and train drivers but the LDs for starters now agree with the Tories on almost everything you have set out and Reform also agree with the Tories and LDs on most of those policies too
I am questioning you on the Tory policies that you are proposing.
It would be impossible to reverse the public sector payrises, unless you propose a major pay cut for all in the public sector.
Is that what your manifesto plans? Including armed forces, police etc?
Even so, that wouldn't fund the gap.
Certainly no rises for any public sector employee above inflation
Well, that's what Labour did. Where are you going to find the difference?
Tax rises? In which case what are they? Spending cuts? Where and how much? Or ramping up borrowing?
No one ever seems to suggest the state should do less
We are having to release prisoners early because there aren't enough places and schools are literally falling down. That really doesn't suggest the state is doing too much.
money being squandered on the wrong things , ie 5 billion on hotels alone for economic migrants , that we know of. They could save 10-15% if they cut the waste, got some productivity going and spent the proceeds on improving things.
Or just paying down the borrowing incurred through Covid.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
Biden appears to be equally scared of a Russian victory and a Russian defeat. Since he was unable to choose between what he saw as equally unpalatable options, then other actors would make that choice, and so he would bear some responsibility for not choosing to support a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think he was at all ambivalent between those two things. He had a calculus to manage involving domestic politics and military and geopolitical risk. He did that, and it involved very considerable support without which Ukraine would probably be gone. He has very little to apologise for on this one imo.
He was wrong.
He delayed providing Ukraine with necessary weapons numerous times and was wrong to do so, and had to be dragged into doing so by the Ukrainians or the British.
His fears over the escalation risk were shown to be unfounded over and over again, and he did not learn from this experience. He does not have a strategy for Ukrainian victory. He acts only to prevent Ukrainian defeat. That is why I say that he is equally scared of Russian defeat and Russian victory.
He's hoping they Russia will tire of the war and can it quits. That's all.
It may turn out to be better than Trump's "strategy", but it was never good enough.
As an aside, I think this is one of the corrosive effects of Trump on politics. It's made anti-Trumpists have really low standards. Simply not being Trump is good enough for them when there is plenty to criticise in non-Trump policy.
Indeed. On Ukraine policies there was a choice last month between "proven to be not remotely good enough" and "almost certainly worse".
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
You are writing a very expensive manifesto a long way out from the GE. Restoring unlimited agricultural relief, restoring WFP, reversing VAT on private schools, cutting Employers NI. No doubt wanting to continue the Triple Lock and increasing military spending.
What are you planning to cut to fund that lot?
I think Labour has played a very clever game by making these changes now. They have a strategy, it's just in the "unpopular" phase.
Has Leon been banned for good?
Leon is not currently banned sfaict.
He's on Cornwall. They don't have the Internet in such remote places.
Don't underestimate people's ability to connect to the Internet.
HYUFD is in 1954 and he has the Internet.
That was about the time I learned semaphore (messages with flags) in the Scouts.
Aw, I didn't have that when I was playing with my woggle and sleeping on top of a few sheets of newspaper in an old army tent a decade or two later.
#deprivedchildhood
Has one of Leon or TSE hacked your account?
Ever admitted being a former Scout? Someone is bound to ask about the woggle, so I just preempted it.
I'd say they are testing the edges, and attacking resilience. The power cable will take months to repair.
I'm actually not sure what powers police and coastguards have to operate in international waters, or what sanctions can be applied to Russian-controlled ships. Iirc it's very complicated, and takes forever, if things are not done under "we need to do THIS" type powers that coastguards etc may not have.
I believe the UK now has one ship - RFA Proteus, bought second hand from Norway last year, dedicated to keeping an eye on undersea assets, amongst the other things it does.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Because these things generally don't stick around as first order issues unless there's some exacerbating factor or it has huge unforeseen negative consequences? If they did, Ed Miliband would've become PM.
The WFA and VAT on school fees in particular seem highly unlikely to blow up beyond the initial burst of anger given one those losing it will basically get back in April and was becoming more irrelevant each year, while the other made something that had already become completely unaffordable to the vast majority slightly more so.
The IHT changes could backfire if farming and landholders' lobbyists are right and the treasury wrong, and more apocalyptic scenarios come to pass - but even then negatives are likely to play out over decades.
Plus the changes mainly fall on those least likely to vote Labour. Looked at cynically, just as the Tories did in 2010-15, if you're cutting/taxing things that are going to piss people off, it might as well be those who already don't like you.
The problem Labour have is they are alienating various voting groups whilst failing to articulate how it all fits into an overall vision or strategy, because it doesn't.
