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.
An Inconvenient Truth.
The Brexiteer tendency did a great job in persuading everyone otherwise.
Show me a social movement and I'll show you a set of myths about the past. It was true in the English Civil War and it's as true now as then.
The problem pro-Europeans have is that they stopped telling a good convincing story. They seemed to think it was enough to dismiss the stories of their opponents.
Eh, this is nonsense really. Obviously pro-Europeans lost the referendum, but now it's reality it's Brexit that is incredibly unpopular, with its supporters searching for betrayals and increasingly desperate explanations as to why it went so wrong and reasons to whinge about those suggesting revisiting certain consequences.
Admittedly, the 'Stronger In' campaign was shoddy, but that had mostly to do with the complacency of those leading it and their making decisions based on gaining advantages after they won. Plus the fact there was always a pretty powerful leave campaign in lots of the media Cameron in particular badly underestimated - as they'd never been on the wrong side of it.
Brexit itself rekindled a story about the positives of being in somewhat, as a case of you don't know what you've got till it's gone. You never saw many EU flags before it, with even pro-Europeans a bit apologetic in a climate that was often residually hostile, but afterwards there's a whole cottage media industry that has grown out of pro-European liberalism.
Part of the Tories problems with the working age - and the thumping they just got - now is the fact there's now quite a convincing story or 'myth' about the decision to leave being part of 14 years of reckless destructive and self-defeating policies.
But of course as we can't re-run the referendum now, you can't unscramble an egg and all that, so its unpopularity leaks out in other ways.
Pro europeans fumbled it by never having referendums of a lesser scale on maastricht or lisbon. I suspect they knew people would say no to lisbon and that when reasked as they did it ireland would say which part of no did you fail to understand
I'm not sure it was ever wise to have a referendum on treaties very few had read and which invariably people are wont to focus on things they don't like the sound of and say, "no think again" with few consequences. As in your example, the Irish have done incredibly well out of the EU and are more pro-European than the UK, but would still reject a treaty because it's cost free to you to object to anything you dislike about it.
The mistake you'd say was perhaps though not calling Farage's bluff far earlier and holding a referendum on membership from more of a position of strength and surprise. If we had to have one make sure it's called on your terms. Blair maybe should've lanced the boil.
As it was, Cameron created the worst possible backdrop for a Remain campaign - giving 'Leave' an absolute age to build influential support, then having a 'renegotiation' that was never going to placate his party's eurosceptics, before you factor in the Syrian refugee crisis and its effects. But he did so on the assumption it was a fait accompli anyway and he could get away with calling it at a time that was useful to him as PM.
How many of our mp's do you think read it before voting to ratify Lisbon, Caroline Flint, minister for europe certainly hadn't. Why in your mind is it ok to vote yes without reading it but wrong to vote no?
And why were Brits alone in not being asked to approve these treaties? Lack of trust by the governments involved.
Politicians liked the EU. It gave them a scapegoat and I agree often the problem wasn't the EU but the gilding of EU legislation. It also gave them extra positions to move people to do as sinecures and jobs. Patronage for commisioner roles much like von leyden got for failing in every government job in germany
Local government vs the centre, commons vs. lords, regional vs westminster, elected vs civil, on and on. Shake your little powerless fist at the baddies of the day, get a plush seat in the Lords. I really dislike being this cynical. But here we are. Maybe you'll get a few glorious positives headlines in the gasping death-spiral of the printed press before you claim your attendance allowance for the next 30 years.
And yes, I have been rewatching quite a few political drama's from the 60's to 80's this week. Thanks for asking.
Watching politics makes you cynical because of how they behave. With politics you fix it however from the head down....no point fixing westminster while we are subordinate to the eu....no point trying to fix local government while its subordinate to westminster etc.
I am, honestly ashamed to say, I am even more cynical than that. "No point trying to fix local government while I can blame central government".
Brexit to me is the start of the process of wresting power back, next is westminster
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.
All theists are atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Yes but there is a big difference between dismissing any specific god and dismissing god. How can you be confident that no god exists, rather than that algakirk's god doesn't exist?
It depends what you mean by "god". If you mean an omniscient omnipotent entity that created our world then it could be the creator of our simulation. A very advanced technology. But is it benevolent? Does the concept of god include benevolence?
The idea that god should be benevolent is rare among religions and belied by history. It is not for nothing that natural disasters are also termed acts of god.
And why should god (or gods) bind themselves to human ethics and morals any more than humans should bind themselves to the morals or ethics of woodlice? The notion that gods should conform to man's desires rather than the other way round seems the height of arrogance and to rather miss the point about what gods are.
Consider the impasse of a one God universe. He is all-knowing and all-powerful. He can't go anywhere since He is already everywhere. He can't do anything since the act of doing presupposes opposition. His universe is irrevocably thermodynamic having no friction by definition. So, He has to create friction: War, Fear, Sickness, Death, To keep his dying show on the road.
Sooner or later, "Look boss we don't have enough energy left to fry an elderly woman in a flea bag hotel bar."
"Well, we'll have to start faking it."
We all die. God just judges how we used our time on earth on the Day of Judgement and decides if we get to spend all eternity with him (which of course also includes Christ as he is one and the same) and the angels or we get sent down below to a rather hotter destination for a few centuries or more until he decides enough repentance is shown
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.
All theists are atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Yes but there is a big difference between dismissing any specific god and dismissing god. How can you be confident that no god exists, rather than that algakirk's god doesn't exist?
It depends what you mean by "god". If you mean an omniscient omnipotent entity that created our world then it could be the creator of our simulation. A very advanced technology. But is it benevolent? Does the concept of god include benevolence?
The idea that god should be benevolent is rare among religions and belied by history. It is not for nothing that natural disasters are also termed acts of god.
And why should god (or gods) bind themselves to human ethics and morals any more than humans should bind themselves to the morals or ethics of woodlice? The notion that gods should conform to man's desires rather than the other way round seems the height of arrogance and to rather miss the point about what gods are.
Consider the impasse of a one God universe. He is all-knowing and all-powerful. He can't go anywhere since He is already everywhere. He can't do anything since the act of doing presupposes opposition. His universe is irrevocably thermodynamic having no friction by definition. So, He has to create friction: War, Fear, Sickness, Death, To keep his dying show on the road.
Sooner or later, "Look boss we don't have enough energy left to fry an elderly woman in a flea bag hotel bar."
"Well, we'll have to start faking it."
Why do you assume god is a he....mine is a girl god and if indeed there is a god consider this argument for why a girl god is the only sensible thing
Strip...look at yourself in a mirror....you think a male god couldn't come up with a better looking design....god is definitely a she and she was feeling whimsical when she designed us guys
I was in Birmingham today and it was quite nice. Like London but more relaxed. Of course the snobs will always be negative about the place no matter what, usually people who've only spent 10 minutes there in their entire lives, if that.
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.
An Inconvenient Truth.
The Brexiteer tendency did a great job in persuading everyone otherwise.
Show me a social movement and I'll show you a set of myths about the past. It was true in the English Civil War and it's as true now as then.
The problem pro-Europeans have is that they stopped telling a good convincing story. They seemed to think it was enough to dismiss the stories of their opponents.
Eh, this is nonsense really. Obviously pro-Europeans lost the referendum, but now it's reality it's Brexit that is incredibly unpopular, with its supporters searching for betrayals and increasingly desperate explanations as to why it went so wrong and reasons to whinge about those suggesting revisiting certain consequences.
Admittedly, the 'Stronger In' campaign was shoddy, but that had mostly to do with the complacency of those leading it and their making decisions based on gaining advantages after they won. Plus the fact there was always a pretty powerful leave campaign in lots of the media Cameron in particular badly underestimated - as they'd never been on the wrong side of it.
Brexit itself rekindled a story about the positives of being in somewhat, as a case of you don't know what you've got till it's gone. You never saw many EU flags before it, with even pro-Europeans a bit apologetic in a climate that was often residually hostile, but afterwards there's a whole cottage media industry that has grown out of pro-European liberalism.
Part of the Tories problems with the working age - and the thumping they just got - now is the fact there's now quite a convincing story or 'myth' about the decision to leave being part of 14 years of reckless destructive and self-defeating policies.
But of course as we can't re-run the referendum now, you can't unscramble an egg and all that, so its unpopularity leaks out in other ways.
Pro europeans fumbled it by never having referendums of a lesser scale on maastricht or lisbon. I suspect they knew people would say no to lisbon and that when reasked as they did it ireland would say which part of no did you fail to understand
I'm not sure it was ever wise to have a referendum on treaties very few had read and which invariably people are wont to focus on things they don't like the sound of and say, "no think again" with few consequences. As in your example, the Irish have done incredibly well out of the EU and are more pro-European than the UK, but would still reject a treaty because it's cost free to you to object to anything you dislike about it.
The mistake you'd say was perhaps though not calling Farage's bluff far earlier and holding a referendum on membership from more of a position of strength and surprise. If we had to have one make sure it's called on your terms. Blair maybe should've lanced the boil.
As it was, Cameron created the worst possible backdrop for a Remain campaign - giving 'Leave' an absolute age to build influential support, then having a 'renegotiation' that was never going to placate his party's eurosceptics, before you factor in the Syrian refugee crisis and its effects. But he did so on the assumption it was a fait accompli anyway and he could get away with calling it at a time that was useful to him as PM.
How many of our mp's do you think read it before voting to ratify Lisbon, Caroline Flint, minister for europe certainly hadn't. Why in your mind is it ok to vote yes without reading it but wrong to vote no?
Well MPs should've at least gone through it - but that's on them - and what we elect them for, to scrutinise legislation and government policy. If they aren't doing their job properly, we can vote them out.
I just don't think it's a particularly healthy principle to establish that every time you want to sign a complex, wide-ranging treaty, you have to hold a referendum in which people won't often be voting on the contents but their wider political views or out of simple rejectionism or protest.
