Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Puzzled rather than concerned.
Looking at the latest YouGov poll, Labour has lost 30% of its GE vote. 10% to LD, 8% to Ref, 5% to Green and 5% to Con (Sub Sample 650) So more to LD than Reform, but small sample.
LDs have also lost 8% of its GE vote back to Labour. Presumably Labour LD tactical voters moving back to Labour in answering the poll.
Lib Dem support before the election was so correlated with Labour support that for the party to be flat is not too bad.
Performance at the next election will be all about how well or badly the Tories perform. If they bounce back then the Lib Dems lose seats even if they gain share. But if Reform surges at Tory expense then that’s much better news for LD. It also helps them to self-define as the opposite to Reform.
I think the next election will be between the populists (Tory, Reform) and Progressives (Lab, LD, Green). Currently they are 50/50 in the polls.
Under FPTP, it will turn on how tactically each can optimise seats. I think the Progressives have shown how they can optimise seats without any formal pacts. The question is can the Populists manage this too?
The next election will be between various populist parties - Lab, Con, Reform LD, Green, fringe Inds and Nats.
The only difference is that they will all be aiming their own brand of populism at differing voter groups.
By Populist I mean socially conservative, anti immigrant, little Englanders, spend money on us, short term prospective. By Progressive I mean socially liberal, internationally minded, long term prospective.
Obviously all parties want to be popular. Maybe we need a better word for Populist.
So how does the Lib-Dem waspi and nimby pandering fit into the 'socially liberal, internationally minded, long term perspective' ?
People in Myanmar are absolutely tiny. Must be decades of under-nourishment. It’s quite striking
Shades of the First World War, when officers would be a foot taller than under-nourished enlisted men, as seen in the BBC documentary series, Blackadder.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Wait until they see what JohnO and myself spend on our PB Tory lunches.
Seeing as you don’t drink alcohol I find it hard to believe you spend more than £150 a head, and that would be really hard almost anywhere but insane seafood places maybe. Food simply isn’t THAT expensive, unless you’re going to a top 20 world class restaurant for a tasting menu
Three course meal works out at around £150 a head from the a la carte menu based on what I ordered last time.
£35 starter
£50 main
£20 dessert
Add in non alcoholic drinks and 15% service charge
People in Myanmar are absolutely tiny. Must be decades of under-nourishment. It’s quite striking
Shades of the First World War, when officers would be a foot taller than under-nourished enlisted men, as seen in the BBC documentary series, Blackadder.
Just checked the cast: Rowan Atkinson is 70; Tony Robinson is 78. Blackadder comes from the 1980s!
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
NOTA gets 44%, is that a record and more worthy of the headline?
It has been higher in the past, notably in the Johnson/Corbyn era.
These polling figures are odd of course, but predictable. What remains odd is that in the political world there is a lack of a sense of the next tier of stellar leadership at different places on the greasy pole. Labour have one or two prominent figures but no more than that. The Tories have none at all, not even a few vague names. The LDs have none. And - this could be important - Reform have none. The SNP have Kate Forbes. Weird; and a bit troubling.
Welcome to the age of the SpAd.
Have any of our party leaders ever worked as a Spad?
Indeed maybe that's the problem, insufficient study of policy development.
Spadification is more of a general name for the blandification and narrowing of the political class now, rather than a direct descriptor as its a holdover from around the Cameron/Ed M era
Neither current leader may fit that particular mould, but theres a lot fewer 'normal' MPs than existed historically nonetheless.
Look at the biographies of the new LibDem intake if you want to see some MPs with diverse real world experience.
Time they started speaking up then
Here is James MacCleary, LD spokesman on Europe, introducing the 1st Reading of the motion on Youth Mobility in Europe, which has been offered by the EU and rejected by Starmer. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=610395554706022
Met McCleary a few times in Brussels. He did a lot of hard graft in Europe for the LD's before he got a shot at a seat. He knows his way around the EU.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
People in Myanmar are absolutely tiny. Must be decades of under-nourishment. It’s quite striking
Shades of the First World War, when officers would be a foot taller than under-nourished enlisted men, as seen in the BBC documentary series, Blackadder.
People in Myanmar are absolutely tiny. Must be decades of under-nourishment. It’s quite striking
Shades of the First World War, when officers would be a foot taller than under-nourished enlisted men, as seen in the BBC documentary series, Blackadder.
I’ve just checked. I’m not imagining it, they are the “20th shortest nation in the world” and the women are particularly tiny - average height just five foot zero inches. You regularly see women around 4 foot 6 or so. Minuscule
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Puzzled rather than concerned.
Looking at the latest YouGov poll, Labour has lost 30% of its GE vote. 10% to LD, 8% to Ref, 5% to Green and 5% to Con (Sub Sample 650) So more to LD than Reform, but small sample.
LDs have also lost 8% of its GE vote back to Labour. Presumably Labour LD tactical voters moving back to Labour in answering the poll.
Lib Dem support before the election was so correlated with Labour support that for the party to be flat is not too bad.
Performance at the next election will be all about how well or badly the Tories perform. If they bounce back then the Lib Dems lose seats even if they gain share. But if Reform surges at Tory expense then that’s much better news for LD. It also helps them to self-define as the opposite to Reform.
I think the next election will be between the populists (Tory, Reform) and Progressives (Lab, LD, Green). Currently they are 50/50 in the polls.
Under FPTP, it will turn on how tactically each can optimise seats. I think the Progressives have shown how they can optimise seats without any formal pacts. The question is can the Populists manage this too?
The next election will be between various populist parties - Lab, Con, Reform LD, Green, fringe Inds and Nats.
The only difference is that they will all be aiming their own brand of populism at differing voter groups.
By Populist I mean socially conservative, anti immigrant, little Englanders, spend money on us, short term prospective. By Progressive I mean socially liberal, internationally minded, long term prospective.
Obviously all parties want to be popular. Maybe we need a better word for Populist.
Surely populist just means claiming to (uniquely) embody "the people". This makes no sense when some of "the people" disagree with you, so it has to have accompanied by a somewhat exclusionary definition of "people", that's why populist parties are often ethno-nationalist etc, so the "people" who don't agree aren't the "real people" (of Britain or whatever).
Many politicians are at least a bit populist - saying after winning an election things like "the people of Britain have spoken." I'd prefer it if they said "enough people voted for us in the right places for us to get a majority, which gives us the opportunity to form a government and attempt to implement our programme, while doing our best to govern for the whole country and never forgetting that a majority of people voted for other parties." But I guess it's a bit of a mouthful.
Wait until they see what JohnO and myself spend on our PB Tory lunches.
Seeing as you don’t drink alcohol I find it hard to believe you spend more than £150 a head, and that would be really hard almost anywhere but insane seafood places maybe. Food simply isn’t THAT expensive, unless you’re going to a top 20 world class restaurant for a tasting menu
Three course meal works out at around £150 a head from the a la carte menu based on what I ordered last time.
£35 starter
£50 main
£20 dessert
Add in non alcoholic drinks and 15% service charge
£150 is a hefty chunk of money, but not overly impressive. I had a Xmas lunch at Kaspar’s in the Savoy which easily went into four figures - 10 years ago
This was for 2 people. We were both exceptionally drunk at the end, at which point my very loaded friend announced HE was going to cover it all, and we ran out of the Savoy and climbed in his armour-plated, chauffeured Bentley and drove the 300 yards to the Ivy Club, where he put his card behind the bar
THAT is a proper lunch, and puts Kemi’s sixpenny sirloin into proper context
How much of your lunch was for the food and how much for the setting and how much for the pretension.
The £42 fish and chips at Claridges seems about equal amounts for food, setting and pretension.
50% pretension, 40% vintage champagne, 8% setting (it is very pretty and striking) and 2% food, which was decidedly mediocre
That’s the weird thing with these places that are INSANELY expensive - nearly always the food is shite, or Meh at best. The restaurant knows that people are only coming in to pose and do instagram and boast about how much they’ve spent, on Tiktok, so they focus on decor, bling and faff, and don’t bother with the cooking
When I go to these places (I never go myself on my own shilling, but I am taken to them in my job) I always order the simplest seafood - oysters and caviar and Dover sole etc. Because good oysters are good oysters, they can’t fuck it up, unless they are literally ordering in shit oysters (unlikely, as they would poison people)
I recall getting some random youtube videos of a supposed marketing expert (maybe he even is one, who knows) talking about eating experience and that especially back in the day restaurants catering to tourists in particular had very little incentive to make sure they were really good, because 90% of the customers will be there once and never come back anyway, so you're busting a gut for no real reason. And if you got food poisoning even most would never know (not that anyone sets out to serve such food).
Whereas McDonalds will not provide you with a really excellent burger, but you know if you walk into one anywhere in the world you will get exactly the same as anywhere, it will be ok, and it won't make you sick - it may not be as good as a better place (I love it though), but it also won't be as bad as some.
I'm not even opposed to the idea that you pay a premium for the experience to some extent however.
It’s why the food in Venice is some of the worst in the world (unless you stay at an incredibly high end hotel like the Cipriani or the Gritti, when it will be genuinely excellent, but hideously pricey). They have literally zero incentive to make even passable food, as Venice gets 60 trillion tourists a day, 96% of whom will never return. Why waste good ingredients and serious preparation on them? Just cream the maximum profit (to help pay your very hefty rent)
You need to go to the bits of Venice where Venetians live. The food there is excellent but you need an Italian speaker in your group.
Finding out where the waiters ate (after a first night paying over the odds for crap), was my wife’s very good policy.
People in Myanmar are absolutely tiny. Must be decades of under-nourishment. It’s quite striking
Shades of the First World War, when officers would be a foot taller than under-nourished enlisted men, as seen in the BBC documentary series, Blackadder.
Was that also a factor in their higher casualty rate, along with leading from the front in suicidal charges?
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
People in Myanmar are absolutely tiny. Must be decades of under-nourishment. It’s quite striking
Shades of the First World War, when officers would be a foot taller than under-nourished enlisted men, as seen in the BBC documentary series, Blackadder.
I’ve just checked. I’m not imagining it, they are the “20th shortest nation in the world” and the women are particularly tiny - average height just five foot zero inches. You regularly see women around 4 foot 6 or so. Minuscule
Albania used to be like that, and even now there is a striking difference between them and the very tall Montenegrins just next door. Equally the gap in hight between those who endured the Hoxha dictatorship and their children is also increasingly marked. Likewise North and South Korea.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
It was pretty bad BUT Thatcher had a plan - however brutal - and she was charismatic and clever and determined and politically gifted, and she was surrounded by some serious talent
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
Worse. People were scratching their heads. And they were scared. It looked like a doom loop.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Puzzled rather than concerned.
Looking at the latest YouGov poll, Labour has lost 30% of its GE vote. 10% to LD, 8% to Ref, 5% to Green and 5% to Con (Sub Sample 650) So more to LD than Reform, but small sample.
LDs have also lost 8% of its GE vote back to Labour. Presumably Labour LD tactical voters moving back to Labour in answering the poll.
Lib Dem support before the election was so correlated with Labour support that for the party to be flat is not too bad.
Performance at the next election will be all about how well or badly the Tories perform. If they bounce back then the Lib Dems lose seats even if they gain share. But if Reform surges at Tory expense then that’s much better news for LD. It also helps them to self-define as the opposite to Reform.
I think the next election will be between the populists (Tory, Reform) and Progressives (Lab, LD, Green). Currently they are 50/50 in the polls.
Under FPTP, it will turn on how tactically each can optimise seats. I think the Progressives have shown how they can optimise seats without any formal pacts. The question is can the Populists manage this too?
The next election will be between various populist parties - Lab, Con, Reform LD, Green, fringe Inds and Nats.
The only difference is that they will all be aiming their own brand of populism at differing voter groups.
By Populist I mean socially conservative, anti immigrant, little Englanders, spend money on us, short term prospective. By Progressive I mean socially liberal, internationally minded, long term prospective.
Obviously all parties want to be popular. Maybe we need a better word for Populist.
As a semi-serious question, and a giggle, do any of our local correspondents know whether La Oakeshott will be integrating into the Muslim culture of the Muslim country she has immigrated to for (she says) a period of years 'as the best place to educate my children' * - as her party demands of people who immigrate here?
* TBF I think this is standard Oakeshott attention-seeking BS.
Do maps in Gulf schools still have Israel inked out?
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
It was pretty bad BUT Thatcher had a plan - however brutal - and she was charismatic and clever and determined and politically gifted, and she was surrounded by some serious talent
Oh well
That's retro-fitting. It didn't look like that at the time. The consensus was rigid, out of her depth, misguided, heading for the rocks, one term unless replaced.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
Worse. People were scratching their heads. And they were scared. It looked like a doom loop.
You mean like the farmers today, or the unheated pensioners, or business owners about to sack their staff because they cant afford to employ them ?