It risks looking vindictive, which will be noticed and impress itself upon a far wider group of voters, and means they will get little credit even if things do improve.
I'd disagree with that - the overall strategy is fairly clear I think, if you listen to some of the bigger thinkers in the Labour millieu. It's to basically take that working age cohorts that won Labour the last election as had become so anti-Tory, and pursue policies that favour them. That's planning reform, the increased minimum wage, Rayners' workers' right stuff, restoring public services generally rely on to a level where they're not in a permacrisis, as well as a bit of populism on transport, and so on. Then a more reconciliatory attitude towards the EU and so on.
The overall theory being that politics has become scleroritc because vested interests with large megaphones (and in the case of homeowning pensioners, voting power) mean we take counterproductive decisions to privilege them, over ones which benefit the public at large and working people in particular.
At the next election, Labour would likely love to run as a party that was fixing things for working people against a Tory party that's stuck in the past and is beholden to its asset rich elderly base of blockers.
But it is slow to emerge as the 'negative' bits you'd say look vindictive - but defenders would argue are simply refusing to exclude those with powerful supporters from tough tax and spending decisions - are frontloaded while the potential positives are more of a process.
It's worth noticing there is a similar strand of thinking among young Tories (though obviously less statist) but gets rather drowned out by culture wars stuff, Farage, and the oppositional campaigns that cut against it.
They also got a bit snookered by the Tories' scorched earth NI cut - which left them a choice between an honest but electorally risky pledge to reverse it, abandoning pledges to start fixing public services (you couldn't do much without pay deals), or what they did, putting it on employers in a way that isn't necessarily helpful to their aims. The first would've been the correct choice I think, but you can see why they didn't - and that's exactly why the Tories brought in the tax cut in the first place.
It looks increasingly likely that both the tractor tax* and VAT on public schools will be revenue negative. So there's no positive outcome at the end of that rainbow, just people upset and livelihoods ruined. These will be overturned.
The WFA, I agree in principle that millionaire pensioners shouldn't get it, but how disastrously has it been mishandled? I don't see any long term political benefit there either, and the savings are pitiful.
The long term strategy of this Government has been simple - get rejoining the EU underway, under the "casus belli" of a worsening economic, immigration, and perhaps security outlook - conveniently blaming these on Tory misrule. Save a bit of financial headroom for pork at the end of the parliament, and be joylessly re-elected.
The strategy is shot to shit, because: *It's Labour's paws all over the coming recession. Sorry guys, everybody is blaming Reeves' death budget, not the "£22bn black hole" because that's how economies work. *Because of the above, there won't be any headroom for later bribes *The Government is detested, with no political capital to spend on its pet projects like local Government reorganisation or 'UK energy'. Hope is being kept alive by the continuing rubishness of the Tories and the fact that Yougov have helpfully suspended VI polling. *Everyone can see that Rwanda was shitcanned and the boats jumped. There is no EU scheme to join.
One term - let's hope they don't make it to five years.
For the second time this year I have discovered that somebody who I was quite close to but had lost touch with died of cancer, some years ago. Still quite a deep sense of loss.
Also just learned someone I am very much still in contact with (who I saw in their new home a couple of months ago) was on his bike and struck by a hit-and-run driver just before Christmas. Smashed leg, still concerned about ongoing back pain too.
Makes me feel very fortunate heading into a new year.
We received Christmas cards from old friends in Edinburgh in the 1960's, a former employee of mine, and a relative we haven't seen in years and the firsts husband has dementia since last Christmas and she has heart issues, the former employee's husband has had a lung clot and is receiving treatment for cancer whilst she is suffering from osteoporosis, and the relative is very ill with cancer
The common denominator is they are all between 75 and 85
And the moral of the story - enjoy life to the full and never take your health for granted
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
(b). If he can't cope with this he is in the wrong job.
Footnotes: Vicars who start off from John's gospel are often uncritical of how ancient texts work. It is a dense work rooted in a culture modern Christians can't comprehend. It's relationship to what we call history is very complicated.
The historical Jesus is substantially more than a decent itinerant. For a highly informed and critically acute view, EP Sanders 'The historical figure of Jesus' publ by Penguin is outstanding. Worth a read.
If your vicar hasn't read it then he probably hasn't read very much decent stuff. A lot just read American pop paperbacks by fundamentalists.
All Christians (including me) are agnostics, just like all the human race. Religion is not a knowable item.
