Boris got 44% in 2019. Reform UK are polling around 30-32%. They need a third of their support again to match Boris.
Perhaps that's the way - Boris joins Reform and they do a reverse merger with the rump Tories to become the Reformatories aka borstal boys
@bondegezou is characteristically wrong. If the electoral field is fragmented as it is now, then 32% might do fine for Reform, under FPTP
Tactical voting might do for Nige though, especially if his ceiling is 30% or so. He will have to tread carefully, which he's not well known for. The attack on Sarwar in the Scottish by-election backfired, encouraged Labour's vote to turn out, and delivered an unexpected victory for Labour.
People certainly do want immigration tackled, but they are squeamish about voting for obvious bad 'uns who are playing them - this is not the USofA.
FPTP is a terrible system, so Reform UK might win a majority on 30%. 30%, nevertheless, remains only three quarters of what Boris got.
FPTP is a good system. You have to actually come first in 325 seats to form a government as of right. In every single one of them there is a cage fight going on to stop you doing it. if you can do it with 30% of the vote, it is equally true that someone else can stop you by getting 31%, so it's obviously harder than it sounds. You have to come first in actual communities that are quite small units and they are all different. It's a clever thing to be able to do in 50% + of the entire country.
We are a democracy of seats, not of votes. It has great merit.
If the opinion of the majority of the voters is ignored, in what way is that a democracy?
It's a democracy of seats, as explained. And no government can keep a democracy of seats by ignoring 'the majority'.
All democracies make choices between the many things that count as 'democracy'. This is is OK.
"A democracy of seats as explained" is not democratic if the number of seats is not allocated according to the freely expressed will of the people. You may have a political system, but you do not have a democratic system. For example, the People´s Republic of China has a Parliament with the vast majority of seats allocated to the Chinese Communist Party. One would not mistake the PRC for a democracy.
It is a genuine form of democracy - others are available - as unlike China all can stand and campaign and all can vote under well known rules as to who wins. To 'win' you have to get the most votes in half the seats. In a multi party democracy to do that you have to be broad and popular. To stay winning you have to govern for the good of voters as a whole.
Its weaknesses have to be looked at in the light of alternatives and their weaknesses too. Eg hyper PR gives you Israel.
Does it ? I don't think you can really explain a country's politics purely by its electoral system.
Israel might well be in something like its current mess under any electoral system.
Democracy itself isn't a panacea. It's just the best chance we all have.
I think it’s safe to say there would likely be far fewer parties under FPTP. What is now Likud might well be in the same party as some of the harder-right elements currently in coalition with Bibi, for instance.
The same dynamic would likely apply, though, with the right needing the support of the religious hard liners to stay in power.
It's amusing but I think it misreads the dynamic between Trump and Musk.
I think the dynamic is similar to that between Stalin and Trotsky, and not the father and child dynamic implied by the Twitter short.
Stalin's (Trump's) authority has now been directly challenged by Trotsky (Musk). Musk hasn't just disagreed with Trump on policy, but he has also openly called for Trump to be impeached and removed. This is a red line for Trump, that he would never be able to ignore or forgive.
Musk has his own following & can be very dangerous to Trump's hold on MAGA.
Trump must now destroy Musk to make sure that he longer poses a threat.
Everyone knows the name of Neil Armstrong, so that would certainly be the way to lasting notoriety
I'm not sure they do know the name.
One of the documentaries made to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the lunar landings went to visit Armstrong's childhood home: the one where he threw paper planes out of his bedroom window as a kid. They knocked on the door to ask permission to film. The homeowner replied with something like: "I'll have nothing to do with that cheater!"
They realised the homeowner thought they were talking about Lance Armstrong, not Neil Armstrong...
The median PB demographic, who were alive during the Apollo program will. But as you note, it's over half a century since the last Apollo flight.
It's 20 years since Lance Armstrong last won the Tour de France though. His fame will be fading fast too.
Of course (channelling my inner HYUFD there) the record books will show he never won the Tour de France.
Sorry I'm all out of inverted commas and couldn't be arsed to go to the shops toget some more.
But I wonder how far down the list of winners you'd have to go before you found a clean competitor?
It's amusing but I think it misreads the dynamic between Trump and Musk.
I think the dynamic is similar to that between Stalin and Trotsky, and not the father and child dynamic implied by the Twitter short.
Stalin's (Trump's) authority has now been directly challenged by Trotsky (Musk). Musk hasn't just disagreed with Trump on policy, but he has also openly called for Trump to be impeached and removed. This is a red line for Trump, that he would never be able to ignore or forgive.
Musk has his own following & can be very dangerous to Trump's hold on MAGA.
Trump must now destroy Musk to make sure that he longer poses a threat.
Everyone knows the name of Neil Armstrong, so that would certainly be the way to lasting notoriety
I'm not sure they do know the name.
One of the documentaries made to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the lunar landings went to visit Armstrong's childhood home: the one where he threw paper planes out of his bedroom window as a kid. They knocked on the door to ask permission to film. The homeowner replied with something like: "I'll have nothing to do with that cheater!"
They realised the homeowner thought they were talking about Lance Armstrong, not Neil Armstrong...
The median PB demographic, who were alive during the Apollo program will. But as you note, it's over half a century since the last Apollo flight.
It's 20 years since Lance Armstrong last won the Tour de France though. His fame will be fading fast too.
Louis Armstrong Neil Armstrong Lance Armstrong Alexander Armstrong
The batton is passed from one to the next.
You're forgetting Gary Armstrong, Scotland scrum-half.
Boris got 44% in 2019. Reform UK are polling around 30-32%. They need a third of their support again to match Boris.
Perhaps that's the way - Boris joins Reform and they do a reverse merger with the rump Tories to become the Reformatories aka borstal boys
@bondegezou is characteristically wrong. If the electoral field is fragmented as it is now, then 32% might do fine for Reform, under FPTP
Tactical voting might do for Nige though, especially if his ceiling is 30% or so. He will have to tread carefully, which he's not well known for. The attack on Sarwar in the Scottish by-election backfired, encouraged Labour's vote to turn out, and delivered an unexpected victory for Labour.
People certainly do want immigration tackled, but they are squeamish about voting for obvious bad 'uns who are playing them - this is not the USofA.
FPTP is a terrible system, so Reform UK might win a majority on 30%. 30%, nevertheless, remains only three quarters of what Boris got.
FPTP is a good system. You have to actually come first in 325 seats to form a government as of right. In every single one of them there is a cage fight going on to stop you doing it. if you can do it with 30% of the vote, it is equally true that someone else can stop you by getting 31%, so it's obviously harder than it sounds. You have to come first in actual communities that are quite small units and they are all different. It's a clever thing to be able to do in 50% + of the entire country.
We are a democracy of seats, not of votes. It has great merit.
If the opinion of the majority of the voters is ignored, in what way is that a democracy?
It's a democracy of seats, as explained. And no government can keep a democracy of seats by ignoring 'the majority'.
All democracies make choices between the many things that count as 'democracy'. This is is OK.
"A democracy of seats as explained" is not democratic if the number of seats is not allocated according to the freely expressed will of the people. You may have a political system, but you do not have a democratic system. For example, the People´s Republic of China has a Parliament with the vast majority of seats allocated to the Chinese Communist Party. One would not mistake the PRC for a democracy.
It is a genuine form of democracy - others are available - as unlike China all can stand and campaign and all can vote under well known rules as to who wins. To 'win' you have to get the most votes in half the seats. In a multi party democracy to do that you have to be broad and popular. To stay winning you have to govern for the good of voters as a whole.