AS @Leon says at least Thatcher had a plan, catastrrophe Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
People in Myanmar are absolutely tiny. Must be decades of under-nourishment. It’s quite striking
Shades of the First World War, when officers would be a foot taller than under-nourished enlisted men, as seen in the BBC documentary series, Blackadder.
I’ve just checked. I’m not imagining it, they are the “20th shortest nation in the world” and the women are particularly tiny - average height just five foot zero inches. You regularly see women around 4 foot 6 or so. Minuscule
Albania used to be like that, and even now there is a striking difference between them and the very tall Montenegrins just next door. Equally the gap in hight between those who endured the Hoxha dictatorship and their children is also increasingly marked. Likewise North and South Korea.
I did an Interrail holiday in 1981. We visited Sicily and were walking around looking down on the tops of people's heads. A few days later we were craning our necks looking up at Austrians.
'A NEW poll has found that Scots are split on the idea of a potential SNP-Labour coalition.
The two parties entering into an agreement after the 2026 Holyrood election was the most favoured option of Scots when asked about potential deals.
However, a majority still opposed the coalition between the pro-independence and unionist party.'
The Scottish Conservatives, Reform and Alba would certainly be the biggest beneficiaries of a deal between the SNP and Scottish Labour to form the next Scottish government
Alba will be finished by the next Scottish election, and I say that as someone who voted Alba during the later Sturgeon / Yousaf years, when the SNP were in thrall to the Greens.
'A NEW poll has found that Scots are split on the idea of a potential SNP-Labour coalition.
The two parties entering into an agreement after the 2026 Holyrood election was the most favoured option of Scots when asked about potential deals.
However, a majority still opposed the coalition between the pro-independence and unionist party.'
I think a Labour/SNP coalition is almost inevitable. I will be very surprised if the numbers allow a stable government any other way. A Unionist coalition of Labour Tories and Lib Dems might be possible but I suspect that many Labour supporters would far rather get in bed with the SNP than the Tories.
The question that is open is which of the 2 will be the largest and thus lead the Coalition? Until the UK election this looked a no brainer with Labour very much the favourites but the unpopularity of the Starmer government risks this being reversed.
Unless Labour turn things round UK wide, the SNP will be much the largest party. I would like to see the SNP running Holyrood with the support of the Lib Dems, just to see Sarwar and Harvie’s petted lips.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
People in Myanmar are absolutely tiny. Must be decades of under-nourishment. It’s quite striking
Shades of the First World War, when officers would be a foot taller than under-nourished enlisted men, as seen in the BBC documentary series, Blackadder.
Was that also a factor in their higher casualty rate, along with leading from the front in suicidal charges?
Generals in the early stages of the war would visit the front lines in full dress uniform and be picked off by snipers.
Subalterns (like Lieutenant George) straight out of university or even public school had (obviously) no military experience and would lead from the front towards German machine guns. Early on, their life expectancy was around six weeks.
The old sweats like Captain Blackadder had experienced various colonial wars and could be unlucky but rarely stupid.
The one thing Blackadder missed (iirc and it was a long time ago) was that troops would be rotated in and out of the front lines. They weren't there for weeks or even days on end. From France, it was even possible to return to England during leave.
Betty Brown didn’t celebrate her 92nd birthday on Monday like a typical nonagenarian.
Instead, the Glaswegian grandmother blew out the candles on her pink birthday cake in the green room of the BBC studios after appearing on Newsnight, and the next morning met the post office minister in Whitehall.
“My week has been exciting, unbelievable, unexpected — and just wonderful,” says Brown, who in the past year has become one of the key voices in the sub-postmasters’ campaign for justice. Beaming, she warms her hands on a cup of tea in the kitchen of her son Alastair’s farmhouse in Co Durham while her two grandsons potter around.
After decades feeling ashamed of having lost everything when she handed back the keys to her beloved post office in the northeast of England, Brown is now in the spotlight. As the oldest member of the Justice for Sub-postmasters Alliance, founded by Sir Alan Bates, she is demanding justice — and payouts — for wronged sub-postmasters.
A year after the Post Office scandal came to prominence, thanks to the hit ITV series Mr Bates vs The Post Office, victims are still waiting for their claims to be settled. Sub-postmasters lost thousands of pounds, their jobs and in some cases their homes when the company’s Horizon computer system, rolled out in branches in the early 2000s, proved defective.
Now Brown and hundreds of other sub-postmasters are trapped in an Kafka-esque nightmare. A team of government-funded independent psychologists, forensic accountants and lawyers have been deployed to assess individuals and come up with a “financial redress” figure for them to claim compensation. Yet application forms filled with legal jargon can be filled out only by lawyers. The Department for Business and Trade aims to provide an offer in 40 working days. “The victims are being re-victimised,” says Brown.
At the same time claims are being contested by an “independent panel” in the Department for Business and Trade. Many sub-postmasters, after spending hours filling out forms, have been offered as little as 10 per cent of their total claim amounts. Brown has been offered 29 per cent. Bates, the leader of a group of sub-postmasters who 2019 won a High Court Group Litigation Order (GLO) case against the Post Office, was initially offered 16 per cent of his claim. His second offer was upped to about 30 per cent. He has still not accepted and has forwarded his claim to be reviewed again by Sir Ross Cranston.
“It’s disgusting,” says Brown. “I had nothing to do with the amount that’s on that claim because it’s independently assessed,” she says.
Many of the group have been left feeling as if they are being tested again — and are stuck in a deadlock, where the government is refusing to pay out. And Brown is not getting any younger.
If Starmer paid the sub postmasters full compensation now, it would do more than any other act to restore his popularity.
The WASPI crowd would go bananas if money was found for that (even considering their call for 'compensation' is a different level entirely).
Let them.
They’ve lost.
A hardcore will never give up but they have, to all intents and purposes, lost and rightly wont get a penny.
Will I get compensation as I’ve no recollection of a letter telling me my pension age has gone up twice, from 65 to 66 to 67 ? Of course not and neither should I
Post Office scandal has real victims. WASPI lot are entitled boomers.
You had to have been living on Mars not to know that pension ages were changing. These people are just the perfect illustration of the decline in principles, grifters looking for something for nothing. As you say lots of people lost , both my wife and I got stiffed , not nice but I knew it was coming for many years.
You are a smart chap who follows politics from day to day. Of course you knew about pensions. But what about the 30 per cent of our countrymen and women who cannot name the Leader of the Opposition?
Almost everybody on here is writing Kemi Bad off. But she's only been in the job for three months.
You're all assuming she's incapable of change.
I doubt more than 10% know who she is.
You see, that is why I doubt the PB narrative that Waspi women *must* have known about pension changes. We on PB forget how odd we are in following politics day-to-day, even actively campaigning for one party or another. Most people are barely conscious of politics outside of elections.
Awareness of Kemi will not be as low as 10 per cent, that is hyperbole, but around 60 per cent would not surprise me, even with the added publicity for a first Black LotO.
And just this morning, I had to look up my own pension age – I knew it had been increased but had forgotten to what. So yes, I can easily believe the Waspi women were unpleasantly surprised. That is not to say they deserve compensation but a measure of sympathy is not amiss.
"Awareness of Kemi will not be as low as 10 per cent, that is hyperbole, but around 60 per cent would not surprise me"
Much nearer to 10 than 60. Watch "Pointless" to find out how low recognition of "public" figures can be.
Kemi has done nothing to register with Joe Public other than become Leader of the Opposition.
If the Pointless finalists know anything about politics or railways, and the topic comes up, they are almost guaranteed to win the jackpot.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
The answer is a mix of Bukele, Milei and the Danish Social Democrats
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
What nonsense there are loads of ideas out there .t's just none of them are Labour's
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
What nonsense there are loads of ideas out there .t's just none of them are Labour's
It’s incredibly telling that the BEST defence PB lefties can offer, in support of Labour, is “yeah they’re clueless idiots but so is everyone else so let’s just wait”
Wait for what? David “Mastermind” Lammy to have a brilliant idea? Rachel from Accounts to grow an actual brain?
'A NEW poll has found that Scots are split on the idea of a potential SNP-Labour coalition.
The two parties entering into an agreement after the 2026 Holyrood election was the most favoured option of Scots when asked about potential deals.
However, a majority still opposed the coalition between the pro-independence and unionist party.'
The Scottish Conservatives, Reform and Alba would certainly be the biggest beneficiaries of a deal between the SNP and Scottish Labour to form the next Scottish government
Alba will be finished by the next Scottish election, and I say that as someone who voted Alba during the later Sturgeon / Yousaf years, when the SNP were in thrall to the Greens.
Alba might as well jack it in now. The original idea was right but the execution was wrong.
They couldn't get any traction with Salmond and a supposed cohort of still-want-indy but sick-of-SNP people. Now sadly there's no Salmond and an indy movement withered like a deflated balloon.
Only trouble is going back to the SNP is a tacit acceptance that independence is a great idea on paper but not something that is likely to be achieved any time soon.
People in Myanmar are absolutely tiny. Must be decades of under-nourishment. It’s quite striking
Shades of the First World War, when officers would be a foot taller than under-nourished enlisted men, as seen in the BBC documentary series, Blackadder.
Was that also a factor in their higher casualty rate, along with leading from the front in suicidal charges?
Generals in the early stages of the war would visit the front lines in full dress uniform and be picked off by snipers.
Subalterns (like Lieutenant George) straight out of university or even public school had (obviously) no military experience and would lead from the front towards German machine guns. Early on, their life expectancy was around six weeks.
The old sweats like Captain Blackadder had experienced various colonial wars and could be unlucky but rarely stupid.
The one thing Blackadder missed (iirc and it was a long time ago) was that troops would be rotated in and out of the front lines. They weren't there for weeks or even days on end. From France, it was even possible to return to England during leave.
Troops were also rotated off the front line to support and to rear areas for training. IIRC there was a systematic rotation of the unit through leave, front, middle and rear - I forget the order.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
What nonsense there are loads of ideas out there .t's just none of them are Labour's
There is a vast literature on the ideas, experiments and comedies of trying to grow an economy, from far left politics to far right. Oceans of ink and not a little blood spilt.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
What nonsense there are loads of ideas out there .t's just none of them are Labour's
It’s incredibly telling that the BEST defence PB lefties can offer, in support of Labour, is “yeah they’re clueless idiots but so is everyone else so let’s just wait”
Wait for what? David “Mastermind” Lammy to have a brilliant idea? Rachel from Accounts to grow an actual brain?
lol. And this is after six months.
It's sad to think that Lammy Reeves Cooper Philipson Miliband are the BEST Labour can offer.
All of them are are clueless on what they should do and Starmer has no leadership skills.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
Worse. People were scratching their heads. And they were scared. It looked like a doom loop.
You mean like the farmers today, or the unheated pensioners, or business owners about to sack their staff because they cant afford to employ them ?
AS @Leon says at least Thatcher had a plan, catastrrophe Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
What, so Mrs Thatcher actually intended to destroy our industrial base, our sense of community, our housing system and concentrate wealth and opportunity in the South East of England?
Oh well that's alright then. So long as there was a plan.
People in Myanmar are absolutely tiny. Must be decades of under-nourishment. It’s quite striking
Shades of the First World War, when officers would be a foot taller than under-nourished enlisted men, as seen in the BBC documentary series, Blackadder.
I’ve just checked. I’m not imagining it, they are the “20th shortest nation in the world” and the women are particularly tiny - average height just five foot zero inches. You regularly see women around 4 foot 6 or so. Minuscule
Albania used to be like that, and even now there is a striking difference between them and the very tall Montenegrins just next door. Equally the gap in hight between those who endured the Hoxha dictatorship and their children is also increasingly marked. Likewise North and South Korea.
I did an Interrail holiday in 1981. We visited Sicily and were walking around looking down on the tops of people's heads. A few days later we were craning our necks looking up at Austrians.
Remember the Frost Report sketch on the class system with John Cleese, Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett?
People in Myanmar are absolutely tiny. Must be decades of under-nourishment. It’s quite striking
Shades of the First World War, when officers would be a foot taller than under-nourished enlisted men, as seen in the BBC documentary series, Blackadder.
Was that also a factor in their higher casualty rate, along with leading from the front in suicidal charges?
Generals in the early stages of the war would visit the front lines in full dress uniform and be picked off by snipers.
Subalterns (like Lieutenant George) straight out of university or even public school had (obviously) no military experience and would lead from the front towards German machine guns. Early on, their life expectancy was around six weeks.
The old sweats like Captain Blackadder had experienced various colonial wars and could be unlucky but rarely stupid.
The one thing Blackadder missed (iirc and it was a long time ago) was that troops would be rotated in and out of the front lines. They weren't there for weeks or even days on end. From France, it was even possible to return to England during leave.
Troops were also rotated off the front line to support and to rear areas for training. IIRC there was a systematic rotation of the unit through leave, front, middle and rear - I forget the order.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
What nonsense there are loads of ideas out there .t's just none of them are Labour's
There is a vast literature on the ideas, experiments and comedies of trying to grow an economy, from far left politics to far right. Oceans of ink and not a little blood spilt.
