How Trump could ensure the UK rejoins the EU – politicalbetting.com

System

How Trump could ensure the UK rejoins the EU – politicalbetting.com

81% of Britons see Russian leader Vladimir Putin as a big threat to European peace and securityVery big threat: 45%Fairly big threat: 36%Not much of a threat: 9%No threat at all: 2%https://t.co/uxUyrWcD4h pic.twitter.com/fNZ9wgaPyf

Read the full story here

DavidL

No, he can't. But we will get closer to them again in self defence.

Fishing

Wrong on many levels.

Trump and Putin aren't seen as remotely comparable. YouGov has Trump as the 4th most popular former politician, with a higher approval rating than Starmer, while Putin comes in at 34th.

https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/foreign-politicians/all

beaten by the King of Jordan and others.

And if Remoaners really are pinning their hopes on America invading Canada, just because of a few idiotic trolling Tweets, they're even more desperate than I thought and I think we'll be out of the EU for at least the next millenium.

Gallowgate

In the eventuality that it all goes to shit, be it a major war or otherwise, it’s possible that we rejoin the EU out of necessity. Otherwise I think it’s unlikely in the short term.

Nigelb

I think PR would far more likely be their red line for joining such a coalition.

But they should possibly campaign on holding a referendum to rejoin.

TheScreamingEagles

Glenn Maxwell and Usama Mir have put on 81 for the 8th wicket and Usama Mir contributed 0 before he got out.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/e-222436

bondegezou

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

pigeon

Aren't membership of the EU and CPTPP mutually exclusive? Regardless, EU accession is decades away, if it happens at all. There would need to be a prolonged period of very strong public support for the idea in Britain before negotiations could even begin, otherwise why would the rest of the EU risk having us back?

Anyway, the United States is not going to invade Canada, and there's about as much chance of Canadians deciding they want a voluntary merger with their demented Southern neighbours as there is of the Dail voting to return to the UK.

TheScreamingEagles

Fishing said:

Wrong on many levels.

Trump and Putin aren't seen as remotely comparable. YouGov has Trump as the 4th most popular former politician, with a higher approval rating than Starmer, while Putin comes in at 34th.

https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/foreign-politicians/all

beaten by the King of Jordan and others.

And if Remoaners really are pinning their hopes on America invading Canada, just because of a few idiotic trolling Tweets, they're even more desperate than I thought and I think we'll be out of the EU for at least the next millenium.

This is a betting site, I am offering a betting angle.

williamglenn

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Foxy

I am a Rejoiner, but I think that is too soon for a referendum. It is clearly not going to be this Parliament, and of course it hinges on how the chips fall in the General Election. My hunch would be joining the Single Market next Parliament but full Rejoin requiring a lot more negotiation and coming further down the line.

DecrepiterJohnL

Harold Macmillan Becomes Prime Minister | Historic TV Address and Street Interviews (1957)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1QrhR2vrzM

And Robin Day shows us Macmillan's framed May 1940 memo from Churchill in this 6-minute video ITN put up yesterday.

rottenborough

Morning all!

COMPETITION

Highest share of the vote in 2025 with a BPC registered pollster in a GB wide poll for each of Lab, Con, LD, Reform.

Lab: 31 Con: 34 LD: 19 Ref: 36

Lowest share of the vote in 2025 with a BPC registered pollster in a GB wide poll for each of Lab, Con, LD, Reform.

Lab: 17 Con: 18 LD: 11 Ref: 13

Number of Reform MPs on 31/12/2025.

Seven

Number of Tory MP defectors to Reform in 2025.

One

Number of Westminster by-elections held in 2025.

Two

Number of ministers to leave the Westminster cabinet during 2025.

Three

Number of seats won by the AfD in the 2025 German Federal Election.

150

UK CPI figure for November 2025 (Nov 2024 = 2.6%).

3%

UK borrowing in the financial year-to-November 2025 (Year to Nov 2024 = £113.2bn).

£130bn

UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2025 (Oct 23 to Oct 24 = 1.3%).

0.5%

US growth annualised rate in Q3 2025 (Q3 2024 = 3.1%).

0.8%

EU growth Q3 2024 to Q3 2025 (2024 = 1.0%).

0.2%

USD/Ruble exchange rate at London FOREX close on 31/12/2025 (31/12/2024 = 114 USD/RUB).

$1 = 150 Rubles

The result of the 2025-2026 Ashes series (2023 series: Drawn 2–2).

3 - 1

Stuartinromford

The other moving part is when the next Labour leadership election happens.

Starmer is likely to stick to his red lines (actual trade and cooperation, but no more), but I don't see how his successor gets the job without promising to move further and faster.

Mexicanpete

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

You offer Reform ( with evidence) and the Tories ( without evidence) as the big two parties after the imminent death of Labour.

Now you may be correct that Labour 's fate is sealed and they are finished after an unbroken 28 years of mismanaging the economy, but you seem to ignore who fills that vacuum, assuming it is Reform and the Conservatives.

With a moribund Labour Party I won't be voting for Farage or an even more extreme Jenrick. It might be the LDs or it might be a resurrected "Change UK". I doubt I am alone.

Omnium

I was having a discussion along these lines with a friend last night.

Far from likely, but it is possible that the US suddenly becomes a bit of an Empire builder - gobbling up Canada and other places. China would clearly take the opportunity to take Taiwan, and no doubt other places too. All in the name of strategic interests. Russia may well be first on the path if they get some sort of concession as to sphere-of-interest in return for peace in Ukraine.

So the EU and the other bits of Europe find themselves somewhat squeezed together. Would it actually be wise though for the UK to throw its lot in with the troubles of a greater Europe though? Personally I think it would be deeply unwise. A union of such disparate states isn't going to be terribly stable or likely to follow a predictable path in times of a multi-way race to new Empire.

Obviously all wild speculation, but I do think that rejoining the EU isn't as likely as some think.

IanB2

Right on topic, from Freedland via the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/10/trump-america-musk-starmer-europe

WhisperingOracle

Morning PB'ers. Excellent article from Will Hutton, on the whole scene this morning.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/12/britain-is-a-weak-link-in-donald-trumps-new-world-order-so-it-needs-to-find-friends-fast

Taz

1/8 to tie your money up for 10 years !!

TheScreamingEagles

Taz said:

1/8 to tie your money up for 10 years !!

There's some Ladbrokes markets where you can tie up your money until 2040.

williamglenn

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

You offer Reform ( with evidence) and the Tories ( without evidence) as the big two parties after the imminent death of Labour.

Now you may be correct that Labour 's fate is sealed and they are finished after an unbroken 28 years of mismanaging the economy, but you seem to ignore who fills that vacuum, assuming it is Reform and the Conservatives.

With a moribund Labour Party I won't be voting for Farage or an even more extreme Jenrick. It might be the LDs or it might be a resurrected "Change UK". I doubt I am alone.

I'm arguing that the Tories themselves will become the equivalent of a resurrected Change UK. Perhaps Anna Soubry will even rejoin them.

They will be the default choice for people who don't want Reform and don't want to waste their votes.

Cookie

This falls into the same gap between what the EU represents to Remainers and what it actually is that the 'liberal values' argument does. During the referendum, the liberal virtues of the EU were touted as a reason to stay - but the UK was by far the most liberal member of the bloc (consider, for example, the number of non-white MEPs before and after British departure). We now appear to be arguing for EU membership as defence against Britain's enemies - Russia, China, and -hypothetically - the USA. But it's far from apparent that the EU has any desire to stand firm against any of these.
I can see, emotionally, why the argument works. But dig in to what the EU actually does wrt hostile foreign powers, and the argument evaporates.

Taz

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

1/8 to tie your money up for 10 years !!

There's some Ladbrokes markets where you can tie up your money until 2040.

Crazy. I guess there are mug punters who’d take it.

williamglenn

Cookie said:

This falls into the same gap between what the EU represents to Remainers and what it actually is that the 'liberal values' argument does. During the referendum, the liberal virtues of the EU were touted as a reason to stay - but the UK was by far the most liberal member of the bloc (consider, for example, the number of non-white MEPs before and after British departure). We now appear to be arguing for EU membership as defence against Britain's enemies - Russia, China, and -hypothetically - the USA. But it's far from apparent that the EU has any desire to stand firm against any of these.
I can see, emotionally, why the argument works. But dig in to what the EU actually does wrt hostile foreign powers, and the argument evaporates.

British politics has a problem with parochialism.

You see it also in this bizarre claim that Musk sees us as an 'enemy' because he says mean things about our government. It's a total misunderstanding what is going on.

OldKingCole

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

1/8 to tie your money up for 10 years !!

There's some Ladbrokes markets where you can tie up your money until 2040.

Crazy. I guess there are mug punters who’d take it.

Can one leave a bet like this in one's will?\

And Good Morning everyone. A little less cold this morning here, but still below freezing.

Mexicanpete

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

You offer Reform ( with evidence) and the Tories ( without evidence) as the big two parties after the imminent death of Labour.

Now you may be correct that Labour 's fate is sealed and they are finished after an unbroken 28 years of mismanaging the economy, but you seem to ignore who fills that vacuum, assuming it is Reform and the Conservatives.

With a moribund Labour Party I won't be voting for Farage or an even more extreme Jenrick. It might be the LDs or it might be a resurrected "Change UK". I doubt I am alone.

I'm arguing that the Tories themselves will become the equivalent of a resurrected Change UK. Perhaps Anna Soubry will even rejoin them.

They will be the default choice for people who don't want Reform and don't want to waste their votes.

Is that likely when Badenoch, Jenrick and Braverman are ramping up the racist themes with more mainstream Tories like Cleverly hanging on their coat tails? Or are you assuming all the whack-jobs leave for Reform?That being so and the Conservative brand in the toilet why even keep the name? Certainly one wouldn't use it without a qualifying prefix like, New, Democratic, Liberal, One Nation, or Nice (Not Nasty).

Anyway is any of this remotely likely as we are dragged into the Trumpian Anglosphere that you have suggested?Surely in that instance the choice is Republican or MAGA Republican.

Cookie

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

You offer Reform ( with evidence) and the Tories ( without evidence) as the big two parties after the imminent death of Labour.

Now you may be correct that Labour 's fate is sealed and they are finished after an unbroken 28 years of mismanaging the economy, but you seem to ignore who fills that vacuum, assuming it is Reform and the Conservatives.

With a moribund Labour Party I won't be voting for Farage or an even more extreme Jenrick. It might be the LDs or it might be a resurrected "Change UK". I doubt I am alone.

I'm arguing that the Tories themselves will become the equivalent of a resurrected Change UK. Perhaps Anna Soubry will even rejoin them.

They will be the default choice for people who don't want Reform and don't want to waste their votes.

