Howdy, Stranger!

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

Is Mark Carney the man to defeat the Conservatives? – politicalbetting.com

245

Comments

  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,839
    MikeL said:

    Re yesterday's debate about the Online Safety Act:

    There must be literally millions of posts being made on UK internet forums every single day.

    Whilst numerous posts might be deemed to possibly be in breach of a strict interpretation of the Act it is surely completely impractial to think that the police (and in turn CPS) are going to pursue anything other than the very most serious posts - ie posts in connection with things like suicide.

    Otherwise where on earth would they start?

    I'm not saying I agree with the Act - I don't and I agree with most of the comments posted yesterday. But from a practical point of view I can't see it having any effect on anything which could be considered normal political debate.

    What if the police take a dislike to you (for whatever reason)? That's where they start.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,612
    God almighty doesn’t she ever let up.

    Liz Truss is becoming an Alan Partridgesque figure. She blew it big time. She needs to move on.

    https://x.com/trussliz/status/1876587254728057131?s=61
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,868
    Eabhal said:

    There's a genuine taste of expansionism, to this new Trump term.

    Musk wants Greenland's metal deposits, and a lot of the MAGA would also genuinely love to see parts of Canada and Mexico incorporated.

    Trump has threatened Denmark with a military invasion of Greenland. He has killed NATO today. We all knew he would, of course, but now it's pretty much confirmed. Putin and Xi will be delighted.

    How has he killed NATO?

    He has threatened to invade the territory of a NATO member state. You don't do that if you believe in, let alone value, NATO.

    Territorial disputes between NATO members are nothing new. Just look at Spain and Gibraltar.

    It's not a territorial dispute, it's the direct threat of an invasion.

    A European army looks all but an inevitability to me. And we would have no choice but to sign up, what with the aggressive rumblings towards the UK we've heard from elements of the Trump administration in recent days. Who'd have thought it?
    And we're relying on the ECHR to save us from the OSB.

    🎵 Ode to joy 🎵
    This could be a golden opportunity for Sir Keir: the PM who united Europe in the face of threats from west and east. He needs to seize the Zeitgeist. Never has British Atlanticism looked so threadbare and weak. (Even Nigel must be having second thoughts.)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,445

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,208

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    I agree with the reasons you state, but I'd add that the political machine doesn't encourage thought any more. So if you rise to become minister for widgets say, even the wisest of changes in widget policy will probably falter in their progress if they step on someone's toes. I think the capable people just see that they'd be bored rigid, and that's at least as big a disincentive as anything else.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,890
    Taz said:

    God almighty doesn’t she ever let up.

    Liz Truss is becoming an Alan Partridgesque figure. She blew it big time. She needs to move on.

    https://x.com/trussliz/status/1876587254728057131?s=61

    Truss doesn't have EQ or self-awareness.

    That said, she's not entirely wrong about everything; the IMF and Joe Biden did make political comments on her policies as she was trying to implement them.

    Then again, she did sack anyone she suspected might be against her agenda in the civil service even before she tried.
  • Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Excellent news, if true. With wages rising, a small step on the rocky path towards more affordable housing.
    Indeed.

    Just a shame Reeves is doing her best to snuff out wage rises too with her Budget whacking up National Insurance, a tax solely on wages and not unearned incomes.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,890

    MaxPB said:

    Trump

    Gulf of Mexico to become Gulf of America

    Substantial tariffs on Mexico and Canada

    Two countries with a detailed trade agreement with the US threatened with substantial sanctions. And there are people in the UK who think we should be doing a trade deal with Trump!!

    The US is the UKs biggest export market at 21.7% followed by Germany 7.3% then Ireland at 6.7%

    It is in UKs interest to negotiate a deal with the US
    Not a good use of time.

    The agribusiness lobby is way too strong and we should not accept the changes they would insist on

    American food is fundamentally unhealthy except at the very top end.
    With Reeves hollowing out UK agriculture we will probably end up with giant US agribusinesses owning UK farms anyway at which point resistance from farmers to a US trade deal goes away.
    The resistance won't come from farmers, it will come from consumers.
    Provided it's labelled properly "AMERICAN CHICKEN" with a US flag, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with it?

    Fundamentally, I want that choice, not for products to be totally excluded from the market for me; I'll decide thanks.

    We make ethical choices as consumers all the time.
    If it's in a pie, burger or bucket, how will you know what flag it is flying? How will you exercise that choice?
    Made with British beef mark? Ingredients label?

    Burger King, for example, already do this with their 100% British beef line.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,785
    Nigelb said:

    Trump

    Gulf of Mexico to become Gulf of America..

    That leaves a problem.

    The Atlantic and the Pacific can't both be the American Ocean.
    Sure they can. The Great American Ocean and The Even Greater American Ocean.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,803

    MaxPB said:

    Trump

    Gulf of Mexico to become Gulf of America

    Substantial tariffs on Mexico and Canada

    Two countries with a detailed trade agreement with the US threatened with substantial sanctions. And there are people in the UK who think we should be doing a trade deal with Trump!!