We're a representative democracy, one prefers to avoid referenda in general as a good way of deciding policy. Don't like a law or treaty? Vote against those who signed them.
In a referendum vote against Lisbon, say. Fine - what then? Leave when that's not the settled view? Propose and agree a new treaty that then has to be put to another referendum, where it could well be rejected again - and keep asking until one is found acceptable? Muddle on in limbo without ever altering institutions? Call an election based on it?
But if we must have referenda they should be about consequential binaries that we've struggled to resolve through our normal processes.
In terms of Brexit, I'd prefer there hadn't been one - but clearly from a tactical point of view as a Remainer, if read the Runes and thought it was going to become politically unsustainable not to hold one, then the smarter time to hold one would be from a position of strength, quickly, and set the terms - rather than be dragged into it after feeding the crocodiles until you'd run out of other red meat.
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.
All theists are atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Yes but there is a big difference between dismissing any specific god and dismissing god. How can you be confident that no god exists, rather than that algakirk's god doesn't exist?
It depends what you mean by "god". If you mean an omniscient omnipotent entity that created our world then it could be the creator of our simulation. A very advanced technology. But is it benevolent? Does the concept of god include benevolence?
The idea that god should be benevolent is rare among religions and belied by history. It is not for nothing that natural disasters are also termed acts of god.
And why should god (or gods) bind themselves to human ethics and morals any more than humans should bind themselves to the morals or ethics of woodlice? The notion that gods should conform to man's desires rather than the other way round seems the height of arrogance and to rather miss the point about what gods are.
Consider the impasse of a one God universe. He is all-knowing and all-powerful. He can't go anywhere since He is already everywhere. He can't do anything since the act of doing presupposes opposition. His universe is irrevocably thermodynamic having no friction by definition. So, He has to create friction: War, Fear, Sickness, Death, To keep his dying show on the road.
Sooner or later, "Look boss we don't have enough energy left to fry an elderly woman in a flea bag hotel bar."
"Well, we'll have to start faking it."
We all die. God just judges how we used our time on earth on the Day of Judgement and decides if we get to spend all eternity with him (which of course also includes Christ as he is one and the same) and the angels or we get sent down below to a rather hotter destination for a few centuries or more until he decides enough repentance is shown
I rather feel you've missed the point of WSB's writing. And possibly Dante's.
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.
An Inconvenient Truth.
The Brexiteer tendency did a great job in persuading everyone otherwise.
Show me a social movement and I'll show you a set of myths about the past. It was true in the English Civil War and it's as true now as then.
The problem pro-Europeans have is that they stopped telling a good convincing story. They seemed to think it was enough to dismiss the stories of their opponents.
Eh, this is nonsense really. Obviously pro-Europeans lost the referendum, but now it's reality it's Brexit that is incredibly unpopular, with its supporters searching for betrayals and increasingly desperate explanations as to why it went so wrong and reasons to whinge about those suggesting revisiting certain consequences.
Admittedly, the 'Stronger In' campaign was shoddy, but that had mostly to do with the complacency of those leading it and their making decisions based on gaining advantages after they won. Plus the fact there was always a pretty powerful leave campaign in lots of the media Cameron in particular badly underestimated - as they'd never been on the wrong side of it.
Brexit itself rekindled a story about the positives of being in somewhat, as a case of you don't know what you've got till it's gone. You never saw many EU flags before it, with even pro-Europeans a bit apologetic in a climate that was often residually hostile, but afterwards there's a whole cottage media industry that has grown out of pro-European liberalism.
Part of the Tories problems with the working age - and the thumping they just got - now is the fact there's now quite a convincing story or 'myth' about the decision to leave being part of 14 years of reckless destructive and self-defeating policies.
But of course as we can't re-run the referendum now, you can't unscramble an egg and all that, so its unpopularity leaks out in other ways.
Pro europeans fumbled it by never having referendums of a lesser scale on maastricht or lisbon. I suspect they knew people would say no to lisbon and that when reasked as they did it ireland would say which part of no did you fail to understand
I'm not sure it was ever wise to have a referendum on treaties very few had read and which invariably people are wont to focus on things they don't like the sound of and say, "no think again" with few consequences. As in your example, the Irish have done incredibly well out of the EU and are more pro-European than the UK, but would still reject a treaty because it's cost free to you to object to anything you dislike about it.
The mistake you'd say was perhaps though not calling Farage's bluff far earlier and holding a referendum on membership from more of a position of strength and surprise. If we had to have one make sure it's called on your terms. Blair maybe should've lanced the boil.
As it was, Cameron created the worst possible backdrop for a Remain campaign - giving 'Leave' an absolute age to build influential support, then having a 'renegotiation' that was never going to placate his party's eurosceptics, before you factor in the Syrian refugee crisis and its effects. But he did so on the assumption it was a fait accompli anyway and he could get away with calling it at a time that was useful to him as PM.
How many of our mp's do you think read it before voting to ratify Lisbon, Caroline Flint, minister for europe certainly hadn't. Why in your mind is it ok to vote yes without reading it but wrong to vote no?
Well MPs should've at least gone through it - but that's on them - and what we elect them for, to scrutinise legislation and government policy. If they aren't doing their job properly, we can vote them out.
I just don't think it's a particularly healthy principle to establish that every time you want to sign a complex, wide-ranging treaty, you have to hold a referendum in which people won't often be voting on the contents but their wider political views or out of simple rejectionism or protest.
We're a representative democracy, one prefers to avoid referenda in general as a good way of deciding policy. Don't like a law or treaty? Vote against those who signed them.
In a referendum vote against Lisbon, say. Fine - what then? Leave when that's not the settled view? Propose and agree a new treaty that then has to be put to another referendum, where it could well be rejected again - and keep asking until one is found acceptable? Muddle on in limbo without ever altering institutions? Call an election based on it?
But if we must have referenda they should be about consequential binaries that we've struggled to resolve through our normal processes.
In terms of Brexit, I'd prefer there hadn't been one - but clearly from a tactical point of view as a Remainer, if read the Runes and thought it was going to become politically unsustainable not to hold one, then the smarter time to hold one would be from a position of strength, quickly, and set the terms - rather than be dragged into it after feeding the crocodiles until you'd run out of other red meat.
Really? You think mp's or mep's actually read most of what they vote on? They don't they mostly with a few exceptions vote as the whips tell them too so why read it
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.
All theists are atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Yes but there is a big difference between dismissing any specific god and dismissing god. How can you be confident that no god exists, rather than that algakirk's god doesn't exist?
It depends what you mean by "god". If you mean an omniscient omnipotent entity that created our world then it could be the creator of our simulation. A very advanced technology. But is it benevolent? Does the concept of god include benevolence?
The idea that god should be benevolent is rare among religions and belied by history. It is not for nothing that natural disasters are also termed acts of god.
And why should god (or gods) bind themselves to human ethics and morals any more than humans should bind themselves to the morals or ethics of woodlice? The notion that gods should conform to man's desires rather than the other way round seems the height of arrogance and to rather miss the point about what gods are.
Consider the impasse of a one God universe. He is all-knowing and all-powerful. He can't go anywhere since He is already everywhere. He can't do anything since the act of doing presupposes opposition. His universe is irrevocably thermodynamic having no friction by definition. So, He has to create friction: War, Fear, Sickness, Death, To keep his dying show on the road.
Sooner or later, "Look boss we don't have enough energy left to fry an elderly woman in a flea bag hotel bar."
"Well, we'll have to start faking it."
We all die. God just judges how we used our time on earth on the Day of Judgement and decides if we get to spend all eternity with him (which of course also includes Christ as he is one and the same) and the angels or we get sent down below to a rather hotter destination for a few centuries or more until he decides enough repentance is shown
I rather feel you've missed the point of WSB's writing. And possibly Dante's.
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.
An Inconvenient Truth.
The Brexiteer tendency did a great job in persuading everyone otherwise.
Show me a social movement and I'll show you a set of myths about the past. It was true in the English Civil War and it's as true now as then.
The problem pro-Europeans have is that they stopped telling a good convincing story. They seemed to think it was enough to dismiss the stories of their opponents.
Eh, this is nonsense really. Obviously pro-Europeans lost the referendum, but now it's reality it's Brexit that is incredibly unpopular, with its supporters searching for betrayals and increasingly desperate explanations as to why it went so wrong and reasons to whinge about those suggesting revisiting certain consequences.
Admittedly, the 'Stronger In' campaign was shoddy, but that had mostly to do with the complacency of those leading it and their making decisions based on gaining advantages after they won. Plus the fact there was always a pretty powerful leave campaign in lots of the media Cameron in particular badly underestimated - as they'd never been on the wrong side of it.
Brexit itself rekindled a story about the positives of being in somewhat, as a case of you don't know what you've got till it's gone. You never saw many EU flags before it, with even pro-Europeans a bit apologetic in a climate that was often residually hostile, but afterwards there's a whole cottage media industry that has grown out of pro-European liberalism.
Part of the Tories problems with the working age - and the thumping they just got - now is the fact there's now quite a convincing story or 'myth' about the decision to leave being part of 14 years of reckless destructive and self-defeating policies.
But of course as we can't re-run the referendum now, you can't unscramble an egg and all that, so its unpopularity leaks out in other ways.
Pro europeans fumbled it by never having referendums of a lesser scale on maastricht or lisbon. I suspect they knew people would say no to lisbon and that when reasked as they did it ireland would say which part of no did you fail to understand
I'm not sure it was ever wise to have a referendum on treaties very few had read and which invariably people are wont to focus on things they don't like the sound of and say, "no think again" with few consequences. As in your example, the Irish have done incredibly well out of the EU and are more pro-European than the UK, but would still reject a treaty because it's cost free to you to object to anything you dislike about it.