Is that likely when Badenoch, Jenrick and Braverman are ramping up the racist themes with more mainstream Tories like Cleverly hanging on their coat tails? Or are you assuming all the whack-jobs leave for Reform?That being so and the Conservative brand in the toilet why even keep the name? Certainly one wouldn't use it without a qualifying prefix like, New, Democratic, Liberal, One Nation, or Nice (Not Nasty).

Badenoch and Cleverly are racist?

Foxy

Omnium said:

I was having a discussion along these lines with a friend last night.

Far from likely, but it is possible that the US suddenly becomes a bit of an Empire builder - gobbling up Canada and other places. China would clearly take the opportunity to take Taiwan, and no doubt other places too. All in the name of strategic interests. Russia may well be first on the path if they get some sort of concession as to sphere-of-interest in return for peace in Ukraine.

So the EU and the other bits of Europe find themselves somewhat squeezed together. Would it actually be wise though for the UK to throw its lot in with the troubles of a greater Europe though? Personally I think it would be deeply unwise. A union of such disparate states isn't going to be terribly stable or likely to follow a predictable path in times of a multi-way race to new Empire.

Obviously all wild speculation, but I do think that rejoining the EU isn't as likely as some think.

China appears to be building 5 large landing ships designed for heavy vehicles:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/china-suddenly-building-fleet-of-special-barges-suitable-for-taiwan-landings/

bondegezou

“DeSantis appointee to university board says women should become mothers, not pursue higher ed”

https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/desantis-appointee-to-university-board-says-women-should-become-mothers-not-pursue-higher-ed/

Mexicanpete

Cookie said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

You offer Reform ( with evidence) and the Tories ( without evidence) as the big two parties after the imminent death of Labour.

Now you may be correct that Labour 's fate is sealed and they are finished after an unbroken 28 years of mismanaging the economy, but you seem to ignore who fills that vacuum, assuming it is Reform and the Conservatives.

With a moribund Labour Party I won't be voting for Farage or an even more extreme Jenrick. It might be the LDs or it might be a resurrected "Change UK". I doubt I am alone.

I'm arguing that the Tories themselves will become the equivalent of a resurrected Change UK. Perhaps Anna Soubry will even rejoin them.

They will be the default choice for people who don't want Reform and don't want to waste their votes.

Is that likely when Badenoch, Jenrick and Braverman are ramping up the racist themes with more mainstream Tories like Cleverly hanging on their coat tails? Or are you assuming all the whack-jobs leave for Reform?That being so and the Conservative brand in the toilet why even keep the name? Certainly one wouldn't use it without a qualifying prefix like, New, Democratic, Liberal, One Nation, or Nice (Not Nasty).

Badenoch and Cleverly are racist?

I specifically said racist themes.

...Edited, just in case. I don't want BigG. claiming I have crossed a line

MattW

pigeon said:

Aren't membership of the EU and CPTPP mutually exclusive? Regardless, EU accession is decades away, if it happens at all. There would need to be a prolonged period of very strong public support for the idea in Britain before negotiations could even begin, otherwise why would the rest of the EU risk having us back?

Anyway, the United States is not going to invade Canada, and there's about as much chance of Canadians deciding they want a voluntary merger with their demented Southern neighbours as there is of the Dail voting to return to the UK.

Yes, they are.

I'd see it as more going for "Norway Plus".

TB is being provocative in normal North Derbyshire style, and he wants Clegg to come back and live down the road.

TimS

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

You offer Reform ( with evidence) and the Tories ( without evidence) as the big two parties after the imminent death of Labour.

Now you may be correct that Labour 's fate is sealed and they are finished after an unbroken 28 years of mismanaging the economy, but you seem to ignore who fills that vacuum, assuming it is Reform and the Conservatives.

With a moribund Labour Party I won't be voting for Farage or an even more extreme Jenrick. It might be the LDs or it might be a resurrected "Change UK". I doubt I am alone.

I'm arguing that the Tories themselves will become the equivalent of a resurrected Change UK. Perhaps Anna Soubry will even rejoin them.

They will be the default choice for people who don't want Reform and don't want to waste their votes.

Is that likely when Badenoch, Jenrick and Braverman are ramping up the racist themes with more mainstream Tories like Cleverly hanging on their coat tails? Or are you assuming all the whack-jobs leave for Reform?That being so and the Conservative brand in the toilet why even keep the name? Certainly one wouldn't use it without a qualifying prefix like, New, Democratic, Liberal, One Nation, or Nice (Not Nasty).

Presumably those of us - that small lingering minority of, currently, 50% of the electorate - too stupid and behind the times to fall in with the new anti-woke duopoly will somehow be disenfranchised so that our stupid views don’t get an airing.

A bit tricky when neither of the duopoly are in power and the next general election will be after Trump has completed his second term. But no doubt it’s being worked on as we speak.

TimS

bondegezou said:

“DeSantis appointee to university board says women should become mothers, not pursue higher ed”

https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/desantis-appointee-to-university-board-says-women-should-become-mothers-not-pursue-higher-ed/

US rapprochement with Afghanistan could be on the table after all.

kinabalu

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

MattW

FPT:

DavidL said:

eek said:

DavidL said:

JosiasJessop said:

Gallowgate said:

squareroot2 said:

JohnLilburne said:

pigeon said:

Andy_JS said:

pigeon said:

rottenborough said:

"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rachel-reeves-emergency-budget-uk-economy-fiscal-rules-john-major-labour-party-b2677853.html

I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.

An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.

Would you mind explaining why people who've spent all their lives working hard to build up an inheritance should be forced to give it up for people who haven't done so?

I'll leave aside any discussion of the Boomers as the luckiest generation in history, and instead simply ask: Where else is all the money going to come from? The state is collapsing under the weight of dependency already, and much of business and most of the working age population has already been bled white.

If we're going to have enough capacity in the health and social care system, as well as for an adequate defence establishment, policing, courts of law and everything else, then the obvious place to look is asset wealth, and most particularly the immense store of treasure locked up in residential property.

I've actually a certain amount of sympathy for the "But I paid my taxes?!" attitude - at the end of a lifetime of toil, it's small wonder that people want the bloody government to finally leave them alone - and if only 2% of the population were retired then society could afford to keep indulging them with an endless regime of inflation busting pension hikes and light touch taxation. But they're not 2%, they're 20%, and rising. And I've no time at all for the facile attitude that anyone who is worth less money than I am is one of the undeserving poor and should be left to rot. Rescuing the less well off isn't about rewarding laziness or failure, it's about having a decent society, a functioning society, and about the mutualisation of risk.

The money has to come from somewhere, and we have already reached the point where better off retirees really need to join the rest of us in being rinsed for funds. The hospitals are already collapsing under the weight of need in a manner that we went through lockdowns only five years ago in an effort to avoid, just because of a difficult flu season, and the rows and rows of frightened elderly people on trolleys in A&E departments waiting days for a bed will include both those who could and could not afford to buy a house, regardless of how hard they bloody worked decades ago.

Your house is only worth so much to you if you suffer a nasty fall and have to lie on the kitchen floor in your own piss for two days waiting for an ambulance to turn up, and it's also only worth so much if the police are too weak and depleted to bother to investigate if someone breaks into it and nicks all your jewellery. So, what do we do?

Although I'm sceptical about the "I earned it" argument against taxation of assets. You didn't earn it. You earned enough to buy it at the the original price. The rest of the value is capital gain, asset inflation, call it what you will. Why should that not be taxed?

Why should it? We shouldn't tax things just because you can.

That isn’t the point. The point is to find additional ways to fund the quality and extent of government services that the electorate demands

IMV there's a fundamental issue: the electorate demands 'better' public services, but are less keen to pay for it. Or, more accurately, they want someone else to pay for it.

Which is why few parties go into elections telling the electorate that they're going to put up loads of taxes...

This is something of a cliché and it is a cliché because there is a lot of truth in it. But think of it from a private sector perspective.

Most businesses, who want to remain in business, constantly strive to give their customers more for less. That is how they remain competitive. They will invest to improve their product or service in both technology and training. So why can't our public sector achieve the same? Why is it a given that they can only do more with more? Or, in recent times less with more? That is the real problem we face.

We have recently tried to register my Mother in law's death. There are no Registrars Offices open to the public anymore as there were when my mother died. You phone a number and you find that it is the local authority's general number. Getting through was complicated and time consuming (as it always is when you have to contact Angus Council about anything, one of their favourite tricks is to say the person you want is not currently available and then cut you off). When you do eventually get through the long queue you are told everything has to be done online. But even when you have given all the relevant information that is not the death registered. You then need to have a discussion with the Registrar himself once he has looked at the information provided. His next available appointment was 8 days away. You cannot proceed to organise the funeral until you have done this.

The whole procedure seems entirely for the convenience of those who work in it. No consideration at all is given as to what is convenient for the public using that service or what they might want. This is typical of so many public sector services now. No business, without a monopoly, could possibly operate that way. Why do we have to put up with this? Why is it more important that they can work from home, have flexible hours for them, not for the public, always be "exceptionally busy", set their own pace, etc etc. And don't get me started on HMRC whose service has deteriorated beyond measure since the local offices shut. There is, in my view, a real mindset problem here.

HMRC's issues are due to reduced staffing numbers.

Angus's problem is utter stupidity. their front line customer service should be filling in those forms for those unable / unwilling to do so because otherwise it's straightforward age / disability discrimination. And remember my day job is exactly this type of productivity improvement.

When was the last time a public service increased its opening hours or availability to the public? I remember when banks had restricted opening hours and then they didn't. Why are public services immune from such improvements? Because they are principally concerned with the people who work in them, not what they are actually doing. I am fed up of it.

My GP practice, and my local hospital, have both been increasing their hours.

A the GP routine is 8:30am to 6pm. They have a service called GP Extended Access with is from 7am two mornings a week, and continues until 8pm one everning per week, and sometimes operates on Saturdays. In addition to the GP24 out of hours service cover from the PCT.

And my local hospital has been doing Saturdays and Sundays for some clinics for some time - several years.

Plus we all have 111, which came in in 2014 as a national service - upgrading from NHS Direct.

Let's give credit where it is due.

Mexicanpete

Foxy said:

Omnium said:

I was having a discussion along these lines with a friend last night.

Far from likely, but it is possible that the US suddenly becomes a bit of an Empire builder - gobbling up Canada and other places. China would clearly take the opportunity to take Taiwan, and no doubt other places too. All in the name of strategic interests. Russia may well be first on the path if they get some sort of concession as to sphere-of-interest in return for peace in Ukraine.

So the EU and the other bits of Europe find themselves somewhat squeezed together. Would it actually be wise though for the UK to throw its lot in with the troubles of a greater Europe though? Personally I think it would be deeply unwise. A union of such disparate states isn't going to be terribly stable or likely to follow a predictable path in times of a multi-way race to new Empire.

Obviously all wild speculation, but I do think that rejoining the EU isn't as likely as some think.