    The US is the UKs biggest export market at 21.7% followed by Germany 7.3% then Ireland at 6.7%

    It is in UKs interest to negotiate a deal with the US
    Not a good use of time.

    The agribusiness lobby is way too strong and we should not accept the changes they would insist on

    American food is fundamentally unhealthy except at the very top end.
    With Reeves hollowing out UK agriculture we will probably end up with giant US agribusinesses owning UK farms anyway at which point resistance from farmers to a US trade deal goes away.
    The resistance won't come from farmers, it will come from consumers.
    Provided it's labelled properly "AMERICAN CHICKEN" with a US flag, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with it?

    Fundamentally, I want that choice, not for products to be totally excluded from the market for me; I'll decide thanks.

    We make ethical choices as consumers all the time.
    If it's in a pie, burger or bucket, how will you know what flag it is flying? How will you exercise that choice?
    Just buy M & S British produce, not least because they are quality and supports our farmers
    Isn’t the point that a US trade deal would ban geographical identifiers on food?

    I personally would prefer the opposite, i.e. require restaurants to disclose the origin of their meat.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,057

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    There is probably something in reforming the structures around politicians as well. The civil service isn’t fit for purpose, and the reason we continually tinker around the edges on the big issues is because there’s some senior civil servant sticking to the what they know best - slow, steady, mediocre.

    (Christ, I’ve been radicalised by X 😂)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 29,835
    Taz said:

    God almighty doesn’t she ever let up.

    Liz Truss is becoming an Alan Partridgesque figure. She blew it big time. She needs to move on.

    https://x.com/trussliz/status/1876587254728057131?s=61

    Er no, she's absolutely right to rub peoples' faces in it. Especially those on the Labour benches who insist she 'crashed the economy'.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,890
    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    I agree with the reasons you state, but I'd add that the political machine doesn't encourage thought any more. So if you rise to become minister for widgets say, even the wisest of changes in widget policy will probably falter in their progress if they step on someone's toes. I think the capable people just see that they'd be bored rigid, and that's at least as big a disincentive as anything else.
    Yeah, good point.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,004
    edited January 7

    Taz said:

    God almighty doesn’t she ever let up.

    Liz Truss is becoming an Alan Partridgesque figure. She blew it big time. She needs to move on.

    https://x.com/trussliz/status/1876587254728057131?s=61

    Truss doesn't have EQ or self-awareness.

    That said, she's not entirely wrong about everything; the IMF and Joe Biden did make political comments on her policies as she was trying to implement them.

    Then again, she did sack anyone she suspected might be against her agenda in the civil service even before she tried.
    I was recently chastised by a former Tory MP who told me to stop taking the piss out of Liz Truss.

    He said it isn't a lack of self awareness on the part of Truss.

    She is so traumatised by what happened she is in genuine denial.

    We've all had failures, but none quite so spectacularly and epic like Liz Truss and importantly so publicly.

    Spooking the markets and being the shortest serving ever PM in fewer than fifty days is all she will be remembered for.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,619
    Lennon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump

    Gulf of Mexico to become Gulf of America..

    That leaves a problem.

    The Atlantic and the Pacific can't both be the American Ocean.
    Sure they can. The Great American Ocean and The Even Greater American Ocean.
    With the Panama Canal back in U.S. hands, it can be all be called one big American Ocean.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,923
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,890
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    And, let them say what they need to say?

    I know Douglas Murray has turned this down (several times) because he suspected he's be censored as @Omnium points out.

    Which he would have been, of course.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,445

    Taz said:

    God almighty doesn’t she ever let up.

    Liz Truss is becoming an Alan Partridgesque figure. She blew it big time. She needs to move on.

    https://x.com/trussliz/status/1876587254728057131?s=61

    Truss doesn't have EQ or self-awareness.

    That said, she's not entirely wrong about everything; the IMF and Joe Biden did make political comments on her policies as she was trying to implement them.

    Then again, she did sack anyone she suspected might be against her agenda in the civil service even before she tried.
    I was recently chastised by a former Tory MP who told me for stop taking the piss out of Liz Truss.

    He said it isn't a lack of self awareness on the part of Truss.

    She is so traumatised by what happened she is in genuine denial.

    We've all had failures, but none quite so spectacularly and epic like Liz Truss and importantly so publicly.

    Spooking the markets and being the shortest serving ever PM in fewer than fifty days is all she will be remembered for.
    Well, that and THE NECKLACE
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 52,958
    MikeL said:

    Re yesterday's debate about the Online Safety Act:

    There must be literally millions of posts being made on UK internet forums every single day.

    Whilst numerous posts might be deemed to possibly be in breach of a strict interpretation of the Act it is surely completely impractial to think that the police (and in turn CPS) are going to pursue anything other than the very most serious posts - ie posts in connection with things like suicide.

    Otherwise where on earth would they start?

    I'm not saying I agree with the Act - I don't and I agree with most of the comments posted yesterday. But from a practical point of view I can't see it having any effect on anything which could be considered normal political debate.

    Sigh.