The mistake you'd say was perhaps though not calling Farage's bluff far earlier and holding a referendum on membership from more of a position of strength and surprise. If we had to have one make sure it's called on your terms. Blair maybe should've lanced the boil.
As it was, Cameron created the worst possible backdrop for a Remain campaign - giving 'Leave' an absolute age to build influential support, then having a 'renegotiation' that was never going to placate his party's eurosceptics, before you factor in the Syrian refugee crisis and its effects. But he did so on the assumption it was a fait accompli anyway and he could get away with calling it at a time that was useful to him as PM.
How many of our mp's do you think read it before voting to ratify Lisbon, Caroline Flint, minister for europe certainly hadn't. Why in your mind is it ok to vote yes without reading it but wrong to vote no?
Well MPs should've at least gone through it - but that's on them - and what we elect them for, to scrutinise legislation and government policy. If they aren't doing their job properly, we can vote them out.
The problem comes when the political parties offer a much narrower range of choices than the electorate wants to vote for.
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.
An Inconvenient Truth.
The Brexiteer tendency did a great job in persuading everyone otherwise.
Show me a social movement and I'll show you a set of myths about the past. It was true in the English Civil War and it's as true now as then.
The problem pro-Europeans have is that they stopped telling a good convincing story. They seemed to think it was enough to dismiss the stories of their opponents.
Eh, this is nonsense really. Obviously pro-Europeans lost the referendum, but now it's reality it's Brexit that is incredibly unpopular, with its supporters searching for betrayals and increasingly desperate explanations as to why it went so wrong and reasons to whinge about those suggesting revisiting certain consequences.
Admittedly, the 'Stronger In' campaign was shoddy, but that had mostly to do with the complacency of those leading it and their making decisions based on gaining advantages after they won. Plus the fact there was always a pretty powerful leave campaign in lots of the media Cameron in particular badly underestimated - as they'd never been on the wrong side of it.
Brexit itself rekindled a story about the positives of being in somewhat, as a case of you don't know what you've got till it's gone. You never saw many EU flags before it, with even pro-Europeans a bit apologetic in a climate that was often residually hostile, but afterwards there's a whole cottage media industry that has grown out of pro-European liberalism.
Part of the Tories problems with the working age - and the thumping they just got - now is the fact there's now quite a convincing story or 'myth' about the decision to leave being part of 14 years of reckless destructive and self-defeating policies.
But of course as we can't re-run the referendum now, you can't unscramble an egg and all that, so its unpopularity leaks out in other ways.
Pro europeans fumbled it by never having referendums of a lesser scale on maastricht or lisbon. I suspect they knew people would say no to lisbon and that when reasked as they did it ireland would say which part of no did you fail to understand
I'm not sure it was ever wise to have a referendum on treaties very few had read and which invariably people are wont to focus on things they don't like the sound of and say, "no think again" with few consequences. As in your example, the Irish have done incredibly well out of the EU and are more pro-European than the UK, but would still reject a treaty because it's cost free to you to object to anything you dislike about it.
The mistake you'd say was perhaps though not calling Farage's bluff far earlier and holding a referendum on membership from more of a position of strength and surprise. If we had to have one make sure it's called on your terms. Blair maybe should've lanced the boil.
As it was, Cameron created the worst possible backdrop for a Remain campaign - giving 'Leave' an absolute age to build influential support, then having a 'renegotiation' that was never going to placate his party's eurosceptics, before you factor in the Syrian refugee crisis and its effects. But he did so on the assumption it was a fait accompli anyway and he could get away with calling it at a time that was useful to him as PM.
How many of our mp's do you think read it before voting to ratify Lisbon, Caroline Flint, minister for europe certainly hadn't. Why in your mind is it ok to vote yes without reading it but wrong to vote no?
Well MPs should've at least gone through it - but that's on them - and what we elect them for, to scrutinise legislation and government policy. If they aren't doing their job properly, we can vote them out.
The problem comes when the political parties offer a much narrower range of choices than the electorate wants to vote for.
Which was true of europe unless you wanted to vote for a single issue party who were crap on every other 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!
Oh my God, that is awesome. I loved their work in Soft Machine. Ratledge is on Third, a brilliant album. Ditto Fourth, their next album. (OK, they weren't great at album names.) Jenkins joined the band later. He's on albums like Bundles.
And, yes, Jenkins then went off to do jingles and then converted that into a contemporary classical crossover thing, starting with Adiemus (Ratledge is also on that one) and then the very successful "Palladio".
The Tories accusing Farage of being "a fake" is a strange thing to say, no matter what one's political views might be. Farage is a lot of things but "fake" isn't really one of them.
The Tories accusing Farage of being "a fake" is a strange thing to say, no matter what one's political views might be. Farage is a lot of things but "fake" isn't really one of them.
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.
All theists are atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Yes but there is a big difference between dismissing any specific god and dismissing god. How can you be confident that no god exists, rather than that algakirk's god doesn't exist?
It depends what you mean by "god". If you mean an omniscient omnipotent entity that created our world then it could be the creator of our simulation. A very advanced technology. But is it benevolent? Does the concept of god include benevolence?
The idea that god should be benevolent is rare among religions and belied by history. It is not for nothing that natural disasters are also termed acts of god.
And why should god (or gods) bind themselves to human ethics and morals any more than humans should bind themselves to the morals or ethics of woodlice? The notion that gods should conform to man's desires rather than the other way round seems the height of arrogance and to rather miss the point about what gods are.
Consider the impasse of a one God universe. He is all-knowing and all-powerful. He can't go anywhere since He is already everywhere. He can't do anything since the act of doing presupposes opposition. His universe is irrevocably thermodynamic having no friction by definition. So, He has to create friction: War, Fear, Sickness, Death, To keep his dying show on the road.
Sooner or later, "Look boss we don't have enough energy left to fry an elderly woman in a flea bag hotel bar."
"Well, we'll have to start faking it."
We all die. God just judges how we used our time on earth on the Day of Judgement and decides if we get to spend all eternity with him (which of course also includes Christ as he is one and the same) and the angels or we get sent down below to a rather hotter destination for a few centuries or more until he decides enough repentance is shown
I'm an atheist. Assuming I am wrong and God exists then presumably I get sent to hell? I have led a pretty decent life. I haven't intentionally hurt anyone physically, mentally or financially and done a fair bit of good by doing voluntary stuff and being pretty honest. O K I'm far from perfect, but a decent specimen. Seems tough I should go to hell because I made a mistake in not finding God.
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.
All theists are atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Yes but there is a big difference between dismissing any specific god and dismissing god. How can you be confident that no god exists, rather than that algakirk's god doesn't exist?
It depends what you mean by "god". If you mean an omniscient omnipotent entity that created our world then it could be the creator of our simulation. A very advanced technology. But is it benevolent? Does the concept of god include benevolence?
The idea that god should be benevolent is rare among religions and belied by history. It is not for nothing that natural disasters are also termed acts of god.
And why should god (or gods) bind themselves to human ethics and morals any more than humans should bind themselves to the morals or ethics of woodlice? The notion that gods should conform to man's desires rather than the other way round seems the height of arrogance and to rather miss the point about what gods are.
Consider the impasse of a one God universe. He is all-knowing and all-powerful. He can't go anywhere since He is already everywhere. He can't do anything since the act of doing presupposes opposition. His universe is irrevocably thermodynamic having no friction by definition. So, He has to create friction: War, Fear, Sickness, Death, To keep his dying show on the road.
Sooner or later, "Look boss we don't have enough energy left to fry an elderly woman in a flea bag hotel bar."
"Well, we'll have to start faking it."
We all die. God just judges how we used our time on earth on the Day of Judgement and decides if we get to spend all eternity with him (which of course also includes Christ as he is one and the same) and the angels or we get sent down below to a rather hotter destination for a few centuries or more until he decides enough repentance is shown
I'm an atheist. Assuming I am wrong and God exists then presumably I get sent to hell? I have led a pretty decent life. I haven't intentionally hurt anyone physically, mentally or financially and done a fair bit of good by doing voluntary stuff and being pretty honest. O K I'm far from perfect, but a decent specimen. Seems tough I should go to hell because I made a mistake in not finding God.
Depends on the god, my faith belief is not that important to where you end
The Tories accusing Farage of being "a fake" is a strange thing to say, no matter what one's political views might be. Farage is a lot of things but "fake" isn't really one of them.
What else do they have?
At the moment the Tories are annoying even those people who are sympathetic to them like myself.
Why is he leaving the Telegraph? I know the new owners of the Speccie fired him so that Michael Gove could continue to fail upwards whilst consuming drugs, but why the Telegraph as well? Does he have another right-wing sinecure he can bring his vaguely befuddled worldview to?
The Tories accusing Farage of being "a fake" is a strange thing to say, no matter what one's political views might be. Farage is a lot of things but "fake" isn't really one of them.
The Tories accusing Farage of being "a fake" is a strange thing to say, no matter what one's political views might be. Farage is a lot of things but "fake" isn't really one of them.
And it's inadvertently made Badenoch's claims to being an IT engineer look a bit dubious.
The Tories accusing Farage of being "a fake" is a strange thing to say, no matter what one's political views might be. Farage is a lot of things but "fake" isn't really one of them.
What else do they have?
Weird
Well can you name policies? As far as I can see the tories are following the starmer playbook....starmer was vote me we aren't the tories, kemi is vote me I am not reform
1 It's the Telegrunt. 2 Do people add up better if you force them into offices? 3 The "as low as 5%" in the headline turns into an average of nearly 20% in the article. 4 We get Bufton Tufton MP saying the first half of (summarised) "This Labour Government have failed to do in 3 months ... what the previous Conservative Government failed to do in X years". 5 They manage to get in both that the offices are too small, and that they are empty. 6 But Immigration, hit on a Department, hit on the Civil Service, hit on a Trade Union, and hit on the Govt ... they are in clover.