Its weaknesses have to be looked at in the light of alternatives and their weaknesses too. Eg hyper PR gives you Israel.
Does it ? I don't think you can really explain a country's politics purely by its electoral system.
Israel might well be in something like its current mess under any electoral system.
Democracy itself isn't a panacea. It's just the best chance we all have.
I think it’s safe to say there would likely be far fewer parties under FPTP. What is now Likud might well be in the same party as some of the harder-right elements currently in coalition with Bibi, for instance.
The same dynamic would likely apply, though, with the right needing the support of the religious hard liners to stay in power.
But critically, those more extreme elements would likely be moderated or at least kept quieter by being within the big tent? In theory.
Boris got 44% in 2019. Reform UK are polling around 30-32%. They need a third of their support again to match Boris.
Perhaps that's the way - Boris joins Reform and they do a reverse merger with the rump Tories to become the Reformatories aka borstal boys
@bondegezou is characteristically wrong. If the electoral field is fragmented as it is now, then 32% might do fine for Reform, under FPTP
Tactical voting might do for Nige though, especially if his ceiling is 30% or so. He will have to tread carefully, which he's not well known for. The attack on Sarwar in the Scottish by-election backfired, encouraged Labour's vote to turn out, and delivered an unexpected victory for Labour.
People certainly do want immigration tackled, but they are squeamish about voting for obvious bad 'uns who are playing them - this is not the USofA.
FPTP is a terrible system, so Reform UK might win a majority on 30%. 30%, nevertheless, remains only three quarters of what Boris got.
FPTP is a good system. You have to actually come first in 325 seats to form a government as of right. In every single one of them there is a cage fight going on to stop you doing it. if you can do it with 30% of the vote, it is equally true that someone else can stop you by getting 31%, so it's obviously harder than it sounds. You have to come first in actual communities that are quite small units and they are all different. It's a clever thing to be able to do in 50% + of the entire country.
We are a democracy of seats, not of votes. It has great merit.
If the opinion of the majority of the voters is ignored, in what way is that a democracy?
It's a democracy of seats, as explained. And no government can keep a democracy of seats by ignoring 'the majority'.
All democracies make choices between the many things that count as 'democracy'. This is is OK.
"A democracy of seats as explained" is not democratic if the number of seats is not allocated according to the freely expressed will of the people. You may have a political system, but you do not have a democratic system. For example, the People´s Republic of China has a Parliament with the vast majority of seats allocated to the Chinese Communist Party. One would not mistake the PRC for a democracy.
It is a genuine form of democracy - others are available - as unlike China all can stand and campaign and all can vote under well known rules as to who wins. To 'win' you have to get the most votes in half the seats. In a multi party democracy to do that you have to be broad and popular. To stay winning you have to govern for the good of voters as a whole.
Its weaknesses have to be looked at in the light of alternatives and their weaknesses too. Eg hyper PR gives you Israel.
Does it ? I don't think you can really explain a country's politics purely by its electoral system.
Israel might well be in something like its current mess under any electoral system.
Democracy itself isn't a panacea. It's just the best chance we all have.
I think it’s safe to say there would likely be far fewer parties under FPTP. What is now Likud might well be in the same party as some of the harder-right elements currently in coalition with Bibi, for instance.
The same dynamic would likely apply, though, with the right needing the support of the religious hard liners to stay in power.
But critically, those more extreme elements would likely be moderated or at least kept quieter by being within the big tent? In theory.
Until they weren't. You could end up with a government very similar to Netanyahu's, with significantly fewer votes between the parties that compose it.
I expect we'll see quite a number of these sorts of things in UK ports over the next few years.
HIGH-ENERGY TRANSMISSION X-RAY For cargo systems, high-energy, high-performance transmission X-rays deeply penetrate densely loaded containers for greater detection. High-energy transmission X-rays provide fine details, even while penetrating up to 400 mm of steel — and offer a reliable means of detecting threatening materials, weapons, and contraband hidden in cargo containers, tankers, and large vehicles. https://www.rapiscansystems.com/en/technologies/high-energy-transmission-x-ray
Diplomatic bags (which covers diplomatic freight pallets) to be exempt? Even if we bought this maker's gizmo in sufficient quantities to inspect everything, which we won't.
Surely a candidate for Farage's mob? Is there a reason she hasn't joined yet? When Farage implodes she'd be just what they're looking for
I think she is too obviously bonkers even for Reform. And they wouldn’t want to be tainted by her regime - she makes too easy a target for opponents (think lettuce leaflets), even if Reform people liked much of her policy platform.
It's amusing but I think it misreads the dynamic between Trump and Musk.
I think the dynamic is similar to that between Stalin and Trotsky, and not the father and child dynamic implied by the Twitter short.
Stalin's (Trump's) authority has now been directly challenged by Trotsky (Musk). Musk hasn't just disagreed with Trump on policy, but he has also openly called for Trump to be impeached and removed. This is a red line for Trump, that he would never be able to ignore or forgive.
Musk has his own following & can be very dangerous to Trump's hold on MAGA.
Trump must now destroy Musk to make sure that he longer poses a threat.
Everyone knows the name of Neil Armstrong, so that would certainly be the way to lasting notoriety
I'm not sure they do know the name.
One of the documentaries made to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the lunar landings went to visit Armstrong's childhood home: the one where he threw paper planes out of his bedroom window as a kid. They knocked on the door to ask permission to film. The homeowner replied with something like: "I'll have nothing to do with that cheater!"
They realised the homeowner thought they were talking about Lance Armstrong, not Neil Armstrong...
The median PB demographic, who were alive during the Apollo program will. But as you note, it's over half a century since the last Apollo flight.
I don't believe the median PB demographic is over 53. Mid 40s maybe.
I'd just turned 45 when I first posted on here. I'm 51 now. Which is depressing.
It was a guess. But every so often I'm surprised, when PBers reveal their ages, by just how old we are. I'm over a decade on from you.
Boris got 44% in 2019. Reform UK are polling around 30-32%. They need a third of their support again to match Boris.
Perhaps that's the way - Boris joins Reform and they do a reverse merger with the rump Tories to become the Reformatories aka borstal boys
@bondegezou is characteristically wrong. If the electoral field is fragmented as it is now, then 32% might do fine for Reform, under FPTP
Tactical voting might do for Nige though, especially if his ceiling is 30% or so. He will have to tread carefully, which he's not well known for. The attack on Sarwar in the Scottish by-election backfired, encouraged Labour's vote to turn out, and delivered an unexpected victory for Labour.
People certainly do want immigration tackled, but they are squeamish about voting for obvious bad 'uns who are playing them - this is not the USofA.
FPTP is a terrible system, so Reform UK might win a majority on 30%. 30%, nevertheless, remains only three quarters of what Boris got.
FPTP is a good system. You have to actually come first in 325 seats to form a government as of right. In every single one of them there is a cage fight going on to stop you doing it. if you can do it with 30% of the vote, it is equally true that someone else can stop you by getting 31%, so it's obviously harder than it sounds. You have to come first in actual communities that are quite small units and they are all different. It's a clever thing to be able to do in 50% + of the entire country.
We are a democracy of seats, not of votes. It has great merit.
If the opinion of the majority of the voters is ignored, in what way is that a democracy?
It's a democracy of seats, as explained. And no government can keep a democracy of seats by ignoring 'the majority'.
All democracies make choices between the many things that count as 'democracy'. This is is OK.
"A democracy of seats as explained" is not democratic if the number of seats is not allocated according to the freely expressed will of the people. You may have a political system, but you do not have a democratic system. For example, the People´s Republic of China has a Parliament with the vast majority of seats allocated to the Chinese Communist Party. One would not mistake the PRC for a democracy.