China appears to be building 5 large landing ships designed for heavy vehicles:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/china-suddenly-building-fleet-of-special-barges-suitable-for-taiwan-landings/

I think that eventuality can be pencil in for any convenient date after 20th January.

Personally I would hang on until the wars with Canada, Denmark and Panama are in full swing.

MattW

Cyclefree said:

@StillWaters

There were two cases I mentioned: the Eleanor Frances settlement which @MattW has already posted. And this one (the case is still ongoing). The decision has the same outcome as a case brought by a nurse in Fife - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mRKgm3j1O5e3BgDIeuESpaaJEZ2k_A_2/vi.

I'm interested that in the one I posted yesterday, Eleanor Frances flags up support from the Free Speech Union - which deserves a look.

Toby Young is exceptionally lampoonable, but has imo been a little over-satirised by some - eg the "Tobes Supports Eugenics" attack was heavily overdone.

I've remarked that haye positive achievements in some cases, though I am concerned with their potential political positioning - which could swing towards an American Right free speech fundmentalist, even Muskovite, perspective.

To get far they need to make themselves quite non-partisan - perhaps towards a right-leaning version of the left-leaning NCCL. IMO their biggest risks include getting Free Speech muddled up with partisan politics; that ultimately won't work in the UK as a principled stance, and currently they show some party-alignment, or rather anti-party-alignment.

But they are on the scene now, and are becoming significant as an organisation. They are a Company Limited by Guarantee, have 15 staff, an annual income of around £1-1.5 million, and claim 20k members paying at least £59 each per annum, and "supporters" making it up to 30k+ *. There's a risk that they could become respectable !

As a scale check, that makes them somewhat smaller than Humanists UK, who are about double on turnover, but have a commercial income from 10% levies on Humanist Weddings (last time I looked). HUK are very cagey about membership numbers, claiming 120k "members and supporters", but I think "supporters" means "people on our email list" (again, unless their practice has changed). In any case they work primarily though a network of influencers in politics. That 120k number is perhaps a "community" figure. Whenever I have seen their "are you a humanist" survey, pretty much every church minister I have ever known could qualify.

An interesting point for me re:FSU is their "partner" organisations listed on the front page.
https://freespeechunion.org/

* Anglican Clergy Membership is discounted at £34.99, which for some reason I find a little amusing.

williamglenn

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

OldKingCole

Mexicanpete said:

Cookie said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

You offer Reform ( with evidence) and the Tories ( without evidence) as the big two parties after the imminent death of Labour.

Now you may be correct that Labour 's fate is sealed and they are finished after an unbroken 28 years of mismanaging the economy, but you seem to ignore who fills that vacuum, assuming it is Reform and the Conservatives.

With a moribund Labour Party I won't be voting for Farage or an even more extreme Jenrick. It might be the LDs or it might be a resurrected "Change UK". I doubt I am alone.

I'm arguing that the Tories themselves will become the equivalent of a resurrected Change UK. Perhaps Anna Soubry will even rejoin them.

They will be the default choice for people who don't want Reform and don't want to waste their votes.

Is that likely when Badenoch, Jenrick and Braverman are ramping up the racist themes with more mainstream Tories like Cleverly hanging on their coat tails? Or are you assuming all the whack-jobs leave for Reform?That being so and the Conservative brand in the toilet why even keep the name? Certainly one wouldn't use it without a qualifying prefix like, New, Democratic, Liberal, One Nation, or Nice (Not Nasty).

Badenoch and Cleverly are racist?

I specifically said racist themes.

...Edited, just in case. I don't want BigG. claiming I have crossed a line

One doesn't have to be white to be racist. Ask the Chinese!

Mexicanpete

TimS said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

You offer Reform ( with evidence) and the Tories ( without evidence) as the big two parties after the imminent death of Labour.

Now you may be correct that Labour 's fate is sealed and they are finished after an unbroken 28 years of mismanaging the economy, but you seem to ignore who fills that vacuum, assuming it is Reform and the Conservatives.

With a moribund Labour Party I won't be voting for Farage or an even more extreme Jenrick. It might be the LDs or it might be a resurrected "Change UK". I doubt I am alone.

I'm arguing that the Tories themselves will become the equivalent of a resurrected Change UK. Perhaps Anna Soubry will even rejoin them.

They will be the default choice for people who don't want Reform and don't want to waste their votes.

Is that likely when Badenoch, Jenrick and Braverman are ramping up the racist themes with more mainstream Tories like Cleverly hanging on their coat tails? Or are you assuming all the whack-jobs leave for Reform?That being so and the Conservative brand in the toilet why even keep the name? Certainly one wouldn't use it without a qualifying prefix like, New, Democratic, Liberal, One Nation, or Nice (Not Nasty).

Presumably those of us - that small lingering minority of, currently, 50% of the electorate - too stupid and behind the times to fall in with the new anti-woke duopoly will somehow be disenfranchised so that our stupid views don’t get an airing.

A bit tricky when neither of the duopoly are in power and the next general election will be after Trump has completed his second term. But no doubt it’s being worked on as we speak.

I do find William's posts fascinating. I tend to scroll past most of the right wing hardliners and the "Reeves is shit" posters, but there is often some compelling other worldly reasoning for his wild narratives.

TimS

Foxy said:

Omnium said:

I was having a discussion along these lines with a friend last night.

Far from likely, but it is possible that the US suddenly becomes a bit of an Empire builder - gobbling up Canada and other places. China would clearly take the opportunity to take Taiwan, and no doubt other places too. All in the name of strategic interests. Russia may well be first on the path if they get some sort of concession as to sphere-of-interest in return for peace in Ukraine.

So the EU and the other bits of Europe find themselves somewhat squeezed together. Would it actually be wise though for the UK to throw its lot in with the troubles of a greater Europe though? Personally I think it would be deeply unwise. A union of such disparate states isn't going to be terribly stable or likely to follow a predictable path in times of a multi-way race to new Empire.

Obviously all wild speculation, but I do think that rejoining the EU isn't as likely as some think.

China appears to be building 5 large landing ships designed for heavy vehicles:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/china-suddenly-building-fleet-of-special-barges-suitable-for-taiwan-landings/

The next half decade is going to be eventful, I think.

First question is what happens in the first couple of months of the new US administration once they actually have power. Project 2025 implied a huge amount of work to change the foundations of the US constitution, governance and legal system within weeks. A sort of blitzkrieg. Will it happen, or was it all bluster? If it does, then some of those other things we’re currently dismissing, like coercive annexation of Greenland, become just that bit less fantastical. And the US withdrawing wholly or partly from NATO.

Then we have the upcoming US-Russian Molotov-Ribbentrop pact over Ukraine. Followed presumably by a humiliating capitulation imposed on Kyiv and the removal of Zelenskyy. And the interesting reaction we’re likely to see in Poland and the Baltics. Followed, not long after, by either a further tightening of Moscow’s grip on Georgia or a second invasion if things don’t go as planned.

Finally the long-heralded Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Is this the moment Trump finds himself in Stalin’s situation during Barbarossa and has to rethink his allegiances? Or do they take it, with the minimum of fuss?

Theuniondivvie

williamglenn said:

Cookie said:

This falls into the same gap between what the EU represents to Remainers and what it actually is that the 'liberal values' argument does. During the referendum, the liberal virtues of the EU were touted as a reason to stay - but the UK was by far the most liberal member of the bloc (consider, for example, the number of non-white MEPs before and after British departure). We now appear to be arguing for EU membership as defence against Britain's enemies - Russia, China, and -hypothetically - the USA. But it's far from apparent that the EU has any desire to stand firm against any of these.
I can see, emotionally, why the argument works. But dig in to what the EU actually does wrt hostile foreign powers, and the argument evaporates.

British politics has a problem with parochialism.

You see it also in this bizarre claim that Musk sees us as an 'enemy' because he says mean things about our government. It's a total misunderstanding what is going on.

Thank goodness we have you to explain ‘what is going on’.

OldKingCole

MattW said:

FPT:

DavidL said:

eek said:

DavidL said:

JosiasJessop said:

Gallowgate said:

squareroot2 said:

JohnLilburne said:

pigeon said:

Andy_JS said:

pigeon said:

rottenborough said:

"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rachel-reeves-emergency-budget-uk-economy-fiscal-rules-john-major-labour-party-b2677853.html

I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.

An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.

Would you mind explaining why people who've spent all their lives working hard to build up an inheritance should be forced to give it up for people who haven't done so?

I'll leave aside any discussion of the Boomers as the luckiest generation in history, and instead simply ask: Where else is all the money going to come from? The state is collapsing under the weight of dependency already, and much of business and most of the working age population has already been bled white.

If we're going to have enough capacity in the health and social care system, as well as for an adequate defence establishment, policing, courts of law and everything else, then the obvious place to look is asset wealth, and most particularly the immense store of treasure locked up in residential property.

I've actually a certain amount of sympathy for the "But I paid my taxes?!" attitude - at the end of a lifetime of toil, it's small wonder that people want the bloody government to finally leave them alone - and if only 2% of the population were retired then society could afford to keep indulging them with an endless regime of inflation busting pension hikes and light touch taxation. But they're not 2%, they're 20%, and rising. And I've no time at all for the facile attitude that anyone who is worth less money than I am is one of the undeserving poor and should be left to rot. Rescuing the less well off isn't about rewarding laziness or failure, it's about having a decent society, a functioning society, and about the mutualisation of risk.

The money has to come from somewhere, and we have already reached the point where better off retirees really need to join the rest of us in being rinsed for funds. The hospitals are already collapsing under the weight of need in a manner that we went through lockdowns only five years ago in an effort to avoid, just because of a difficult flu season, and the rows and rows of frightened elderly people on trolleys in A&E departments waiting days for a bed will include both those who could and could not afford to buy a house, regardless of how hard they bloody worked decades ago.

Your house is only worth so much to you if you suffer a nasty fall and have to lie on the kitchen floor in your own piss for two days waiting for an ambulance to turn up, and it's also only worth so much if the police are too weak and depleted to bother to investigate if someone breaks into it and nicks all your jewellery. So, what do we do?

Although I'm sceptical about the "I earned it" argument against taxation of assets. You didn't earn it. You earned enough to buy it at the the original price. The rest of the value is capital gain, asset inflation, call it what you will. Why should that not be taxed?

Why should it? We shouldn't tax things just because you can.

That isn’t the point. The point is to find additional ways to fund the quality and extent of government services that the electorate demands

IMV there's a fundamental issue: the electorate demands 'better' public services, but are less keen to pay for it. Or, more accurately, they want someone else to pay for it.

Which is why few parties go into elections telling the electorate that they're going to put up loads of taxes...

This is something of a cliché and it is a cliché because there is a lot of truth in it. But think of it from a private sector perspective.