    The way it works is that they get a complaint that looks like a case and the prosecute it.

    Just like the other cases for online stuff - see police blogs for why Farcebook posts are particularly good for the stats.

    Another (big) one will be various groups hiring lawyers and conducting lawfare against individuals or groups that they don’t like. Many ISPs and other service providers terminate service the moment they get threatening letters from lawyers.

    So one morning PB is gone. Because someone got a lawyer to send a snotty letter to OGH service provider.

    Think it can’t happen? That kind of stuff has already happened under other laws in various countries.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,619
    Are we going about this all wrong? Should we, Canada, Aus/Nz, and the Nordics agree to become U.S. States (say, one state per English region, plus Scotland and Wales, and proportionately the same for the others) with a proportionate number of electoral votes, senators, and representatives, and then make one or two changes?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,404
    edited January 7

    Almost 30 years after a stealth ship belonging to the media baron Elliot Carver used a sea drill torpedo to sink HMS Devonshire, the Royal Navy frigate resides at the bottom of the South China Sea.

    James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, has taken on a campaign to get the ship operational again, asking the Ministry of Defence about the cost of repairing it.

    There is just one problem: the boat is a fictional frigate seen in the 1997 James Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies.

    Cartlidge and his party accidentally mixed up the boat with the HMS Northumberland, the Type 23 frigate that is due to be retired this year because of structural damage.

    In a written ministerial question in November last year, the Conservative MP for South Suffolk asked John Healey, the defence secretary, “what estimate he has made of the cost of repairing structural damage to HMS Devonshire”.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/shadow-defence-secretary-mixes-up-james-bond-ship-with-real-one-nv8s589m5

    Meh, who's worrying? Both English counties. If admittedly at the opposite ends.

    BTW Devonshire was a 'County-class guided missile destroyer' carrying Seaslug as its main weapon; the decommissioned ship was used in weapons trials in 1984. [edit] Looking very moth-eaten even before the final torpedo sank it. So good luck to Mr Cartlidge.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbfSz_6kIm4

    (The one in the JB film is something completely different.)

    Edit: and the real Devonshire is somewhere in the Atlantic, deep down.
  • biggles said:

    Are we going about this all wrong? Should we, Canada, Aus/Nz, and the Nordics agree to become U.S. States (say, one state per English region, plus Scotland and Wales, and proportionately the same for the others) with a proportionate number of electoral votes, senators, and representatives, and then make one or two changes?

    The combined population of all us, then, would still.be only about a third of the current U.S. one.

    We wouldn't be able to change topics, and power would still firmly reside on the West of the Atlantic
  • Change topics, should be change too much, there.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 29,373
    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,890

    Taz said:

    God almighty doesn’t she ever let up.

    Liz Truss is becoming an Alan Partridgesque figure. She blew it big time. She needs to move on.

    https://x.com/trussliz/status/1876587254728057131?s=61

    Truss doesn't have EQ or self-awareness.

    That said, she's not entirely wrong about everything; the IMF and Joe Biden did make political comments on her policies as she was trying to implement them.

    Then again, she did sack anyone she suspected might be against her agenda in the civil service even before she tried.
    I was recently chastised by a former Tory MP who told me to stop taking the piss out of Liz Truss.

    He said it isn't a lack of self awareness on the part of Truss.

    She is so traumatised by what happened she is in genuine denial.

    We've all had failures, but none quite so spectacularly and epic like Liz Truss and importantly so publicly.

    Spooking the markets and being the shortest serving ever PM in fewer than fifty days is all she will be remembered for.
    Yeah, it is though; she does lack EQ and self-awareness.

    And she's also in denial. Probably a self-preservation mechanism but she doesn't have the self-awareness not to keep going public about it, rather than biting her lip.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,445
    edited January 7

    MikeL said:

    Re yesterday's debate about the Online Safety Act:

    There must be literally millions of posts being made on UK internet forums every single day.

    Whilst numerous posts might be deemed to possibly be in breach of a strict interpretation of the Act it is surely completely impractial to think that the police (and in turn CPS) are going to pursue anything other than the very most serious posts - ie posts in connection with things like suicide.

    Otherwise where on earth would they start?

    I'm not saying I agree with the Act - I don't and I agree with most of the comments posted yesterday. But from a practical point of view I can't see it having any effect on anything which could be considered normal political debate.

    Sigh.

    The way it works is that they get a complaint that looks like a case and the prosecute it.

    Just like the other cases for online stuff - see police blogs for why Farcebook posts are particularly good for the stats.

    Another (big) one will be various groups hiring lawyers and conducting lawfare against individuals or groups that they don’t like. Many ISPs and other service providers terminate service the moment they get threatening letters from lawyers.

    So one morning PB is gone. Because someone got a lawyer to send a snotty letter to OGH service provider.