It is a genuine form of democracy - others are available - as unlike China all can stand and campaign and all can vote under well known rules as to who wins. To 'win' you have to get the most votes in half the seats. In a multi party democracy to do that you have to be broad and popular. To stay winning you have to govern for the good of voters as a whole.
Its weaknesses have to be looked at in the light of alternatives and their weaknesses too. Eg hyper PR gives you Israel.
Israel’s society gives you Israel, not PR. FPTP in Israel would deliver an even more bonkers Knesset.
And FPTP in Holyrood would have given successive large majorities to the SNP whose strong claim for a second Indy ref even Westminster would be unable to ignore. Only joking, of course they would ignore it!
Yes, the situation in Scotland is a strong argument against FPTP.
At the last election, the SNP got 62 out of 73 constituency seats.
FPTP wrongly suggests that 85% of Scots want Independence.
Not really. England has an interest in the constitutional balance between Scotland and England. Hence it is a matter for the Westminster Parliament.
Quite properly they put the matter directly to voters from time to time. As the SNP themselves said, it should be “once in a generation”.
So it would be reasonable to retest around 2030-35.
It's amusing but I think it misreads the dynamic between Trump and Musk.
I think the dynamic is similar to that between Stalin and Trotsky, and not the father and child dynamic implied by the Twitter short.
Stalin's (Trump's) authority has now been directly challenged by Trotsky (Musk). Musk hasn't just disagreed with Trump on policy, but he has also openly called for Trump to be impeached and removed. This is a red line for Trump, that he would never be able to ignore or forgive.
Musk has his own following & can be very dangerous to Trump's hold on MAGA.
Trump must now destroy Musk to make sure that he longer poses a threat.
Everyone knows the name of Neil Armstrong, so that would certainly be the way to lasting notoriety
I'm not sure they do know the name.
One of the documentaries made to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the lunar landings went to visit Armstrong's childhood home: the one where he threw paper planes out of his bedroom window as a kid. They knocked on the door to ask permission to film. The homeowner replied with something like: "I'll have nothing to do with that cheater!"
They realised the homeowner thought they were talking about Lance Armstrong, not Neil Armstrong...
The median PB demographic, who were alive during the Apollo program will. But as you note, it's over half a century since the last Apollo flight.
It's 20 years since Lance Armstrong last won the Tour de France though. His fame will be fading fast too.
Louis Armstrong Neil Armstrong Lance Armstrong Alexander Armstrong
The batton is passed from one to the next.
You're forgetting Gary Armstrong, Scotland scrum-half.
Our defence procurement (and our manufacturers) should be taking a close look at this program. Something quite similar to Storm Shadow at (supposedly) less than a tenth of the price.
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/03/anduril-and-zone-5-technologies-advance-for-air-force-diu-enterprise-test-vehicle/ ..According to Mike Rothstein, Lockheed’s vice president of strategy and requirements for air weapons and sensors, the CMMT is designed to be an “upper subsonic” air vehicle with a range of “multiple hundreds of miles,” adding that larger variants can travel “upwards to 1,000-ish miles.” Besides features like scalability, the platform was also designed to more easily incorporate different payloads like warheads or sensors.
Rothstein said the CMMT “fits very well inside [FAMM]” effort, and that the company was aiming to meet unit cost goals under the program of $150,000 per round. According to a Lockheed press release, the weapon comes in two air-launched variants: one configuration can deploy from airlifters, fighters and bombers, while a smaller version can act as a launched effect from rotary aircraft...
Ukrainian drones flew out of grain train car hatches and destroyed 13 Russian tanks and more than a 100 armored vehicles and other equipment being transported by the Russian train in occupied southern Ukraine. The hatches appear to have been opened remotely, again. https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1931452296287887404
This mode of attack is about to become a global security nightmare, as it's probably within the capability of almost any state, and plenty of non state actors.
And drones can be stored within target countries for years, just in case.
Though easier to do in an area occupied by an invader, with plenty of supportive locals. The more territory the Russians take, the more insurgency.
How much does it cost to hire a lock-up garage or self-storage unit from Yellow Box or similar? The hard part for terrorists in this country is getting hold of explosives, not storing drones.
Niall Ferguson @nfergus · 6h That scraping sound you hear is @RachelReevesMP moving the deckchairs around on the Titanic. What’s that big white thing we’re sailing towards? The answer is an unsustainably high national debt. 1/13
Niall Ferguson @nfergus The lesson is clear. With Labour stuck in Harold Wilson/Jim Callaghan mode and heading inevitably for “Crisis, what crisis?”, and with Farage offering secondhand populism, @KemiBadenoch needs to unleash her inner Milei. That does not mean donning a leather jacket and wielding a chainsaw, which did not work for Elon Musk. It means being the committed free-market libertarian she is — and the symbol of a successful, multiracial society that she is uniquely placed to be. 12/13
And being a slash the state libertarian on the lines of Musk and Milei has even seen Trump fall out with the former after being accused of not going far enough by Musk who is too small state even for the President. Here it would just see some One Nation Tories still voting Tory go LD without winning over nationalist Reform voters
Kemi may well be stuffed whatever happens, and I'd say in that case it's better to go down supporting economically literate policies than moronic ones.
If nothing else, once Reform get power and their policies are proven to be unworkable, it puts the Conservatives in a better position to rebuild a decade from now.
Then again, four years is a long time, and at least some voters may be sick of tax and spend by then.
She risks being toppled by Tory MPs and replaced by Cleverly if she goes too far down the DOGE and Truss slash tax route. Reform are doing DOGE anyway
Boris got 44% in 2019. Reform UK are polling around 30-32%. They need a third of their support again to match Boris.
Perhaps that's the way - Boris joins Reform and they do a reverse merger with the rump Tories to become the Reformatories aka borstal boys
@bondegezou is characteristically wrong. If the electoral field is fragmented as it is now, then 32% might do fine for Reform, under FPTP
Tactical voting might do for Nige though, especially if his ceiling is 30% or so. He will have to tread carefully, which he's not well known for. The attack on Sarwar in the Scottish by-election backfired, encouraged Labour's vote to turn out, and delivered an unexpected victory for Labour.
People certainly do want immigration tackled, but they are squeamish about voting for obvious bad 'uns who are playing them - this is not the USofA.
FPTP is a terrible system, so Reform UK might win a majority on 30%. 30%, nevertheless, remains only three quarters of what Boris got.
FPTP is a good system. You have to actually come first in 325 seats to form a government as of right. In every single one of them there is a cage fight going on to stop you doing it. if you can do it with 30% of the vote, it is equally true that someone else can stop you by getting 31%, so it's obviously harder than it sounds. You have to come first in actual communities that are quite small units and they are all different. It's a clever thing to be able to do in 50% + of the entire country.
We are a democracy of seats, not of votes. It has great merit.
If the opinion of the majority of the voters is ignored, in what way is that a democracy?
It's a democracy of seats, as explained. And no government can keep a democracy of seats by ignoring 'the majority'.
All democracies make choices between the many things that count as 'democracy'. This is is OK.
"A democracy of seats as explained" is not democratic if the number of seats is not allocated according to the freely expressed will of the people. You may have a political system, but you do not have a democratic system. For example, the People´s Republic of China has a Parliament with the vast majority of seats allocated to the Chinese Communist Party. One would not mistake the PRC for a democracy.
What you are ignoring is the weight of London. That could easily be more 30-40% of the votes cast in an election. But their interests might be different to other parts of the country.