Most businesses, who want to remain in business, constantly strive to give their customers more for less. That is how they remain competitive. They will invest to improve their product or service in both technology and training. So why can't our public sector achieve the same? Why is it a given that they can only do more with more? Or, in recent times less with more? That is the real problem we face.

We have recently tried to register my Mother in law's death. There are no Registrars Offices open to the public anymore as there were when my mother died. You phone a number and you find that it is the local authority's general number. Getting through was complicated and time consuming (as it always is when you have to contact Angus Council about anything, one of their favourite tricks is to say the person you want is not currently available and then cut you off). When you do eventually get through the long queue you are told everything has to be done online. But even when you have given all the relevant information that is not the death registered. You then need to have a discussion with the Registrar himself once he has looked at the information provided. His next available appointment was 8 days away. You cannot proceed to organise the funeral until you have done this.

The whole procedure seems entirely for the convenience of those who work in it. No consideration at all is given as to what is convenient for the public using that service or what they might want. This is typical of so many public sector services now. No business, without a monopoly, could possibly operate that way. Why do we have to put up with this? Why is it more important that they can work from home, have flexible hours for them, not for the public, always be "exceptionally busy", set their own pace, etc etc. And don't get me started on HMRC whose service has deteriorated beyond measure since the local offices shut. There is, in my view, a real mindset problem here.

HMRC's issues are due to reduced staffing numbers.

Angus's problem is utter stupidity. their front line customer service should be filling in those forms for those unable / unwilling to do so because otherwise it's straightforward age / disability discrimination. And remember my day job is exactly this type of productivity improvement.

When was the last time a public service increased its opening hours or availability to the public? I remember when banks had restricted opening hours and then they didn't. Why are public services immune from such improvements? Because they are principally concerned with the people who work in them, not what they are actually doing. I am fed up of it.

My GP practice, and my local hospital, have both been increasing their hours.

A the GP routine is 8:30am to 6pm. They have a service called GP Extended Access with is from 7am two mornings a week, and continues until 8pm one everning per week, and sometimes operates on Saturdays. In addition to the GP24 out of hours service cover from the PCT.

And my local hospital has been doing Saturdays and Sundays for some clinics for some time - several years.

Plus we all have 111, which came in in 2014 as a national service - upgrading from NHS Direct.

Let's give credit where it is due.

Back on Thursday 2nd a mole on my chest started bleeding. So I rang the GP...... one has to ring at 8am ...... and I got an appointment for later that morning. GP had concerns too, so made a Dermatology appoint for me.
Came through for Tuesday afternoon, 7th.
Consultant saw me on time, said no worries.

Gallowgate

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

Utter nonsense. You’re high on your own supply

Mexicanpete

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

For all the justified criticism of Labour, particularly during the Corbyn era and Blair's international expansionism wars, I am not sure that is the most compelling claim, unless you bring in the notion that othering asylum seekers, benefit claimants and specific racial and religious groups is the desire of working Britains.

kle4

pigeon said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

DavidL said:

JosiasJessop said:

Gallowgate said:

squareroot2 said:

JohnLilburne said:

pigeon said:

Andy_JS said:

pigeon said:

rottenborough said:

"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rachel-reeves-emergency-budget-uk-economy-fiscal-rules-john-major-labour-party-b2677853.html

I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.

An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.

Would you mind explaining why people who've spent all their lives working hard to build up an inheritance should be forced to give it up for people who haven't done so?

I'll leave aside any discussion of the Boomers as the luckiest generation in history, and instead simply ask: Where else is all the money going to come from? The state is collapsing under the weight of dependency already, and much of business and most of the working age population has already been bled white.

If we're going to have enough capacity in the health and social care system, as well as for an adequate defence establishment, policing, courts of law and everything else, then the obvious place to look is asset wealth, and most particularly the immense store of treasure locked up in residential property.

I've actually a certain amount of sympathy for the "But I paid my taxes?!" attitude - at the end of a lifetime of toil, it's small wonder that people want the bloody government to finally leave them alone - and if only 2% of the population were retired then society could afford to keep indulging them with an endless regime of inflation busting pension hikes and light touch taxation. But they're not 2%, they're 20%, and rising. And I've no time at all for the facile attitude that anyone who is worth less money than I am is one of the undeserving poor and should be left to rot. Rescuing the less well off isn't about rewarding laziness or failure, it's about having a decent society, a functioning society, and about the mutualisation of risk.

The money has to come from somewhere, and we have already reached the point where better off retirees really need to join the rest of us in being rinsed for funds. The hospitals are already collapsing under the weight of need in a manner that we went through lockdowns only five years ago in an effort to avoid, just because of a difficult flu season, and the rows and rows of frightened elderly people on trolleys in A&E departments waiting days for a bed will include both those who could and could not afford to buy a house, regardless of how hard they bloody worked decades ago.

Your house is only worth so much to you if you suffer a nasty fall and have to lie on the kitchen floor in your own piss for two days waiting for an ambulance to turn up, and it's also only worth so much if the police are too weak and depleted to bother to investigate if someone breaks into it and nicks all your jewellery. So, what do we do?

Although I'm sceptical about the "I earned it" argument against taxation of assets. You didn't earn it. You earned enough to buy it at the the original price. The rest of the value is capital gain, asset inflation, call it what you will. Why should that not be taxed?

Why should it? We shouldn't tax things just because you can.

That isn’t the point. The point is to find additional ways to fund the quality and extent of government services that the electorate demands

IMV there's a fundamental issue: the electorate demands 'better' public services, but are less keen to pay for it. Or, more accurately, they want someone else to pay for it.

Which is why few parties go into elections telling the electorate that they're going to put up loads of taxes...

This is something of a cliché and it is a cliché because there is a lot of truth in it. But think of it from a private sector perspective.

Most businesses, who want to remain in business, constantly strive to give their customers more for less. That is how they remain competitive. They will invest to improve their product or service in both technology and training. So why can't our public sector achieve the same? Why is it a given that they can only do more with more? Or, in recent times less with more? That is the real problem we face.

We have recently tried to register my Mother in law's death. There are no Registrars Offices open to the public anymore as there were when my mother died. You phone a number and you find that it is the local authority's general number. Getting through was complicated and time consuming (as it always is when you have to contact Angus Council about anything, one of their favourite tricks is to say the person you want is not currently available and then cut you off). When you do eventually get through the long queue you are told everything has to be done online. But even when you have given all the relevant information that is not the death registered. You then need to have a discussion with the Registrar himself once he has looked at the information provided. His next available appointment was 8 days away. You cannot proceed to organise the funeral until you have done this.

The whole procedure seems entirely for the convenience of those who work in it. No consideration at all is given as to what is convenient for the public using that service or what they might want. This is typical of so many public sector services now. No business, without a monopoly, could possibly operate that way. Why do we have to put up with this? Why is it more important that they can work from home, have flexible hours for them, not for the public, always be "exceptionally busy", set their own pace, etc etc. And don't get me started on HMRC whose service has deteriorated beyond measure since the local offices shut. There is, in my view, a real mindset problem here.

HMRC's issues are due to reduced staffing numbers.

Angus's problem is utter stupidity. their front line customer service should be filling in those forms for those unable / unwilling to do so because otherwise it's straightforward age / disability discrimination. And remember my day job is exactly this type of productivity improvement.

When was the last time a public service increased its opening hours or availability to the public? I remember when banks had restricted opening hours and then they didn't. Why are public services immune from such improvements? Because they are principally concerned with the people who work in them, not what they are actually doing. I am fed up of it.

What proportion of these problems is down to the staff being wilful and the organisation incompetent, and how much is down to the usual problem of too few people and not enough money?

Before very much longer, your average council will be statutory only and it won't even be able to manage those responsibilities properly. That's got very little to do with working from home and almost everything to do with a tsunami of homeless families, disturbed children and knackered old people that need looking after.

Exactly. People dont realise have desperate the situation is, and because they leap to assuming everything is just laziness or incompetence they have no interest in fixing it.

Theuniondivvie

Cookie said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

You offer Reform ( with evidence) and the Tories ( without evidence) as the big two parties after the imminent death of Labour.

Now you may be correct that Labour 's fate is sealed and they are finished after an unbroken 28 years of mismanaging the economy, but you seem to ignore who fills that vacuum, assuming it is Reform and the Conservatives.

With a moribund Labour Party I won't be voting for Farage or an even more extreme Jenrick. It might be the LDs or it might be a resurrected "Change UK". I doubt I am alone.

I'm arguing that the Tories themselves will become the equivalent of a resurrected Change UK. Perhaps Anna Soubry will even rejoin them.

They will be the default choice for people who don't want Reform and don't want to waste their votes.

Is that likely when Badenoch, Jenrick and Braverman are ramping up the racist themes with more mainstream Tories like Cleverly hanging on their coat tails? Or are you assuming all the whack-jobs leave for Reform?That being so and the Conservative brand in the toilet why even keep the name? Certainly one wouldn't use it without a qualifying prefix like, New, Democratic, Liberal, One Nation, or Nice (Not Nasty).

Badenoch and Cleverly are racist?

One of Musk’s half baked UK interventions (via an edited clip) was the claim that Humza Yousaf was a racist, so I guess it’s entirely possible B & C could be racists.

williamglenn

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

For all the justified criticism of Labour, particularly during the Corbyn era and Blair's international expansionism wars, I am not sure that is the most compelling claim, unless you bring in the notion that othering asylum seekers, benefit claimants and specific racial and religious groups is the desire of working Britains.

Is it in the interests of working class communities to have their local hotel filled with male asylum seekers?

Gallowgate

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

For all the justified criticism of Labour, particularly during the Corbyn era and Blair's international expansionism wars, I am not sure that is the most compelling claim, unless you bring in the notion that othering asylum seekers, benefit claimants and specific racial and religious groups is the desire of working Britains.

Is it in the interests of working class communities to have their local hotel filled with male asylum seekers?

That’s been a Tory policy for the last 14 years if I recall

kle4

williamglenn said:

Cookie said:

This falls into the same gap between what the EU represents to Remainers and what it actually is that the 'liberal values' argument does. During the referendum, the liberal virtues of the EU were touted as a reason to stay - but the UK was by far the most liberal member of the bloc (consider, for example, the number of non-white MEPs before and after British departure). We now appear to be arguing for EU membership as defence against Britain's enemies - Russia, China, and -hypothetically - the USA. But it's far from apparent that the EU has any desire to stand firm against any of these.
I can see, emotionally, why the argument works. But dig in to what the EU actually does wrt hostile foreign powers, and the argument evaporates.

British politics has a problem with parochialism.

You see it also in this bizarre claim that Musk sees us as an 'enemy' because he says mean things about our government. It's a total misunderstanding what is going on.

I dont have an issue with anyone commenting on our politics.