Maybe get off the agnostic fence...And become an atheist..😏
All atheists are agnostics. Just like all theists (including me). Whether some subject is knowable depends on the the nature of the subject, not the opinion of the putative knower.
This is one of the trillion interesting insights of Kant's first critique.
That's not true though.
a true atheist actively disbelieves in god while an agnostic doesn't know if god exists but may actively disbelieve in the organised religions.
No amount of belief or disbelief amounts to knowledge. Neither atheists nor theists are in any position to correctly claim to 'know'. To know something is to have a justified true belief. Both theism and atheism are properly believable and both have abundant justification. But which (if either) is true remains entirely open.
Agree. The "agnostic v atheist' split isn't that meaningful. You believe in "God" or you don't. Anybody needing evidence for belief will be in the latter category (barring direct divine experience).
I believe even a certain number of C of E Bishops have been privately agnostic. They just like writing learned sermons, working in a magnificent often medieval cathedral, bossing their staff and the diocese about and if they are lucky living in a Palace like this (the only other people in the UK who get to live in a Palace are the royal family and Duke of Marlborough) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolvesey_Palace
You even probably get some Roman Catholic Cardinals and Bishops who are similar on the quiet
Plus for most diocesan Bishops you still get a seat in the House of Lords as well
It's about half - 42 dioceses, 24 Lords Spiritual.
It also goes on seniority so even if you are not in now you may still get in after a few retirements
You said "get a seat". Present tense. Do please be accurate in debate on PB.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
Perhaps even short of the absolute minimum.
Don't be ridiculous.
I don't think that's ridiculous. With even half-hearted American support Ukraine could have prevailed. But it suited America to have a stalemate, not least due to its impact on POO.
I don't think this is true at all.
I think Biden would much rather that Ukraine had prevailed, because it would have led to the downfall of Putin, which would hugely of been in his interests.
It's more accurate to say - as @williamglenn does - that Biden was excessively concerned about the risks of escalation, and overestimated Russia's strength. And that was a mistake.
A mistake, for what it's worth, that many others made too.
I'm really not sure it is in America's interests for Putin to be replaced. Tge chances of Putin being replaced with someone who is better for America seem quite a long way lessthan 50%.
Again, I don't think that's true at all.
Putin's Russia has been a constant thorn in the West. In Poland, it spent a fortune on supporting groups to get fracking banned, for example. It has constantly tried to increase division in the West.
Those actions have, historically, had no consequences.
Any new regime in Moscow is going to be concerned primarily with getting sanctions removed and rebuilding the Russian economy. On the hierarchy of needs for any regime, getting the people fed and less likely to evict you is massively more important than stirring up trouble abroad.
I'd like to think that's so. But alternatively it could decide to pursue whatever mad bastardry it happens to have on its agenda while it has the chance? Worldwide, the record of benign regimes replacing dictators is at best mixed.
I'd say they are testing the edges, and attacking resilience. The power cable will take months to repair.
I'm actually not sure what powers police and coastguards have to operate in international waters, or what sanctions can be applied to Russian-controlled ships. Iirc it's very complicated, and takes forever, if things are not done under "we need to do THIS" type powers that coastguards etc may not have.
I believe the UK now has one ship - RFA Proteus, bought second hand from Norway last year, dedicated to keeping an eye on undersea assets, amongst the other things it does.
I'd say they are testing the edges, and attacking resilience. The power cable will take months to repair.
I'm actually not sure what powers police and coastguards have to operate in international waters, or what sanctions can be applied to Russian-controlled ships. Iirc it's very complicated, and takes forever, if things are not done under "we need to do THIS" type powers that coastguards etc may not have.
I believe the UK now has one ship - RFA Proteus, bought second hand from Norway last year, dedicated to keeping an eye on undersea assets, amongst the other things it does.
I'd say they are testing the edges, and attacking resilience. The power cable will take months to repair.
I'm actually not sure what powers police and coastguards have to operate in international waters, or what sanctions can be applied to Russian-controlled ships. Iirc it's very complicated, and takes forever, if things are not done under "we need to do THIS" type powers that coastguards etc may not have.
I believe the UK now has one ship - RFA Proteus, bought second hand from Norway last year, dedicated to keeping an eye on undersea assets, amongst the other things it does.
What are the chances of an actual Russian attack on Finland in 2025? Or one of the Baltic states?
More than negligible.
If it does happen we are hopelessly unprepared.