It’s why we have devolution in Scotland and Wales. Otherwise English MPs would always exercise majority control over their affairs which would represent a democratic deficit.
The beauty of FPTP is that you need to win the most votes in multiple seats - and to get a majority you need to appeal to different regions and different types of communities (rural, city, semi rural, etc)
Not always, in 1974 England voted Tory but got a UK Labour government due to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs
And that doesn’t alter the fact that there were a majority of English MPs in the Westminster Parliament.
Don’t dig your heels in on this one. It’s just a fact.
Boris got 44% in 2019. Reform UK are polling around 30-32%. They need a third of their support again to match Boris.
Perhaps that's the way - Boris joins Reform and they do a reverse merger with the rump Tories to become the Reformatories aka borstal boys
@bondegezou is characteristically wrong. If the electoral field is fragmented as it is now, then 32% might do fine for Reform, under FPTP
Tactical voting might do for Nige though, especially if his ceiling is 30% or so. He will have to tread carefully, which he's not well known for. The attack on Sarwar in the Scottish by-election backfired, encouraged Labour's vote to turn out, and delivered an unexpected victory for Labour.
People certainly do want immigration tackled, but they are squeamish about voting for obvious bad 'uns who are playing them - this is not the USofA.
FPTP is a terrible system, so Reform UK might win a majority on 30%. 30%, nevertheless, remains only three quarters of what Boris got.
FPTP is a good system. You have to actually come first in 325 seats to form a government as of right. In every single one of them there is a cage fight going on to stop you doing it. if you can do it with 30% of the vote, it is equally true that someone else can stop you by getting 31%, so it's obviously harder than it sounds. You have to come first in actual communities that are quite small units and they are all different. It's a clever thing to be able to do in 50% + of the entire country.
We are a democracy of seats, not of votes. It has great merit.
If the opinion of the majority of the voters is ignored, in what way is that a democracy?
It's a democracy of seats, as explained. And no government can keep a democracy of seats by ignoring 'the majority'.
All democracies make choices between the many things that count as 'democracy'. This is is OK.
"A democracy of seats as explained" is not democratic if the number of seats is not allocated according to the freely expressed will of the people. You may have a political system, but you do not have a democratic system. For example, the People´s Republic of China has a Parliament with the vast majority of seats allocated to the Chinese Communist Party. One would not mistake the PRC for a democracy.
What you are ignoring is the weight of London. That could easily be more 30-40% of the votes cast in an election. But their interests might be different to other parts of the country.
It’s why we have devolution in Scotland and Wales. Otherwise English MPs would always exercise majority control over their affairs which would represent a democratic deficit.
The beauty of FPTP is that you need to win the most votes in multiple seats - and to get a majority you need to appeal to different regions and different types of communities (rural, city, semi rural, etc)
Not always, in 1974 England voted Tory but got a UK Labour government due to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs
And that doesn’t alter the fact that there were a majority of English MPs in the Westminster Parliament.
Don’t dig your heels in on this one. It’s just a fact.
There were a majority of English MPs but that majority didn't exercise control, as if it did it would be a Tory government, but instead there was a Labour one.
It's amusing but I think it misreads the dynamic between Trump and Musk.
I think the dynamic is similar to that between Stalin and Trotsky, and not the father and child dynamic implied by the Twitter short.
Stalin's (Trump's) authority has now been directly challenged by Trotsky (Musk). Musk hasn't just disagreed with Trump on policy, but he has also openly called for Trump to be impeached and removed. This is a red line for Trump, that he would never be able to ignore or forgive.
Musk has his own following & can be very dangerous to Trump's hold on MAGA.
Trump must now destroy Musk to make sure that he longer poses a threat.
Everyone knows the name of Neil Armstrong, so that would certainly be the way to lasting notoriety
I'm not sure they do know the name.
One of the documentaries made to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the lunar landings went to visit Armstrong's childhood home: the one where he threw paper planes out of his bedroom window as a kid. They knocked on the door to ask permission to film. The homeowner replied with something like: "I'll have nothing to do with that cheater!"
They realised the homeowner thought they were talking about Lance Armstrong, not Neil Armstrong...
The median PB demographic, who were alive during the Apollo program will. But as you note, it's over half a century since the last Apollo flight.
I don't believe the median PB demographic is over 53. Mid 40s maybe.
I'd just turned 45 when I first posted on here. I'm 51 now. Which is depressing.
It was a guess. But every so often I'm surprised, when PBers reveal their ages, by just how old we are. I'm over a decade on from you.
Good morning
I am 3 decades older than @DougSeal and I am not depressed, but grateful for our family and the medics who gave me my pacemaker
It's amusing but I think it misreads the dynamic between Trump and Musk.
I think the dynamic is similar to that between Stalin and Trotsky, and not the father and child dynamic implied by the Twitter short.
Stalin's (Trump's) authority has now been directly challenged by Trotsky (Musk). Musk hasn't just disagreed with Trump on policy, but he has also openly called for Trump to be impeached and removed. This is a red line for Trump, that he would never be able to ignore or forgive.
Musk has his own following & can be very dangerous to Trump's hold on MAGA.
Trump must now destroy Musk to make sure that he longer poses a threat.
Everyone knows the name of Neil Armstrong, so that would certainly be the way to lasting notoriety
I'm not sure they do know the name.
One of the documentaries made to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the lunar landings went to visit Armstrong's childhood home: the one where he threw paper planes out of his bedroom window as a kid. They knocked on the door to ask permission to film. The homeowner replied with something like: "I'll have nothing to do with that cheater!"
They realised the homeowner thought they were talking about Lance Armstrong, not Neil Armstrong...
The median PB demographic, who were alive during the Apollo program will. But as you note, it's over half a century since the last Apollo flight.
It's 20 years since Lance Armstrong last won the Tour de France though. His fame will be fading fast too.
Of course (channelling my inner HYUFD there) the record books will show he never won the Tour de France.
Sorry I'm all out of inverted commas and couldn't be arsed to go to the shops toget some more.
But I wonder how far down the list of winners you'd have to go before you found a clean competitor?
Whereas I am overflowing with pedantry this morning. Apologies.
Boris got 44% in 2019. Reform UK are polling around 30-32%. They need a third of their support again to match Boris.
Perhaps that's the way - Boris joins Reform and they do a reverse merger with the rump Tories to become the Reformatories aka borstal boys
@bondegezou is characteristically wrong. If the electoral field is fragmented as it is now, then 32% might do fine for Reform, under FPTP
Tactical voting might do for Nige though, especially if his ceiling is 30% or so. He will have to tread carefully, which he's not well known for. The attack on Sarwar in the Scottish by-election backfired, encouraged Labour's vote to turn out, and delivered an unexpected victory for Labour.
People certainly do want immigration tackled, but they are squeamish about voting for obvious bad 'uns who are playing them - this is not the USofA.
FPTP is a terrible system, so Reform UK might win a majority on 30%. 30%, nevertheless, remains only three quarters of what Boris got.
FPTP is a good system. You have to actually come first in 325 seats to form a government as of right. In every single one of them there is a cage fight going on to stop you doing it. if you can do it with 30% of the vote, it is equally true that someone else can stop you by getting 31%, so it's obviously harder than it sounds. You have to come first in actual communities that are quite small units and they are all different. It's a clever thing to be able to do in 50% + of the entire country.
We are a democracy of seats, not of votes. It has great merit.
If the opinion of the majority of the voters is ignored, in what way is that a democracy?
It's a democracy of seats, as explained. And no government can keep a democracy of seats by ignoring 'the majority'.
All democracies make choices between the many things that count as 'democracy'. This is is OK.