But when someone purposely acts like a parody of a ruthlessly obsessed business tycoon with a dislike of government, i dont think im unreasonable for questioning whose interests he cares about when he comments, or for thinking hanging on his every word is a good use of politicians time

TimS

Gallowgate said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

For all the justified criticism of Labour, particularly during the Corbyn era and Blair's international expansionism wars, I am not sure that is the most compelling claim, unless you bring in the notion that othering asylum seekers, benefit claimants and specific racial and religious groups is the desire of working Britains.

Is it in the interests of working class communities to have their local hotel filled with male asylum seekers?

That’s been a Tory policy for the last 14 years if I recall

Like the Corbynites before them, there’s nothing better for those looking forward to the new thousand year anti-woke supremacy than being in opposition. It’s liberating.

Leon

Greetings from your war-torn future, and the urban trenches of Rangoon

All quite odd here. Lots of wartime theatre, barbed wire, soldiers, guns - but an absence of drama. Blackouts common. Lots of little diesel generators - reminds me of Ukraine. Definite sense the regime doesn't want tourists, everything is made as hard as possible, you can't hire cars, book trains, and there are vanishingly few internal flights, and those that do exist seem to fly at 5am

Internet is throttled everywhere. Lots of sites barred. eSims don't work. The generals have a boot on the neck of the World Wide Web

Good curries and some nice pastries, however

TimS

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

Cookie said:

This falls into the same gap between what the EU represents to Remainers and what it actually is that the 'liberal values' argument does. During the referendum, the liberal virtues of the EU were touted as a reason to stay - but the UK was by far the most liberal member of the bloc (consider, for example, the number of non-white MEPs before and after British departure). We now appear to be arguing for EU membership as defence against Britain's enemies - Russia, China, and -hypothetically - the USA. But it's far from apparent that the EU has any desire to stand firm against any of these.
I can see, emotionally, why the argument works. But dig in to what the EU actually does wrt hostile foreign powers, and the argument evaporates.

British politics has a problem with parochialism.

You see it also in this bizarre claim that Musk sees us as an 'enemy' because he says mean things about our government. It's a total misunderstanding what is going on.

I dont have an issue with anyone commenting on our politics.

But when someone purposely acts like a parody of a ruthlessly obsessed business tycoon with a dislike of government, i dont think im unreasonable for questioning whose interests he cares about when he comments, or for thinking hanging on his every word is a good use of politicians time

I’m quietly hopeful that Q has been issuing 007 with a decent Aston Martin and some useful gadgets these past months, ready for the moment he’s needed.

kinabalu

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

There's no lumpen "working class" but there is a crisis of inequality. Addressing this is the only way to reduce the number of people struggling in this relatively wealthy country of ours. Labour for all their flaws are the best bet on this. It's why I vote for them and why I'm a member.

Sunil_Prasannan

We've been through this before:

Canada won't become the "51st" State. It comprises 10 Provinces and 3 Territories, so it would become the 51st through 63rd States.

kle4

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

Cookie said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

You offer Reform ( with evidence) and the Tories ( without evidence) as the big two parties after the imminent death of Labour.

Now you may be correct that Labour 's fate is sealed and they are finished after an unbroken 28 years of mismanaging the economy, but you seem to ignore who fills that vacuum, assuming it is Reform and the Conservatives.

With a moribund Labour Party I won't be voting for Farage or an even more extreme Jenrick. It might be the LDs or it might be a resurrected "Change UK". I doubt I am alone.

I'm arguing that the Tories themselves will become the equivalent of a resurrected Change UK. Perhaps Anna Soubry will even rejoin them.

They will be the default choice for people who don't want Reform and don't want to waste their votes.

Is that likely when Badenoch, Jenrick and Braverman are ramping up the racist themes with more mainstream Tories like Cleverly hanging on their coat tails? Or are you assuming all the whack-jobs leave for Reform?That being so and the Conservative brand in the toilet why even keep the name? Certainly one wouldn't use it without a qualifying prefix like, New, Democratic, Liberal, One Nation, or Nice (Not Nasty).

Badenoch and Cleverly are racist?

I specifically said racist themes.

...Edited, just in case. I don't want BigG. claiming I have crossed a line

One doesn't have to be white to be racist

There are, remarkably, some people who disagree with that, when talking aboutcpower dynamics and sticking solely to one hemisphere.

MattW

TimS said:

Foxy said:

Omnium said:

I was having a discussion along these lines with a friend last night.

Far from likely, but it is possible that the US suddenly becomes a bit of an Empire builder - gobbling up Canada and other places. China would clearly take the opportunity to take Taiwan, and no doubt other places too. All in the name of strategic interests. Russia may well be first on the path if they get some sort of concession as to sphere-of-interest in return for peace in Ukraine.

So the EU and the other bits of Europe find themselves somewhat squeezed together. Would it actually be wise though for the UK to throw its lot in with the troubles of a greater Europe though? Personally I think it would be deeply unwise. A union of such disparate states isn't going to be terribly stable or likely to follow a predictable path in times of a multi-way race to new Empire.

Obviously all wild speculation, but I do think that rejoining the EU isn't as likely as some think.

China appears to be building 5 large landing ships designed for heavy vehicles:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/china-suddenly-building-fleet-of-special-barges-suitable-for-taiwan-landings/

The next half decade is going to be eventful, I think.

First question is what happens in the first couple of months of the new US administration once they actually have power. Project 2025 implied a huge amount of work to change the foundations of the US constitution, governance and legal system within weeks. A sort of blitzkrieg. Will it happen, or was it all bluster? If it does, then some of those other things we’re currently dismissing, like coercive annexation of Greenland, become just that bit less fantastical. And the US withdrawing wholly or partly from NATO.

Then we have the upcoming US-Russian Molotov-Ribbentrop pact over Ukraine. Followed presumably by a humiliating capitulation imposed on Kyiv and the removal of Zelenskyy. And the interesting reaction we’re likely to see in Poland and the Baltics. Followed, not long after, by either a further tightening of Moscow’s grip on Georgia or a second invasion if things don’t go as planned.

Finally the long-heralded Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Is this the moment Trump finds himself in Stalin’s situation during Barbarossa and has to rethink his allegiances? Or do they take it, with the minimum of fuss?

FWIW I'd see both Taiwan and Ukraine as modelling their future substantially on Israel - self-reliant and independent, knowing that that almost no one else will wade knee-deep in blood on their behalf even if support is offered.

Trump, and most of the previous 44 previous US Presidents, have demonstrated that USA interests always come first by a very large margin.

I think Eastern Europe and Northern Europe knows most of that, and Western Europe needs to remember things that it has temporarily forgotten.

TimS

Leon said:

Greetings from your war-torn future, and the urban trenches of Rangoon

All quite odd here. Lots of wartime theatre, barbed wire, soldiers, guns - but an absence of drama. Blackouts common. Lots of little diesel generators - reminds me of Ukraine. Definite sense the regime doesn't want tourists, everything is made as hard as possible, you can't hire cars, book trains, and there are vanishingly few internal flights, and those that do exist seem to fly at 5am

Internet is throttled everywhere. Lots of sites barred. eSims don't work. The generals have a boot on the neck of the World Wide Web

Good curries and some nice pastries, however

On balance, recommend for a trip or not?

TimS

MattW said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

Omnium said:

I was having a discussion along these lines with a friend last night.

Far from likely, but it is possible that the US suddenly becomes a bit of an Empire builder - gobbling up Canada and other places. China would clearly take the opportunity to take Taiwan, and no doubt other places too. All in the name of strategic interests. Russia may well be first on the path if they get some sort of concession as to sphere-of-interest in return for peace in Ukraine.

So the EU and the other bits of Europe find themselves somewhat squeezed together. Would it actually be wise though for the UK to throw its lot in with the troubles of a greater Europe though? Personally I think it would be deeply unwise. A union of such disparate states isn't going to be terribly stable or likely to follow a predictable path in times of a multi-way race to new Empire.

Obviously all wild speculation, but I do think that rejoining the EU isn't as likely as some think.

China appears to be building 5 large landing ships designed for heavy vehicles:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/china-suddenly-building-fleet-of-special-barges-suitable-for-taiwan-landings/

The next half decade is going to be eventful, I think.

First question is what happens in the first couple of months of the new US administration once they actually have power. Project 2025 implied a huge amount of work to change the foundations of the US constitution, governance and legal system within weeks. A sort of blitzkrieg. Will it happen, or was it all bluster? If it does, then some of those other things we’re currently dismissing, like coercive annexation of Greenland, become just that bit less fantastical. And the US withdrawing wholly or partly from NATO.

Then we have the upcoming US-Russian Molotov-Ribbentrop pact over Ukraine. Followed presumably by a humiliating capitulation imposed on Kyiv and the removal of Zelenskyy. And the interesting reaction we’re likely to see in Poland and the Baltics. Followed, not long after, by either a further tightening of Moscow’s grip on Georgia or a second invasion if things don’t go as planned.

Finally the long-heralded Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Is this the moment Trump finds himself in Stalin’s situation during Barbarossa and has to rethink his allegiances? Or do they take it, with the minimum of fuss?

FWIW I'd see both Taiwan and Ukraine as modelling their future substantially on Israel - self-reliant and independent, knowing that that almost no one else will wade knee-deep in blood on their behalf even if support is offered.

Trump, and most of the previous 44 previous US Presidents, have demonstrated that USA interests always come first by a very large margin.

I think Eastern Europe and Northern Europe knows most of that, and Western Europe needs to remember things that it has temporarily forgotten.

Israel has had massive, consistent US support for decades, so I don’t think the Israel analogy goes that far. I expect they would like to emulate it, indeed Zelenskyy has said so, but it’s different. Israel also faces quite disorganised regional powers. Ukraine and Taiwan face empires with vast militaries.

Malmesbury

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

For all the justified criticism of Labour, particularly during the Corbyn era and Blair's international expansionism wars, I am not sure that is the most compelling claim, unless you bring in the notion that othering asylum seekers, benefit claimants and specific racial and religious groups is the desire of working Britains.

Is it in the interests of working class communities to have their local hotel filled with male asylum seekers?

The various types of NIMBYist and the Concerned made the hotels the only choice.

The opposition to migrant housing was alway couched in practical terms - safety, disruption, licensing etc etc. Process State stuff

In the case of a hotel, you have premises licensed, inspected and with a ton of docs saying it is just tickety boo to house hundreds of people in it.

The owners get it booked solid for years. They can reduce staff (no room service etc). In the hotel trade this is a massive win for the owners.

There is no way to oppose it, apart from “I don’t like having lots of them immigrants living here”. Which the courts will not hear as an argument.

It is much like the position on battery storage for electric power. It’s probably not the best solution. But it’s the one that can be done. And since there is enormous pressure for *a* solution, it gets done…

OldKingCole

kle4 said:

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

Cookie said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

You offer Reform ( with evidence) and the Tories ( without evidence) as the big two parties after the imminent death of Labour.