Given their recent defence of their Syrian friends, it may well be beyond them now. Outside of prodding to get a reaction. A sudden invasion of Belarus to protect the homeland however - a quick victory, Lukashenko very sadly having to live out his life in a nice Villa on the Black Sea. A great triumph for the Lord Protector while he negotiates with Ukraine to justify all those dead boys and heartbroken parents.
I'd say they are testing the edges, and attacking resilience. The power cable will take months to repair.
I'm actually not sure what powers police and coastguards have to operate in international waters, or what sanctions can be applied to Russian-controlled ships. Iirc it's very complicated, and takes forever, if things are not done under "we need to do THIS" type powers that coastguards etc may not have.
I believe the UK now has one ship - RFA Proteus, bought second hand from Norway last year, dedicated to keeping an eye on undersea assets, amongst the other things it does.
I'd say they are testing the edges, and attacking resilience. The power cable will take months to repair.
I'm actually not sure what powers police and coastguards have to operate in international waters, or what sanctions can be applied to Russian-controlled ships. Iirc it's very complicated, and takes forever, if things are not done under "we need to do THIS" type powers that coastguards etc may not have.
I believe the UK now has one ship - RFA Proteus, bought second hand from Norway last year, dedicated to keeping an eye on undersea assets, amongst the other things it does.
What are the chances of an actual Russian attack on Finland in 2025? Or one of the Baltic states?
More than negligible.
If it does happen we are hopelessly unprepared.
The local armies are fully prepared. Bear in mind that the Russian army is a long way from the Baltic at present.
There are 2,700 full time soldiers in the Estonian Army.
That's about two days of casualties for the Russian army in the current war.
unlike the US, UK, France, Germany and a few others in NATO, the Baltic states and Finland have always taken the threat of Russia Seriously. Their defence will make Ukraine's look like a shambles.
any attack by Russia will either be into Lithuania or Poland to connect Belarus to Kalinningrad. But that's not going to happen as Russia would need a few years to rebuild the shattered remnants of their army and tanks etc.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
The Tories didn't want to join the EU for half a century. In the 70s most of them supported joining the Common Market, which was very different from the EU, despite Ted Heath's lies about retaining sovereignty.
In the 90s Major just about got his party to pass the Maastricht treated, which spawned the EU.
And their policy in the 2010s was to have a referendum and implement the results, which they did, backed by the biggest democractic vote in this country's history, and endorsed by three general elections.
So there's no continuity in European policy for them to go back to, nor could there have been, as the EU has mutated and metastacised so much over that time.
Insofar as there was a consistent policy for that half century, it was "lie about what the European project was actually about".
To quote the Queens Speech at the State opening of Parliament in 1972:
"My Government will play a full and constructive part in the enlarged European Communities. They look forward to the opportunities membership will bring, for developing the country's full economic and industrial potential, for working out social and environmental policies on a European scale, and for increasing the influence of the enlarged Community for the benefit of the world at large."
It was always and explicitly more than a trading arrangement. Unless you believe that the Queen was lying to Parliament.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
The Tories didn't want to join the EU for half a century. In the 70s most of them supported joining the Common Market, which was very different from the EU, despite Ted Heath's lies about retaining sovereignty.
In the 90s Major just about got his party to pass the Maastricht treated, which spawned the EU.
And their policy in the 2010s was to have a referendum and implement the results, which they did, backed by the biggest democractic vote in this country's history, and endorsed by three general elections.
So there's no continuity in European policy for them to go back to, nor could there have been, as the EU has mutated and metastacised so much over that time.
Insofar as there was a consistent policy for that half century, it was "lie about what the European project was actually about".
To quote the Queens Speech at the State opening of Parliament in 1972:
"My Government will play a full and constructive part in the enlarged European Communities. They look forward to the opportunities membership will bring, for developing the country's full economic and industrial potential, for working out social and environmental policies on a European scale, and for increasing the influence of the enlarged Community for the benefit of the world at large."
It was always and explicitly more than a trading arrangement. Unless you believe that the Queen was lying to Parliament.
Yeah, as if that's a full description of the Project.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Because these things generally don't stick around as first order issues unless there's some exacerbating factor or it has huge unforeseen negative consequences? If they did, Ed Miliband would've become PM.
The WFA and VAT on school fees in particular seem highly unlikely to blow up beyond the initial burst of anger given one those losing it will basically get back in April and was becoming more irrelevant each year, while the other made something that had already become completely unaffordable to the vast majority slightly more so.
The IHT changes could backfire if farming and landholders' lobbyists are right and the treasury wrong, and more apocalyptic scenarios come to pass - but even then negatives are likely to play out over decades.