"A democracy of seats as explained" is not democratic if the number of seats is not allocated according to the freely expressed will of the people. You may have a political system, but you do not have a democratic system. For example, the People´s Republic of China has a Parliament with the vast majority of seats allocated to the Chinese Communist Party. One would not mistake the PRC for a democracy.
What you are ignoring is the weight of London. That could easily be more 30-40% of the votes cast in an election. But their interests might be different to other parts of the country.
It’s why we have devolution in Scotland and Wales. Otherwise English MPs would always exercise majority control over their affairs which would represent a democratic deficit.
The beauty of FPTP is that you need to win the most votes in multiple seats - and to get a majority you need to appeal to different regions and different types of communities (rural, city, semi rural, etc)
Not always, in 1974 England voted Tory but got a UK Labour government due to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs
And that doesn’t alter the fact that there were a majority of English MPs in the Westminster Parliament.
Don’t dig your heels in on this one. It’s just a fact.
There were a majority of English MPs but that majority didn't exercise control, as if it did it would be a Tory government, but instead there was a Labour one.
That's just a fact.
The contention was:
Otherwise English MPs would always exercise majority control over their affairs which would represent a democratic deficit.
I never brought party into it. If English MPs voted as a bloc they would overrule the Scottish MPs.
If the English MPs within a government insisted on a certain course of action and were willing to accept the collapse of the government in consequence they could overrule the Scottish MPs.
It's amusing but I think it misreads the dynamic between Trump and Musk.
I think the dynamic is similar to that between Stalin and Trotsky, and not the father and child dynamic implied by the Twitter short.
Stalin's (Trump's) authority has now been directly challenged by Trotsky (Musk). Musk hasn't just disagreed with Trump on policy, but he has also openly called for Trump to be impeached and removed. This is a red line for Trump, that he would never be able to ignore or forgive.
Musk has his own following & can be very dangerous to Trump's hold on MAGA.
Trump must now destroy Musk to make sure that he longer poses a threat.
Everyone knows the name of Neil Armstrong, so that would certainly be the way to lasting notoriety
I'm not sure they do know the name.
One of the documentaries made to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the lunar landings went to visit Armstrong's childhood home: the one where he threw paper planes out of his bedroom window as a kid. They knocked on the door to ask permission to film. The homeowner replied with something like: "I'll have nothing to do with that cheater!"
They realised the homeowner thought they were talking about Lance Armstrong, not Neil Armstrong...
The median PB demographic, who were alive during the Apollo program will. But as you note, it's over half a century since the last Apollo flight.
I don't believe the median PB demographic is over 53. Mid 40s maybe.
I'd just turned 45 when I first posted on here. I'm 51 now. Which is depressing.
It was a guess. But every so often I'm surprised, when PBers reveal their ages, by just how old we are. I'm over a decade on from you.
PB skews very late-middle aged IT contractor.
Most significantly, PB skews male. Overwhelmingly and disappointingly.
Our defence procurement (and our manufacturers) should be taking a close look at this program. Something quite similar to Storm Shadow at (supposedly) less than a tenth of the price.
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/03/anduril-and-zone-5-technologies-advance-for-air-force-diu-enterprise-test-vehicle/ ..According to Mike Rothstein, Lockheed’s vice president of strategy and requirements for air weapons and sensors, the CMMT is designed to be an “upper subsonic” air vehicle with a range of “multiple hundreds of miles,” adding that larger variants can travel “upwards to 1,000-ish miles.” Besides features like scalability, the platform was also designed to more easily incorporate different payloads like warheads or sensors.
Rothstein said the CMMT “fits very well inside [FAMM]” effort, and that the company was aiming to meet unit cost goals under the program of $150,000 per round. According to a Lockheed press release, the weapon comes in two air-launched variants: one configuration can deploy from airlifters, fighters and bombers, while a smaller version can act as a launched effect from rotary aircraft...
It looks like Ukrainian innovation is forcing Lockheed and others to come up with much more bang for buck.
It's amusing but I think it misreads the dynamic between Trump and Musk.
I think the dynamic is similar to that between Stalin and Trotsky, and not the father and child dynamic implied by the Twitter short.
Stalin's (Trump's) authority has now been directly challenged by Trotsky (Musk). Musk hasn't just disagreed with Trump on policy, but he has also openly called for Trump to be impeached and removed. This is a red line for Trump, that he would never be able to ignore or forgive.
Musk has his own following & can be very dangerous to Trump's hold on MAGA.
Trump must now destroy Musk to make sure that he longer poses a threat.
Everyone knows the name of Neil Armstrong, so that would certainly be the way to lasting notoriety
I'm not sure they do know the name.
One of the documentaries made to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the lunar landings went to visit Armstrong's childhood home: the one where he threw paper planes out of his bedroom window as a kid. They knocked on the door to ask permission to film. The homeowner replied with something like: "I'll have nothing to do with that cheater!"
They realised the homeowner thought they were talking about Lance Armstrong, not Neil Armstrong...
The median PB demographic, who were alive during the Apollo program will. But as you note, it's over half a century since the last Apollo flight.
I don't believe the median PB demographic is over 53. Mid 40s maybe.
I'd just turned 45 when I first posted on here. I'm 51 now. Which is depressing.
It was a guess. But every so often I'm surprised, when PBers reveal their ages, by just how old we are. I'm over a decade on from you.
PB skews very late-middle aged IT contractor.
Most significantly, PB skews male. Overwhelmingly and disappointingly.
We used to have more female posters 10 years ago IIRC. It's the same with the VoteUK forum, about 99.5% male.
Boris got 44% in 2019. Reform UK are polling around 30-32%. They need a third of their support again to match Boris.
Perhaps that's the way - Boris joins Reform and they do a reverse merger with the rump Tories to become the Reformatories aka borstal boys
@bondegezou is characteristically wrong. If the electoral field is fragmented as it is now, then 32% might do fine for Reform, under FPTP
Tactical voting might do for Nige though, especially if his ceiling is 30% or so. He will have to tread carefully, which he's not well known for. The attack on Sarwar in the Scottish by-election backfired, encouraged Labour's vote to turn out, and delivered an unexpected victory for Labour.
People certainly do want immigration tackled, but they are squeamish about voting for obvious bad 'uns who are playing them - this is not the USofA.
FPTP is a terrible system, so Reform UK might win a majority on 30%. 30%, nevertheless, remains only three quarters of what Boris got.
FPTP is a good system. You have to actually come first in 325 seats to form a government as of right. In every single one of them there is a cage fight going on to stop you doing it. if you can do it with 30% of the vote, it is equally true that someone else can stop you by getting 31%, so it's obviously harder than it sounds. You have to come first in actual communities that are quite small units and they are all different. It's a clever thing to be able to do in 50% + of the entire country.
We are a democracy of seats, not of votes. It has great merit.
If the opinion of the majority of the voters is ignored, in what way is that a democracy?
It's a democracy of seats, as explained. And no government can keep a democracy of seats by ignoring 'the majority'.
All democracies make choices between the many things that count as 'democracy'. This is is OK.
"A democracy of seats as explained" is not democratic if the number of seats is not allocated according to the freely expressed will of the people. You may have a political system, but you do not have a democratic system. For example, the People´s Republic of China has a Parliament with the vast majority of seats allocated to the Chinese Communist Party. One would not mistake the PRC for a democracy.
What you are ignoring is the weight of London. That could easily be more 30-40% of the votes cast in an election. But their interests might be different to other parts of the country.
It’s why we have devolution in Scotland and Wales. Otherwise English MPs would always exercise majority control over their affairs which would represent a democratic deficit.