Now you may be correct that Labour 's fate is sealed and they are finished after an unbroken 28 years of mismanaging the economy, but you seem to ignore who fills that vacuum, assuming it is Reform and the Conservatives.

With a moribund Labour Party I won't be voting for Farage or an even more extreme Jenrick. It might be the LDs or it might be a resurrected "Change UK". I doubt I am alone.

I'm arguing that the Tories themselves will become the equivalent of a resurrected Change UK. Perhaps Anna Soubry will even rejoin them.

They will be the default choice for people who don't want Reform and don't want to waste their votes.

Is that likely when Badenoch, Jenrick and Braverman are ramping up the racist themes with more mainstream Tories like Cleverly hanging on their coat tails? Or are you assuming all the whack-jobs leave for Reform?That being so and the Conservative brand in the toilet why even keep the name? Certainly one wouldn't use it without a qualifying prefix like, New, Democratic, Liberal, One Nation, or Nice (Not Nasty).

Badenoch and Cleverly are racist?

I specifically said racist themes.

...Edited, just in case. I don't want BigG. claiming I have crossed a line

One doesn't have to be white to be racist

There are, remarkably, some people who disagree with that, when talking aboutcpower dynamics and sticking solely to one hemisphere.

There are some remarkably ill-informed people about. Even on here!

carnforth

Foxy said:

Omnium said:

I was having a discussion along these lines with a friend last night.

Far from likely, but it is possible that the US suddenly becomes a bit of an Empire builder - gobbling up Canada and other places. China would clearly take the opportunity to take Taiwan, and no doubt other places too. All in the name of strategic interests. Russia may well be first on the path if they get some sort of concession as to sphere-of-interest in return for peace in Ukraine.

So the EU and the other bits of Europe find themselves somewhat squeezed together. Would it actually be wise though for the UK to throw its lot in with the troubles of a greater Europe though? Personally I think it would be deeply unwise. A union of such disparate states isn't going to be terribly stable or likely to follow a predictable path in times of a multi-way race to new Empire.

Obviously all wild speculation, but I do think that rejoining the EU isn't as likely as some think.

China appears to be building 5 large landing ships designed for heavy vehicles:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/china-suddenly-building-fleet-of-special-barges-suitable-for-taiwan-landings/

I spent the afternoon today on a Taiwanese beach, at Tamsui. No sign of the buggers yet.

OldKingCole

Sunil_Prasannan said:

We've been through this before:

Canada won't become the "51st" State. It comprises 10 Provinces and 3 Territories, so it would become the 51st through 63rd States.

I suspect that, were Canada to become part of the US, it would tilt the Electoral College Blue!
I wonder if Trump and his acolytes have thought of that.

Leon

TimS said:

Leon said:

Greetings from your war-torn future, and the urban trenches of Rangoon

All quite odd here. Lots of wartime theatre, barbed wire, soldiers, guns - but an absence of drama. Blackouts common. Lots of little diesel generators - reminds me of Ukraine. Definite sense the regime doesn't want tourists, everything is made as hard as possible, you can't hire cars, book trains, and there are vanishingly few internal flights, and those that do exist seem to fly at 5am

Internet is throttled everywhere. Lots of sites barred. eSims don't work. The generals have a boot on the neck of the World Wide Web

Good curries and some nice pastries, however

On balance, recommend for a trip or not?

On balance, unless you like really weird atmospheres with a sense of regime menace and quite a chunk of noom - in this case late British imperial noom - I'd say No

So much is shut, all the fun things you might want to do are virtually impossible. I doubt I will make it far beyond Yangon simply because it is so difficult to travel internally - ruling out Bagan and Inle etc. It's not coz I'm scared it's just bloody difficult - much harder than it was in Ukraine

However, I adore weird places with a sense of menace and a hefty dash of Noom so I'm having a nice time. The weather is sublime, which helps. And my 5 star hotel - which is still pretty luxe despite the civil strife - is £40 a night. That also helps

Morris_Dancer

F1: watched an interesting video on wind tunnels and Mercedes losing their dominance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4woJDRV-kZA&t

Suggests to me that their development will be solid again this year rather than hit and miss. Also, Aston Martin have their own wind tunnel coming online, so they must be hoping that will allow them to compete in the development race (where they lost relative ground both in 2023 and 2024).

williamglenn

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

There's no lumpen "working class" but there is a crisis of inequality. Addressing this is the only way to reduce the number of people struggling in this relatively wealthy country of ours. Labour for all their flaws are the best bet on this. It's why I vote for them and why I'm a member.

This suggests that if there is a crisis, it's that the top 1% and 10% are doing better at the expense of the next 40%, but the bottom half have not seen any erosion in their share of income.

OldKingCole

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Greetings from your war-torn future, and the urban trenches of Rangoon

All quite odd here. Lots of wartime theatre, barbed wire, soldiers, guns - but an absence of drama. Blackouts common. Lots of little diesel generators - reminds me of Ukraine. Definite sense the regime doesn't want tourists, everything is made as hard as possible, you can't hire cars, book trains, and there are vanishingly few internal flights, and those that do exist seem to fly at 5am

Internet is throttled everywhere. Lots of sites barred. eSims don't work. The generals have a boot on the neck of the World Wide Web

Good curries and some nice pastries, however

On balance, recommend for a trip or not?

On balance, unless you like really weird atmospheres with a sense of regime menace and quite a chunk of noom - in this case late British imperial noom - I'd say No

So much is shut, all the fun things you might want to do are virtually impossible. I doubt I will make it far beyond Yangon simply because it is so difficult to travel internally - ruling out Bagan and Inle etc. It's not coz I'm scared it's just bloody difficult - much harder than it was in Ukraine

However, I adore weird places with a sense of menace and a hefty dash of Noom so I'm having a nice time. The weather is sublime, which helps. And my 5 star hotel - which is still pretty luxe despite the civil strife - is £40 a night. That also helps

Acquaintance of mine went a year or so ago. One of his long-time ambitions, apparently. Enjoyed it, apparently, from the photos he posted.
However there are refugees from Myanmar in Thailand who seem to be right at the bottom of the economic heap.

Theuniondivvie

TimS said:

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

Cookie said:

This falls into the same gap between what the EU represents to Remainers and what it actually is that the 'liberal values' argument does. During the referendum, the liberal virtues of the EU were touted as a reason to stay - but the UK was by far the most liberal member of the bloc (consider, for example, the number of non-white MEPs before and after British departure). We now appear to be arguing for EU membership as defence against Britain's enemies - Russia, China, and -hypothetically - the USA. But it's far from apparent that the EU has any desire to stand firm against any of these.
I can see, emotionally, why the argument works. But dig in to what the EU actually does wrt hostile foreign powers, and the argument evaporates.

British politics has a problem with parochialism.

You see it also in this bizarre claim that Musk sees us as an 'enemy' because he says mean things about our government. It's a total misunderstanding what is going on.

I dont have an issue with anyone commenting on our politics.

But when someone purposely acts like a parody of a ruthlessly obsessed business tycoon with a dislike of government, i dont think im unreasonable for questioning whose interests he cares about when he comments, or for thinking hanging on his every word is a good use of politicians time

I’m quietly hopeful that Q has been issuing 007 with a decent Aston Martin and some useful gadgets these past months, ready for the moment he’s needed.

New generation Jag surely.

Malmesbury

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

There's no lumpen "working class" but there is a crisis of inequality. Addressing this is the only way to reduce the number of people struggling in this relatively wealthy country of ours. Labour for all their flaws are the best bet on this. It's why I vote for them and why I'm a member.

This suggests that if there is a crisis, it's that the top 1% and 10% are doing better at the expense of the next 40%, but the bottom half have not seen any erosion in their share of income.

Note that, historically, revolutions of various kinds don’t come from the bottom.

The struggling portion of the middle, on the other hand…

Look at what people are spending money on.

Sunil_Prasannan

OldKingCole said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

We've been through this before:

Canada won't become the "51st" State. It comprises 10 Provinces and 3 Territories, so it would become the 51st through 63rd States.

I suspect that, were Canada to become part of the US, it would tilt the Electoral College Blue!
I wonder if Trump and his acolytes have thought of that.

I wrote back in November that if all of the Anglosphere had been involved in the US Election, we'd have elected Lady Protector Kamala by quite a large margin of Electoral Votes!

williamglenn

Malmesbury said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

There's no lumpen "working class" but there is a crisis of inequality. Addressing this is the only way to reduce the number of people struggling in this relatively wealthy country of ours. Labour for all their flaws are the best bet on this. It's why I vote for them and why I'm a member.

This suggests that if there is a crisis, it's that the top 1% and 10% are doing better at the expense of the next 40%, but the bottom half have not seen any erosion in their share of income.

Note that, historically, revolutions of various kinds don’t come from the bottom.

The struggling portion of the middle, on the other hand…

Look at what people are spending money on.

Something the cliche about the "left behind" misses is that it's really the people in the middle who have been squeezed down by globalisation.

Mexicanpete

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

For all the justified criticism of Labour, particularly during the Corbyn era and Blair's international expansionism wars, I am not sure that is the most compelling claim, unless you bring in the notion that othering asylum seekers, benefit claimants and specific racial and religious groups is the desire of working Britains.

Is it in the interests of working class communities to have their local hotel filled with male asylum seekers?

Ah yes, there we have it. Nail on head. Thanks.

I remember the Copthorne Hotel in Culverhouse Cross being a place housing Asylum Seekers for several years before the 4th July 2024. Or am I misremembering the nutcases protesting on Culverhouse Cross Roundabout and that must have been a more recent occurence.

Chris

"With Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin seen as effectively two cheeks of the same arse ..."

Hmm.

Amongst the cheeks on our global arse are such diverse elements as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, ...

Can a taxonomist advise about the maximum number of cheeks found on a single arse in nature?

williamglenn

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

For all the justified criticism of Labour, particularly during the Corbyn era and Blair's international expansionism wars, I am not sure that is the most compelling claim, unless you bring in the notion that othering asylum seekers, benefit claimants and specific racial and religious groups is the desire of working Britains.

Is it in the interests of working class communities to have their local hotel filled with male asylum seekers?

Ah yes, there we have it. Nail on head. Thanks.

I remember the Copthorne Hotel in Culverhouse Cross being a place housing Asylum Seekers for several years before the 4th July 2024. Or am I misremembering the nutcases protesting on Culverhouse Cross Roundabout and that must have been a more recent occurence.

Did I argue that the Tories are the party of the working class? Labour were only able to cling on to that title by being not-the-Tories, but that is no longer sufficient.

No_Offence_Alan

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

No, the Lib Dems and Reform will consume the decaying carcass of the Conservative Party.

CharlieShark

If a Conservative former MP, government minister, ex-whips, who had been posting porn for years, had been arrested on suspicion of engaging in sexual communication with a child, would the BBC have covered this front and central?