I listen to (or try to) the Telegraph's podcast just to try and balance out my feeds. Listening to their columnists toe the line and rant about WFH while they're clearly dialling in to the show over zoom with a bad laptop microphone really grates my gears though.
I very highly recommend their military / foreign policy podcasts, but I don't know about their business ones, and the "what's on today" ones are a bit loopy *.
* The Daily T shares Camilla Tominey with GB News. But they do not have Mike Graham yet.
Do you have the name of those? The Telegraph one I found was, unironically, "Planet Normal".
Telegraph Military Podcasts. Also on Spotify etc.
Ukraine the Latest. This is each weekday around the Ukraine War. 30-60 minutes, and running since the start - they are now at day 1038, which will be episode 750 approx. The format is
"Military News" (10 minutes), "Political News" (10 minutes), 1 or 2 Interviews or Features (15-30 minutes - Today's is an interview with a beautician turned explosive ordnance educator now working for their Ukraine Christmas Charity, Humanity & Inclusion, with background cat). They have a wide variety of interviewees over time, from top politicians or military to people like today's. Host is a stand-in associate for Christmas. "Final Thoughts" - today's participant reflections.
Roughly weekly, sometimes with specials. Deeper focuses on particular subjects. Conflict, military and sometimes related politics. Recently quite a lot around the Middle East. 30 minutes.
The Tories accusing Farage of being "a fake" is a strange thing to say, no matter what one's political views might be. Farage is a lot of things but "fake" isn't really one of them.
What else do they have?
Weird
Well can you name policies? As far as I can see the tories are following the starmer playbook....starmer was vote me we aren't the tories, kemi is vote me I am not reform
tbf it's still 4.5 years until the next election. I was as critical as anyone of Starmer not pushing his policies, but not until the last couple of years before the election.
To be honest, from here, Ukraine seems very far away. My cynical view is American policy since 2022 has been to keep the war going by ensuring Russia can’t win and Ukraine can’t lose.
The drip feeding of weaponry has been proportionate to that aim - Washington knows, as most sensible people do, containing the conflict is the key but as we’ve seen, keeping Russia busy in the Donetsk has had implications elsewhere.
The truth is the current status of ongoing contained conflict suits everyone (apart from those doing the fighting and dying obviously) and I suspect Trump and his incoming advisers will be reminded of that in no uncertain terms. The military/industrial complex has made money from supplying weapons (the same is true for those supplying Russia).
Victory or defeat for either Russia or Ukraine will have far reaching and unpredictable consequences and no one wants that kind of uncertainty. The current relative stability of ongoing low level conflict suits most - it maintains both Putin and Zelenskyy in power and to be blunt if one or both fell, would the alternatives be any better? The strong sense is in both cases, no and the idea of either falling into civil war or anarchy and the concomitant destabilisation of neighbouring states isn’t or shouldn’t be attractive.
Perhaps Trump and his people will thread the needle but that’s more likely to lead to an 1918-style armistice than any kind of proper resolution (though that’s very hard to envisage without significant population displacement).
This is unduly cynical and complacent.
Mainly I would argue that the intensity of the conflict in Ukraine is not low. A lot of people are dying every day. The continuation of the ear is bad for Western democracy, and it's weakening Western alliances, and it is not a stable state.
There is a decent chance of one side becoming exhausted before the other, and seeing the way that European and American public support for the war is draining away, that side could well be Ukraine. The consequences would be catastrophic for democracy in general. They would be very dark days indeed.
Happy to disagree with you. I did point out the status quo didn’t work for those doing the fighting and the dying (it didn’t in the Iran-Iraq War, it never does) nor for the wider civilian population in both countries but in terms of the potential for a wider European or global conflict the current containment works.
Russia “could” seek to escalate the conflict in order to produce a conclusion - so could Ukraine (with NATO help) but both sides have implicitly agreed the lines that won’t be crossed. The nuclear destruction of Kyiv, Lviv or Odessa, the use of battlefield nuclear weapons to stem a Russian offensive - all possible and often predicted and yet?
Complacent? Russia might well grind Ukraine down over time - it’s the obvious route to a Russian victory - but the cost of that, Russia’s virtual subjugation to Beijing, has already impacted the global balance.
I do agree democracy is under attack - it always is. The problem is too many see too little hope for the future, the current societal and economic problems are significant and challenging and resolving them isn’t easy but there are always the siren voices of those who claim they “have the answers”. As with the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack, people will happily give up their rights and freedoms to feel safe and they will also give them up in the name of false hope.
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.
All theists are atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Yes but there is a big difference between dismissing any specific god and dismissing god. How can you be confident that no god exists, rather than that algakirk's god doesn't exist?
It depends what you mean by "god". If you mean an omniscient omnipotent entity that created our world then it could be the creator of our simulation. A very advanced technology. But is it benevolent? Does the concept of god include benevolence?
The idea that god should be benevolent is rare among religions and belied by history. It is not for nothing that natural disasters are also termed acts of god.
And why should god (or gods) bind themselves to human ethics and morals any more than humans should bind themselves to the morals or ethics of woodlice? The notion that gods should conform to man's desires rather than the other way round seems the height of arrogance and to rather miss the point about what gods are.
Consider the impasse of a one God universe. He is all-knowing and all-powerful. He can't go anywhere since He is already everywhere. He can't do anything since the act of doing presupposes opposition. His universe is irrevocably thermodynamic having no friction by definition. So, He has to create friction: War, Fear, Sickness, Death, To keep his dying show on the road.
Sooner or later, "Look boss we don't have enough energy left to fry an elderly woman in a flea bag hotel bar."
"Well, we'll have to start faking it."
We all die. God just judges how we used our time on earth on the Day of Judgement and decides if we get to spend all eternity with him (which of course also includes Christ as he is one and the same) and the angels or we get sent down below to a rather hotter destination for a few centuries or more until he decides enough repentance is shown
You do know that heaven and hell aren’t actually physical places, right?
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.
All theists are atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Yes but there is a big difference between dismissing any specific god and dismissing god. How can you be confident that no god exists, rather than that algakirk's god doesn't exist?
It depends what you mean by "god". If you mean an omniscient omnipotent entity that created our world then it could be the creator of our simulation. A very advanced technology. But is it benevolent? Does the concept of god include benevolence?
The idea that god should be benevolent is rare among religions and belied by history. It is not for nothing that natural disasters are also termed acts of god.
And why should god (or gods) bind themselves to human ethics and morals any more than humans should bind themselves to the morals or ethics of woodlice? The notion that gods should conform to man's desires rather than the other way round seems the height of arrogance and to rather miss the point about what gods are.
Consider the impasse of a one God universe. He is all-knowing and all-powerful. He can't go anywhere since He is already everywhere. He can't do anything since the act of doing presupposes opposition. His universe is irrevocably thermodynamic having no friction by definition. So, He has to create friction: War, Fear, Sickness, Death, To keep his dying show on the road.
Sooner or later, "Look boss we don't have enough energy left to fry an elderly woman in a flea bag hotel bar."
"Well, we'll have to start faking it."
We all die. God just judges how we used our time on earth on the Day of Judgement and decides if we get to spend all eternity with him (which of course also includes Christ as he is one and the same) and the angels or we get sent down below to a rather hotter destination for a few centuries or more until he decides enough repentance is shown
I'm an atheist. Assuming I am wrong and God exists then presumably I get sent to hell? I have led a pretty decent life. I haven't intentionally hurt anyone physically, mentally or financially and done a fair bit of good by doing voluntary stuff and being pretty honest. O K I'm far from perfect, but a decent specimen. Seems tough I should go to hell because I made a mistake in not finding God.
Depends on the god, my faith belief is not that important to where you end
Shortly after I moved to London, and about the same time I started using the DLR occasionally. It's amazing how bare boned some of the stations were, and how the wind used to blow straight through me as I waited for trains. And a little view of the old Island Gardens station, where I spent far too much time waiting for trains.
To be honest, from here, Ukraine seems very far away. My cynical view is American policy since 2022 has been to keep the war going by ensuring Russia can’t win and Ukraine can’t lose.
The drip feeding of weaponry has been proportionate to that aim - Washington knows, as most sensible people do, containing the conflict is the key but as we’ve seen, keeping Russia busy in the Donetsk has had implications elsewhere.
The truth is the current status of ongoing contained conflict suits everyone (apart from those doing the fighting and dying obviously) and I suspect Trump and his incoming advisers will be reminded of that in no uncertain terms. The military/industrial complex has made money from supplying weapons (the same is true for those supplying Russia).
Victory or defeat for either Russia or Ukraine will have far reaching and unpredictable consequences and no one wants that kind of uncertainty. The current relative stability of ongoing low level conflict suits most - it maintains both Putin and Zelenskyy in power and to be blunt if one or both fell, would the alternatives be any better? The strong sense is in both cases, no and the idea of either falling into civil war or anarchy and the concomitant destabilisation of neighbouring states isn’t or shouldn’t be attractive.
Perhaps Trump and his people will thread the needle but that’s more likely to lead to an 1918-style armistice than any kind of proper resolution (though that’s very hard to envisage without significant population displacement).
This is unduly cynical and complacent.
Mainly I would argue that the intensity of the conflict in Ukraine is not low. A lot of people are dying every day. The continuation of the ear is bad for Western democracy, and it's weakening Western alliances, and it is not a stable state.
There is a decent chance of one side becoming exhausted before the other, and seeing the way that European and American public support for the war is draining away, that side could well be Ukraine. The consequences would be catastrophic for democracy in general. They would be very dark days indeed.
Happy to disagree with you. I did point out the status quo didn’t work for those doing the fighting and the dying (it didn’t in the Iran-Iraq War, it never does) nor for the wider civilian population in both countries but in terms of the potential for a wider European or global conflict the current containment works.