The beauty of FPTP is that you need to win the most votes in multiple seats - and to get a majority you need to appeal to different regions and different types of communities (rural, city, semi rural, etc)
Not always, in 1974 England voted Tory but got a UK Labour government due to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs
And that doesn’t alter the fact that there were a majority of English MPs in the Westminster Parliament.
Don’t dig your heels in on this one. It’s just a fact.
There were a majority of English MPs but that majority didn't exercise control, as if it did it would be a Tory government, but instead there was a Labour one.
That's just a fact.
The contention was:
Otherwise English MPs would always exercise majority control over their affairs which would represent a democratic deficit.
I never brought party into it. If English MPs voted as a bloc they would overrule the Scottish MPs.
If the English MPs within a government insisted on a certain course of action and were willing to accept the collapse of the government in consequence they could overrule the Scottish MPs.
But English MPs don't vote as a bloc, so your contention is wrong.
Instead what we've done now is get an actual democratic deficit where MPs can vote on matters that don't affect them. Or even when the law in Scotland is the opposite.
Like Scottish MSPs ensuring Scottish students have free tuition while Scottish MPs triple the tuition on English students, when a majority of English MPs rejected that.
Or Scottish MPs banning expanding Sunday trading in England, when a majority of English MPs backed it. When expanded Sunday trading is permitted in Scotland.
Our defence procurement (and our manufacturers) should be taking a close look at this program. Something quite similar to Storm Shadow at (supposedly) less than a tenth of the price.
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/03/anduril-and-zone-5-technologies-advance-for-air-force-diu-enterprise-test-vehicle/ ..According to Mike Rothstein, Lockheed’s vice president of strategy and requirements for air weapons and sensors, the CMMT is designed to be an “upper subsonic” air vehicle with a range of “multiple hundreds of miles,” adding that larger variants can travel “upwards to 1,000-ish miles.” Besides features like scalability, the platform was also designed to more easily incorporate different payloads like warheads or sensors.
Rothstein said the CMMT “fits very well inside [FAMM]” effort, and that the company was aiming to meet unit cost goals under the program of $150,000 per round. According to a Lockheed press release, the weapon comes in two air-launched variants: one configuration can deploy from airlifters, fighters and bombers, while a smaller version can act as a launched effect from rotary aircraft...
It looks like Ukrainian innovation is forcing Lockheed and others to come up with much more bang for buck.
Boris got 44% in 2019. Reform UK are polling around 30-32%. They need a third of their support again to match Boris.
Perhaps that's the way - Boris joins Reform and they do a reverse merger with the rump Tories to become the Reformatories aka borstal boys
@bondegezou is characteristically wrong. If the electoral field is fragmented as it is now, then 32% might do fine for Reform, under FPTP
Tactical voting might do for Nige though, especially if his ceiling is 30% or so. He will have to tread carefully, which he's not well known for. The attack on Sarwar in the Scottish by-election backfired, encouraged Labour's vote to turn out, and delivered an unexpected victory for Labour.
People certainly do want immigration tackled, but they are squeamish about voting for obvious bad 'uns who are playing them - this is not the USofA.
FPTP is a terrible system, so Reform UK might win a majority on 30%. 30%, nevertheless, remains only three quarters of what Boris got.
FPTP is a good system. You have to actually come first in 325 seats to form a government as of right. In every single one of them there is a cage fight going on to stop you doing it. if you can do it with 30% of the vote, it is equally true that someone else can stop you by getting 31%, so it's obviously harder than it sounds. You have to come first in actual communities that are quite small units and they are all different. It's a clever thing to be able to do in 50% + of the entire country.
We are a democracy of seats, not of votes. It has great merit.
If the opinion of the majority of the voters is ignored, in what way is that a democracy?
It's a democracy of seats, as explained. And no government can keep a democracy of seats by ignoring 'the majority'.
All democracies make choices between the many things that count as 'democracy'. This is is OK.
"A democracy of seats as explained" is not democratic if the number of seats is not allocated according to the freely expressed will of the people. You may have a political system, but you do not have a democratic system. For example, the People´s Republic of China has a Parliament with the vast majority of seats allocated to the Chinese Communist Party. One would not mistake the PRC for a democracy.
What you are ignoring is the weight of London. That could easily be more 30-40% of the votes cast in an election. But their interests might be different to other parts of the country.
It’s why we have devolution in Scotland and Wales. Otherwise English MPs would always exercise majority control over their affairs which would represent a democratic deficit.
The beauty of FPTP is that you need to win the most votes in multiple seats - and to get a majority you need to appeal to different regions and different types of communities (rural, city, semi rural, etc)
Not always, in 1974 England voted Tory but got a UK Labour government due to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs
And that doesn’t alter the fact that there were a majority of English MPs in the Westminster Parliament.
Don’t dig your heels in on this one. It’s just a fact.
There were a majority of English MPs but that majority didn't exercise control, as if it did it would be a Tory government, but instead there was a Labour one.
That's just a fact.
The contention was:
Otherwise English MPs would always exercise majority control over their affairs which would represent a democratic deficit.
I never brought party into it. If English MPs voted as a bloc they would overrule the Scottish MPs.
If the English MPs within a government insisted on a certain course of action and were willing to accept the collapse of the government in consequence they could overrule the Scottish MPs.
But English MPs don't vote as a bloc, so your contention is wrong.
Instead what we've done now is get an actual democratic deficit where MPs can vote on matters that don't affect them. Or even when the law in Scotland is the opposite.
Like Scottish MSPs ensuring Scottish students have free tuition while Scottish MPs triple the tuition on English students, when a majority of English MPs rejected that.
Or Scottish MPs banning expanding Sunday trading in England, when a majority of English MPs backed it. When expanded Sunday trading is permitted in Scotland.
Whatever dude. Knock yourself out.
I’m going with maths. There are more English MPs than Scottish MPs.
If they chose not the overrule Scottish MPs that’s an indirect exercise of power. Because they *can*
I expect we'll see quite a number of these sorts of things in UK ports over the next few years.
HIGH-ENERGY TRANSMISSION X-RAY For cargo systems, high-energy, high-performance transmission X-rays deeply penetrate densely loaded containers for greater detection. High-energy transmission X-rays provide fine details, even while penetrating up to 400 mm of steel — and offer a reliable means of detecting threatening materials, weapons, and contraband hidden in cargo containers, tankers, and large vehicles. https://www.rapiscansystems.com/en/technologies/high-energy-transmission-x-ray
Diplomatic bags (which covers diplomatic freight pallets) to be exempt? Even if we bought this maker's gizmo in sufficient quantities to inspect everything, which we won't.
There was a short TV series, many years back, about a dystopian future, with Europe seeing itself under siege from refugees.
At the start, they proclaim they’ve won - high power x-raying of everything. If there are people hidden inside, they are walking dead after the scan….
I had previously had doubts about her conviction. No longer.
She was rightly convicted, but the sentence excessive. A suspended sentence with Community service would have been more appropriate.
I think most sentences are massively excessive but not this one. I sometimes wonder what it would feel likie when I'm in my home in France if there was an anti English campaign and I learnt that the battle axe who lives next door was telling her followers to set fire to all the Engish houses.
Boris got 44% in 2019. Reform UK are polling around 30-32%. They need a third of their support again to match Boris.
Perhaps that's the way - Boris joins Reform and they do a reverse merger with the rump Tories to become the Reformatories aka borstal boys
@bondegezou is characteristically wrong. If the electoral field is fragmented as it is now, then 32% might do fine for Reform, under FPTP
Tactical voting might do for Nige though, especially if his ceiling is 30% or so. He will have to tread carefully, which he's not well known for. The attack on Sarwar in the Scottish by-election backfired, encouraged Labour's vote to turn out, and delivered an unexpected victory for Labour.