For some reason, they don't believe it is newsworthy enough on their front page of approx. 80 items. Nor is it in their political section.

His suspension from the Labour party in the summer was kept under wraps. Why? I can see news reports from June 24, are they connected?

I also see that someone who took a screenshot of one of his posts, to highlight what was happening, has been told that they could be charged under 2003 Communications Act, but not the former MP who sent it.

This guy has friends in government, very good close friends. He is followed on twitter by the entire Labour party, all the way up. He's even followed by the CPS.

The fall out from this could be huge. It's appears that this is not a sudden event.

Malmesbury

CharlieShark said:

If a Conservative former MP, government minister, ex-whips, who had been posting porn for years, had been arrested on suspicion of engaging in sexual communication with a child, would the BBC have covered this front and central?

For some reason, they don't believe it is newsworthy enough on their front page of approx. 80 items. Nor is it in their political section.

His suspension from the Labour party in the summer was kept under wraps. Why? I can see news reports from June 24, are they connected?

I also see that someone who took a screenshot of one of his posts, to highlight what was happening, has been told that they could be charged under 2003 Communications Act, but not the former MP who sent it.

This guy has friends in government, very good close friends. He is followed on twitter by the entire Labour party, all the way up. He's even followed by the CPS.

The fall out from this could be huge. It's appears that this is not a sudden event.

Even in the darkness, I can find a joke..

Has anyone looked at who the CPS “follows”?

For some reason, I imagine the Piranha Brothers are on the list.

No_Offence_Alan

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

There's no lumpen "working class" but there is a crisis of inequality. Addressing this is the only way to reduce the number of people struggling in this relatively wealthy country of ours. Labour for all their flaws are the best bet on this. It's why I vote for them and why I'm a member.

This suggests that if there is a crisis, it's that the top 1% and 10% are doing better at the expense of the next 40%, but the bottom half have not seen any erosion in their share of income.

Why does the graph suspiciously stop in 2016?
Surely you would want to show how this trend was reversed by the defeat of globalisation by Brexit in 2016?

Malmesbury

CharlieShark said:

If a Conservative former MP, government minister, ex-whips, who had been posting porn for years, had been arrested on suspicion of engaging in sexual communication with a child, would the BBC have covered this front and central?

For some reason, they don't believe it is newsworthy enough on their front page of approx. 80 items. Nor is it in their political section.

His suspension from the Labour party in the summer was kept under wraps. Why? I can see news reports from June 24, are they connected?

I also see that someone who took a screenshot of one of his posts, to highlight what was happening, has been told that they could be charged under 2003 Communications Act, but not the former MP who sent it.

This guy has friends in government, very good close friends. He is followed on twitter by the entire Labour party, all the way up. He's even followed by the CPS.

The fall out from this could be huge. It's appears that this is not a sudden event.

Are you related to @Shecorns88, late of this parish?

Malmesbury

No_Offence_Alan said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

No, the Lib Dems and Reform will consume the decaying carcass of the Conservative Party.

The Lib Dem’s are not doing much consumption, in terms of vote share.

Mexicanpete

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

For all the justified criticism of Labour, particularly during the Corbyn era and Blair's international expansionism wars, I am not sure that is the most compelling claim, unless you bring in the notion that othering asylum seekers, benefit claimants and specific racial and religious groups is the desire of working Britains.

Is it in the interests of working class communities to have their local hotel filled with male asylum seekers?

Ah yes, there we have it. Nail on head. Thanks.

I remember the Copthorne Hotel in Culverhouse Cross being a place housing Asylum Seekers for several years before the 4th July 2024. Or am I misremembering the nutcases protesting on Culverhouse Cross Roundabout and that must have been a more recent occurence.

Did I argue that the Tories are the party of the working class? Labour were only able to cling on to that title by being not-the-Tories, but that is no longer sufficient.

You are suggesting all will be forgiven and the Tories become the natural opposition to "working man/woman" Reform I believe.

CharlieShark

Malmesbury said:

CharlieShark said:

If a Conservative former MP, government minister, ex-whips, who had been posting porn for years, had been arrested on suspicion of engaging in sexual communication with a child, would the BBC have covered this front and central?

For some reason, they don't believe it is newsworthy enough on their front page of approx. 80 items. Nor is it in their political section.

His suspension from the Labour party in the summer was kept under wraps. Why? I can see news reports from June 24, are they connected?

I also see that someone who took a screenshot of one of his posts, to highlight what was happening, has been told that they could be charged under 2003 Communications Act, but not the former MP who sent it.

This guy has friends in government, very good close friends. He is followed on twitter by the entire Labour party, all the way up. He's even followed by the CPS.

The fall out from this could be huge. It's appears that this is not a sudden event.

Even in the darkness, I can find a joke..

Has anyone looked at who the CPS “follows”?

For some reason, I imagine the Piranha Brothers are on the list.

With the stuff he has been posting for years, do you think it is right that the CPS follows him? If no-one at the CPS looks at the stuff, why are they following him? Is it wise that the people who decide the charges against him, follow him on twitter? Did none of the cabinet ministers look at the stuff he was posting on a daily basis and think, um maybe, we shouldn't have this on our timeline.

You can scoff, because when it all comes out, you will brush it away.

Mexicanpete

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

There's no lumpen "working class" but there is a crisis of inequality. Addressing this is the only way to reduce the number of people struggling in this relatively wealthy country of ours. Labour for all their flaws are the best bet on this. It's why I vote for them and why I'm a member.

I despise the notions of "upper, middle and working classes". We are all working class if we have to go out to make a living. I believe that Frost Report sketch killed the absurdity of the historic class system, and then it was revived by post 2010 Tories.

FF43

Trump is turning our biggest ally into our biggest problem. This isn't just a problem for the UK and so I think EU members and the UK will look for some kind of defence.

Brexit makes it more difficult and was a bad decision, but we are where we are. We're not rejoining soon

MattW

I've set up a Bluesky starter pack with a dozen people here: https://go.bsky.app/Loys5Md

I think I've added everyone who asked, but if I missed you PM me here or on Bluesky, and I'll update. I've left Alistair Meeks out, as he is not noticeably here.

I've also included several feeds around UK Politics and Parliament.

You get tabs for "who is here", "feeds", and "posts" (Which I think is for the accounts included).

For those not familiar, Bluesky pushes far less at you than Twitter, so both following and blocking tend to be more actively done. Starter Packs are to help find your way into clumps of the network than match your interests.

Malmesbury

Mexicanpete said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

There's no lumpen "working class" but there is a crisis of inequality. Addressing this is the only way to reduce the number of people struggling in this relatively wealthy country of ours. Labour for all their flaws are the best bet on this. It's why I vote for them and why I'm a member.

I despise the notions of "upper, middle and working classes". We are all working class if we have to go out to make a living. I believe that Frost Report sketch killed the absurdity of the historic class system, and then it was revived by post 2010 Tories.

Between Canada meekly becoming the 51st state and the Tories being claimed to have created class war - it seems clear that everyone is loosing their minds.

Edit: your definition of the working class suggests that pensioners on the state pension are Upper Class. Interesting.

david_herdson

Sunil_Prasannan said:

OldKingCole said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

We've been through this before:

Canada won't become the "51st" State. It comprises 10 Provinces and 3 Territories, so it would become the 51st through 63rd States.

I suspect that, were Canada to become part of the US, it would tilt the Electoral College Blue!
I wonder if Trump and his acolytes have thought of that.

I wrote back in November that if all of the Anglosphere had been involved in the US Election, we'd have elected Lady Protector Kamala by quite a large margin of Electoral Votes!

She wouldn't have been the candidate.

Mexicanpete

williamglenn said:

Malmesbury said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

There's no lumpen "working class" but there is a crisis of inequality. Addressing this is the only way to reduce the number of people struggling in this relatively wealthy country of ours. Labour for all their flaws are the best bet on this. It's why I vote for them and why I'm a member.

This suggests that if there is a crisis, it's that the top 1% and 10% are doing better at the expense of the next 40%, but the bottom half have not seen any erosion in their share of income.

Note that, historically, revolutions of various kinds don’t come from the bottom.

The struggling portion of the middle, on the other hand…

Look at what people are spending money on.

Something the cliche about the "left behind" misses is that it's really the people in the middle who have been squeezed down by globalisation.

F*** yes! As one of the squeezed middle I can no longer afford a new BMW, so I'll have to make do with the one I have got for my daily journey to the soup kitchen.

Mexicanpete

Malmesbury said:

Mexicanpete said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

There's no lumpen "working class" but there is a crisis of inequality. Addressing this is the only way to reduce the number of people struggling in this relatively wealthy country of ours. Labour for all their flaws are the best bet on this. It's why I vote for them and why I'm a member.

I despise the notions of "upper, middle and working classes". We are all working class if we have to go out to make a living. I believe that Frost Report sketch killed the absurdity of the historic class system, and then it was revived by post 2010 Tories.

Between Canada meekly becoming the 51st state and the Tories being claimed to have created class war - it seems clear that everyone is loosing their minds.

Edit: your definition of the working class suggests that pensioners on the state pension are Upper Class. Interesting.

Those who don't work are not of the "working class". Perhaps they are of the "retired class".

Edit: Remember I don't agree to your absurd and outdated class norms. I am comfortable with "retired class".

Malmesbury

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Malmesbury said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

There's no lumpen "working class" but there is a crisis of inequality. Addressing this is the only way to reduce the number of people struggling in this relatively wealthy country of ours. Labour for all their flaws are the best bet on this. It's why I vote for them and why I'm a member.

This suggests that if there is a crisis, it's that the top 1% and 10% are doing better at the expense of the next 40%, but the bottom half have not seen any erosion in their share of income.

Note that, historically, revolutions of various kinds don’t come from the bottom.

The struggling portion of the middle, on the other hand…

Look at what people are spending money on.

Something the cliche about the "left behind" misses is that it's really the people in the middle who have been squeezed down by globalisation.

F*** yes! As one of the squeezed middle I can no longer afford a new BMW, so I'll have to make do with the one I have got for my daily journey to the soup kitchen.

I think you’ll find plenty of people who were sold the University Dream and now find themselves working for minimum wage plus a tiny bit. They have the fun of paying the rent from that.

Though I suppose you’ll tell us they could easily afford a BMW. If they cut back on the avocados from whole foods and the coffees from the hipster cafe on the corner.

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

malcolmg

Malmesbury said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Malmesbury said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

There's no lumpen "working class" but there is a crisis of inequality. Addressing this is the only way to reduce the number of people struggling in this relatively wealthy country of ours. Labour for all their flaws are the best bet on this. It's why I vote for them and why I'm a member.

This suggests that if there is a crisis, it's that the top 1% and 10% are doing better at the expense of the next 40%, but the bottom half have not seen any erosion in their share of income.

Note that, historically, revolutions of various kinds don’t come from the bottom.