Plus the changes mainly fall on those least likely to vote Labour. Looked at cynically, just as the Tories did in 2010-15, if you're cutting/taxing things that are going to piss people off, it might as well be those who already don't like you.
The problem Labour have is they are alienating various voting groups whilst failing to articulate how it all fits into an overall vision or strategy, because it doesn't.
It risks looking vindictive, which will be noticed and impress itself upon a far wider group of voters, and means they will get little credit even if things do improve.
I'd disagree with that - the overall strategy is fairly clear I think, if you listen to some of the bigger thinkers in the Labour millieu. It's to basically take that working age cohorts that won Labour the last election as had become so anti-Tory, and pursue policies that favour them. That's planning reform, the increased minimum wage, Rayners' workers' right stuff, restoring public services generally rely on to a level where they're not in a permacrisis, as well as a bit of populism on transport, and so on. Then a more reconciliatory attitude towards the EU and so on.
The overall theory being that politics has become scleroritc because vested interests with large megaphones (and in the case of homeowning pensioners, voting power) mean we take counterproductive decisions to privilege them, over ones which benefit the public at large and working people in particular.
At the next election, Labour would likely love to run as a party that was fixing things for working people against a Tory party that's stuck in the past and is beholden to its asset rich elderly base of blockers.
But it is slow to emerge as the 'negative' bits you'd say look vindictive - but defenders would argue are simply refusing to exclude those with powerful supporters from tough tax and spending decisions - are frontloaded while the potential positives are more of a process.
It's worth noticing there is a similar strand of thinking among young Tories (though obviously less statist) but gets rather drowned out by culture wars stuff, Farage, and the oppositional campaigns that cut against it.
They also got a bit snookered by the Tories' scorched earth NI cut - which left them a choice between an honest but electorally risky pledge to reverse it, abandoning pledges to start fixing public services (you couldn't do much without pay deals), or what they did, putting it on employers in a way that isn't necessarily helpful to their aims. The first would've been the correct choice I think, but you can see why they didn't - and that's exactly why the Tories brought in the tax cut in the first place.
It looks increasingly likely that both the tractor tax* and VAT on public schools will be revenue negative. So there's no positive outcome at the end of that rainbow, just people upset and livelihoods ruined. These will be overturned.
The WFA, I agree in principle that millionaire pensioners shouldn't get it, but how disastrously has it been mishandled? I don't see any long term political benefit there either, and the savings are pitiful.
The long term strategy of this Government has been simple - get rejoining the EU underway, under the "casus belli" of a worsening economic, immigration, and perhaps security outlook - conveniently blaming these on Tory misrule. Save a bit of financial headroom for pork at the end of the parliament, and be joylessly re-elected.
The strategy is shot to shit, because: *It's Labour's paws all over the coming recession. Sorry guys, everybody is blaming Reeves' death budget, not the "£22bn black hole" because that's how economies work. *Because of the above, there won't be any headroom for later bribes *The Government is detested, with no political capital to spend on its pet projects like local Government reorganisation or 'UK energy'. Hope is being kept alive by the continuing rubishness of the Tories and the fact that Yougov have helpfully suspended VI polling. *Everyone can see that Rwanda was shitcanned and the boats jumped. There is no EU scheme to join.
One term - let's hope they don't make it to five years.
The only way they don't make a full term is if about 100 Labour MPs all agree on a change of career, effective forthwith.
I do not expect more than about three to abandon suckling on the public sector teat. And that might be optimistic, by, oh I dont know - three?
I'd say they are testing the edges, and attacking resilience. The power cable will take months to repair.
I'm actually not sure what powers police and coastguards have to operate in international waters, or what sanctions can be applied to Russian-controlled ships. Iirc it's very complicated, and takes forever, if things are not done under "we need to do THIS" type powers that coastguards etc may not have.
I believe the UK now has one ship - RFA Proteus, bought second hand from Norway last year, dedicated to keeping an eye on undersea assets, amongst the other things it does.
I'd say they are testing the edges, and attacking resilience. The power cable will take months to repair.
I'm actually not sure what powers police and coastguards have to operate in international waters, or what sanctions can be applied to Russian-controlled ships. Iirc it's very complicated, and takes forever, if things are not done under "we need to do THIS" type powers that coastguards etc may not have.
I believe the UK now has one ship - RFA Proteus, bought second hand from Norway last year, dedicated to keeping an eye on undersea assets, amongst the other things it does.
What are the chances of an actual Russian attack on Finland in 2025? Or one of the Baltic states?
More than negligible.
If it does happen we are hopelessly unprepared.