People certainly do want immigration tackled, but they are squeamish about voting for obvious bad 'uns who are playing them - this is not the USofA.
FPTP is a terrible system, so Reform UK might win a majority on 30%. 30%, nevertheless, remains only three quarters of what Boris got.
FPTP is a good system. You have to actually come first in 325 seats to form a government as of right. In every single one of them there is a cage fight going on to stop you doing it. if you can do it with 30% of the vote, it is equally true that someone else can stop you by getting 31%, so it's obviously harder than it sounds. You have to come first in actual communities that are quite small units and they are all different. It's a clever thing to be able to do in 50% + of the entire country.
We are a democracy of seats, not of votes. It has great merit.
If the opinion of the majority of the voters is ignored, in what way is that a democracy?
It's a democracy of seats, as explained. And no government can keep a democracy of seats by ignoring 'the majority'.
All democracies make choices between the many things that count as 'democracy'. This is is OK.
"A democracy of seats as explained" is not democratic if the number of seats is not allocated according to the freely expressed will of the people. You may have a political system, but you do not have a democratic system. For example, the People´s Republic of China has a Parliament with the vast majority of seats allocated to the Chinese Communist Party. One would not mistake the PRC for a democracy.
What you are ignoring is the weight of London. That could easily be more 30-40% of the votes cast in an election. But their interests might be different to other parts of the country.
It’s why we have devolution in Scotland and Wales. Otherwise English MPs would always exercise majority control over their affairs which would represent a democratic deficit.
The beauty of FPTP is that you need to win the most votes in multiple seats - and to get a majority you need to appeal to different regions and different types of communities (rural, city, semi rural, etc)
Under FPTP, you have to appeal to different types of geographically concentrated communities. Plaid Cymru do great from FPTP because the community they appeal to are concentrated in one place. If you appeal to a community that is geographically spread out, e.g. British Sign Language users or allied healthcare professionals or single mothers, then that’s not helpful.
Despite those advantages, a number of Korean firms have preferred to hold their treasury shares as a way to safeguard the control of their largest shareholders, as such shares typically do not carry voting rights and can be transferred later to friendly stakeholders (with temporarily restored voting rights) when needed...
This arrangement likely also depresses artificially the value of family shareholdings for inheritance tax purposes.
Boris got 44% in 2019. Reform UK are polling around 30-32%. They need a third of their support again to match Boris.
Perhaps that's the way - Boris joins Reform and they do a reverse merger with the rump Tories to become the Reformatories aka borstal boys
@bondegezou is characteristically wrong. If the electoral field is fragmented as it is now, then 32% might do fine for Reform, under FPTP
Tactical voting might do for Nige though, especially if his ceiling is 30% or so. He will have to tread carefully, which he's not well known for. The attack on Sarwar in the Scottish by-election backfired, encouraged Labour's vote to turn out, and delivered an unexpected victory for Labour.
People certainly do want immigration tackled, but they are squeamish about voting for obvious bad 'uns who are playing them - this is not the USofA.
FPTP is a terrible system, so Reform UK might win a majority on 30%. 30%, nevertheless, remains only three quarters of what Boris got.
FPTP is a good system. You have to actually come first in 325 seats to form a government as of right. In every single one of them there is a cage fight going on to stop you doing it. if you can do it with 30% of the vote, it is equally true that someone else can stop you by getting 31%, so it's obviously harder than it sounds. You have to come first in actual communities that are quite small units and they are all different. It's a clever thing to be able to do in 50% + of the entire country.
We are a democracy of seats, not of votes. It has great merit.
If the opinion of the majority of the voters is ignored, in what way is that a democracy?
It's a democracy of seats, as explained. And no government can keep a democracy of seats by ignoring 'the majority'.
All democracies make choices between the many things that count as 'democracy'. This is is OK.
"A democracy of seats as explained" is not democratic if the number of seats is not allocated according to the freely expressed will of the people. You may have a political system, but you do not have a democratic system. For example, the People´s Republic of China has a Parliament with the vast majority of seats allocated to the Chinese Communist Party. One would not mistake the PRC for a democracy.
What you are ignoring is the weight of London. That could easily be more 30-40% of the votes cast in an election. But their interests might be different to other parts of the country.
It’s why we have devolution in Scotland and Wales. Otherwise English MPs would always exercise majority control over their affairs which would represent a democratic deficit.
The beauty of FPTP is that you need to win the most votes in multiple seats - and to get a majority you need to appeal to different regions and different types of communities (rural, city, semi rural, etc)
Under FPTP, you have to appeal to different types of geographically concentrated communities. Plaid Cymru do great from FPTP because the community they appeal to are concentrated in one place. If you appeal to a community that is geographically spread out, e.g. British Sign Language users or allied healthcare professionals or single mothers, then that’s not helpful.
Morning all! I like to start the day with a thoroughly good polling, so I'm grateful to Lord Ashcroft for his monthly offering. Lots of nuggets in it, notable stuff like 2 child cap to remain being favoured (overwhelmingly by Con and Reform, take note Nige), Starmer narrowly over Farage for best PM, Kemi way off but public not in favour of another Tory defenestration. Farage loses the head to heads again against both SKS and KB (oddly to KB by slightly more) and only 22% think the Tories have learned from their shellacking, although that's not nothing to work with as it were. VI Ashcroft goes for over 5/10 certainty to vote and hasnt given the headline, but the raw including WNV is Ref 17 Labour 14 Con 12 LD 8 Green 8
Which translates to something like 28 23 19 12 12, in line with other polling, LDs a little lower (as they have been with his polling before) SNP 2 PC 1 too
I had previously had doubts about her conviction. No longer.
She was rightly convicted, but the sentence excessive. A suspended sentence with Community service would have been more appropriate.
I think most sentences are massively excessive but not this one. I sometimes wonder what it would feel likie when I'm in my home in France if there was an anti English campaign and I learnt that the battle axe who lives next door was telling her followers to set fire to all the Engish houses.
That you'd be lining up with the matchsticks and saying 'Hartlepudlians first'.
Boris got 44% in 2019. Reform UK are polling around 30-32%. They need a third of their support again to match Boris.
Perhaps that's the way - Boris joins Reform and they do a reverse merger with the rump Tories to become the Reformatories aka borstal boys
@bondegezou is characteristically wrong. If the electoral field is fragmented as it is now, then 32% might do fine for Reform, under FPTP
Tactical voting might do for Nige though, especially if his ceiling is 30% or so. He will have to tread carefully, which he's not well known for. The attack on Sarwar in the Scottish by-election backfired, encouraged Labour's vote to turn out, and delivered an unexpected victory for Labour.
People certainly do want immigration tackled, but they are squeamish about voting for obvious bad 'uns who are playing them - this is not the USofA.
FPTP is a terrible system, so Reform UK might win a majority on 30%. 30%, nevertheless, remains only three quarters of what Boris got.
FPTP is a good system. You have to actually come first in 325 seats to form a government as of right. In every single one of them there is a cage fight going on to stop you doing it. if you can do it with 30% of the vote, it is equally true that someone else can stop you by getting 31%, so it's obviously harder than it sounds. You have to come first in actual communities that are quite small units and they are all different. It's a clever thing to be able to do in 50% + of the entire country.
We are a democracy of seats, not of votes. It has great merit.
If the opinion of the majority of the voters is ignored, in what way is that a democracy?