The struggling portion of the middle, on the other hand…

Look at what people are spending money on.

Something the cliche about the "left behind" misses is that it's really the people in the middle who have been squeezed down by globalisation.

F*** yes! As one of the squeezed middle I can no longer afford a new BMW, so I'll have to make do with the one I have got for my daily journey to the soup kitchen.

I think you’ll find plenty of people who were sold the University Dream and now find themselves working for minimum wage plus a tiny bit. They have the fun of paying the rent from that.

Though I suppose you’ll tell us they could easily afford a BMW. If they cut back on the avocados from whole foods and the coffees from the hipster cafe on the corner.

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Just shows they were stupid in first place, if they had brains to be plumber, joiner , plasterer, etc they would be coining it in. He who laughs last laughs loudest.

RandallFlagg

I can't see how having two right-wing parties as government and opposition would be sustainable. There are millions of voters who'd want to vote for a centre-left party and I'm not sure that even if the Tories were led Rory Stewart or David Gauke it would be enough for them. There are things I want the state to do that neither Rory or Gauke would.
Yes, Reform might take a bunch of Labour redwall seats, but you'd actually need another centre-left party to come to the fore for Labour to be replaced. Either that, or maybe have Labour and the Lib Dems merge.

malcolmg

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Malmesbury said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

There's no lumpen "working class" but there is a crisis of inequality. Addressing this is the only way to reduce the number of people struggling in this relatively wealthy country of ours. Labour for all their flaws are the best bet on this. It's why I vote for them and why I'm a member.

This suggests that if there is a crisis, it's that the top 1% and 10% are doing better at the expense of the next 40%, but the bottom half have not seen any erosion in their share of income.

Note that, historically, revolutions of various kinds don’t come from the bottom.

The struggling portion of the middle, on the other hand…

Look at what people are spending money on.

Something the cliche about the "left behind" misses is that it's really the people in the middle who have been squeezed down by globalisation.

F*** yes! As one of the squeezed middle I can no longer afford a new BMW, so I'll have to make do with the one I have got for my daily journey to the soup kitchen.

Better value buying one at one or two years old in any event.

CharlieShark

Malmesbury said:

CharlieShark said:

If a Conservative former MP, government minister, ex-whips, who had been posting porn for years, had been arrested on suspicion of engaging in sexual communication with a child, would the BBC have covered this front and central?

For some reason, they don't believe it is newsworthy enough on their front page of approx. 80 items. Nor is it in their political section.

His suspension from the Labour party in the summer was kept under wraps. Why? I can see news reports from June 24, are they connected?

I also see that someone who took a screenshot of one of his posts, to highlight what was happening, has been told that they could be charged under 2003 Communications Act, but not the former MP who sent it.

This guy has friends in government, very good close friends. He is followed on twitter by the entire Labour party, all the way up. He's even followed by the CPS.

The fall out from this could be huge. It's appears that this is not a sudden event.

Even in the darkness, I can find a joke..

Has anyone looked at who the CPS “follows”?

For some reason, I imagine the Piranha Brothers are on the list.

If it helps. The CPS only follow 1,656 people on twitter. Yet this man is one of them. Their timeline would have had a lot of his posts on it.

Malmesbury

Mexicanpete said:

Malmesbury said:

Mexicanpete said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

There's no lumpen "working class" but there is a crisis of inequality. Addressing this is the only way to reduce the number of people struggling in this relatively wealthy country of ours. Labour for all their flaws are the best bet on this. It's why I vote for them and why I'm a member.

I despise the notions of "upper, middle and working classes". We are all working class if we have to go out to make a living. I believe that Frost Report sketch killed the absurdity of the historic class system, and then it was revived by post 2010 Tories.

Between Canada meekly becoming the 51st state and the Tories being claimed to have created class war - it seems clear that everyone is loosing their minds.

Edit: your definition of the working class suggests that pensioners on the state pension are Upper Class. Interesting.

Those who don't work are not of the "working class". Perhaps they are of the "retired class".

Edit: Remember I don't agree to your absurd and outdated class norms. I am comfortable with "retired class".

I don’t recall inventing class definitions.

In general they remind me of 19th century scientists trying to squeeze new found fossils into their pet taxonomy.

malcolmg

TimS said:

Leon said:

Greetings from your war-torn future, and the urban trenches of Rangoon

All quite odd here. Lots of wartime theatre, barbed wire, soldiers, guns - but an absence of drama. Blackouts common. Lots of little diesel generators - reminds me of Ukraine. Definite sense the regime doesn't want tourists, everything is made as hard as possible, you can't hire cars, book trains, and there are vanishingly few internal flights, and those that do exist seem to fly at 5am

Internet is throttled everywhere. Lots of sites barred. eSims don't work. The generals have a boot on the neck of the World Wide Web

Good curries and some nice pastries, however

On balance, recommend for a trip or not?

guaranteed shithole run by arseholes

Mexicanpete

Malmesbury said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Malmesbury said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

There's no lumpen "working class" but there is a crisis of inequality. Addressing this is the only way to reduce the number of people struggling in this relatively wealthy country of ours. Labour for all their flaws are the best bet on this. It's why I vote for them and why I'm a member.

This suggests that if there is a crisis, it's that the top 1% and 10% are doing better at the expense of the next 40%, but the bottom half have not seen any erosion in their share of income.

Note that, historically, revolutions of various kinds don’t come from the bottom.

The struggling portion of the middle, on the other hand…

Look at what people are spending money on.

Something the cliche about the "left behind" misses is that it's really the people in the middle who have been squeezed down by globalisation.

F*** yes! As one of the squeezed middle I can no longer afford a new BMW, so I'll have to make do with the one I have got for my daily journey to the soup kitchen.

I think you’ll find plenty of people who were sold the University Dream and now find themselves working for minimum wage plus a tiny bit. They have the fun of paying the rent from that.

Though I suppose you’ll tell us they could easily afford a BMW. If they cut back on the avocados from whole foods and the coffees from the hipster cafe on the corner.

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

There's always the Bank of Mum and Dad or their inheritance. Just ask HY.

Why are you Tories so concerned with the debt of my children having gone to university? They should have gone down the coal mines like their Great Grandfathers before them, and known their place. A top university education should be for the elite of society and it should be free! Shouldn't it.

What about those who are earning pitiful zero hours wages and living in Rachmanesque accommodation? Do you not have a heart for them?

Malmesbury

malcolmg said:

Malmesbury said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Malmesbury said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

There's no lumpen "working class" but there is a crisis of inequality. Addressing this is the only way to reduce the number of people struggling in this relatively wealthy country of ours. Labour for all their flaws are the best bet on this. It's why I vote for them and why I'm a member.

This suggests that if there is a crisis, it's that the top 1% and 10% are doing better at the expense of the next 40%, but the bottom half have not seen any erosion in their share of income.

Note that, historically, revolutions of various kinds don’t come from the bottom.

The struggling portion of the middle, on the other hand…

Look at what people are spending money on.

Something the cliche about the "left behind" misses is that it's really the people in the middle who have been squeezed down by globalisation.

F*** yes! As one of the squeezed middle I can no longer afford a new BMW, so I'll have to make do with the one I have got for my daily journey to the soup kitchen.

I think you’ll find plenty of people who were sold the University Dream and now find themselves working for minimum wage plus a tiny bit. They have the fun of paying the rent from that.

Though I suppose you’ll tell us they could easily afford a BMW. If they cut back on the avocados from whole foods and the coffees from the hipster cafe on the corner.

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Just shows they were stupid in first place, if they had brains to be plumber, joiner , plasterer, etc they would be coining it in. He who laughs last laughs loudest.

They were told not to, by everyone in authority, from school onwards.

Ironically, just as the former snobberies and limitations on pay for the “manual” trades ended.

A plumber can earn £60k, now.

malcolmg

Mexicanpete said:

TimS said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

You offer Reform ( with evidence) and the Tories ( without evidence) as the big two parties after the imminent death of Labour.

Now you may be correct that Labour 's fate is sealed and they are finished after an unbroken 28 years of mismanaging the economy, but you seem to ignore who fills that vacuum, assuming it is Reform and the Conservatives.

With a moribund Labour Party I won't be voting for Farage or an even more extreme Jenrick. It might be the LDs or it might be a resurrected "Change UK". I doubt I am alone.

I'm arguing that the Tories themselves will become the equivalent of a resurrected Change UK. Perhaps Anna Soubry will even rejoin them.

They will be the default choice for people who don't want Reform and don't want to waste their votes.

Is that likely when Badenoch, Jenrick and Braverman are ramping up the racist themes with more mainstream Tories like Cleverly hanging on their coat tails? Or are you assuming all the whack-jobs leave for Reform?That being so and the Conservative brand in the toilet why even keep the name? Certainly one wouldn't use it without a qualifying prefix like, New, Democratic, Liberal, One Nation, or Nice (Not Nasty).

Presumably those of us - that small lingering minority of, currently, 50% of the electorate - too stupid and behind the times to fall in with the new anti-woke duopoly will somehow be disenfranchised so that our stupid views don’t get an airing.

A bit tricky when neither of the duopoly are in power and the next general election will be after Trump has completed his second term. But no doubt it’s being worked on as we speak.

I do find William's posts fascinating. I tend to scroll past most of the right wing hardliners and the "Reeves is shit" posters, but there is often some compelling other worldly reasoning for his wild narratives.

Feck the woke twats , their 2 seconds in the sun is over, bunch of wishy washy pillocks

BartholomewRoberts

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

For all the justified criticism of Labour, particularly during the Corbyn era and Blair's international expansionism wars, I am not sure that is the most compelling claim, unless you bring in the notion that othering asylum seekers, benefit claimants and specific racial and religious groups is the desire of working Britains.

Is it in the interests of working class communities to have their local hotel filled with male asylum seekers?

What difference does it make to the community?

malcolmg

Gallowgate said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

The stark difference in the responses of Conservative and Reform voters in those polls tells you much about the difference in who supports each.

That’s why they embody the real political divide in British society. Labour will become an increasingly marginal relic of the 20th century.

Nonsense on stilts. The rich poor divide is only going to rise in salience as a political issue which means a party of the left will remain prominent. That doesn't have to be Labour but it's most likely to be. There's no socialist Farage on the horizon and when there is they are more likely to emerge from within Labour than from another party or a new party.

Labour can't represent the interests the working class because they reject the idea that they have any interests.

For all the justified criticism of Labour, particularly during the Corbyn era and Blair's international expansionism wars, I am not sure that is the most compelling claim, unless you bring in the notion that othering asylum seekers, benefit claimants and specific racial and religious groups is the desire of working Britains.

Is it in the interests of working class communities to have their local hotel filled with male asylum seekers?

That’s been a Tory policy for the last 14 years if I recall

being super boosted by labourtories now as well, look out The Ritz