    Think it can’t happen? That kind of stuff has already happened under other laws in various countries.
    Yeah I don’t see how PB survives under the OSA

    The fines are potentially horrific. Why take the risk. It only needs one vexatious litigant and the unpaid owners and mods of PB will - understandably - think what’s the effing point

    The entire Act is monstrous. Tories are venal cretins, other parties just as bad. It’s another demonstration of how our ruling elite is not fit for purpose. They are simply DUMB

    As others have said, online debate will retreat to US forums with people using vpns

    It won’t happen overnight but it will slowly erode
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,619

    biggles said:

    Are we going about this all wrong? Should we, Canada, Aus/Nz, and the Nordics agree to become U.S. States (say, one state per English region, plus Scotland and Wales, and proportionately the same for the others) with a proportionate number of electoral votes, senators, and representatives, and then make one or two changes?

    The combined population of all us, then, would still.be only about a third of the current U.S. one.

    We wouldn't be able to change topics, and power would still firmly reside on the West of the Atlantic
    But 70-80% of us vote, and we’d be working with California and New York.

    It’s like my suggestion for the Palestinians. Agree to a one State solution but request equal voting rights, and see how quickly the Israelis offer up two states.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,445

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 12,745
    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Are we going about this all wrong? Should we, Canada, Aus/Nz, and the Nordics agree to become U.S. States (say, one state per English region, plus Scotland and Wales, and proportionately the same for the others) with a proportionate number of electoral votes, senators, and representatives, and then make one or two changes?

    The combined population of all us, then, would still.be only about a third of the current U.S. one.

    We wouldn't be able to change topics, and power would still firmly reside on the West of the Atlantic
    But 70-80% of us vote, and we’d be working with California and New York.

    It’s like my suggestion for the Palestinians. Agree to a one State solution but request equal voting rights, and see how quickly the Israelis offer up two states.
    That’s why the Israeli right have made very, very clear that their one-state solution is predicated on ethnic cleansing.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,619
    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,445
    edited January 7
    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    Nonetheless she did both jobs successfully - however briefly - before coming a politician

    For real “career politicians” you should look to the awful types who go straight from PPE at Oxbridge to being a spad to being an MP to being a minister, absolutely zero contact with the world outside politics
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,210

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    “there was no economic plan”

    Wasn't this one of Wilson's things though? UK needed a proper economic plan. He even set up separate department to plan economics as the Treasury couldn't be trusted to do the job.

    Doesn't the incoming government bring the economic plan with them?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,404
    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    Nonetheless she did both jobs successfully - however briefly - before coming a politician

    For real “career politicians” you should look to the awful types who do straight from PPE at Oxbridge to being a spad to being an MP to being a minister, absolutely zero contact with the world outside politics
    R&D in food science. Worked for J. Lyon & Co. Helped develop soft scoop icecream.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,612

    Taz said:

    God almighty doesn’t she ever let up.

    Liz Truss is becoming an Alan Partridgesque figure. She blew it big time. She needs to move on.

    https://x.com/trussliz/status/1876587254728057131?s=61

    Er no, she's absolutely right to rub peoples' faces in it. Especially those on the Labour benches who insist she 'crashed the economy'.
    Claims she crashed the economy are crazy. Yet they persist to this day. I expect in years to come it will simply become accepted as fact without people actually knowing the truth.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,825

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Excellent news, if true. With wages rising, a small step on the rocky path towards more affordable housing.
    Fat chance, she is impoverishing all.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,474
    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    She invented Mr. Whippy ice cream. If that only took her five minutes it just shows how brilliant she was :-)

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 53,598
    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    Nonetheless she did both jobs successfully - however briefly - before coming a politician

    For real “career politicians” you should look to the awful types who go straight from PPE at Oxbridge to being a spad to being an MP to being a minister, absolutely zero contact with the world outside politics
    "Career politician" is a misleading term because such people are not really politicians at all but just managers.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,825
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    Just what we need double the number of useless grifting parasites in London.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,825
    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    Nonetheless she did both jobs successfully - however briefly - before coming a politician

    For real “career politicians” you should look to the awful types who go straight from PPE at Oxbridge to being a spad to being an MP to being a minister, absolutely zero contact with the world outside politics
    My arse
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,474
    Mr. Biggles (quote button doesn't appear to be working so I shall adopt the Morris Dancer approach) - it's not clear from that what action she's advocating traditional politicians take towards WWC voters like her in 'mounting a rearguard action' - do what they want or tell them they're wrong to want it?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,235
    One term latest:



    Andrew Neil
    @afneil
    ·
    1h
    Labour starts 2025 with a 16% approval rating in latest YouGov poll. Must be record low for a new government.
    Will it get worse before it gets better?
    Will it get better?
    Does Labour have a clue how to turn things around?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,999
    ...
    Cookie said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    She invented Mr. Whippy ice cream. If that only took her five minutes it just shows how brilliant she was :-)

    Of course, and Boris Johnson invented the Oxford vaccine.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-margaret-thatcher-soft-serve-myth
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,474

    ...