The recent budget contained none of these.
Indeed. Amidst the partisan banter on here I have been genuinely shocked by the lack of ideas from Labour
It’s stupefying. They’ve been in Opposition 14 years. Starmer has been LOTO for ages. What were they doing all that time??
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
What nonsense there are loads of ideas out there .t's just none of them are Labour's
Sure. And there's a good reason why they remain "out there".
People in Myanmar are absolutely tiny. Must be decades of under-nourishment. It’s quite striking
Shades of the First World War, when officers would be a foot taller than under-nourished enlisted men, as seen in the BBC documentary series, Blackadder.
Was that also a factor in their higher casualty rate, along with leading from the front in suicidal charges?
Generals in the early stages of the war would visit the front lines in full dress uniform and be picked off by snipers.
Subalterns (like Lieutenant George) straight out of university or even public school had (obviously) no military experience and would lead from the front towards German machine guns. Early on, their life expectancy was around six weeks.
The old sweats like Captain Blackadder had experienced various colonial wars and could be unlucky but rarely stupid.
The one thing Blackadder missed (iirc and it was a long time ago) was that troops would be rotated in and out of the front lines. They weren't there for weeks or even days on end. From France, it was even possible to return to England during leave.
Henry Williamson’s autobiographical novels are good on that, popping over the channel in the morning and drinking in the Café Royal with thinly disguised literary figures by the evening.
This is quite an evocative portrait of him in his later Mosleyite phase.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
Worse. People were scratching their heads. And they were scared. It looked like a doom loop.
You mean like the farmers today, or the unheated pensioners, or business owners about to sack their staff because they cant afford to employ them ?
AS @Leon says at least Thatcher had a plan, catastrrophe Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
What, so Mrs Thatcher actually intended to destroy our industrial base, our sense of community, our housing system and concentrate wealth and opportunity in the South East of England?
Oh well that's alright then. So long as there was a plan.
Blair destroyed more industry than Thatcher. Miliband will finish the job. Wilson closed more mines than Thatcher but you support that now Khan is killing the opportunity in London and the Sourh East so we no doubt shall all level up on poverty.
Wait until they see what JohnO and myself spend on our PB Tory lunches.
Seeing as you don’t drink alcohol I find it hard to believe you spend more than £150 a head, and that would be really hard almost anywhere but insane seafood places maybe. Food simply isn’t THAT expensive, unless you’re going to a top 20 world class restaurant for a tasting menu
Three course meal works out at around £150 a head from the a la carte menu based on what I ordered last time.
£35 starter
£50 main
£20 dessert
Add in non alcoholic drinks and 15% service charge
I'd struggle with expensive food, because I would worry I'm not enjoying it enough. Like, maybe my £50 steak* would be better than a £25 one...but I am enjoying it twice as much?
*hypothetial example only
The emotional range is not the same as the circumstances range. Otherwise a millionaire would be *a million* times happier than someone with a pound.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
What nonsense there are loads of ideas out there .t's just none of them are Labour's
Sure. And there's a good reason why they remain "out there".
Actually many of them will come in from the cold as the failed Third Way dies on the vine.
Betty Brown didn’t celebrate her 92nd birthday on Monday like a typical nonagenarian.
Instead, the Glaswegian grandmother blew out the candles on her pink birthday cake in the green room of the BBC studios after appearing on Newsnight, and the next morning met the post office minister in Whitehall.
“My week has been exciting, unbelievable, unexpected — and just wonderful,” says Brown, who in the past year has become one of the key voices in the sub-postmasters’ campaign for justice. Beaming, she warms her hands on a cup of tea in the kitchen of her son Alastair’s farmhouse in Co Durham while her two grandsons potter around.
After decades feeling ashamed of having lost everything when she handed back the keys to her beloved post office in the northeast of England, Brown is now in the spotlight. As the oldest member of the Justice for Sub-postmasters Alliance, founded by Sir Alan Bates, she is demanding justice — and payouts — for wronged sub-postmasters.
A year after the Post Office scandal came to prominence, thanks to the hit ITV series Mr Bates vs The Post Office, victims are still waiting for their claims to be settled. Sub-postmasters lost thousands of pounds, their jobs and in some cases their homes when the company’s Horizon computer system, rolled out in branches in the early 2000s, proved defective.
Now Brown and hundreds of other sub-postmasters are trapped in an Kafka-esque nightmare. A team of government-funded independent psychologists, forensic accountants and lawyers have been deployed to assess individuals and come up with a “financial redress” figure for them to claim compensation. Yet application forms filled with legal jargon can be filled out only by lawyers. The Department for Business and Trade aims to provide an offer in 40 working days. “The victims are being re-victimised,” says Brown.
At the same time claims are being contested by an “independent panel” in the Department for Business and Trade. Many sub-postmasters, after spending hours filling out forms, have been offered as little as 10 per cent of their total claim amounts. Brown has been offered 29 per cent. Bates, the leader of a group of sub-postmasters who 2019 won a High Court Group Litigation Order (GLO) case against the Post Office, was initially offered 16 per cent of his claim. His second offer was upped to about 30 per cent. He has still not accepted and has forwarded his claim to be reviewed again by Sir Ross Cranston.
“It’s disgusting,” says Brown. “I had nothing to do with the amount that’s on that claim because it’s independently assessed,” she says.
Many of the group have been left feeling as if they are being tested again — and are stuck in a deadlock, where the government is refusing to pay out. And Brown is not getting any younger.
If Starmer paid the sub postmasters full compensation now, it would do more than any other act to restore his popularity.
The WASPI crowd would go bananas if money was found for that (even considering their call for 'compensation' is a different level entirely).
Let them.
They’ve lost.
A hardcore will never give up but they have, to all intents and purposes, lost and rightly wont get a penny.
Will I get compensation as I’ve no recollection of a letter telling me my pension age has gone up twice, from 65 to 66 to 67 ? Of course not and neither should I
Post Office scandal has real victims. WASPI lot are entitled boomers.
You had to have been living on Mars not to know that pension ages were changing. These people are just the perfect illustration of the decline in principles, grifters looking for something for nothing. As you say lots of people lost , both my wife and I got stiffed , not nice but I knew it was coming for many years.
You are a smart chap who follows politics from day to day. Of course you knew about pensions. But what about the 30 per cent of our countrymen and women who cannot name the Leader of the Opposition?
Almost everybody on here is writing Kemi Bad off. But she's only been in the job for three months.
You're all assuming she's incapable of change.
I doubt more than 10% know who she is.
You see, that is why I doubt the PB narrative that Waspi women *must* have known about pension changes. We on PB forget how odd we are in following politics day-to-day, even actively campaigning for one party or another. Most people are barely conscious of politics outside of elections.
Awareness of Kemi will not be as low as 10 per cent, that is hyperbole, but around 60 per cent would not surprise me, even with the added publicity for a first Black LotO.
And just this morning, I had to look up my own pension age – I knew it had been increased but had forgotten to what. So yes, I can easily believe the Waspi women were unpleasantly surprised. That is not to say they deserve compensation but a measure of sympathy is not amiss.
"Awareness of Kemi will not be as low as 10 per cent, that is hyperbole, but around 60 per cent would not surprise me"
Much nearer to 10 than 60. Watch "Pointless" to find out how low recognition of "public" figures can be.
Kemi has done nothing to register with Joe Public other than become Leader of the Opposition.
If the Pointless finalists know anything about politics or railways, and the topic comes up, they are almost guaranteed to win the jackpot.
You'd have to be one sad bastard to be interested in politics and railways...
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
What nonsense there are loads of ideas out there .t's just none of them are Labour's
It’s incredibly telling that the BEST defence PB lefties can offer, in support of Labour, is “yeah they’re clueless idiots but so is everyone else so let’s just wait”
Wait for what? David “Mastermind” Lammy to have a brilliant idea? Rachel from Accounts to grow an actual brain?
lol. And this is after six months.
It's sad to think that Lammy Reeves Cooper Philipson Miliband are the BEST Labour can offer.
All of them are are clueless on what they should do and Starmer has no leadership skills.
Quite right, especially when you compare the Labour people to the Tories' political titans who are their counterparts - Badenoch, Stride, Philp, Patel, Argar, Trott, Jenrick etc.
Wait until they see what JohnO and myself spend on our PB Tory lunches.
Seeing as you don’t drink alcohol I find it hard to believe you spend more than £150 a head, and that would be really hard almost anywhere but insane seafood places maybe. Food simply isn’t THAT expensive, unless you’re going to a top 20 world class restaurant for a tasting menu
Three course meal works out at around £150 a head from the a la carte menu based on what I ordered last time.
£35 starter
£50 main
£20 dessert
Add in non alcoholic drinks and 15% service charge
I like going out and having a *really* nice meal occasionally. Perhaps once or twice a year, as (or at) an event. I couldn't stand doing it regularly.
What? You only eat out at a nice restaurant…. Once or twice a year?!
We eat out at nice restaurants more frequently than that (though having a kid can be somewhat limiting). I mean eating out at restaurants at *that* sort of price range. The sort of restaurant that the 0.5% can afford to go to.
Shows that the "tax relief" proposals of the AfD and FDP will mostly benefit the rich, other parties benefit the less rich Eg
It (FDP program) is really lucrative for those with high or top incomes: a single-income couple with two children with an exemplary gross annual income of 180,000 euros would receive around 19,190 if the AfD program were implemented. It would be 11,990 for the FDP and 5,840 euros for the Union. With the SPD program, this family would have 2,200 euros more at their disposal. With the Greens, income would increase by 100 euros, with the BSW it would remain unchanged. Only the Left's program would reduce income by around 800 euros.
So much for the AfD being against the elites!
Also
A single-income couple with two children and a gross income of 40,000 euros would be better off financially if the election programs of the Left Party (plus 6,150 euros/year), the BSW (plus 1,010 euros), the Greens (plus 870 euros) or the SPD (plus 860 euros) were implemented. With the Union's program, it would still be 300 euros more per year.If the election programs of the FDP or AfD were implemented, this family would have less money at its disposal, according to the ZEW. For the AfD, it would be 440 euros less per year, and for the FDP, 1,520 euros less.
The FDP are an interesting bunch. Members of the ALDE bloc but very different from any others in that group.
The only European party with what I’d describe as full on Thatcherite “neoliberal” policies. Forget orange book, more like a Tory party run by 1990s vintage John Redwood and Peter Lilley but with more socially liberal views. It’s a brave position to be in these days.
Sounds pretty ideal from my perspective. Bit like the Tories under Cameron/Osborne. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Oh, those were the days. I frankly wonder if I will ever vote with any enthusiasm again.
They weren't fiscally conservative when it came to giving money to oldies.
Or when it came to any of their pet projects.
I don’t think they were fiscally conservative at all. To say nothing of the fact that their wholesale acceptance of the Blair legacy has been a disaster. What an odd pair to feel nostalgic about.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
One Tony Blair got the Labour Party 13 years of government with a massive majority.
The stupid things he and his chancellor did with that massive majority (mainly spending borrowed money like drunken sailors because interests rates were low, and they'd "abolished boom and bust") are root causes of much of the mess we are in today.
The time round the country has grudgingly let Labour back into government because the Tories have blotted their copy book so badly they couldn't be allowed to continue. Labour has promptly reverted to type - anti-growth taxes, unsustainable borrowing, no attempt to get value for money from spending. And unlike 1997 they haven't started with a golden inheritance which gave them some spare cash to spend.
Frankly the country needs them gone now, not 15 years more of the same.
People in Myanmar are absolutely tiny. Must be decades of under-nourishment. It’s quite striking
Shades of the First World War, when officers would be a foot taller than under-nourished enlisted men, as seen in the BBC documentary series, Blackadder.
Was that also a factor in their higher casualty rate, along with leading from the front in suicidal charges?
Generals in the early stages of the war would visit the front lines in full dress uniform and be picked off by snipers.
Subalterns (like Lieutenant George) straight out of university or even public school had (obviously) no military experience and would lead from the front towards German machine guns. Early on, their life expectancy was around six weeks.
The old sweats like Captain Blackadder had experienced various colonial wars and could be unlucky but rarely stupid.
The one thing Blackadder missed (iirc and it was a long time ago) was that troops would be rotated in and out of the front lines. They weren't there for weeks or even days on end. From France, it was even possible to return to England during leave.
Troops were also rotated off the front line to support and to rear areas for training. IIRC there was a systematic rotation of the unit through leave, front, middle and rear - I forget the order.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
What nonsense there are loads of ideas out there .t's just none of them are Labour's
There is a vast literature on the ideas, experiments and comedies of trying to grow an economy, from far left politics to far right. Oceans of ink and not a little blood spilt.
The recent budget contained none of these.
Indeed. Amidst the partisan banter on here I have been genuinely shocked by the lack of ideas from Labour
It’s stupefying. They’ve been in Opposition 14 years. Starmer has been LOTO for ages. What were they doing all that time??