Russia “could” seek to escalate the conflict in order to produce a conclusion - so could Ukraine (with NATO help) but both sides have implicitly agreed the lines that won’t be crossed. The nuclear destruction of Kyiv, Lviv or Odessa, the use of battlefield nuclear weapons to stem a Russian offensive - all possible and often predicted and yet?
Complacent? Russia might well grind Ukraine down over time - it’s the obvious route to a Russian victory - but the cost of that, Russia’s virtual subjugation to Beijing, has already impacted the global balance.
I do agree democracy is under attack - it always is. The problem is too many see too little hope for the future, the current societal and economic problems are significant and challenging and resolving them isn’t easy but there are always the siren voices of those who claim they “have the answers”. As with the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack, people will happily give up their rights and freedoms to feel safe and they will also give them up in the name of false hope.
"the use of battlefield nuclear weapons to stem a Russian offensive "
I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that NATO use 'battlefield' nukes to stem a Russian offensive. AIUI, the NATO response to the use of a Russian tactical nuke is a massive conventional attack on Russian forces within Ukraine.
But with the orange one in power? Who knows, since you apparently cannot rely on anything he says.
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
This is the context.
MAGA civil war erupts between Musk, critics over H-1B visas
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5057953-trump-world-clash-immigration/ A Trump World civil war has erupted over visas for highly skilled workers, with the president-elect’s new tech industry allies like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy on one side and the anti-immigration MAGA base on the other. The clash is a preview of the challenges in holding the Trump coalition together as his administration executes his immigration policy, an issue that drove his 2024 victory. But while President-elect Trump has promised to shut down illegal immigration at the southern border and start a mass deportation effort, the latest debate concerns immigrants here legally — exposing a larger, sometimes racist, anti-immigrant sentiment on the right. The debate was sparked by Trump on Sunday when he announced he was appointing Sriram Krishnan to be a White House policy adviser on artificial intelligence. Krishnan quickly came under fire for a November post suggesting immigration changes: “Anything to remove country caps for green cards / unlock skilled immigration would be huge.” Far-right provocateur Laura Loomer called the comments “alarming,” accusing Krishnan of supporting foreigners being able to “come to the US and take jobs that should be given to American STEM students.” The bulk of the discussion began to center on the H-1B visa program, an employer-sponsored visa intended for high-skilled professionals that is used mostly for computer-related and tech jobs. Congress has capped that program at 65,000 per year plus an additional 20,000 for foreign professionals who graduate with a master’s degree or doctorate from a U.S. college or university. Those in the MAGA base argue that the visa program is used to undercut American workers...
There is a real prospect of something g along these lines happening.
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
This is the context.
MAGA civil war erupts between Musk, critics over H-1B visas
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5057953-trump-world-clash-immigration/ A Trump World civil war has erupted over visas for highly skilled workers, with the president-elect’s new tech industry allies like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy on one side and the anti-immigration MAGA base on the other. The clash is a preview of the challenges in holding the Trump coalition together as his administration executes his immigration policy, an issue that drove his 2024 victory. But while President-elect Trump has promised to shut down illegal immigration at the southern border and start a mass deportation effort, the latest debate concerns immigrants here legally — exposing a larger, sometimes racist, anti-immigrant sentiment on the right. The debate was sparked by Trump on Sunday when he announced he was appointing Sriram Krishnan to be a White House policy adviser on artificial intelligence. Krishnan quickly came under fire for a November post suggesting immigration changes: “Anything to remove country caps for green cards / unlock skilled immigration would be huge.” Far-right provocateur Laura Loomer called the comments “alarming,” accusing Krishnan of supporting foreigners being able to “come to the US and take jobs that should be given to American STEM students.” The bulk of the discussion began to center on the H-1B visa program, an employer-sponsored visa intended for high-skilled professionals that is used mostly for computer-related and tech jobs. Congress has capped that program at 65,000 per year plus an additional 20,000 for foreign professionals who graduate with a master’s degree or doctorate from a U.S. college or university. Those in the MAGA base argue that the visa program is used to undercut American workers...
There is a real prospect of something g along these lines happening.
Yeah. Of course, the obvious answer would be for America to invest in education, and for these companies to invest in their people via training. But you know, America's shit.
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
This is the context.
MAGA civil war erupts between Musk, critics over H-1B visas
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5057953-trump-world-clash-immigration/ A Trump World civil war has erupted over visas for highly skilled workers, with the president-elect’s new tech industry allies like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy on one side and the anti-immigration MAGA base on the other. The clash is a preview of the challenges in holding the Trump coalition together as his administration executes his immigration policy, an issue that drove his 2024 victory. But while President-elect Trump has promised to shut down illegal immigration at the southern border and start a mass deportation effort, the latest debate concerns immigrants here legally — exposing a larger, sometimes racist, anti-immigrant sentiment on the right. The debate was sparked by Trump on Sunday when he announced he was appointing Sriram Krishnan to be a White House policy adviser on artificial intelligence. Krishnan quickly came under fire for a November post suggesting immigration changes: “Anything to remove country caps for green cards / unlock skilled immigration would be huge.” Far-right provocateur Laura Loomer called the comments “alarming,” accusing Krishnan of supporting foreigners being able to “come to the US and take jobs that should be given to American STEM students.” The bulk of the discussion began to center on the H-1B visa program, an employer-sponsored visa intended for high-skilled professionals that is used mostly for computer-related and tech jobs. Congress has capped that program at 65,000 per year plus an additional 20,000 for foreign professionals who graduate with a master’s degree or doctorate from a U.S. college or university. Those in the MAGA base argue that the visa program is used to undercut American workers...
There is a real prospect of something g along these lines happening.
Yeah. Of course, the obvious answer would be for America to invest in education, and for these companies to invest in their people via training. But you know, America's shit.
This in itself is also a preview of what Reform will face, if it gets any bigger.
Singapore-on-Thames versus a 1950's approach to minorities.
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
Which is pretty much what some said when non doms left or were threatening to leave over changes in taxation.
If people want to leave, fair enough. I'd prefer them to stay. What amuses me are the plastic patriots, who proclaim and screech about how much they love their country, then threaten to move away if they do not get their way.
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
Which is pretty much what some said when non doms left or were threatening to leave over changes in taxation.
If people want to leave, fair enough. I'd prefer them to stay. What amuses me are the plastic patriots, who proclaim and screech about how much they love their country, then threaten to move away if they do not get their way.
The point is incentives matter and drives behaviour and driving out wealth creators and high earners is lunacy especially when we replace them with, what, care workers with their families of economically active dependents and other low skilled migrants. Deliveroo and Just Eat cyclists from the Horn of Africa are not going to pay the taxes lost.
The policy response should be to make the U.K. a more attractive place to live and work and also start a business. Especially start a business. Targetting growth industries such as the STEM sector. But look at how hamstrung they are by NIMBYs and rules/regs getting going.
This is facing massive opposition. In the US they’d do it.
The policy response will be more inward low skilled migration and university students for the fees while blaming those for leaving for being greedy or selfish or not wanting to pay their fair share.
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
This is the context.
MAGA civil war erupts between Musk, critics over H-1B visas
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5057953-trump-world-clash-immigration/ A Trump World civil war has erupted over visas for highly skilled workers, with the president-elect’s new tech industry allies like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy on one side and the anti-immigration MAGA base on the other. The clash is a preview of the challenges in holding the Trump coalition together as his administration executes his immigration policy, an issue that drove his 2024 victory. But while President-elect Trump has promised to shut down illegal immigration at the southern border and start a mass deportation effort, the latest debate concerns immigrants here legally — exposing a larger, sometimes racist, anti-immigrant sentiment on the right. The debate was sparked by Trump on Sunday when he announced he was appointing Sriram Krishnan to be a White House policy adviser on artificial intelligence. Krishnan quickly came under fire for a November post suggesting immigration changes: “Anything to remove country caps for green cards / unlock skilled immigration would be huge.” Far-right provocateur Laura Loomer called the comments “alarming,” accusing Krishnan of supporting foreigners being able to “come to the US and take jobs that should be given to American STEM students.” The bulk of the discussion began to center on the H-1B visa program, an employer-sponsored visa intended for high-skilled professionals that is used mostly for computer-related and tech jobs. Congress has capped that program at 65,000 per year plus an additional 20,000 for foreign professionals who graduate with a master’s degree or doctorate from a U.S. college or university. Those in the MAGA base argue that the visa program is used to undercut American workers...
There is a real prospect of something g along these lines happening.
I'm not surprised Musk is a bit nervous about the removal of high wealth immigrants, especially illegal ones.
South Africa just isn't a great place to be right now.
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.
An Inconvenient Truth.
The Brexiteer tendency did a great job in persuading everyone otherwise.
Show me a social movement and I'll show you a set of myths about the past. It was true in the English Civil War and it's as true now as then.
The problem pro-Europeans have is that they stopped telling a good convincing story. They seemed to think it was enough to dismiss the stories of their opponents.
Exactly. The pro-Europeans needed to own the Project at the time of Maastricht and the constitution/Lisbon, let alone 2016 - and they probably should have pushed for euro membership from 1997.
To be fair, they did: Britain joining the euro dominated domestic political narrative from 1999 to 2001.
The policy response should be to make the U.K. a more attractive place to live and work and also start a business. Especially start a business. Targetting growth industries such as the STEM sector. But look at how hamstrung they are by NIMBYs and rules/regs getting going.
This is facing massive opposition. In the US they’d do it.
The policy response will be more inward low skilled migration and university students for the fees while blaming those for leaving for being greedy or selfish or not wanting to pay their fair share.
If we see this it will be culmination of policies over the last 15 years that have targeted aspiration and higher earners on the basis they can "afford it".
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
Which is pretty much what some said when non doms left or were threatening to leave over changes in taxation.
If people want to leave, fair enough. I'd prefer them to stay. What amuses me are the plastic patriots, who proclaim and screech about how much they love their country, then threaten to move away if they do not get their way.