    Cookie said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    She invented Mr. Whippy ice cream. If that only took her five minutes it just shows how brilliant she was :-)

    Of course, and Boris Johnson invented the Oxford vaccine.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-margaret-thatcher-soft-serve-myth
    Mr. Pete, my tongue was ever so slightly in my cheek.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,045
    biggles said:

    Are we going about this all wrong? Should we, Canada, Aus/Nz, and the Nordics agree to become U.S. States (say, one state per English region, plus Scotland and Wales, and proportionately the same for the others) with a proportionate number of electoral votes, senators, and representatives, and then make one or two changes?

    I did a run-through of Congressional Apportionment (and therefore EVs) for the thought experiment of adding the UK (as four states; the Home Nations), Canada (as ten states; the ten provinces), Australia (as its states plus Northern Territory (no House of Reps members, but 3 EVs as per DC) plus the ACT (which does have Reps as they vote normally), and NZ (one state).

    As the House of Reps is limited to 435, the result was:

    US (plus DC): 306 Reps, 100 Senators, 409 EVs
    UK: 61 Reps, 8 Senators, 69 EVs
    Canada: 37 Reps, 20 Senators, 57 EVs (disproportionately high because so many provinces)
    Australia: 26 Reps, 14 Senators, 43 EVs
    NZ: 5 Reps, 2 Senators, 7 EVs

    Total of 435 Representatives (of course), 144 Senators, and 585 EVs (including 3EVs each for DC and Australia's Northern Territory, who each have no Representatives or Senators).

    The most EVs would be, as expected, England, with 51. Followed by California on 35, Texas on 28, Florida on 21, New York on 18, and then Ontario on 14 (New South Wales would have the most for Australia, with 8 EVs)
  • SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 721
    Cookie said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    She invented Mr. Whippy ice cream. If that only took her five minutes it just shows how brilliant she was :-)

    Wasn't it the case that she wouldn't let her children eat it as she knew what was in it?
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,127
    Taz said:

    God almighty doesn’t she ever let up.

    Liz Truss is becoming an Alan Partridgesque figure. She blew it big time. She needs to move on.

    https://x.com/trussliz/status/1876587254728057131?s=61

    She's bouncing back. People do. Bounce back
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,999
    edited January 7
    Cookie said:

    ...

    Cookie said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    She invented Mr. Whippy ice cream. If that only took her five minutes it just shows how brilliant she was :-)

    Of course, and Boris Johnson invented the Oxford vaccine.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-margaret-thatcher-soft-serve-myth
    Mr. Pete, my tongue was ever so slightly in my cheek.
    The Lyons Maid story is an accepted and widespread version of an alternative fact.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,668
    I'm old enough to remember, rather too vividly, the 70s and 80s. And guess what? Back then, the general opinion was that the calibre of MPs had declined significantly since the 1950s/60s. Nostalgia persists through generations.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,474
    SandraMc said:

    Cookie said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    She invented Mr. Whippy ice cream. If that only took her five minutes it just shows how brilliant she was :-)

    Wasn't it the case that she wouldn't let her children eat it as she knew what was in it?
    Stupid stuff. I don't know why anyone eats it in preference to real ice cream.
    But today I spent six hours in a strategy meeting arguing semantics.My admiration for people who can actually DO anything is large, even if that something is create chemical gloop.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 53,598

    I'm old enough to remember, rather too vividly, the 70s and 80s. And guess what? Back then, the general opinion was that the calibre of MPs had declined significantly since the 1950s/60s. Nostalgia persists through generations.

    Or maybe there's been a consistent decline.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,668

    Some good news - 2024 saw the lowest annual murder rate in London since 2014 (105) and the second lowest for 22 years. It's less than half the rate it was 20 years ago.

    Well done Sadiq Khan!
    Well, you can't blame him for rising knife crime (which isn't true, actually) without giving him credit for a falling murder rate.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,999

    I'm old enough to remember, rather too vividly, the 70s and 80s. And guess what? Back then, the general opinion was that the calibre of MPs had declined significantly since the 1950s/60s. Nostalgia persists through generations.

    The music was better too.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,404

    Cookie said:

    ...

    Cookie said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    She invented Mr. Whippy ice cream. If that only took her five minutes it just shows how brilliant she was :-)

    Of course, and Boris Johnson invented the Oxford vaccine.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-margaret-thatcher-soft-serve-myth
    Mr. Pete, my tongue was ever so slightly in my cheek.
    The Lyons Maid story is an accepted and widespread version of an alternative fact.
    Didn't invent it - be fair to the lady. She did work out how to add (even more?) extra air to the mix.

    https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2013/04/09/Food-industry-remembers-Margaret-Thatcher/

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,942
    edited January 7

    I'm old enough to remember, rather too vividly, the 70s and 80s. And guess what? Back then, the general opinion was that the calibre of MPs had declined significantly since the 1950s/60s. Nostalgia persists through generations.

    Most MPs were pissed most of the time before Parliament was televised. A lot of them still are, of course.