It is astounding. Most of Labour's platform has been "we're not the Tories" but they have spent their time doing no planning, no hard work no vision.
'A NEW poll has found that Scots are split on the idea of a potential SNP-Labour coalition.
The two parties entering into an agreement after the 2026 Holyrood election was the most favoured option of Scots when asked about potential deals.
However, a majority still opposed the coalition between the pro-independence and unionist party.'
I think a Labour/SNP coalition is almost inevitable. I will be very surprised if the numbers allow a stable government any other way. A Unionist coalition of Labour Tories and Lib Dems might be possible but I suspect that many Labour supporters would far rather get in bed with the SNP than the Tories.
The question that is open is which of the 2 will be the largest and thus lead the Coalition? Until the UK election this looked a no brainer with Labour very much the favourites but the unpopularity of the Starmer government risks this being reversed.
Surprised that you and, I now see HYUFD, miss the possibility of minority government. We've had years of it (and inter alia it enabled the Tories to be the unlovely stepparents of the Edinburgh Trams fiasco).
Edit: also, what Slab various have/are/will be promising is not what the people in London yanking their chain want. No idea how that will be sorted out.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
Worse. People were scratching their heads. And they were scared. It looked like a doom loop.
You mean like the farmers today, or the unheated pensioners, or business owners about to sack their staff because they cant afford to employ them ?
AS @Leon says at least Thatcher had a plan, catastrrophe Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
What, so Mrs Thatcher actually intended to destroy our industrial base, our sense of community, our housing system and concentrate wealth and opportunity in the South East of England?
Oh well that's alright then. So long as there was a plan.
Many of the things she gets blamed for didn't really happen until Blair was in power.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
Worse. People were scratching their heads. And they were scared. It looked like a doom loop.
You mean like the farmers today, or the unheated pensioners, or business owners about to sack their staff because they cant afford to employ them ?
AS @Leon says at least Thatcher had a plan, catastrrophe Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
What, so Mrs Thatcher actually intended to destroy our industrial base, our sense of community, our housing system and concentrate wealth and opportunity in the South East of England?
Oh well that's alright then. So long as there was a plan.
Many of the things she gets blamed for didn't really happen until Blair was in power.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
What nonsense there are loads of ideas out there .t's just none of them are Labour's
It’s incredibly telling that the BEST defence PB lefties can offer, in support of Labour, is “yeah they’re clueless idiots but so is everyone else so let’s just wait”
Wait for what? David “Mastermind” Lammy to have a brilliant idea? Rachel from Accounts to grow an actual brain?
lol. And this is after six months.
It's sad to think that Lammy Reeves Cooper Philipson Miliband are the BEST Labour can offer.
All of them are are clueless on what they should do and Starmer has no leadership skills.
Quite right, especially when you compare the Labour people to the Tories' political titans who are their counterparts - Badenoch, Stride, Philp, Patel, Argar, Trott, Jenrick etc.
I thought you were all for "Change" not more of the same.
There's a telling theme with PB Lefties in that you cannot justify your own decision and rush to hark back to the cosy days when you were the opposition.
Youre not the oppositions youre now the government and frankly not a very good one.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
The answer is a mix of Bukele, Milei and the Danish Social Democrats
I dare say. And others (eg me) think that would be a ridiculous route to take.
So we'll stick with this for a while. Things will be clearer in a couple of years.
I'm far more concerned about global events tbh, esp with Trump coming in.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
Worse. People were scratching their heads. And they were scared. It looked like a doom loop.
You mean like the farmers today, or the unheated pensioners, or business owners about to sack their staff because they cant afford to employ them ?
AS @Leon says at least Thatcher had a plan, catastrrophe Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
What, so Mrs Thatcher actually intended to destroy our industrial base, our sense of community, our housing system and concentrate wealth and opportunity in the South East of England?
Oh well that's alright then. So long as there was a plan.
Many of the things she gets blamed for didn't really happen until Blair was in power.
To whom did he famously pay homage?
He learnt the wrong lessons and added some mistakes of his own.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
Worse. People were scratching their heads. And they were scared. It looked like a doom loop.
You mean like the farmers today, or the unheated pensioners, or business owners about to sack their staff because they cant afford to employ them ?
AS @Leon says at least Thatcher had a plan, catastrrophe Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
What, so Mrs Thatcher actually intended to destroy our industrial base, our sense of community, our housing system and concentrate wealth and opportunity in the South East of England?
Oh well that's alright then. So long as there was a plan.
Many of the things she gets blamed for didn't really happen until Blair was in power.
But otoh she isn't blamed for many things she ought to be blamed for.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
The answer is a mix of Bukele, Milei and the Danish Social Democrats
I dare say. And others (eg me) think that would be a ridiculous route to take.
So we'll stick with this for a while. Things will be clearer in a couple of years.
I'm far more concerned about global events tbh, esp with Trump coming in.
lol, yes we can look forward to you punching the air at 0.1% growth.
All we have to do as a nation is lower our sights until youre comfortable.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
So nobody has a better clue than *paying* £9bn of taxpayers money to give away a island to someone else it doesn't belong to?
Nobody has a better clue than vindictivly pulling Latin teaching from schools *mid school year*, thus messing up the education of a whole bunch of kids who happen to be studying it right now.
Nobody has a better clue for raising tax than taxing *employment* more.
Nobody has a better clue about energy than letting that fool Miliband blow £20bn on pointless carbon capture.
I could go on, but you get the picture. On most of these, doing nothing whatsoever would have been better.
1) Rework the company tax system to reward investment in plant and training, and make up the difference from taxing financialisation of companies. Buy a zillion quids worth of CNC machines - thumbs up. Borrow a zillion quid to strip the company of value - thumbs down.
2) Training. The universities take on training and the academic side of apprenticeships. Companies buy into this service, providing the hands on side of apprenticeships, and paying money towards the classroom side. This creates nationally recognised qualifications which represent transferable skills.
3) Create a series of experiments in helping the part time workers become full time workers. How to help them out of the tax/benefit trap.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
One Tony Blair got the Labour Party 13 years of government with a massive majority.
The stupid things he and his chancellor did with that massive majority (mainly spending borrowed money like drunken sailors because interests rates were low, and they'd "abolished boom and bust") are root causes of much of the mess we are in today.
The time round the country has grudgingly let Labour back into government because the Tories have blotted their copy book so badly they couldn't be allowed to continue. Labour has promptly reverted to type - anti-growth taxes, unsustainable borrowing, no attempt to get value for money from spending. And unlike 1997 they haven't started with a golden inheritance which gave them some spare cash to spend.
Frankly the country needs them gone now, not 15 years more of the same.
That's just tory story. NL had plenty of achievements.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
Worse. People were scratching their heads. And they were scared. It looked like a doom loop.
You mean like the farmers today, or the unheated pensioners, or business owners about to sack their staff because they cant afford to employ them ?
AS @Leon says at least Thatcher had a plan, catastrrophe Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
What, so Mrs Thatcher actually intended to destroy our industrial base, our sense of community, our housing system and concentrate wealth and opportunity in the South East of England?
Oh well that's alright then. So long as there was a plan.
Many of the things she gets blamed for didn't really happen until Blair was in power.
But otoh she isn't blamed for many things she ought to be blamed for.
The belief in the “destruction of industry” was held by people who think that half naked men pouring steel in an inferno is the only kind of industry.
Wait until they see what JohnO and myself spend on our PB Tory lunches.
Seeing as you don’t drink alcohol I find it hard to believe you spend more than £150 a head, and that would be really hard almost anywhere but insane seafood places maybe. Food simply isn’t THAT expensive, unless you’re going to a top 20 world class restaurant for a tasting menu
Three course meal works out at around £150 a head from the a la carte menu based on what I ordered last time.
£35 starter
£50 main
£20 dessert
Add in non alcoholic drinks and 15% service charge
I like going out and having a *really* nice meal occasionally. Perhaps once or twice a year, as (or at) an event. I couldn't stand doing it regularly.
What? You only eat out at a nice restaurant…. Once or twice a year?!
We eat out at nice restaurants more frequently than that (though having a kid can be somewhat limiting). I mean eating out at restaurants at *that* sort of price range. The sort of restaurant that the 0.5% can afford to go to.
That makes more sense. Not a bad gastropub menu, there
Honestly, you’re not missing much in missing Claridge’s. £34 for a cheese toastie - which will be nice, but worth about a tenner absolute max - is obscene, and sums it up
All the best meals I had in 2024 - and I ate at maybe 100 restaurants around the world - were under ten quid for a dish. Probably the one best dish of the year, the one I remember the most, was home-made borscht at a Stalin-themed restaurant in Transnistria. All home made, absolutely fucking delicious, and so so so good on a hot day with cold beer
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
Worse. People were scratching their heads. And they were scared. It looked like a doom loop.
You mean like the farmers today, or the unheated pensioners, or business owners about to sack their staff because they cant afford to employ them ?
AS @Leon says at least Thatcher had a plan, catastrrophe Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
What, so Mrs Thatcher actually intended to destroy our industrial base, our sense of community, our housing system and concentrate wealth and opportunity in the South East of England?
Oh well that's alright then. So long as there was a plan.
Many of the things she gets blamed for didn't really happen until Blair was in power.
But otoh she isn't blamed for many things she ought to be blamed for.
Yes, for example there is a direct line from smashing the unions to mass immigration. Arthur Scargill would never have stood for importing millions of workers to serve the interests of the bosses and the rich.
The United States actually more despotic than China now.
It's not despotic to legislate a conditional ban. The legislation also gave TikTok the option of changing their massively intrusive data collection policy. They refused.
I think you missed the point I was making. It wasn't a particularly interesting point.
Yep the absolute refusal of Bytedance to sell TikTok in any circumstances - supported by the Chinese government incidentally - is curious, and raises a big question mark about what actually goes on in that organisation.
Wait until they see what JohnO and myself spend on our PB Tory lunches.
Seeing as you don’t drink alcohol I find it hard to believe you spend more than £150 a head, and that would be really hard almost anywhere but insane seafood places maybe. Food simply isn’t THAT expensive, unless you’re going to a top 20 world class restaurant for a tasting menu
Three course meal works out at around £150 a head from the a la carte menu based on what I ordered last time.
£35 starter
£50 main
£20 dessert
Add in non alcoholic drinks and 15% service charge
I like going out and having a *really* nice meal occasionally. Perhaps once or twice a year, as (or at) an event. I couldn't stand doing it regularly.
After my last visit to a chain restaurant in November I have vowed never again will I go to a chain restaurant or middling restaurant. I can cook better than that so it is a waste of money and it isn't cheap. I book Michelin star or Michelin recommended restaurants or good quality pubs. We did The Cat Inn is Sussex on Saturday for instance and 22 in Cambridge in November.
Twice the price, but then do it half as many times if money is an issue. And I can cook a decent meal so I do more at home with friends and I definitely can't do Michelin star cooking, but which I really enjoy. I am always so disappointed when leaving a bog standard restaurant. Not so much because of the food, but that I paid so much for it when I could have done better.
But I know what you mean re children. if you want to take them out it is very expensive. Thankfully I am past that now.
Wait until they see what JohnO and myself spend on our PB Tory lunches.
Seeing as you don’t drink alcohol I find it hard to believe you spend more than £150 a head, and that would be really hard almost anywhere but insane seafood places maybe. Food simply isn’t THAT expensive, unless you’re going to a top 20 world class restaurant for a tasting menu
Three course meal works out at around £150 a head from the a la carte menu based on what I ordered last time.
£35 starter
£50 main
£20 dessert
Add in non alcoholic drinks and 15% service charge
I like going out and having a *really* nice meal occasionally. Perhaps once or twice a year, as (or at) an event. I couldn't stand doing it regularly.
What? You only eat out at a nice restaurant…. Once or twice a year?!
We eat out at nice restaurants more frequently than that (though having a kid can be somewhat limiting). I mean eating out at restaurants at *that* sort of price range. The sort of restaurant that the 0.5% can afford to go to.
That makes more sense. Not a bad gastropub menu, there
Honestly, you’re not missing much in missing Claridge’s. £34 for a cheese toastie - which will be nice, but worth about a tenner absolute max - is obscene, and sums it up
All the best meals I had in 2024 - and I ate at maybe 100 restaurants around the world - were under ten quid for a dish. Probably the one best dish of the year, the one I remember the most, was home-made borscht at a Stalin-themed restaurant in Transnistria. All home made, absolutely fucking delicious, and so so so good on a hot day with cold beer
Cost? £3
WRT restaurants, there is a lot of overpriced rubbish in central London, (eg £40 for a cheese platter and two 175 ml glasses of wine), but also some quite reasonably-priced gems.
Go above £80 per head (excluding wine), and I think you’re into the territory of diminishing returns).
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
One Tony Blair got the Labour Party 13 years of government with a massive majority.