Given their recent defence of their Syrian friends, it may well be beyond them now. Outside of prodding to get a reaction. A sudden invasion of Belarus to protect the homeland however - a quick victory, Lukashenko very sadly having to live out his life in a nice Villa on the Black Sea. A great triumph for the Lord Protector while he negotiates with Ukraine to justify all those dead boys and heartbroken parents.
Most likely next scenario when there's protest against the 'victory' of Lukashenko next year Putin comes in and annexes Belarus
I'd say they are testing the edges, and attacking resilience. The power cable will take months to repair.
I'm actually not sure what powers police and coastguards have to operate in international waters, or what sanctions can be applied to Russian-controlled ships. Iirc it's very complicated, and takes forever, if things are not done under "we need to do THIS" type powers that coastguards etc may not have.
I believe the UK now has one ship - RFA Proteus, bought second hand from Norway last year, dedicated to keeping an eye on undersea assets, amongst the other things it does.
What are the chances of an actual Russian attack on Finland in 2025? Or one of the Baltic states?
More than negligible.
If it does happen we are hopelessly unprepared.
The local armies are fully prepared. Bear in mind that the Russian army is a long way from the Baltic at present.
There are 2,700 full time soldiers in the Estonian Army.
That's about two days of casualties for the Russian army in the current war.
But there are three and a half million in NATO.
If we don't defend Estonia, then NATO is a goner.
Any time in the next decade, Russia versus a full NATO response would give the Anglo-Zanzibar War a run for the Guinness Book of Records title.
I sure hope so, but we have to be realistic about the situation, particularly if Trump walks away from NATO commitments.
That would be a situation which would demand determined European leadership to keep the NATO alliance together. Who is going to provide it?
A more pressing issue that needs action is the regular cutting of subsea power/internet cables.
Give Ukraine permission (and the means) to destroy forty Russian power stations overnight. To be repeated next time a single cable suffers from a "dragged anchor".
(Although now it seems the time is right to bury the bloody things, regardless of cost).
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
The Tories didn't want to join the EU for half a century. In the 70s most of them supported joining the Common Market, which was very different from the EU, despite Ted Heath's lies about retaining sovereignty.
In the 90s Major just about got his party to pass the Maastricht treated, which spawned the EU.
And their policy in the 2010s was to have a referendum and implement the results, which they did, backed by the biggest democractic vote in this country's history, and endorsed by three general elections.
So there's no continuity in European policy for them to go back to, nor could there have been, as the EU has mutated and metastacised so much over that time.
Insofar as there was a consistent policy for that half century, it was "lie about what the European project was actually about".
To quote the Queens Speech at the State opening of Parliament in 1972:
"My Government will play a full and constructive part in the enlarged European Communities. They look forward to the opportunities membership will bring, for developing the country's full economic and industrial potential, for working out social and environmental policies on a European scale, and for increasing the influence of the enlarged Community for the benefit of the world at large."
It was always and explicitly more than a trading arrangement. Unless you believe that the Queen was lying to Parliament.
Yeah, as if that's a full description of the Project.
Perhaps the 1973 Queens speech in Hansard helps:
"In co-operation with other Member States My Government will play their full part in the further development of the European Community in accordance with the programme established at the European Summit in October 1972. This programme includes progress towards economic and monetary union; measures for the establishment of a regional development fund; and co-operation in foreign policy between Member States."
For a secret project the operational security wasn't very tight, with the Queen blabbing like that in Parliament.
Comments
Otherwise, not so much.
https://x.com/repmtg/status/1872665199490076875
Good gracious, I came out of Christmas bliss to see arguments about American labor vs H1-B imported labor and MAGA split over this issue.
Good, that means everyone is engaged in saving this country.
Here is some tough reality for some of you:
There are some big MAGA voices with large social media platforms throwing down their opinions yet they have never run a company that relies on thousands of skilled/highly trained workers with a constant need for reliable labor yet they claim authority over the subject matter.
When you spend years trying to constantly hire/train/maintain a good reliable workforce, which is a 24/7 never ending cycle, your real world experience will produce an opinion based on reality and all of your followers on X don’t translate to this.
Having owned a construction company for decades (yes I’m that old), I know firsthand our workforce issues.
However, I fully believe we must make the hard and necessary changes here in the U.S. to educate, build, and facilitate a solid foundation of knowledgeable, highly skilled, talented, well paid, AMERICAN workers.
Not having this is like having a crumbling foundation in our house and currently we are importing foreigners to hold up the foundation walls and plug the leaks.