  • xyzxyzxyzxyzxyzxyz Posts: 103

    Extraordinary conference by Trump

    He is changing the world order with far reaching consequences

    He said that if all the hostages are not released by his auguration 'all hell will break out'

    He is demanding 5% NATO spending, is to implement substantial tariffs on Mexico and Canada and he was very disparaging about the EU no doubt also with the intention of imposing tariffs

    He has scrapped Bidens ban on oil and gas exploration together with a ban on building wind farms

    It seems he is likely to meet Putin very soon and it looks like he will demand peace within 6 months

    He wants to take back the Panama canal even by force and has Greenland in his sights

    A new imperial age. America wants Greenland. China wants Tawain. Russia wants Ukraine. Turkey wants Kurdish areas of Syria.
    Hopefully America wants the Chagos Islands to save the British taxpayer £800m a year.

  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,474

    Cookie said:

    ...

    Cookie said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    She invented Mr. Whippy ice cream. If that only took her five minutes it just shows how brilliant she was :-)

    Of course, and Boris Johnson invented the Oxford vaccine.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-margaret-thatcher-soft-serve-myth
    Mr. Pete, my tongue was ever so slightly in my cheek.
    The Lyons Maid story is an accepted and widespread version of an alternative fact.
    Because it's fun. Like Jimmy Hendrix and the Parakeets or Bill Murray and the chips. You don't have to believe it to enjoy it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,999
    edited January 7
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    ...

    Cookie said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    She invented Mr. Whippy ice cream. If that only took her five minutes it just shows how brilliant she was :-)

    Of course, and Boris Johnson invented the Oxford vaccine.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-margaret-thatcher-soft-serve-myth
    Mr. Pete, my tongue was ever so slightly in my cheek.
    The Lyons Maid story is an accepted and widespread version of an alternative fact.
    Because it's fun. Like Jimmy Hendrix and the Parakeets or Bill Murray and the chips. You don't have to believe it to enjoy it.
    Richard Gere and the hamster?

    N.B. I've tried flagging myself.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,559
    Liberals would have a better chance with Mariah Carey.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,318
    Evening all! So instead of having dinner with client colleagues in Madrid I am home having losing 5 hours at the airport, driving though a blizzard and having to demolish the corner of one of my walls to free my car after slidey badness. No damage to it which is miraculous
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,452
    AnneJGP said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    “there was no economic plan”

    Wasn't this one of Wilson's things though? UK needed a proper economic plan. He even set up separate department to plan economics as the Treasury couldn't be trusted to do the job.

    Doesn't the incoming government bring the economic plan with them?
    One would usually assume this to be the case, yes!

    As a thought exercise, putting the best possible gloss on Starmer’s statement: you could imagine a new government expecting the Treasury to have some sort of current plan in place for the economic development of the nation, which could then be tweaked to taste when one took the reigns of power. It’s entirely plausible however that in reality the Treasury simply doesn’t see “having a plan” as their job, despite ostensibly being in charge of organising government expenditure which makes up something like 45% of the UK economy. Plans are for people how have to take responsibility for outcomes after all & being judged on outcomes is to be avoided at all costs in the modern civil service.

    (I am reminded of the fact that that when Northern Rock collapsed Alastair Darling turned to his civil servants to enquire what contingency plans they had made in the event of the collapse of a UK high street bank only to discover that there weren’t any.)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,404

    I'm old enough to remember, rather too vividly, the 70s and 80s. And guess what? Back then, the general opinion was that the calibre of MPs had declined significantly since the 1950s/60s. Nostalgia persists through generations.

    Most MPs were pissed most of the time before Parliament was televised. A lot of them still are, of course.

    Oh, how do you tell?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,318

    Some good news - 2024 saw the lowest annual murder rate in London since 2014 (105) and the second lowest for 22 years. It's less than half the rate it was 20 years ago.

    Can’t be true. Londonistan is a fallen city, under Sharia law, where Islamists have their way with white girls or something. At least that’s what I’ve read on FREE SPEECHX
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 52,958
    Driver said:

    Liberals would have a better chance with Mariah Carey.

    Celine Dion?
    Bryan Adams?
  • Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Perhaps we should cut MPs pay back to what it was in the 1970s and 80s then?

    Since the 90s MPs pay has increased dramatically in real terms, it was much lower in real terms in the 70s and 80s.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 52,958
    Phil said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    “there was no economic plan”

    Wasn't this one of Wilson's things though? UK needed a proper economic plan. He even set up separate department to plan economics as the Treasury couldn't be trusted to do the job.

    Doesn't the incoming government bring the economic plan with them?
    One would usually assume this to be the case, yes!

    As a thought exercise, putting the best possible gloss on Starmer’s statement: you could imagine a new government expecting the Treasury to have some sort of current plan in place for the economic development of the nation, which could then be tweaked to taste when one took the reigns of power. It’s entirely plausible however that in reality the Treasury simply doesn’t see “having a plan” as their job, despite ostensibly being in charge of organising government expenditure which makes up something like 45% of the UK economy. Plans are for people how have to take responsibility for outcomes after all & being judged on outcomes is to be avoided at all costs in the modern civil service.