The stupid things he and his chancellor did with that massive majority (mainly spending borrowed money like drunken sailors because interests rates were low, and they'd "abolished boom and bust") are root causes of much of the mess we are in today.
The time round the country has grudgingly let Labour back into government because the Tories have blotted their copy book so badly they couldn't be allowed to continue. Labour has promptly reverted to type - anti-growth taxes, unsustainable borrowing, no attempt to get value for money from spending. And unlike 1997 they haven't started with a golden inheritance which gave them some spare cash to spend.
Frankly the country needs them gone now, not 15 years more of the same.
That's just tory story. NL had plenty of achievements.
Go on then? Which bits didn't happen? Did Blair and Brown not massively expand state spending on the basis of having "abolished boom and bust"?
Isn't the whopping structural deficit that appeared in 2008 when the bust finally arrived the result of treating tax receipts at the top of a huge boom as permanent?
Even the row about removing the WFA (which needed to happen) is this government undoing one of Gordon's nakedly political creations - he could have just bumped the state pension by the same amount for the same effect.
Twice the price, but then do it half as many times if money is an issue. And I can cook a decent meal so I do more at home with friends and I definitely can't do Michelin star cooking, but which I really enjoy. I am always so disappointed when leaving a bog standard restaurant. Not so much because of the food, but that I paid so much for it when I could have done better.
An colleague of mine decided instead of spending 200 quid at a restaurant, they would spend the same money on wine and eat at home
Ms Reeves’s most significant problem is not that she’s done things that aren’t popular. That is an occupational hazard and she has the consolation of knowing she has yet to arouse the visceral dislike experienced by George Osborne when he was so “beleaguered” that he got booed at the Paralympics... Her fundamental problem is so obvious that it can be seen from outer space. The economy is flatlining. We’re not enjoying the “growth, growth, growth” that she and Sir Keir promised.
Elements of the government’s programme, including increased investment in infrastructure, pension reforms and the liberalisation of the planning regime, ought to make a difference over time. But in the here and now, it is the paucity of growth that makes Ms Reeves vulnerable. Unless some growth turns up soon, the government is going to face some seriously ugly choices about taxation and spending this year. That’s why Labour people have become so jittery.
One miscalculation was made before the election. This was to assume that bringing down the curtain on the Tory clown show and committing to “stability” and “fiscal responsibility” would be enough in themselves to lift the economy. Another error was made in the immediate aftermath of the election. That was to overdo the doom music about Labour’s inheritance.
For all that, rumours of Ms Reeves’s imminent demise seem to me grossly exaggerated. One reason I say this is because she is lucky in her opponents, especially the Tory ones. It may have become boringly predictable to hear her answer Conservative attacks with scorn for their dismal legacy, but it is true that they left behind a dreadful mess, and voters know it to be so.
When chancellors are suddenly forced out, it is usually for one of two reasons. Some are brought down by a credibility-shattering shock. Jim Callaghan left the Treasury in 1967 when Harold Wilson’s Labour government…was forced to devalue the pound. Norman Lamont was done for by the Black Wednesday humiliation in the early 1990s. The most recent entry in this category is Kwasi Kwarteng… The other common cause of the abrupt termination of a chancellorship is an unbridgeable difference of opinion with the prime minister. That was the case with the resignation of Peter Thorneycroft from Harold Macmillan’s government in 1958 and Nigel Lawson’s departure from Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet in 1989.
[Starmer] owns the government’s economic strategy as much as she does. Throwing her overboard would not be strong and decisive. It would look feeble and desperate. And also pointless, because her successor would be confronted with precisely the same dilemmas…So prime minister and chancellor are lashed to the same mast and bound to the same hope that the gloom will be pierced by glimmers of higher growth. Whether it turns up will decide their entwined fates.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
Worse. People were scratching their heads. And they were scared. It looked like a doom loop.
You mean like the farmers today, or the unheated pensioners, or business owners about to sack their staff because they cant afford to employ them ?
AS @Leon says at least Thatcher had a plan, catastrrophe Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
What, so Mrs Thatcher actually intended to destroy our industrial base, our sense of community, our housing system and concentrate wealth and opportunity in the South East of England?
Oh well that's alright then. So long as there was a plan.
Many of the things she gets blamed for didn't really happen until Blair was in power.
But otoh she isn't blamed for many things she ought to be blamed for.
The belief in the “destruction of industry” was held by people who think that half naked men pouring steel in an inferno is the only kind of industry.
I don't particularly picture half-naked men when I think about industry.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
Worse. People were scratching their heads. And they were scared. It looked like a doom loop.
You mean like the farmers today, or the unheated pensioners, or business owners about to sack their staff because they cant afford to employ them ?
AS @Leon says at least Thatcher had a plan, catastrrophe Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
What, so Mrs Thatcher actually intended to destroy our industrial base, our sense of community, our housing system and concentrate wealth and opportunity in the South East of England?
Oh well that's alright then. So long as there was a plan.
It's nice to see Leon and the Field Marshal riffing happily together on another of their "Reeves is shit" threads. Enjoy!! But I'll sit this out.
Wait until they see what JohnO and myself spend on our PB Tory lunches.
Seeing as you don’t drink alcohol I find it hard to believe you spend more than £150 a head, and that would be really hard almost anywhere but insane seafood places maybe. Food simply isn’t THAT expensive, unless you’re going to a top 20 world class restaurant for a tasting menu
Three course meal works out at around £150 a head from the a la carte menu based on what I ordered last time.
£35 starter
£50 main
£20 dessert
Add in non alcoholic drinks and 15% service charge
I like going out and having a *really* nice meal occasionally. Perhaps once or twice a year, as (or at) an event. I couldn't stand doing it regularly.
After my last visit to a chain restaurant in November I have vowed never again will I go to a chain restaurant or middling restaurant. I can cook better than that so it is a waste of money and it isn't cheap. I book Michelin star or Michelin recommended restaurants or good quality pubs. We did The Cat Inn is Sussex on Saturday for instance and 22 in Cambridge in November.
Twice the price, but then do it half as many times if money is an issue. And I can cook a decent meal so I do more at home with friends and I definitely can't do Michelin star cooking, but which I really enjoy. I am always so disappointed when leaving a bog standard restaurant. Not so much because of the food, but that I paid so much for it when I could have done better.
But I know what you mean re children. if you want to take them out it is very expensive. Thankfully I am past that now.
This is very true
Once you learn to cook to a pretty good standard - which I have done - then much low-middling restaurant food becomes decidedly unappealing, because I know I can do as well or better at a third the price (and drink my own wine at a tenth the pice). Again this is why I often go for high quality ingredients, esp seafood. Oysters, crab, etc. Oysters are a bitch to source, clean, shuck - so if a restaurant can do it for three quid a pop then fine
Otherwise I go for ethnic world cuisine (at least it’s interesting, new and often delish - and cheaper) or wait for someone to pay me to go high end
And on that ecumenical note, off to watch Kaos. Later
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
Worse. People were scratching their heads. And they were scared. It looked like a doom loop.
You mean like the farmers today, or the unheated pensioners, or business owners about to sack their staff because they cant afford to employ them ?
AS @Leon says at least Thatcher had a plan, catastrrophe Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
What, so Mrs Thatcher actually intended to destroy our industrial base, our sense of community, our housing system and concentrate wealth and opportunity in the South East of England?
Oh well that's alright then. So long as there was a plan.
Many of the things she gets blamed for didn't really happen until Blair was in power.
But otoh she isn't blamed for many things she ought to be blamed for.
Yes, for example there is a direct line from smashing the unions to mass immigration. Arthur Scargill would never have stood for importing millions of workers to serve the interests of the bosses and the rich.
Old school, he was. Brexit supporter.
But I was more thinking housing, rip off utilities, asset stripping, veneration of the City and financial wheeler dealing over real value added work, this sort of thing.
MPs Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have agreed to be interviewed under caution by police following a pro-Palestinian rally in central London on Saturday, the BBC understands.
The former Labour leader, 75, and former shadow chancellor, 73, will voluntarily attend a police station in the capital as officers investigate a coordinated effort by organisers to breach conditions imposed on the event.
They will be interviewed on Sunday afternoon, the Metropolitan Police said.
Ten other people have been charged with public order offences following arrests at the protest organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC).
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Shall I be smug and say that given the context, the scansion and the "17. Juni" I didn't have to google it? Yes. Yes I think I shall...
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
Worse. People were scratching their heads. And they were scared. It looked like a doom loop.
You mean like the farmers today, or the unheated pensioners, or business owners about to sack their staff because they cant afford to employ them ?
AS @Leon says at least Thatcher had a plan, catastrrophe Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
What, so Mrs Thatcher actually intended to destroy our industrial base, our sense of community, our housing system and concentrate wealth and opportunity in the South East of England?
Oh well that's alright then. So long as there was a plan.
It's nice to see Leon and the Field Marshal riffing happily together on another of their "Reeves is shit" threads. Enjoy!! But I'll sit this out.
They get oddly defensive when you point out the Brexit they voted for is equally shit.
Leon wins prizes for voting for Brexit and Starmer.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
Worse. People were scratching their heads. And they were scared. It looked like a doom loop.
You mean like the farmers today, or the unheated pensioners, or business owners about to sack their staff because they cant afford to employ them ?
AS @Leon says at least Thatcher had a plan, catastrrophe Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
What, so Mrs Thatcher actually intended to destroy our industrial base, our sense of community, our housing system and concentrate wealth and opportunity in the South East of England?
Oh well that's alright then. So long as there was a plan.
Many of the things she gets blamed for didn't really happen until Blair was in power.
But otoh she isn't blamed for many things she ought to be blamed for.
Yes, for example there is a direct line from smashing the unions to mass immigration. Arthur Scargill would never have stood for importing millions of workers to serve the interests of the bosses and the rich.
Old school, he was. Brexit supporter.
But I was more thinking housing, rip off utilities, asset stripping, veneration of the City and financial wheeler dealing over real value added work, this sort of thing.
Scargill is a Brit hating traitor.
He took money from opponents of the UK, such as Libya and the Soviet Union, of course he backed Brexit.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
So nobody has a better clue than *paying* £9bn of taxpayers money to give away a island to someone else it doesn't belong to?
Nobody has a better clue than vindictivly pulling Latin teaching from schools *mid school year*, thus messing up the education of a whole bunch of kids who happen to be studying it right now.
Nobody has a better clue for raising tax than taxing *employment* more.
Nobody has a better clue about energy than letting that fool Miliband blow £20bn on pointless carbon capture.
I could go on, but you get the picture. On most of these, doing nothing whatsoever would have been better.
But you don't expect people with tory brain chemistry to feel positive about what Labour governments do. That's only natural.
Wait until they see what JohnO and myself spend on our PB Tory lunches.
Seeing as you don’t drink alcohol I find it hard to believe you spend more than £150 a head, and that would be really hard almost anywhere but insane seafood places maybe. Food simply isn’t THAT expensive, unless you’re going to a top 20 world class restaurant for a tasting menu
Three course meal works out at around £150 a head from the a la carte menu based on what I ordered last time.
£35 starter
£50 main
£20 dessert
Add in non alcoholic drinks and 15% service charge
£150 is a hefty chunk of money, but not overly impressive. I had a Xmas lunch at Kaspar’s in the Savoy which easily went into four figures - 10 years ago
This was for 2 people. We were both exceptionally drunk at the end, at which point my very loaded friend announced HE was going to cover it all, and we ran out of the Savoy and climbed in his armour-plated, chauffeured Bentley and drove the 300 yards to the Ivy Club, where he put his card behind the bar
THAT is a proper lunch, and puts Kemi’s sixpenny sirloin into proper context
How much of your lunch was for the food and how much for the setting and how much for the pretension.
The £42 fish and chips at Claridges seems about equal amounts for food, setting and pretension.
50% pretension, 40% vintage champagne, 8% setting (it is very pretty and striking) and 2% food, which was decidedly mediocre
That’s the weird thing with these places that are INSANELY expensive - nearly always the food is shite, or Meh at best. The restaurant knows that people are only coming in to pose and do instagram and boast about how much they’ve spent, on Tiktok, so they focus on decor, bling and faff, and don’t bother with the cooking
When I go to these places (I never go myself on my own shilling, but I am taken to them in my job) I always order the simplest seafood - oysters and caviar and Dover sole etc. Because good oysters are good oysters, they can’t fuck it up, unless they are literally ordering in shit oysters (unlikely, as they would poison people)
I recall getting some random youtube videos of a supposed marketing expert (maybe he even is one, who knows) talking about eating experience and that especially back in the day restaurants catering to tourists in particular had very little incentive to make sure they were really good, because 90% of the customers will be there once and never come back anyway, so you're busting a gut for no real reason. And if you got food poisoning even most would never know (not that anyone sets out to serve such food).
Whereas McDonalds will not provide you with a really excellent burger, but you know if you walk into one anywhere in the world you will get exactly the same as anywhere, it will be ok, and it won't make you sick - it may not be as good as a better place (I love it though), but it also won't be as bad as some.