The point is incentives matter and drives behaviour and driving out wealth creators and high earners is lunacy especially when we replace them with, what, care workers with their families of economically active dependents and other low skilled migrants. Deliveroo and Just Eat cyclists from the Horn of Africa are not going to pay the taxes lost.
The question then becomes how much we need to cater for the greedy. That can become a race to the bottom, especially if it ends up with the 'wealth creators' paying little or no tax.
As I said, what amuses me are the plastic patriots: those who pretend to care for this country, but instead are just interested in their own wealth. And they occur in all walks of life - from Dyson to the tradesman who does jobs for cash in hand.
Incidentally: one thing I'd do (based solely on anecdotes from people I know) is to further restrict access to NHS and services from Brits who flee abroad to save tax.
The policy response should be to make the U.K. a more attractive place to live and work and also start a business. Especially start a business. Targetting growth industries such as the STEM sector. But look at how hamstrung they are by NIMBYs and rules/regs getting going.
This is facing massive opposition. In the US they’d do it.
The policy response will be more inward low skilled migration and university students for the fees while blaming those for leaving for being greedy or selfish or not wanting to pay their fair share.
We reward those who make careers in enforcing compliance of businesses, not starting businesses.
It's far easier for the professional middle classes to pursue a career in the former than the latter. Hell, in certain social circles, the latter is even perceived to be grubby and somewhat suspect.
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
Which is pretty much what some said when non doms left or were threatening to leave over changes in taxation.
If people want to leave, fair enough. I'd prefer them to stay. What amuses me are the plastic patriots, who proclaim and screech about how much they love their country, then threaten to move away if they do not get their way.
The point is incentives matter and drives behaviour and driving out wealth creators and high earners is lunacy especially when we replace them with, what, care workers with their families of economically active dependents and other low skilled migrants. Deliveroo and Just Eat cyclists from the Horn of Africa are not going to pay the taxes lost.
The question then becomes how much we need to cater for the greedy. That can become a race to the bottom, especially if it ends up with the 'wealth creators' paying little or no tax.
As I said, what amuses me are the plastic patriots: those who pretend to care for this country, but instead are just interested in their own wealth. And they occur in all walks of life - from Dyson to the tradesman who does jobs for cash in hand.
Incidentally: one thing I'd do (based solely on anecdotes from people I know) is to further restrict access to NHS and services from Brits who flee abroad to save tax.
I must say, I was astonished when I scrolled up and saw it was you who'd posted this; someone who I'd consider far from left-wing.
This sort of sentiment is a measure of the problem this country has.
If we see this it will be culmination of policies over the last 15 years that have targeted aspiration and higher earners on the basis they can "afford it".
And being a good Conservative, and being fiscally responsible, how would you balance the books?
To laugh hysterically? I don’t see the US under Trump becoming more attractive to British people. If anything, I expect a brain drain from the US to the UK.
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
Which is pretty much what some said when non doms left or were threatening to leave over changes in taxation.
If people want to leave, fair enough. I'd prefer them to stay. What amuses me are the plastic patriots, who proclaim and screech about how much they love their country, then threaten to move away if they do not get their way.
The point is incentives matter and drives behaviour and driving out wealth creators and high earners is lunacy especially when we replace them with, what, care workers with their families of economically active dependents and other low skilled migrants. Deliveroo and Just Eat cyclists from the Horn of Africa are not going to pay the taxes lost.
The question then becomes how much we need to cater for the greedy. That can become a race to the bottom, especially if it ends up with the 'wealth creators' paying little or no tax.
As I said, what amuses me are the plastic patriots: those who pretend to care for this country, but instead are just interested in their own wealth. And they occur in all walks of life - from Dyson to the tradesman who does jobs for cash in hand.
Incidentally: one thing I'd do (based solely on anecdotes from people I know) is to further restrict access to NHS and services from Brits who flee abroad to save tax.
I must say, I was astonished when I scrolled up and saw it was you who'd posted this; someone who I'd consider far from left-wing.
This sort of sentiment is a measure of the problem this country has.
As ever, there's a compromise. We need to attract (and preferably create) as many wealth creators as we can. But that does not mean that those 'wealth creators' should take the piss.
We are not the United States - thank goodness. We have a different system, and try to care for everyone at a basic level - whatever that is. That's what we do. In a race to the bottom. there is no way we can compete with a US which treats millionaires like royalty and the poor like dirt - unless that's the way we want the country to become?
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
Which is pretty much what some said when non doms left or were threatening to leave over changes in taxation.
If people want to leave, fair enough. I'd prefer them to stay. What amuses me are the plastic patriots, who proclaim and screech about how much they love their country, then threaten to move away if they do not get their way.
The point is incentives matter and drives behaviour and driving out wealth creators and high earners is lunacy especially when we replace them with, what, care workers with their families of economically active dependents and other low skilled migrants. Deliveroo and Just Eat cyclists from the Horn of Africa are not going to pay the taxes lost.
The question then becomes how much we need to cater for the greedy. That can become a race to the bottom, especially if it ends up with the 'wealth creators' paying little or no tax.
As I said, what amuses me are the plastic patriots: those who pretend to care for this country, but instead are just interested in their own wealth. And they occur in all walks of life - from Dyson to the tradesman who does jobs for cash in hand.
Incidentally: one thing I'd do (based solely on anecdotes from people I know) is to further restrict access to NHS and services from Brits who flee abroad to save tax.
Residency is a requirement for NHS treatments (there are exceptions for emergency care) and this includes UK nationals. So a non-UK resident British citizen can already be charged for care. Our overseas patients officers do deal with this issue.
The nuclear destruction of Kyiv, Lviv or Odessa, the use of battlefield nuclear weapons to stem a Russian offensive - all possible and often predicted and yet?
I don't think use of a tac nuke to stop the Russians has ever been predicted. Mainly because it would have to be an American weapon and how would it benefit their interests to do so?
I could see the Russians doing a test detonation over the Black Sea if backed into a corner. That would instantly trigger a global depression and cause some reassessment of the situation.
I think the policy response is to check the source, before being panicked by an hysterical scaremonger in the Telegraph by the tweeter, Sam Ashworth-Hayes; as he put it "The article version of this tweet".
When I look up the chart, I find it is described as "1.3 The analysis in this report shows that, based on policy settings in March 2024, these and other pressures would eventually put the public finances on an unsustainable path. "
That is, the things he for which is blaming on Rachel Reeves are a forecast based on the policy decisions made by Rishi Sunak's Government as at March 2024.
I've still to check the similar forecast made for the Labour Government's budget, rather than the previous Conservative's one. I'll put that in the next thread.
His argument is built on a misrepresentation afaics. Is the Telegraph being fair, is it being competent, is it being dishonest? You tell me.
I think the policy response is to check the source, before being panicked by an hysterical scaremonger in the Telegraph by the tweeter, Sam Ashworth-Hayes; as he put it "The article version of this tweet".
When I look up the chart, I find it is described as "1.3 The analysis in this report shows that, based on policy settings in March 2024, these and other pressures would eventually put the public finances on an unsustainable path. "
That is, the things he for which is blaming on Rachel Reeves are a forecast based on the policy decisions made by Rishi Sunak's Government as at March 2024.
I've still to check the similar forecast made for the Labour Government's budget, rather than the previous Conservative's one. I'll put that in the next thread.
His argument is built on a misrepresentation afaics. Is the Telegraph being fair, is it being competent, is it being dishonest? You tell me.
We all knew that the government finances were in a mess before the election with either tax rises or massive spending cuts needed. None of the major parties were being honest about this. The PB Tories clutching their pearls over the autumn budget are demonstrating either mendacity or innumeracy.
That systematic unwillingness to face facts by our politicians is the reason that we are in such a mess, and faith in politicians is so low. You can only ignore facts for so long, because they will not ignore you.
If we see this it will be culmination of policies over the last 15 years that have targeted aspiration and higher earners on the basis they can "afford it".
And being a good Conservative, and being fiscally responsible, how would you balance the books?
The books will be deeply in the red if all our top talent and entrepreneurs decamp to the USA. That's precisely the point.
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
Which is pretty much what some said when non doms left or were threatening to leave over changes in taxation.
If people want to leave, fair enough. I'd prefer them to stay. What amuses me are the plastic patriots, who proclaim and screech about how much they love their country, then threaten to move away if they do not get their way.
The point is incentives matter and drives behaviour and driving out wealth creators and high earners is lunacy especially when we replace them with, what, care workers with their families of economically active dependents and other low skilled migrants. Deliveroo and Just Eat cyclists from the Horn of Africa are not going to pay the taxes lost.
The question then becomes how much we need to cater for the greedy. That can become a race to the bottom, especially if it ends up with the 'wealth creators' paying little or no tax.
As I said, what amuses me are the plastic patriots: those who pretend to care for this country, but instead are just interested in their own wealth. And they occur in all walks of life - from Dyson to the tradesman who does jobs for cash in hand.
Incidentally: one thing I'd do (based solely on anecdotes from people I know) is to further restrict access to NHS and services from Brits who flee abroad to save tax.
I must say, I was astonished when I scrolled up and saw it was you who'd posted this; someone who I'd consider far from left-wing.
This sort of sentiment is a measure of the problem this country has.
As ever, there's a compromise. We need to attract (and preferably create) as many wealth creators as we can. But that does not mean that those 'wealth creators' should take the piss.
We are not the United States - thank goodness. We have a different system, and try to care for everyone at a basic level - whatever that is. That's what we do. In a race to the bottom. there is no way we can compete with a US which treats millionaires like royalty and the poor like dirt - unless that's the way we want the country to become?
That's a false dichotomy, and well you know it.
There's a spectrum and the right place to be on it is where we don't tax hardworking professionals and small businessmen at 60%+ so we encourage risk taking, new businesses and more growth.