    (I am reminded of the fact that that when Northern Rock collapsed Alastair Darling turned to his civil servants to enquire what contingency plans they had made in the event of the collapse of a UK high street bank only to discover that there weren’t any.)
    The plan from the civil service would be to carry spending and taxing at exactly the same rate. Inertia rules OK.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 52,958

    Some good news - 2024 saw the lowest annual murder rate in London since 2014 (105) and the second lowest for 22 years. It's less than half the rate it was 20 years ago.

    Can’t be true. Londonistan is a fallen city, under Sharia law, where Islamists have their way with white girls or something. At least that’s what I’ve read on FREE SPEECHX
    Since they’ve murdered everyone, it’s not surprising the murder rate has dropped. No one left to murder, innit?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,825
    SandraMc said:

    Cookie said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    She invented Mr. Whippy ice cream. If that only took her five minutes it just shows how brilliant she was :-)

    Wasn't it the case that she wouldn't let her children eat it as she knew what was in it?
    I thought that was just someone at Lyons copying her hairstyle
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,825
    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    ...

    Cookie said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    She invented Mr. Whippy ice cream. If that only took her five minutes it just shows how brilliant she was :-)

    Of course, and Boris Johnson invented the Oxford vaccine.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-margaret-thatcher-soft-serve-myth
    Mr. Pete, my tongue was ever so slightly in my cheek.
    The Lyons Maid story is an accepted and widespread version of an alternative fact.
    Didn't invent it - be fair to the lady. She did work out how to add (even more?) extra air to the mix.

    https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2013/04/09/Food-industry-remembers-Margaret-Thatcher/

    Usual fantasy from Toryboys. She washed out the beakers in a lab for a short spell and was a cleaner in a lawyer's and we get all this mince about her inventing the world.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 53,598
    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.

    Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.

    And similarly mendacious.
    Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,825

    I'm old enough to remember, rather too vividly, the 70s and 80s. And guess what? Back then, the general opinion was that the calibre of MPs had declined significantly since the 1950s/60s. Nostalgia persists through generations.

    Or maybe there's been a consistent decline.
    Huge acceleration from the 90's to the stage that we would be better with monkeys in Westminster.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,999

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.

    Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.

    And similarly mendacious.
    Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
    Are you being deliberately obtuse?
  • Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.

    Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.

    And similarly mendacious.
    Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
    Are you being deliberately obtuse?
    He does it by reflex.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,999
    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    ...

    Cookie said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    She invented Mr. Whippy ice cream. If that only took her five minutes it just shows how brilliant she was :-)

    Of course, and Boris Johnson invented the Oxford vaccine.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-margaret-thatcher-soft-serve-myth
    Mr. Pete, my tongue was ever so slightly in my cheek.
    The Lyons Maid story is an accepted and widespread version of an alternative fact.
    Didn't invent it - be fair to the lady. She did work out how to add (even more?) extra air to the mix.

    https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2013/04/09/Food-industry-remembers-Margaret-Thatcher/

    Usual fantasy from Toryboys. She washed out the beakers in a lab for a short spell and was a cleaner in a lawyer's and we get all this mince about her inventing the world.
    Mock ye not.

    If Boris Johnson hadn't invented the Oxford vaccine we'd all be dead from Coronavirus.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,708

    I'm old enough to remember, rather too vividly, the 70s and 80s. And guess what? Back then, the general opinion was that the calibre of MPs had declined significantly since the 1950s/60s. Nostalgia persists through generations.

    Most MPs were pissed most of the time before Parliament was televised. A lot of them still are, of course.

    That is a long session!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,235


    The eastern side of the Atlantic alliance thus faces a journey without maps. Europe’s habit has always been to hope for the best. On this occasion it should plan for the worst.

    https://www.ft.com/content/ff7b1061-633a-46d2-9927-06845d51b7fb
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,945

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.

    Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.

    And similarly mendacious.
    Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
    At the moment, Greenland is in the hands of a friendly power, a NATO ally.

    Well, a friendly ally at the moment, anyway.

    Anyone know if there's a helpful table, sorting Trump's ideas into:

    Things he is going to be able to do
    Things he's technically able to do, but won't be able to do in practice
    Things that he won't be able to do, even if he wants to?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,486
    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    ...

    Cookie said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Rachel Reeves is shaping up to be a great Chancellor.

    How Rachel Reeves snuffed out Britain’s house price boom

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/how-rachel-reeves-end-britain-house-price-boom/

    Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
    lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
    So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.

    I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
    The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”

    it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well

    Sweep it all away
    Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?

    The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.

    Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
    Fair

    I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos

    But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
    If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.

    Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.

    It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
    Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
    Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
    Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
    She invented Mr. Whippy ice cream. If that only took her five minutes it just shows how brilliant she was :-)

    Of course, and Boris Johnson invented the Oxford vaccine.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-margaret-thatcher-soft-serve-myth
    Mr. Pete, my tongue was ever so slightly in my cheek.
    The Lyons Maid story is an accepted and widespread version of an alternative fact.
    Didn't invent it - be fair to the lady. She did work out how to add (even more?) extra air to the mix.

    https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2013/04/09/Food-industry-remembers-Margaret-Thatcher/

    Usual fantasy from Toryboys. She washed out the beakers in a lab for a short spell and was a cleaner in a lawyer's and we get all this mince about her inventing the world.
    She was a postgraduate scientist at Oxford University, which - considering the period - was an enormous achievement,

    And she had a real career. And then became Prime Minister. And won three General Elections.