I'm not even opposed to the idea that you pay a premium for the experience to some extent however.
It’s why the food in Venice is some of the worst in the world (unless you stay at an incredibly high end hotel like the Cipriani or the Gritti, when it will be genuinely excellent, but hideously pricey). They have literally zero incentive to make even passable food, as Venice gets 60 trillion tourists a day, 96% of whom will never return. Why waste good ingredients and serious preparation on them? Just cream the maximum profit (to help pay your very hefty rent)
You need to go to the bits of Venice where Venetians live. The food there is excellent but you need an Italian speaker in your group.
Yeah, I know, I’ve been to Venice maybe a dozen times., I am aware that if you try really hard you can find nice food. Venetian tapas - cicchetti - can be pretty agreeable, tho nothing as good as Spain
But will the average tourist experience this near the Rialto or St Marks Sq or along the Grand Canal? Nope
No but in the same way if you walk into a random restaurant near Covent Garden or Las Ramblas it's probably going to be expensive and decidedly mediocre. It's true of all tourist spots, Venice being a singularly tourist area does mean it's more difficult to find decent food but it is there if you look for it and sometimes better than what you can find in other bits of Italy too.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
So nobody has a better clue than *paying* £9bn of taxpayers money to give away a island to someone else it doesn't belong to?
Nobody has a better clue than vindictivly pulling Latin teaching from schools *mid school year*, thus messing up the education of a whole bunch of kids who happen to be studying it right now.
Nobody has a better clue for raising tax than taxing *employment* more.
Nobody has a better clue about energy than letting that fool Miliband blow £20bn on pointless carbon capture.
I could go on, but you get the picture. On most of these, doing nothing whatsoever would have been better.
But you don't expect people with tory brain chemistry to feel positive about what Labour governments do. That's only natural.
Are you really 100% happy with all those listed decisions? Every single one?
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
One Tony Blair got the Labour Party 13 years of government with a massive majority.
The stupid things he and his chancellor did with that massive majority (mainly spending borrowed money like drunken sailors because interests rates were low, and they'd "abolished boom and bust") are root causes of much of the mess we are in today.
The time round the country has grudgingly let Labour back into government because the Tories have blotted their copy book so badly they couldn't be allowed to continue. Labour has promptly reverted to type - anti-growth taxes, unsustainable borrowing, no attempt to get value for money from spending. And unlike 1997 they haven't started with a golden inheritance which gave them some spare cash to spend.
Frankly the country needs them gone now, not 15 years more of the same.
That's just tory story. NL had plenty of achievements.
Go on then? Which bits didn't happen? Did Blair and Brown not massively expand state spending on the basis of having "abolished boom and bust"?
Isn't the whopping structural deficit that appeared in 2008 when the bust finally arrived the result of treating tax receipts at the top of a huge boom as permanent?
Even the row about removing the WFA (which needed to happen) is this government undoing one of Gordon's nakedly political creations - he could have just bumped the state pension by the same amount for the same effect.
We needed more spending. The place was a mess. But I can agree one thing. Light touch regulation of the City was a big mistake.
Course the Cons would have been lighter still but that's no excuse. And, yes, it created a bubble that when it burst left us very exposed.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
It was pretty bad BUT Thatcher had a plan - however brutal - and she was charismatic and clever and determined and politically gifted, and she was surrounded by some serious talent
Oh well
The times are very different though. In Thatcher's time, a Government's mandate was still respected, albeit grudgingly. Nobody disputed that Thatcher ran the country (though the Treasury was playing its own games even then).
These days, politicians are constrained by a thicket of obstruction consisting of the burgeoning civil service, independent arms length bodies, the judiciary, and the media. They really can't do anything. Consider a recent case where The High Court struck down a Government consultation on long term sick pay: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-the-high-court-ruling-on-political-consultations/ The Government had done a consultation (itself usually a civil service delaying tactic), decided to move ahead with the policy, Labour had come in and continued with it, but the High Court has ruled the consultation unlawful, effectively nullifying the policy. How the fuck is it their business?
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
One Tony Blair got the Labour Party 13 years of government with a massive majority.
The stupid things he and his chancellor did with that massive majority (mainly spending borrowed money like drunken sailors because interests rates were low, and they'd "abolished boom and bust") are root causes of much of the mess we are in today.
The time round the country has grudgingly let Labour back into government because the Tories have blotted their copy book so badly they couldn't be allowed to continue. Labour has promptly reverted to type - anti-growth taxes, unsustainable borrowing, no attempt to get value for money from spending. And unlike 1997 they haven't started with a golden inheritance which gave them some spare cash to spend.
Frankly the country needs them gone now, not 15 years more of the same.
That's just tory story. NL had plenty of achievements.
Go on then? Which bits didn't happen? Did Blair and Brown not massively expand state spending on the basis of having "abolished boom and bust"?
Isn't the whopping structural deficit that appeared in 2008 when the bust finally arrived the result of treating tax receipts at the top of a huge boom as permanent?
Even the row about removing the WFA (which needed to happen) is this government undoing one of Gordon's nakedly political creations - he could have just bumped the state pension by the same amount for the same effect.
We needed more spending. The place was a mess.
Labour's thinking is more: "The place is a mess. We need to give the people responsible a pay rise."
Wait until they see what JohnO and myself spend on our PB Tory lunches.
Seeing as you don’t drink alcohol I find it hard to believe you spend more than £150 a head, and that would be really hard almost anywhere but insane seafood places maybe. Food simply isn’t THAT expensive, unless you’re going to a top 20 world class restaurant for a tasting menu
Three course meal works out at around £150 a head from the a la carte menu based on what I ordered last time.
£35 starter
£50 main
£20 dessert
Add in non alcoholic drinks and 15% service charge
I like going out and having a *really* nice meal occasionally. Perhaps once or twice a year, as (or at) an event. I couldn't stand doing it regularly.
After my last visit to a chain restaurant in November I have vowed never again will I go to a chain restaurant or middling restaurant. I can cook better than that so it is a waste of money and it isn't cheap. I book Michelin star or Michelin recommended restaurants or good quality pubs. We did The Cat Inn is Sussex on Saturday for instance and 22 in Cambridge in November.
Twice the price, but then do it half as many times if money is an issue. And I can cook a decent meal so I do more at home with friends and I definitely can't do Michelin star cooking, but which I really enjoy. I am always so disappointed when leaving a bog standard restaurant. Not so much because of the food, but that I paid so much for it when I could have done better.
But I know what you mean re children. if you want to take them out it is very expensive. Thankfully I am past that now.
We did 22 in Cambridge a couple of years ago for my 50th. It was very nice.
Mrs J has a big birthday this year, and I'm thinking of afternoon tea at Fortnum and Masons (somewhere we love), followed by the Rocky Horror Picture Show. I'm all culture.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
So nobody has a better clue than *paying* £9bn of taxpayers money to give away a island to someone else it doesn't belong to?
Nobody has a better clue than vindictivly pulling Latin teaching from schools *mid school year*, thus messing up the education of a whole bunch of kids who happen to be studying it right now.
Nobody has a better clue for raising tax than taxing *employment* more.
Nobody has a better clue about energy than letting that fool Miliband blow £20bn on pointless carbon capture.
I could go on, but you get the picture. On most of these, doing nothing whatsoever would have been better.
But you don't expect people with tory brain chemistry to feel positive about what Labour governments do. That's only natural.
I don't think that is fair, not least because I voted for Blair twice and would vote for him again
Starmer, Reeves and the rest have been a huge disappointment but not only that, they have made things worse and it must be a concern to any labour supporter
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
One Tony Blair got the Labour Party 13 years of government with a massive majority.
The stupid things he and his chancellor did with that massive majority (mainly spending borrowed money like drunken sailors because interests rates were low, and they'd "abolished boom and bust") are root causes of much of the mess we are in today.
The time round the country has grudgingly let Labour back into government because the Tories have blotted their copy book so badly they couldn't be allowed to continue. Labour has promptly reverted to type - anti-growth taxes, unsustainable borrowing, no attempt to get value for money from spending. And unlike 1997 they haven't started with a golden inheritance which gave them some spare cash to spend.
Frankly the country needs them gone now, not 15 years more of the same.
That's just tory story. NL had plenty of achievements.
Go on then? Which bits didn't happen? Did Blair and Brown not massively expand state spending on the basis of having "abolished boom and bust"?
Isn't the whopping structural deficit that appeared in 2008 when the bust finally arrived the result of treating tax receipts at the top of a huge boom as permanent?
Even the row about removing the WFA (which needed to happen) is this government undoing one of Gordon's nakedly political creations - he could have just bumped the state pension by the same amount for the same effect.
We needed more spending. The place was a mess. But I can agree one thing. Light touch regulation of the City was a big mistake.
Course the Cons would have been lighter still but that's no excuse. And, yes, it created a bubble that when it burst left us very exposed.
It wasn't that it was light touch. It was that it was singularly incompetent, focusing on box-checking rather than outputs, missing God knows how many indicators of over leverage and run by incompetent quangocrats like the original Master of Disaster Lord Turner or Sir Callum McCarthy, whose only qualification seemed to be hanging a huge picture of him with Blair in his office. Divorcing it from the competent and experienced people in the Bank of England was a peculiarly stupid move as well.
If they'd had competent people and bothered to listen more to what their mid-level officials were telling them, the financial crisis might well have been very different, or even avoided altogether.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
It was pretty bad BUT Thatcher had a plan - however brutal - and she was charismatic and clever and determined and politically gifted, and she was surrounded by some serious talent
Oh well
The times are very different though. In Thatcher's time, a Government's mandate was still respected, albeit grudgingly. Nobody disputed that Thatcher ran the country (though the Treasury was playing its own games even then).
These days, politicians are constrained by a thicket of obstruction consisting of the burgeoning civil service, independent arms length bodies, the judiciary, and the media. They really can't do anything. Consider a recent case where The High Court struck down a Government consultation on long term sick pay: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-the-high-court-ruling-on-political-consultations/ The Government had done a consultation (itself usually a civil service delaying tactic), decided to move ahead with the policy, Labour had come in and continued with it, but the High Court has ruled the consultation unlawful, effectively nullifying the policy. How the fuck is it their business?
Politicians over the last 30 years have had a habit of passing gestural, sweeping laws embedding broad principles into legislation. Do not blame the judiciary if judges then take these laws at face value.
The more things that governments have to comply with, the more on which they can be challenged - and the woollier the language in the Act, the greater the scope for judicial interpretation.
If you don't like the lengthiness of the process required, don't limit people's ability to go to court to enforce the law, reform the law to enable a swifter process. Of course, if that's what you do want, you'll have to also answer for the unanticipated consequences of removing or restricting rights.
Wait until they see what JohnO and myself spend on our PB Tory lunches.
Seeing as you don’t drink alcohol I find it hard to believe you spend more than £150 a head, and that would be really hard almost anywhere but insane seafood places maybe. Food simply isn’t THAT expensive, unless you’re going to a top 20 world class restaurant for a tasting menu
Three course meal works out at around £150 a head from the a la carte menu based on what I ordered last time.
£35 starter
£50 main
£20 dessert
Add in non alcoholic drinks and 15% service charge
I like going out and having a *really* nice meal occasionally. Perhaps once or twice a year, as (or at) an event. I couldn't stand doing it regularly.
After my last visit to a chain restaurant in November I have vowed never again will I go to a chain restaurant or middling restaurant. I can cook better than that so it is a waste of money and it isn't cheap. I book Michelin star or Michelin recommended restaurants or good quality pubs. We did The Cat Inn is Sussex on Saturday for instance and 22 in Cambridge in November.
Twice the price, but then do it half as many times if money is an issue. And I can cook a decent meal so I do more at home with friends and I definitely can't do Michelin star cooking, but which I really enjoy. I am always so disappointed when leaving a bog standard restaurant. Not so much because of the food, but that I paid so much for it when I could have done better.
But I know what you mean re children. if you want to take them out it is very expensive. Thankfully I am past that now.
We did 22 in Cambridge a couple of years ago for my 50th. It was very nice.
Mrs J has a big birthday this year, and I'm thinking of afternoon tea at Fortnum and Masons (somewhere we love), followed by the Rocky Horror Picture Show. I'm all culture.
You can do "afternoon tea at" almost anywhere in London, all the top hotels and famous shops, and they have all been vlogged on YouTube for your previewing pleasure.
Wait until they see what JohnO and myself spend on our PB Tory lunches.
Seeing as you don’t drink alcohol I find it hard to believe you spend more than £150 a head, and that would be really hard almost anywhere but insane seafood places maybe. Food simply isn’t THAT expensive, unless you’re going to a top 20 world class restaurant for a tasting menu
Three course meal works out at around £150 a head from the a la carte menu based on what I ordered last time.