Too many of our young people, are killing their bodies and minds on alcohol and drugs, wasting years and money earning useless college degrees, chasing unrealistic dreams, spending all their time trying to be the next you tuber/content creator/social media influencer instead of pursuing a useful skill set/trade/education in order to become a part of our much needed American workforce.
If you fall in this category, put down the selfie light, and go apply for a job and replace the H1-B visa holders and all the other skilled labor jobs that foreign workers are taking and American companies are desperately trying to hire.
It’s called building a career, you work your way up.
In order to go forward we must change our education system, create a culture that respects hard work and productivity, cut government waste/spending/regulations in order to produce a healthy robust economy that lowers inflation and pays higher wages to an American workforce, so that H1-B is no longer needed and can be done away with.
Decades of America LAST bad decisions in Washington wove a giant web of America LAST policies that created systems and structures that must be torn down and rebuilt to put America FIRST.
This requires everyone’s help to change it and we will all have to do what it takes to get it done.
It won’t be easy and it won’t be as quick as we like, but we can do it TOGETHER and the results will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN but EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE!!!
Are we sure she really wrote that?
“Row over Private School VAT
A row has erupted since he revelation that VAT on private schools has raised little tax and a number are *receiving* VAT rebates.
John Pipsqueck, MP for Nether Bollocks claimed that this is “fraud against the taxpayer”
The Bursar of Eton in a reply, pointed out that there had been multiple audits of the tax affairs of the school. The last one of which had revealed that the school was actually owed a further rebate of three thousand, four hundred and eighty-four pounds. And six pence. “
The overall theory being that politics has become scleroritc because vested interests with large megaphones (and in the case of homeowning pensioners, voting power) mean we take counterproductive decisions to privilege them, over ones which benefit the public at large and working people in particular.
At the next election, Labour would likely love to run as a party that was fixing things for working people against a Tory party that's stuck in the past and is beholden to its asset rich elderly base of blockers.
But it is slow to emerge as the 'negative' bits you'd say look vindictive - but defenders would argue are simply refusing to exclude those with powerful supporters from tough tax and spending decisions - are frontloaded while the potential positives are more of a process.
It's worth noticing there is a similar strand of thinking among young Tories (though obviously less statist) but gets rather drowned out by culture wars stuff, Farage, and the oppositional campaigns that cut against it.
They also got a bit snookered by the Tories' scorched earth NI cut - which left them a choice between an honest but electorally risky pledge to reverse it, abandoning pledges to start fixing public services (you couldn't do much without pay deals), or what they did, putting it on employers in a way that isn't necessarily helpful to their aims. The first would've been the correct choice I think, but you can see why they didn't - and that's exactly why the Tories brought in the tax cut in the first place.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923
Most of the stuff sent to Ukraine was about to time expire. And you don’t want to muck with solid rocket motors past their sell buy date. Disposing of them would actually have cost serious money - dissecting weapons that consist of a solid rocket motor and an HE warhead is a fiddly job, done by a small number of specialists. Using them for the Russian Tank Turret Tossing Olympics saved a fortune…
The problem is one that has been true since before WWII - cutting ammunition stocks is loved by finance departments of government everywhere.
Certainly the country would have been better off if the losers had pursued the second option from 2016, but that's water long since under the bridge.
I’m calling it - fake.
Britain is a fantastic country.
That plan seems not to have existed.
Hence the NATO plan to hold the Fulham Gal for three days. Then blow the world up.
Artillery shell bodies last forever. Lump of well made steel, no moving parts. We could have stacked up a 100 million somewhere.
Putin's Russia has been a constant thorn in the West. In Poland, it spent a fortune on supporting groups to get fracking banned, for example. It has constantly tried to increase division in the West.
Those actions have, historically, had no consequences.
Any new regime in Moscow is going to be concerned primarily with getting sanctions removed and rebuilding the Russian economy. On the hierarchy of needs for any regime, getting the people fed and less likely to evict you is massively more important than stirring up trouble abroad.
But whatever, it's a long ways off as a realistic prospect.
I think there's more chance of a woman winning in GOP colours actually.
What I didn't know till this evening is that he's now been knighted and has written the most popular piece of classical music written by a living composer. I'm shocked!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolvesey_Palace
You even probably get some Roman Catholic Cardinals and Bishops who are similar on the quiet
Also just learned someone I am very much still in contact with (who I saw in their new home a couple of months ago) was on his bike and struck by a hit-and-run driver just before Christmas. Smashed leg, still concerned about ongoing back pain too.