You can't command "growth"; you have to structure your economy to reward and recognise it.
If we see this it will be culmination of policies over the last 15 years that have targeted aspiration and higher earners on the basis they can "afford it".
And being a good Conservative, and being fiscally responsible, how would you balance the books?
The books will be deeply in the red if all our top talent and entrepreneurs decamp to the USA. That's precisely the point.
And they will be deeply in the red if we compete fully with the USA in the race to the bottom. That's precisely the point.
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
Which is pretty much what some said when non doms left or were threatening to leave over changes in taxation.
If people want to leave, fair enough. I'd prefer them to stay. What amuses me are the plastic patriots, who proclaim and screech about how much they love their country, then threaten to move away if they do not get their way.
The point is incentives matter and drives behaviour and driving out wealth creators and high earners is lunacy especially when we replace them with, what, care workers with their families of economically active dependents and other low skilled migrants. Deliveroo and Just Eat cyclists from the Horn of Africa are not going to pay the taxes lost.
The question then becomes how much we need to cater for the greedy. That can become a race to the bottom, especially if it ends up with the 'wealth creators' paying little or no tax.
As I said, what amuses me are the plastic patriots: those who pretend to care for this country, but instead are just interested in their own wealth. And they occur in all walks of life - from Dyson to the tradesman who does jobs for cash in hand.
Incidentally: one thing I'd do (based solely on anecdotes from people I know) is to further restrict access to NHS and services from Brits who flee abroad to save tax.
I must say, I was astonished when I scrolled up and saw it was you who'd posted this; someone who I'd consider far from left-wing.
This sort of sentiment is a measure of the problem this country has.
As ever, there's a compromise. We need to attract (and preferably create) as many wealth creators as we can. But that does not mean that those 'wealth creators' should take the piss.
We are not the United States - thank goodness. We have a different system, and try to care for everyone at a basic level - whatever that is. That's what we do. In a race to the bottom. there is no way we can compete with a US which treats millionaires like royalty and the poor like dirt - unless that's the way we want the country to become?
That's a false dichotomy, and well you know it.
There's a spectrum and the right place to be on it is where we don't tax hardworking professionals and small businessmen at 60%+ so we encourage risk taking, new businesses and more growth.
You can't command "growth"; you have to structure your economy to reward and recognise it.
I agree, to an extent. But the discussion is about competing with the USA, and my argument is that it is impossible to cut taxes to such an extent that we keep such people, if we want to retain stuff that makes us 'British'.
Of course, it may be that the more moral wealthy and wealth creators who see the USA as becoming a cesspit may actually want to move to the UK.
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
Which is pretty much what some said when non doms left or were threatening to leave over changes in taxation.
If people want to leave, fair enough. I'd prefer them to stay. What amuses me are the plastic patriots, who proclaim and screech about how much they love their country, then threaten to move away if they do not get their way.
The point is incentives matter and drives behaviour and driving out wealth creators and high earners is lunacy especially when we replace them with, what, care workers with their families of economically active dependents and other low skilled migrants. Deliveroo and Just Eat cyclists from the Horn of Africa are not going to pay the taxes lost.
The question then becomes how much we need to cater for the greedy. That can become a race to the bottom, especially if it ends up with the 'wealth creators' paying little or no tax.
As I said, what amuses me are the plastic patriots: those who pretend to care for this country, but instead are just interested in their own wealth. And they occur in all walks of life - from Dyson to the tradesman who does jobs for cash in hand.
Incidentally: one thing I'd do (based solely on anecdotes from people I know) is to further restrict access to NHS and services from Brits who flee abroad to save tax.
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
Which is pretty much what some said when non doms left or were threatening to leave over changes in taxation.
If people want to leave, fair enough. I'd prefer them to stay. What amuses me are the plastic patriots, who proclaim and screech about how much they love their country, then threaten to move away if they do not get their way.
The point is incentives matter and drives behaviour and driving out wealth creators and high earners is lunacy especially when we replace them with, what, care workers with their families of economically active dependents and other low skilled migrants. Deliveroo and Just Eat cyclists from the Horn of Africa are not going to pay the taxes lost.
The question then becomes how much we need to cater for the greedy. That can become a race to the bottom, especially if it ends up with the 'wealth creators' paying little or no tax.
As I said, what amuses me are the plastic patriots: those who pretend to care for this country, but instead are just interested in their own wealth. And they occur in all walks of life - from Dyson to the tradesman who does jobs for cash in hand.
Incidentally: one thing I'd do (based solely on anecdotes from people I know) is to further restrict access to NHS and services from Brits who flee abroad to save tax.
Greedy ? Why are people greedy for wanting to keep their own money ?
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
Which is pretty much what some said when non doms left or were threatening to leave over changes in taxation.
If people want to leave, fair enough. I'd prefer them to stay. What amuses me are the plastic patriots, who proclaim and screech about how much they love their country, then threaten to move away if they do not get their way.
The point is incentives matter and drives behaviour and driving out wealth creators and high earners is lunacy especially when we replace them with, what, care workers with their families of economically active dependents and other low skilled migrants. Deliveroo and Just Eat cyclists from the Horn of Africa are not going to pay the taxes lost.
The question then becomes how much we need to cater for the greedy. That can become a race to the bottom, especially if it ends up with the 'wealth creators' paying little or no tax.
As I said, what amuses me are the plastic patriots: those who pretend to care for this country, but instead are just interested in their own wealth. And they occur in all walks of life - from Dyson to the tradesman who does jobs for cash in hand.
Incidentally: one thing I'd do (based solely on anecdotes from people I know) is to further restrict access to NHS and services from Brits who flee abroad to save tax.
I must say, I was astonished when I scrolled up and saw it was you who'd posted this; someone who I'd consider far from left-wing.
This sort of sentiment is a measure of the problem this country has.
As ever, there's a compromise. We need to attract (and preferably create) as many wealth creators as we can. But that does not mean that those 'wealth creators' should take the piss.
We are not the United States - thank goodness. We have a different system, and try to care for everyone at a basic level - whatever that is. That's what we do. In a race to the bottom. there is no way we can compete with a US which treats millionaires like royalty and the poor like dirt - unless that's the way we want the country to become?
That's a false dichotomy, and well you know it.
There's a spectrum and the right place to be on it is where we don't tax hardworking professionals and small businessmen at 60%+ so we encourage risk taking, new businesses and more growth.
You can't command "growth"; you have to structure your economy to reward and recognise it.
We think we can tax our way to growth and prosperity !!
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
Which is pretty much what some said when non doms left or were threatening to leave over changes in taxation.
If people want to leave, fair enough. I'd prefer them to stay. What amuses me are the plastic patriots, who proclaim and screech about how much they love their country, then threaten to move away if they do not get their way.
The point is incentives matter and drives behaviour and driving out wealth creators and high earners is lunacy especially when we replace them with, what, care workers with their families of economically active dependents and other low skilled migrants. Deliveroo and Just Eat cyclists from the Horn of Africa are not going to pay the taxes lost.
The question then becomes how much we need to cater for the greedy. That can become a race to the bottom, especially if it ends up with the 'wealth creators' paying little or no tax.
As I said, what amuses me are the plastic patriots: those who pretend to care for this country, but instead are just interested in their own wealth. And they occur in all walks of life - from Dyson to the tradesman who does jobs for cash in hand.
Incidentally: one thing I'd do (based solely on anecdotes from people I know) is to further restrict access to NHS and services from Brits who flee abroad to save tax.
Knowing the way some at the top of Labour seem to think. they'd hang out the bunting to see them go.
Which is pretty much what some said when non doms left or were threatening to leave over changes in taxation.
If people want to leave, fair enough. I'd prefer them to stay. What amuses me are the plastic patriots, who proclaim and screech about how much they love their country, then threaten to move away if they do not get their way.
The point is incentives matter and drives behaviour and driving out wealth creators and high earners is lunacy especially when we replace them with, what, care workers with their families of economically active dependents and other low skilled migrants. Deliveroo and Just Eat cyclists from the Horn of Africa are not going to pay the taxes lost.
The question then becomes how much we need to cater for the greedy. That can become a race to the bottom, especially if it ends up with the 'wealth creators' paying little or no tax.
As I said, what amuses me are the plastic patriots: those who pretend to care for this country, but instead are just interested in their own wealth. And they occur in all walks of life - from Dyson to the tradesman who does jobs for cash in hand.
Incidentally: one thing I'd do (based solely on anecdotes from people I know) is to further restrict access to NHS and services from Brits who flee abroad to save tax.
Greedy ? Why are people greedy for wanting to keep their own money ?
There are levels, are there not? If I say I won't pay a tradesman for the good work he has done, that is keeping my money, and greed. And I think you'll agree that is a reprehensible attitude.
We live in a society. That society costs money to run. The question is the balance between allowing people to keep the money they have earned, and getting in the income to keep society running.
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.
An Inconvenient Truth.
The Brexiteer tendency did a great job in persuading everyone otherwise.
Show me a social movement and I'll show you a set of myths about the past. It was true in the English Civil War and it's as true now as then.
The problem pro-Europeans have is that they stopped telling a good convincing story. They seemed to think it was enough to dismiss the stories of their opponents.
Eh, this is nonsense really. Obviously pro-Europeans lost the referendum, but now it's reality it's Brexit that is incredibly unpopular, with its supporters searching for betrayals and increasingly desperate explanations as to why it went so wrong and reasons to whinge about those suggesting revisiting certain consequences.
Admittedly, the 'Stronger In' campaign was shoddy, but that had mostly to do with the complacency of those leading it and their making decisions based on gaining advantages after they won. Plus the fact there was always a pretty powerful leave campaign in lots of the media Cameron in particular badly underestimated - as they'd never been on the wrong side of it.
Brexit itself rekindled a story about the positives of being in somewhat, as a case of you don't know what you've got till it's gone. You never saw many EU flags before it, with even pro-Europeans a bit apologetic in a climate that was often residually hostile, but afterwards there's a whole cottage media industry that has grown out of pro-European liberalism.