£35 starter
£50 main
£20 dessert
Add in non alcoholic drinks and 15% service charge
I like going out and having a *really* nice meal occasionally. Perhaps once or twice a year, as (or at) an event. I couldn't stand doing it regularly.
After my last visit to a chain restaurant in November I have vowed never again will I go to a chain restaurant or middling restaurant. I can cook better than that so it is a waste of money and it isn't cheap. I book Michelin star or Michelin recommended restaurants or good quality pubs. We did The Cat Inn is Sussex on Saturday for instance and 22 in Cambridge in November.
Twice the price, but then do it half as many times if money is an issue. And I can cook a decent meal so I do more at home with friends and I definitely can't do Michelin star cooking, but which I really enjoy. I am always so disappointed when leaving a bog standard restaurant. Not so much because of the food, but that I paid so much for it when I could have done better.
But I know what you mean re children. if you want to take them out it is very expensive. Thankfully I am past that now.
We did 22 in Cambridge a couple of years ago for my 50th. It was very nice.
Mrs J has a big birthday this year, and I'm thinking of afternoon tea at Fortnum and Masons (somewhere we love), followed by the Rocky Horror Picture Show. I'm all culture.
You can do "afternoon tea at" almost anywhere in London, all the top hotels and famous shops, and they have all been vlogged on YouTube for your previewing pleasure.
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
One Tony Blair got the Labour Party 13 years of government with a massive majority.
The stupid things he and his chancellor did with that massive majority (mainly spending borrowed money like drunken sailors because interests rates were low, and they'd "abolished boom and bust") are root causes of much of the mess we are in today.
The time round the country has grudgingly let Labour back into government because the Tories have blotted their copy book so badly they couldn't be allowed to continue. Labour has promptly reverted to type - anti-growth taxes, unsustainable borrowing, no attempt to get value for money from spending. And unlike 1997 they haven't started with a golden inheritance which gave them some spare cash to spend.
Frankly the country needs them gone now, not 15 years more of the same.
That's just tory story. NL had plenty of achievements.
Go on then? Which bits didn't happen? Did Blair and Brown not massively expand state spending on the basis of having "abolished boom and bust"?
Isn't the whopping structural deficit that appeared in 2008 when the bust finally arrived the result of treating tax receipts at the top of a huge boom as permanent?
Even the row about removing the WFA (which needed to happen) is this government undoing one of Gordon's nakedly political creations - he could have just bumped the state pension by the same amount for the same effect.
We needed more spending. The place was a mess. But I can agree one thing. Light touch regulation of the City was a big mistake.
Course the Cons would have been lighter still but that's no excuse. And, yes, it created a bubble that when it burst left us very exposed.
It wasn't that it was light touch. It was that it was singularly incompetent, focusing on box-checking rather than outputs, missing God knows how many indicators of over leverage and run by incompetent quangocrats like the original Master of Disaster Lord Turner or Sir Callum McCarthy, whose only qualification seemed to be hanging a huge picture of him with Blair in his office. Divorcing it from the competent and experienced people in the Bank of England was a peculiarly stupid move as well.
If they'd had competent people and bothered to listen more to what their mid-level officials were telling them, the financial crisis might well have been very different, or even avoided altogether.
There was an important reason for separating regulation from the Bank of England, but I cannot recall what it was. Something about a conflict of interest in one of the markets where the BoE was player as well as referee.
But in any case, there were failures and scandals under the Bank of England too, such as BCCI and Baring's, so let's not pretend the BoE was infallible or that changes in regulator were a cause of the GFC.
Wait until they see what JohnO and myself spend on our PB Tory lunches.
Seeing as you don’t drink alcohol I find it hard to believe you spend more than £150 a head, and that would be really hard almost anywhere but insane seafood places maybe. Food simply isn’t THAT expensive, unless you’re going to a top 20 world class restaurant for a tasting menu
Three course meal works out at around £150 a head from the a la carte menu based on what I ordered last time.
£35 starter
£50 main
£20 dessert
Add in non alcoholic drinks and 15% service charge
I like going out and having a *really* nice meal occasionally. Perhaps once or twice a year, as (or at) an event. I couldn't stand doing it regularly.
After my last visit to a chain restaurant in November I have vowed never again will I go to a chain restaurant or middling restaurant. I can cook better than that so it is a waste of money and it isn't cheap. I book Michelin star or Michelin recommended restaurants or good quality pubs. We did The Cat Inn is Sussex on Saturday for instance and 22 in Cambridge in November.
Twice the price, but then do it half as many times if money is an issue. And I can cook a decent meal so I do more at home with friends and I definitely can't do Michelin star cooking, but which I really enjoy. I am always so disappointed when leaving a bog standard restaurant. Not so much because of the food, but that I paid so much for it when I could have done better.
But I know what you mean re children. if you want to take them out it is very expensive. Thankfully I am past that now.
We did 22 in Cambridge a couple of years ago for my 50th. It was very nice.
Mrs J has a big birthday this year, and I'm thinking of afternoon tea at Fortnum and Masons (somewhere we love), followed by the Rocky Horror Picture Show. I'm all culture.
You can do "afternoon tea at" almost anywhere in London, all the top hotels and famous shops, and they have all been vlogged on YouTube for your previewing pleasure.
Fortnum & Mason have a branch in the Royal Exchange building, in the atrium.
MPs Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have agreed to be interviewed under caution by police following a pro-Palestinian rally in central London on Saturday, the BBC understands.
The former Labour leader, 75, and former shadow chancellor, 73, will voluntarily attend a police station in the capital as officers investigate a coordinated effort by organisers to breach conditions imposed on the event.
They will be interviewed on Sunday afternoon, the Metropolitan Police said.
Ten other people have been charged with public order offences following arrests at the protest organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC).
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
One Tony Blair got the Labour Party 13 years of government with a massive majority.
The stupid things he and his chancellor did with that massive majority (mainly spending borrowed money like drunken sailors because interests rates were low, and they'd "abolished boom and bust") are root causes of much of the mess we are in today.
The time round the country has grudgingly let Labour back into government because the Tories have blotted their copy book so badly they couldn't be allowed to continue. Labour has promptly reverted to type - anti-growth taxes, unsustainable borrowing, no attempt to get value for money from spending. And unlike 1997 they haven't started with a golden inheritance which gave them some spare cash to spend.
Frankly the country needs them gone now, not 15 years more of the same.
That's just tory story. NL had plenty of achievements.
Go on then? Which bits didn't happen? Did Blair and Brown not massively expand state spending on the basis of having "abolished boom and bust"?
Isn't the whopping structural deficit that appeared in 2008 when the bust finally arrived the result of treating tax receipts at the top of a huge boom as permanent?
Even the row about removing the WFA (which needed to happen) is this government undoing one of Gordon's nakedly political creations - he could have just bumped the state pension by the same amount for the same effect.
We needed more spending. The place was a mess. But I can agree one thing. Light touch regulation of the City was a big mistake.
Course the Cons would have been lighter still but that's no excuse. And, yes, it created a bubble that when it burst left us very exposed.
It wasn't that it was light touch. It was that it was singularly incompetent, focusing on box-checking rather than outputs, missing God knows how many indicators of over leverage and run by incompetent quangocrats like the original Master of Disaster Lord Turner or Sir Callum McCarthy, whose only qualification seemed to be hanging a huge picture of him with Blair in his office. Divorcing it from the competent and experienced people in the Bank of England was a peculiarly stupid move as well.
If they'd had competent people and bothered to listen more to what their mid-level officials were telling them, the financial crisis might well have been very different, or even avoided altogether.
It was mainly an issue of the Anglo American business and political culture at the time imo. There was no stopping that crash. The US junk bonds at the heart of it, and derivatives thereof, had infected balance sheets all over the world. And we were always going to be hit badly given our bloated and recklessly run finance sector.
MPs Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have agreed to be interviewed under caution by police following a pro-Palestinian rally in central London on Saturday, the BBC understands.
The former Labour leader, 75, and former shadow chancellor, 73, will voluntarily attend a police station in the capital as officers investigate a coordinated effort by organisers to breach conditions imposed on the event.
They will be interviewed on Sunday afternoon, the Metropolitan Police said.
Ten other people have been charged with public order offences following arrests at the protest organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC).
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
10 or 15 years to do….. what? What is the big plan? Where’s the vision, the lodestar, the exciting new route for the UK? What do you want to do with power? How are you going to change the UK for the better, and when, and how much will it cost?
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
But nobody has a better clue. So let's settle down and see how they get on.
So nobody has a better clue than *paying* £9bn of taxpayers money to give away a island to someone else it doesn't belong to?
Nobody has a better clue than vindictivly pulling Latin teaching from schools *mid school year*, thus messing up the education of a whole bunch of kids who happen to be studying it right now.
Nobody has a better clue for raising tax than taxing *employment* more.
Nobody has a better clue about energy than letting that fool Miliband blow £20bn on pointless carbon capture.
I could go on, but you get the picture. On most of these, doing nothing whatsoever would have been better.
But you don't expect people with tory brain chemistry to feel positive about what Labour governments do. That's only natural.
Are you really 100% happy with all those listed decisions? Every single one?
Ed Davey likely would make a decent PM, certainly better than two others on that list.
He comes from a party that hasn't produced prime ministers for a hundred years however.
Ed Davey reminds me of Rory Kinnear who did make a decent PM.
On his last outing Kinnear came close to killing a former Tory campaign manager which might be considered by Sir Ed for his next stunt.
While I am partisan, I do genuinely think that Sir Ed is wildly underestimated. I think his clear move towards Rejoin is carving out unique territory for the Lib Dems, and he also has some very impressive people on the Lib Dem benches. People know that Farage is a media creature and Brexit is now an unambiguous failure. Few of the extremely partisan commentators in the media give him the time of day, but it is Sir Ed, not Farage, that has the Parliamentary advantage. Watch this space for astute and intelligent moves.
I’m surprised at the Lib Dem’s who want to dump their leader. In favour of whom exactly? By what metric do they think they are not doing well enough and who/how could this be improved?
Here's a metric:
Since the GE Labour have dropped from 35% to around 25%. But the LibDems have flatlined.
Not good enough.
The Lib Dem strategy has been totally and successfully focused on target seats. The national share was irrelevant. 100 seats at 50% and the rest at 5% gives a national share of about 13%, which is a meaningless measure.
However this strategy limits the Lib Dems to being a junior party in a coalition (hiss) or C&S.
I think there will be a change to a more national campaign (on top of the local campaigns) to broaden the ambition. Ed Davey's recent call for joining the customs union might a sign of that.
National share will then become an important metric.
While the targeting at the GE was, of course, very successful, you must be concerned that the LDs have failed to progress as Labour support has declined?
Labour supporters leaving the party are heading left to the Greens and the Gaza parties. Or going to Reform.
Not sure that the Lib Dens are fishing in either pool.
I do wish voters would stick to what they usually do rather than constantly moving around. You can't make plans when they're like this.
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
You dont think thats anything to do with your policies being crap and your front bench worse ?
You'd say that regardless tbf.
That's certainly the case, but doesnt stop it being true. This is one of the worst starts to office in living memory.
You're not old enough to remember Thatcher?
Yes, and it was nowhere near this bad.
Worse. People were scratching their heads. And they were scared. It looked like a doom loop.
You mean like the farmers today, or the unheated pensioners, or business owners about to sack their staff because they cant afford to employ them ?
AS @Leon says at least Thatcher had a plan, catastrrophe Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
What, so Mrs Thatcher actually intended to destroy our industrial base, our sense of community, our housing system and concentrate wealth and opportunity in the South East of England?
Oh well that's alright then. So long as there was a plan.
Many of the things she gets blamed for didn't really happen until Blair was in power.
But otoh she isn't blamed for many things she ought to be blamed for.
Yes, for example there is a direct line from smashing the unions to mass immigration. Arthur Scargill would never have stood for importing millions of workers to serve the interests of the bosses and the rich.
Old school, he was. Brexit supporter.
But I was more thinking housing, rip off utilities, asset stripping, veneration of the City and financial wheeler dealing over real value added work, this sort of thing.
Scargill is a Brit hating traitor.
He took money from opponents of the UK, such as Libya and the Soviet Union, of course he backed Brexit.
Don't worry, I'm not a Scargill fan. He exploited the miners for his own ends.
Wait until they see what JohnO and myself spend on our PB Tory lunches.
Seeing as you don’t drink alcohol I find it hard to believe you spend more than £150 a head, and that would be really hard almost anywhere but insane seafood places maybe. Food simply isn’t THAT expensive, unless you’re going to a top 20 world class restaurant for a tasting menu
Three course meal works out at around £150 a head from the a la carte menu based on what I ordered last time.
£35 starter
£50 main
£20 dessert
Add in non alcoholic drinks and 15% service charge
I like going out and having a *really* nice meal occasionally. Perhaps once or twice a year, as (or at) an event. I couldn't stand doing it regularly.