Makes me feel very fortunate heading into a new year.
https://news.sky.com/story/nato-santa-shot-down-over-moscow-in-apparent-russian-propaganda-video-13280531
But, yes, agree on Europe. There's a crunch coming if America are going to shed their Big Protector role.
He delayed providing Ukraine with necessary weapons numerous times and was wrong to do so, and had to be dragged into doing so by the Ukrainians or the British.
His fears over the escalation risk were shown to be unfounded over and over again, and he did not learn from this experience. He does not have a strategy for Ukrainian victory. He acts only to prevent Ukrainian defeat. That is why I say that he is equally scared of Russian defeat and Russian victory.
He's hoping that Russia will tire of the war and call it quits. That's his strategy.
It may turn out to be better than Trump's "strategy", but it was never good enough.
I thought everyone knows The Armed Man.
Have we noted that the ship 'arrested' (ie escorted into port) by the Finnish Coastguard in connection with the Estlink Electricity interconnector (658MW), and also the two broken fibre optic internet cables, and the further one damaged, over Christmas, is thought to be part of Russia's shadow fleet of offshored ancient oil tankers?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/26/finnish-coastguard-boards-eagle-s-oil-tanker-suspected-of-causing-power-cable-outages
I'd say they are testing the edges, and attacking resilience. The power cable will take months to repair.
I'm actually not sure what powers police and coastguards have to operate in international waters, or what sanctions can be applied to Russian-controlled ships. Iirc it's very complicated, and takes forever, if things are not done under "we need to do THIS" type powers that coastguards etc may not have.
I believe the UK now has one ship - RFA Proteus, bought second hand from Norway last year, dedicated to keeping an eye on undersea assets, amongst the other things it does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Proteus
...
Oh, hang on.
More than negligible.
If it does happen we are hopelessly unprepared.
The WFA, I agree in principle that millionaire pensioners shouldn't get it, but how disastrously has it been mishandled? I don't see any long term political benefit there either, and the savings are pitiful.
The long term strategy of this Government has been simple - get rejoining the EU underway, under the "casus belli" of a worsening economic, immigration, and perhaps security outlook - conveniently blaming these on Tory misrule. Save a bit of financial headroom for pork at the end of the parliament, and be joylessly re-elected.
The strategy is shot to shit, because:
*It's Labour's paws all over the coming recession. Sorry guys, everybody is blaming Reeves' death budget, not the "£22bn black hole" because that's how economies work.
*Because of the above, there won't be any headroom for later bribes
*The Government is detested, with no political capital to spend on its pet projects like local Government reorganisation or 'UK energy'. Hope is being kept alive by the continuing rubishness of the Tories and the fact that Yougov have helpfully suspended VI polling.
*Everyone can see that Rwanda was shitcanned and the boats jumped. There is no EU scheme to join.
One term - let's hope they don't make it to five years.
The common denominator is they are all between 75 and 85
And the moral of the story - enjoy life to the full and never take your health for granted
That's about two days of casualties for the Russian army in the current war.
If we don't defend Estonia, then NATO is a goner.
Any time in the next decade, Russia versus a full NATO response would give the Anglo-Zanzibar War a run for the Guinness Book of Records title.
But I know a mug when I see one coming.
any attack by Russia will either be into Lithuania or Poland to connect Belarus to Kalinningrad. But that's not going to happen as Russia would need a few years to rebuild the shattered remnants of their army and tanks etc.
"My Government will play a full and constructive part in the enlarged European Communities. They look forward to the opportunities membership will bring, for developing the country's full economic and industrial potential, for working out social and environmental policies on a European scale, and for increasing the influence of the enlarged Community for the benefit of the world at large."
It was always and explicitly more than a trading arrangement. Unless you believe that the Queen was lying to Parliament.
I do not expect more than about three to abandon suckling on the public sector teat. And that might be optimistic, by, oh I dont know - three?
That would be a situation which would demand determined European leadership to keep the NATO alliance together. Who is going to provide it?
Give Ukraine permission (and the means) to destroy forty Russian power stations overnight. To be repeated next time a single cable suffers from a "dragged anchor".
(Although now it seems the time is right to bury the bloody things, regardless of cost).
"In co-operation with other Member States My Government will play their full part in the further development of the European Community in accordance with the programme established at the European Summit in October 1972. This programme includes progress towards economic and monetary union; measures for the establishment of a regional development fund; and co-operation in foreign policy between Member States."
For a secret project the operational security wasn't very tight, with the Queen blabbing like that in Parliament.