Part of the Tories problems with the working age - and the thumping they just got - now is the fact there's now quite a convincing story or 'myth' about the decision to leave being part of 14 years of reckless destructive and self-defeating policies.
But of course as we can't re-run the referendum now, you can't unscramble an egg and all that, so its unpopularity leaks out in other ways.
That the referendum was held at all in the way that it was held was a sign of how weak the pro-European position had become over the course of the preceding couple of decades. It was the failure of the pro-Europeans in that period that I refer to, more than the referendum campaign itself (which I was out of the country for, and did not experience).
If pro-Europeans, even now, had a good story to tell then there would be a route back to EU membership,. It being a massive Tory mistake is not that story.
The problem is eight years after the referendum no-one faces up to the reality that the Brexit mistake will not be fixed. Leavers don't acknowledge it was a big mistake they were responsible for; Remainers don't accept we're not going back.
We're all in denial. It's not a healthy position.
I did quite well out of brexit, got my first actual real terms payrise just after we left since 2002
Comments
I just don't think it's a particularly healthy principle to establish that every time you want to sign a complex, wide-ranging treaty, you have to hold a referendum in which people won't often be voting on the contents but their wider political views or out of simple rejectionism or protest.
We're a representative democracy, one prefers to avoid referenda in general as a good way of deciding policy. Don't like a law or treaty? Vote against those who signed them.
In a referendum vote against Lisbon, say. Fine - what then? Leave when that's not the settled view? Propose and agree a new treaty that then has to be put to another referendum, where it could well be rejected again - and keep asking until one is found acceptable? Muddle on in limbo without ever altering institutions? Call an election based on it?
But if we must have referenda they should be about consequential binaries that we've struggled to resolve through our normal processes.
In terms of Brexit, I'd prefer there hadn't been one - but clearly from a tactical point of view as a Remainer, if read the Runes and thought it was going to become politically unsustainable not to hold one, then the smarter time to hold one would be from a position of strength, quickly, and set the terms - rather than be dragged into it after feeding the crocodiles until you'd run out of other red meat.
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/flint-admits-i-haven-t-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html
This is the minister for europe during the lisbon treaty period....if she hasn't read it what chance anyone else in the commons has
But this even more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4UNu1WIW9k
Ukraine the Latest. This is each weekday around the Ukraine War. 30-60 minutes, and running since the start - they are now at day 1038, which will be episode 750 approx. The format is
"Military News" (10 minutes),
"Political News" (10 minutes),
1 or 2 Interviews or Features (15-30 minutes - Today's is an interview with a beautician turned explosive ordnance educator now working for their Ukraine Christmas Charity, Humanity & Inclusion, with background cat). They have a wide variety of interviewees over time, from top politicians or military to people like today's. Host is a stand-in associate for Christmas.
"Final Thoughts" - today's participant reflections.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJnf_DDTfIVCYlsANGtNkzMeM9Fdmqzxr
Battle Lines
Roughly weekly, sometimes with specials. Deeper focuses on particular subjects. Conflict, military and sometimes related politics. Recently quite a lot around the Middle East. 30 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJnf_DDTfIVAif-vifC6F2aoPB8GIw6dk
You found Perfectly Normal, which is Allison Pearson and Liam Halligan.
There is also the Daily T, which is Camilla Tominey and Kamal (I think) Ahmed.
The Telegraph's own index page of podcasts, free to view, is here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/podcasts/
HTH
Russia “could” seek to escalate the conflict in order to produce a conclusion - so could Ukraine (with NATO help) but both sides have implicitly agreed the lines that won’t be crossed. The nuclear destruction of Kyiv, Lviv or Odessa, the use of battlefield nuclear weapons to stem a Russian offensive - all possible and often predicted and yet?
Complacent? Russia might well grind Ukraine down over time - it’s the obvious route to a Russian victory - but the cost of that, Russia’s virtual subjugation to Beijing, has already impacted the global balance.
I do agree democracy is under attack - it always is. The problem is too many see too little hope for the future, the current societal and economic problems are significant and challenging and resolving them isn’t easy but there are always the siren voices of those who claim they “have the answers”. As with the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack, people will happily give up their rights and freedoms to feel safe and they will also give them up in the name of false hope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4DpkCaCrUk
Happy memories. Thanks.
I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that NATO use 'battlefield' nukes to stem a Russian offensive. AIUI, the NATO response to the use of a Russian tactical nuke is a massive conventional attack on Russian forces within Ukraine.
But with the orange one in power? Who knows, since you apparently cannot rely on anything he says.
Can overseas people join political parties (either in the UK or elsewhere)?
Although perhaps expats should not.
The USA realising it can brain drain the top 10 per cent of Brits dirt cheap with no assimilation issues would be an actual catastrophe for the UK.
Instant fiscal crisis - this group provides 60% of the income tax take - and loads would go...
https://x.com/SAshworthHayes/status/1872642700719337964
Next stop launch!
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/1hntrji/new_glenn_static_fired/
MAGA civil war erupts between Musk, critics over H-1B visas
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5057953-trump-world-clash-immigration/
A Trump World civil war has erupted over visas for highly skilled workers, with the president-elect’s new tech industry allies like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy on one side and the anti-immigration MAGA base on the other.
The clash is a preview of the challenges in holding the Trump coalition together as his administration executes his immigration policy, an issue that drove his 2024 victory.
But while President-elect Trump has promised to shut down illegal immigration at the southern border and start a mass deportation effort, the latest debate concerns immigrants here legally — exposing a larger, sometimes racist, anti-immigrant sentiment on the right.
The debate was sparked by Trump on Sunday when he announced he was appointing Sriram Krishnan to be a White House policy adviser on artificial intelligence. Krishnan quickly came under fire for a November post suggesting immigration changes: “Anything to remove country caps for green cards / unlock skilled immigration would be huge.”
Far-right provocateur Laura Loomer called the comments “alarming,” accusing Krishnan of supporting foreigners being able to “come to the US and take jobs that should be given to American STEM students.”
The bulk of the discussion began to center on the H-1B visa program, an employer-sponsored visa intended for high-skilled professionals that is used mostly for computer-related and tech jobs. Congress has capped that program at 65,000 per year plus an additional 20,000 for foreign professionals who graduate with a master’s degree or doctorate from a U.S. college or university.
Those in the MAGA base argue that the visa program is used to undercut American workers...
There is a real prospect of something g along these lines happening.
Singapore-on-Thames versus a 1950's approach to minorities.
This is facing massive opposition. In the US they’d do it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-case-for-cambridge/the-case-for-cambridge#existing-plans-and-next-steps
The policy response will be more inward low skilled migration and university students for the fees while blaming those for leaving for being greedy or selfish or not wanting to pay their fair share.
I think Reform requires a UK postcode, but not sure how rigorous their vetting is.
An industrial estate in Newton Le Willows !!
https://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/24817254.plans-15m-5g-mast-newton-le-willows-refused-permission/
South Africa just isn't a great place to be right now.
Then 9/11 happened.
If we see this it will be culmination of policies over the last 15 years that have targeted aspiration and higher earners on the basis they can "afford it".
As I said, what amuses me are the plastic patriots: those who pretend to care for this country, but instead are just interested in their own wealth. And they occur in all walks of life - from Dyson to the tradesman who does jobs for cash in hand.
Incidentally: one thing I'd do (based solely on anecdotes from people I know) is to further restrict access to NHS and services from Brits who flee abroad to save tax.
It's far easier for the professional middle classes to pursue a career in the former than the latter. Hell, in certain social circles, the latter is even perceived to be grubby and somewhat suspect.
This sort of sentiment is a measure of the problem this country has.
Enjoying coverage of the first T20 between the Kiwis and Sri Lanka. The home side made 172-8 having been 169-5 at the start of the final over.
Will it be enough? I’m sceptical given the Sri Lankan betting but who knows.
We are not the United States - thank goodness. We have a different system, and try to care for everyone at a basic level - whatever that is. That's what we do. In a race to the bottom. there is no way we can compete with a US which treats millionaires like royalty and the poor like dirt - unless that's the way we want the country to become?
I could see the Russians doing a test detonation over the Black Sea if backed into a corner. That would instantly trigger a global depression and cause some reassessment of the situation.
The article is here: https://archive.is/20241227174807/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/24/its-time-for-the-young-and-ambitious-to-leave-britain/
He blames a graph he reproduces from the budget documents blaming Rachel-Reeves' budget, Chart 1.1 from the document https://obr.uk/frs/fiscal-risks-and-sustainability-september-2024/#chapter-1 .
When I look up the chart, I find it is described as "1.3 The analysis in this report shows that, based on policy settings in March 2024, these and other pressures would eventually put the public finances on an unsustainable path. "
That is, the things he for which is blaming on Rachel Reeves are a forecast based on the policy decisions made by Rishi Sunak's Government as at March 2024.
I've still to check the similar forecast made for the Labour Government's budget, rather than the previous Conservative's one. I'll put that in the next thread.
His argument is built on a misrepresentation afaics. Is the Telegraph being fair, is it being competent, is it being dishonest? You tell me.
That systematic unwillingness to face facts by our politicians is the reason that we are in such a mess, and faith in politicians is so low. You can only ignore facts for so long, because they will not ignore you.
NEW THREAD
There's a spectrum and the right place to be on it is where we don't tax hardworking professionals and small businessmen at 60%+ so we encourage risk taking, new businesses and more growth.
You can't command "growth"; you have to structure your economy to reward and recognise it.
Of course, it may be that the more moral wealthy and wealth creators who see the USA as becoming a cesspit may actually want to move to the UK.
We live in a society. That society costs money to run. The question is the balance between allowing people to keep the money they have earned, and getting in the income to keep society running.