What? You only eat out at a nice restaurant…. Once or twice a year?!
We eat out at nice restaurants more frequently than that (though having a kid can be somewhat limiting). I mean eating out at restaurants at *that* sort of price range. The sort of restaurant that the 0.5% can afford to go to.
That makes more sense. Not a bad gastropub menu, there
Honestly, you’re not missing much in missing Claridge’s. £34 for a cheese toastie - which will be nice, but worth about a tenner absolute max - is obscene, and sums it up
All the best meals I had in 2024 - and I ate at maybe 100 restaurants around the world - were under ten quid for a dish. Probably the one best dish of the year, the one I remember the most, was home-made borscht at a Stalin-themed restaurant in Transnistria. All home made, absolutely fucking delicious, and so so so good on a hot day with cold beer
Cost? £3
WRT restaurants, there is a lot of overpriced rubbish in central London, (eg £40 for a cheese platter and two 175 ml glasses of wine), but also some quite reasonably-priced gems.
Go above £80 per head (excluding wine), and I think you’re into the territory of diminishing returns).
London restaurant prices are nuts. It strikes me that the delivery companies are to blame. They charge big percentages, and rather than have every delivery customer annoyed the restaurants have pushed up their in-restaurant prices so that the delivery customers won't get annoyed. Thereby of course boosting the arm of the delivery companies as eating in isn't cheaper.
My local curry house is a shining exception - they've not changed their prices in about 10 years, and the food is outstanding. No alcohol license.
London restaurant prices for a bottle of wine are simply criminal.
Comments
Thing is, there is a serious point here. We (Labour) need 10 to 15 years to transform the country. But we only get 6 months before people start getting antsy, poring over polls, fretting about "lack of narratives" bla bla.
It's a recipe for perpetual frustration and disappointment. For everybody.
Many politicians are at least a bit populist - saying after winning an election things like "the people of Britain have spoken." I'd prefer it if they said "enough people voted for us in the right places for us to get a majority, which gives us the opportunity to form a government and attempt to implement our programme, while doing our best to govern for the whole country and never forgetting that a majority of people voted for other parties."
But I guess it's a bit of a mouthful.
Answer came there none, because Labour has No Fucking Clue. THIS is why your government is already historically unpopular, it’s not because voters are all short-attention-span idiots asking too much, it’s because they can rightly see that Labour’s big idea consists of overpaying public sector workers and punting a plan for social care to 2028 because they have no fucking idea what to do
We can all read the news. We all read that Sir Sheer Wanker was “unpleasantly surprised” to discover that, when he went into Number 10, “there was no plan”. Yeah, we noticed . You’d think the PM would be across these details, but not
One term government
Oh well
AS @Leon says at least Thatcher had a plan, catastrrophe Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
Subalterns (like Lieutenant George) straight out of university or even public school had (obviously) no military experience and would lead from the front towards German machine guns. Early on, their life expectancy was around six weeks.
The old sweats like Captain Blackadder had experienced various colonial wars and could be unlucky but rarely stupid.
The one thing Blackadder missed (iirc and it was a long time ago) was that troops would be rotated in and out of the front lines. They weren't there for weeks or even days on end. From France, it was even possible to return to England during leave.
Wait for what? David “Mastermind” Lammy to have a brilliant idea? Rachel from Accounts to grow an actual brain?
lol. And this is after six months.
They couldn't get any traction with Salmond and a supposed cohort of still-want-indy but sick-of-SNP people. Now sadly there's no Salmond and an indy movement withered like a deflated balloon.
Only trouble is going back to the SNP is a tacit acceptance that independence is a great idea on paper but not something that is likely to be achieved any time soon.
The recent budget contained none of these.
All of them are are clueless on what they should do and Starmer has no leadership skills.
Oh well that's alright then. So long as there was a plan.
It’s stupefying. They’ve been in Opposition 14 years. Starmer has been LOTO for ages. What were they doing all that time??
This is quite an evocative portrait of him in his later Mosleyite phase.
Wilson closed more mines than Thatcher but you support that now
Khan is killing the opportunity in London and the Sourh East so we no doubt shall all level up on poverty.
...oh.
The restaurant we often go to has prices about half of that mentioned above. In 2022 it featured in the top 50 gastropubs.
https://theploughcoton.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Sunday-Menu-November-24.pdf
The stupid things he and his chancellor did with that massive majority (mainly spending borrowed money like drunken sailors because interests rates were low, and they'd "abolished boom and bust") are root causes of much of the mess we are in today.
The time round the country has grudgingly let Labour back into government because the Tories have blotted their copy book so badly they couldn't be allowed to continue. Labour has promptly reverted to type - anti-growth taxes, unsustainable borrowing, no attempt to get value for money from spending. And unlike 1997 they haven't started with a golden inheritance which gave them some spare cash to spend.
Frankly the country needs them gone now, not 15 years more of the same.
Edit: also, what Slab various have/are/will be promising is not what the people in London yanking their chain want. No idea how that will be sorted out.
There's a telling theme with PB Lefties in that you cannot justify your own decision and rush to hark back to the cosy days when you were the opposition.
Youre not the oppositions youre now the government and frankly not a very good one.
So we'll stick with this for a while. Things will be clearer in a couple of years.
I'm far more concerned about global events tbh, esp with Trump coming in.
All we have to do as a nation is lower our sights until youre comfortable.
Nobody has a better clue than vindictivly pulling Latin teaching from schools *mid school year*, thus messing up the education of a whole bunch of kids who happen to be studying it right now.
Nobody has a better clue for raising tax than taxing *employment* more.
Nobody has a better clue about energy than letting that fool Miliband blow £20bn on pointless carbon capture.
I could go on, but you get the picture. On most of these, doing nothing whatsoever would have been better.
1) Rework the company tax system to reward investment in plant and training, and make up the difference from taxing financialisation of companies. Buy a zillion quids worth of CNC machines - thumbs up. Borrow a zillion quid to strip the company of value - thumbs down.
2) Training. The universities take on training and the academic side of apprenticeships. Companies buy into this service, providing the hands on side of apprenticeships, and paying money towards the classroom side. This creates nationally recognised qualifications which represent transferable skills.
3) Create a series of experiments in helping the part time workers become full time workers. How to help them out of the tax/benefit trap.
Honestly, you’re not missing much in missing Claridge’s. £34 for a cheese toastie - which will be nice, but worth about a tenner absolute max - is obscene, and sums it up
All the best meals I had in 2024 - and I ate at maybe 100 restaurants around the world - were under ten quid for a dish. Probably the one best dish of the year, the one I remember the most, was home-made borscht at a Stalin-themed restaurant in Transnistria. All home made, absolutely fucking delicious, and so so so good on a hot day with cold beer
Cost? £3
Yep the absolute refusal of Bytedance to sell TikTok in any circumstances - supported by the Chinese government incidentally - is curious, and raises a big question mark about what actually goes on in that organisation.
Twice the price, but then do it half as many times if money is an issue. And I can cook a decent meal so I do more at home with friends and I definitely can't do Michelin star cooking, but which I really enjoy. I am always so disappointed when leaving a bog standard restaurant. Not so much because of the food, but that I paid so much for it when I could have done better.
But I know what you mean re children. if you want to take them out it is very expensive. Thankfully I am past that now.
Go above £80 per head (excluding wine), and I think you’re into the territory of diminishing returns).
Isn't the whopping structural deficit that appeared in 2008 when the bust finally arrived the result of treating tax receipts at the top of a huge boom as permanent?
Even the row about removing the WFA (which needed to happen) is this government undoing one of Gordon's nakedly political creations - he could have just bumped the state pension by the same amount for the same effect.
Ms Reeves’s most significant problem is not that she’s done things that aren’t popular. That is an occupational hazard and she has the consolation of knowing she has yet to arouse the visceral dislike experienced by George Osborne when he was so “beleaguered” that he got booed at the Paralympics... Her fundamental problem is so obvious that it can be seen from outer space. The economy is flatlining. We’re not enjoying the “growth, growth, growth” that she and Sir Keir promised.
Elements of the government’s programme, including increased investment in infrastructure, pension reforms and the liberalisation of the planning regime, ought to make a difference over time. But in the here and now, it is the paucity of growth that makes Ms Reeves vulnerable. Unless some growth turns up soon, the government is going to face some seriously ugly choices about taxation and spending this year. That’s why Labour people have become so jittery.
One miscalculation was made before the election. This was to assume that bringing down the curtain on the Tory clown show and committing to “stability” and “fiscal responsibility” would be enough in themselves to lift the economy. Another error was made in the immediate aftermath of the election. That was to overdo the doom music about Labour’s inheritance.
For all that, rumours of Ms Reeves’s imminent demise seem to me grossly exaggerated. One reason I say this is because she is lucky in her opponents, especially the Tory ones. It may have become boringly predictable to hear her answer Conservative attacks with scorn for their dismal legacy, but it is true that they left behind a dreadful mess, and voters know it to be so.
When chancellors are suddenly forced out, it is usually for one of two reasons. Some are brought down by a credibility-shattering shock. Jim Callaghan left the Treasury in 1967 when Harold Wilson’s Labour government…was forced to devalue the pound. Norman Lamont was done for by the Black Wednesday humiliation in the early 1990s. The most recent entry in this category is Kwasi Kwarteng… The other common cause of the abrupt termination of a chancellorship is an unbridgeable difference of opinion with the prime minister. That was the case with the resignation of Peter Thorneycroft from Harold Macmillan’s government in 1958 and Nigel Lawson’s departure from Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet in 1989.
[Starmer] owns the government’s economic strategy as much as she does. Throwing her overboard would not be strong and decisive. It would look feeble and desperate. And also pointless, because her successor would be confronted with precisely the same dilemmas…So prime minister and chancellor are lashed to the same mast and bound to the same hope that the gloom will be pierced by glimmers of higher growth. Whether it turns up will decide their entwined fates.
Once you learn to cook to a pretty good standard - which I have done - then much low-middling restaurant food becomes decidedly unappealing, because I know I can do as well or better at a third the price (and drink my own wine at a tenth the pice). Again this is why I often go for high quality ingredients, esp seafood. Oysters, crab, etc. Oysters are a bitch to source, clean, shuck - so if a restaurant can do it for three quid a pop then fine
Otherwise I go for ethnic world cuisine (at least it’s interesting, new and often delish - and cheaper) or wait for someone to pay me to go high end
And on that ecumenical note, off to watch Kaos. Later
But I was more thinking housing, rip off utilities, asset stripping, veneration of the City and financial wheeler dealing over real value added work, this sort of thing.
MPs Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have agreed to be interviewed under caution by police following a pro-Palestinian rally in central London on Saturday, the BBC understands.
The former Labour leader, 75, and former shadow chancellor, 73, will voluntarily attend a police station in the capital as officers investigate a coordinated effort by organisers to breach conditions imposed on the event.
They will be interviewed on Sunday afternoon, the Metropolitan Police said.
Ten other people have been charged with public order offences following arrests at the protest organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clykrvp1g83o
Yes. Yes I think I shall...
Leon wins prizes for voting for Brexit and Starmer.
He took money from opponents of the UK, such as Libya and the Soviet Union, of course he backed Brexit.
Course the Cons would have been lighter still but that's no excuse. And, yes, it created a bubble that when it burst left us very exposed.
These days, politicians are constrained by a thicket of obstruction consisting of the burgeoning civil service, independent arms length bodies, the judiciary, and the media. They really can't do anything. Consider a recent case where The High Court struck down a Government consultation on long term sick pay: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-the-high-court-ruling-on-political-consultations/ The Government had done a consultation (itself usually a civil service delaying tactic), decided to move ahead with the policy, Labour had come in and continued with it, but the High Court has ruled the consultation unlawful, effectively nullifying the policy. How the fuck is it their business?
Mrs J has a big birthday this year, and I'm thinking of afternoon tea at Fortnum and Masons (somewhere we love), followed by the Rocky Horror Picture Show. I'm all culture.
Starmer, Reeves and the rest have been a huge disappointment but not only that, they have made things worse and it must be a concern to any labour supporter
If they'd had competent people and bothered to listen more to what their mid-level officials were telling them, the financial crisis might well have been very different, or even avoided altogether.
The more things that governments have to comply with, the more on which they can be challenged - and the woollier the language in the Act, the greater the scope for judicial interpretation.
If you don't like the lengthiness of the process required, don't limit people's ability to go to court to enforce the law, reform the law to enable a swifter process. Of course, if that's what you do want, you'll have to also answer for the unanticipated consequences of removing or restricting rights.
But in any case, there were failures and scandals under the Bank of England too, such as BCCI and Baring's, so let's not pretend the BoE was infallible or that changes in regulator were a cause of the GFC.
They looked very cross. I imagine a lot of them were particularly annoyed about the ceasefire.
My local curry house is a shining exception - they've not changed their prices in about 10 years, and the food is outstanding. No alcohol license.
London restaurant prices for a bottle of wine are simply criminal.