    Remind me @malcolmg: what have you done?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,235

    Aaron Rupar
    @atrupar
    ·
    1h
    Marjorie Taylor Greene says she has already directed her staff to write legislation officially changing the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America

    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1876689725563789590
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 125,652
    In terms of the Canadian Liberal leadership election, Freeland looks the best bet for them. Angus Reid has her increasing the Liberal voteshare by 8% relative to Trudeau and reducing the Conservative vote by 3% and the NDP vote by 5% and the BQ vote by 4%.

    Carney also cuts the Conservative vote by 3% but sees only a 1% rise in Liberal voteshare and sees the NDP vote only down 1%. Freeland also does better than Champagne

    https://angusreid.org/the-freeland-factor-liberal-leadership/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,486

    Some good news - 2024 saw the lowest annual murder rate in London since 2014 (105) and the second lowest for 22 years. It's less than half the rate it was 20 years ago.

    Can’t be true. Londonistan is a fallen city, under Sharia law, where Islamists have their way with white girls or something. At least that’s what I’ve read on FREE SPEECHX
    Ah, that's because the police are deliberately not recording killings by London's 19 million Muslims as murders.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,559
    edited January 7

    Driver said:

    Liberals would have a better chance with Mariah Carey.

    Celine Dion?
    Bryan Adams?
    When Canada is dead and gone
    There'll be no more Celine Dion!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 53,598

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.

    Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.

    And similarly mendacious.
    Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
    Are you being deliberately obtuse?
    The mark of a statesman is someone who sees further into the future than others. Trump is one of the few statesmen leading the West today, if not the only one.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,486


    Aaron Rupar
    @atrupar
    ·
    1h
    Marjorie Taylor Greene says she has already directed her staff to write legislation officially changing the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America

    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1876689725563789590

    Thank God she's concentrating on the needs of her constituents. (As an aside, does this mean that New Mexico will need to change its name too?)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,486

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.

    Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.

    And similarly mendacious.
    Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
    Are you being deliberately obtuse?
    The mark of a statesman is someone who sees further into the future than others. Trump is one of the few statesmen leading the West today, if not the only one.
    Sure sure.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,533
    Nigelb said:

    The real-world impact of AI - The University of Sydney and Accenture built a whale conservation system that uses Claude to analyze underwater microphone recordings and detect minke whales with 89.4% accuracy (up from 76.5% with traditional methods)

    This transforms a two-week manual process into real-time monitoring across thousands of kilometers of North American coastline, where conservation teams can now instantly redirect ships, pause drilling operations, and adjust fishing zones to protect whales..

    https://x.com/btibor91/status/1876630816199217208

    Or, alternatively, hunt them with considerably greater efficiency.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,868
    Ratters said:

    Trump wants a legacy.

    He has overarching power in foreign affairs and use of the army as Commander in Chief. And he has implicitly or explicitly threatened two NATO allies so far. His ally Musk has threatened the UK directly.

    We should treat the US like a hostile power for the next 4 years, while doing nothing to provoke.

    Talk of trade deals is the definition of being delusional.

    Agreed. At the very sniff of a trade deal Trump would demand we accept some kind of quasi-51st-statehood, probably with American gun laws. He wouldn't want the UK - with what he would perceive as our liberal inclinations - swaying current US politics, so it would also come with voting restrictions.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 53,598
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.

    Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.

    And similarly mendacious.
    Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
    Are you being deliberately obtuse?
    The mark of a statesman is someone who sees further into the future than others. Trump is one of the few statesmen leading the West today, if not the only one.
    Sure sure.
    I enjoy these moments of intense agreement from you.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,826

    Definitely did not have US going to war against Denmark on my year ahead bingo card.

    Scandi-drama is getting weird.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,235
    Zuckerberg wants to copy X?

    "Community notes, similar to X"

    That must be the most humiliating thing he has ever posted.

    Harvard don't make 'em like they used to.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,999

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.

    Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.

    And similarly mendacious.
    Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
    Are you being deliberately obtuse?
    The mark of a statesman is someone who sees further into the future than others. Trump is one of the few statesmen leading the West today, if not the only one.
    "Alexa define Statesman".
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,452

    Zuckerberg wants to copy X?

    "Community notes, similar to X"

    That must be the most humiliating thing he has ever posted.

    Harvard don't make 'em like they used to.

    Community Notes is good though. Everyone should copy it.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,235

    Definitely did not have US going to war against Denmark on my year ahead bingo card.

    Scandi-drama is getting weird.
    Maybe this theory that we live in an AI simulation and it is breaking down is not so batshit after all?
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,826

    Definitely did not have US going to war against Denmark on my year ahead bingo card.

    Scandi-drama is getting weird.
    Maybe this theory that we live in an AI simulation and it is breaking down is not so batshit after all?
    At this point it'd be a relief to find out that was true.
This discussion has been closed.