It's a democracy of seats, as explained. And no government can keep a democracy of seats by ignoring 'the majority'.
All democracies make choices between the many things that count as 'democracy'. This is is OK.
"A democracy of seats as explained" is not democratic if the number of seats is not allocated according to the freely expressed will of the people. You may have a political system, but you do not have a democratic system. For example, the People´s Republic of China has a Parliament with the vast majority of seats allocated to the Chinese Communist Party. One would not mistake the PRC for a democracy.
What you are ignoring is the weight of London. That could easily be more 30-40% of the votes cast in an election. But their interests might be different to other parts of the country.
It’s why we have devolution in Scotland and Wales. Otherwise English MPs would always exercise majority control over their affairs which would represent a democratic deficit.
The beauty of FPTP is that you need to win the most votes in multiple seats - and to get a majority you need to appeal to different regions and different types of communities (rural, city, semi rural, etc)
Under FPTP, you have to appeal to different types of geographically concentrated communities. Plaid Cymru do great from FPTP because the community they appeal to are concentrated in one place. If you appeal to a community that is geographically spread out, e.g. British Sign Language users or allied healthcare professionals or single mothers, then that’s not helpful.
That's a really useful prism to look at UK politics through. Explains the focus on the fishing industry but not forestry, for example, despite the latter employing twice as many people.
Boris got 44% in 2019. Reform UK are polling around 30-32%. They need a third of their support again to match Boris.
Perhaps that's the way - Boris joins Reform and they do a reverse merger with the rump Tories to become the Reformatories aka borstal boys
@bondegezou is characteristically wrong. If the electoral field is fragmented as it is now, then 32% might do fine for Reform, under FPTP
Tactical voting might do for Nige though, especially if his ceiling is 30% or so. He will have to tread carefully, which he's not well known for. The attack on Sarwar in the Scottish by-election backfired, encouraged Labour's vote to turn out, and delivered an unexpected victory for Labour.
People certainly do want immigration tackled, but they are squeamish about voting for obvious bad 'uns who are playing them - this is not the USofA.
FPTP is a terrible system, so Reform UK might win a majority on 30%. 30%, nevertheless, remains only three quarters of what Boris got.
FPTP is a good system. You have to actually come first in 325 seats to form a government as of right. In every single one of them there is a cage fight going on to stop you doing it. if you can do it with 30% of the vote, it is equally true that someone else can stop you by getting 31%, so it's obviously harder than it sounds. You have to come first in actual communities that are quite small units and they are all different. It's a clever thing to be able to do in 50% + of the entire country.
We are a democracy of seats, not of votes. It has great merit.
If the opinion of the majority of the voters is ignored, in what way is that a democracy?
It's a democracy of seats, as explained. And no government can keep a democracy of seats by ignoring 'the majority'.
All democracies make choices between the many things that count as 'democracy'. This is is OK.
"A democracy of seats as explained" is not democratic if the number of seats is not allocated according to the freely expressed will of the people. You may have a political system, but you do not have a democratic system. For example, the People´s Republic of China has a Parliament with the vast majority of seats allocated to the Chinese Communist Party. One would not mistake the PRC for a democracy.
It is a genuine form of democracy - others are available - as unlike China all can stand and campaign and all can vote under well known rules as to who wins. To 'win' you have to get the most votes in half the seats. In a multi party democracy to do that you have to be broad and popular. To stay winning you have to govern for the good of voters as a whole.
Its weaknesses have to be looked at in the light of alternatives and their weaknesses too. Eg hyper PR gives you Israel.
Does it ? I don't think you can really explain a country's politics purely by its electoral system.
Israel might well be in something like its current mess under any electoral system.
Democracy itself isn't a panacea. It's just the best chance we all have.
Israel has very liberal Tel Aviv, religious conservatives in Jerusalem, settlers (who get to vote but aren’t in Israel), Israeli Arabs, other ethnic minorities (Druze, Circassians, etc.), recent Russian immigrants, etc. They have strongly divergent views on the Palestinian question, the role of religion in everyday life, social and civil rights, how to build the economy, etc. Many of those groups are geographically separated (traditional Arab or Druze villages, settlements on the West Bank, Tel Aviv, Haredi communities) and would be able to elect representatives under FPTP. FPTP wouldn’t magically solve Israel’s party political diversity.
Niall Ferguson @nfergus · 6h That scraping sound you hear is @RachelReevesMP moving the deckchairs around on the Titanic. What’s that big white thing we’re sailing towards? The answer is an unsustainably high national debt. 1/13
Niall Ferguson @nfergus The lesson is clear. With Labour stuck in Harold Wilson/Jim Callaghan mode and heading inevitably for “Crisis, what crisis?”, and with Farage offering secondhand populism, @KemiBadenoch needs to unleash her inner Milei. That does not mean donning a leather jacket and wielding a chainsaw, which did not work for Elon Musk. It means being the committed free-market libertarian she is — and the symbol of a successful, multiracial society that she is uniquely placed to be. 12/13
And being a slash the state libertarian on the lines of Musk and Milei has even seen Trump fall out with the former after being accused of not going far enough by Musk who is too small state even for the President. Here it would just see some One Nation Tories still voting Tory go LD without winning over nationalist Reform voters
Kemi may well be stuffed whatever happens, and I'd say in that case it's better to go down supporting economically literate policies than moronic ones.
If nothing else, once Reform get power and their policies are proven to be unworkable, it puts the Conservatives in a better position to rebuild a decade from now.
Then again, four years is a long time, and at least some voters may be sick of tax and spend by then.
She risks being toppled by Tory MPs and replaced by Cleverly if she goes too far down the DOGE and Truss slash tax route. Reform are doing DOGE anyway
Reform are doing welfarism and posturing about DOGE.
Boris got 44% in 2019. Reform UK are polling around 30-32%. They need a third of their support again to match Boris.
Perhaps that's the way - Boris joins Reform and they do a reverse merger with the rump Tories to become the Reformatories aka borstal boys
@bondegezou is characteristically wrong. If the electoral field is fragmented as it is now, then 32% might do fine for Reform, under FPTP
Tactical voting might do for Nige though, especially if his ceiling is 30% or so. He will have to tread carefully, which he's not well known for. The attack on Sarwar in the Scottish by-election backfired, encouraged Labour's vote to turn out, and delivered an unexpected victory for Labour.
People certainly do want immigration tackled, but they are squeamish about voting for obvious bad 'uns who are playing them - this is not the USofA.
FPTP is a terrible system, so Reform UK might win a majority on 30%. 30%, nevertheless, remains only three quarters of what Boris got.
FPTP is a good system. You have to actually come first in 325 seats to form a government as of right. In every single one of them there is a cage fight going on to stop you doing it. if you can do it with 30% of the vote, it is equally true that someone else can stop you by getting 31%, so it's obviously harder than it sounds. You have to come first in actual communities that are quite small units and they are all different. It's a clever thing to be able to do in 50% + of the entire country.
We are a democracy of seats, not of votes. It has great merit.
If the opinion of the majority of the voters is ignored, in what way is that a democracy?
It's a democracy of seats, as explained. And no government can keep a democracy of seats by ignoring 'the majority'.
All democracies make choices between the many things that count as 'democracy'. This is is OK.
"A democracy of seats as explained" is not democratic if the number of seats is not allocated according to the freely expressed will of the people. You may have a political system, but you do not have a democratic system. For example, the People´s Republic of China has a Parliament with the vast majority of seats allocated to the Chinese Communist Party. One would not mistake the PRC for a democracy.
What you are ignoring is the weight of London. That could easily be more 30-40% of the votes cast in an election. But their interests might be different to other parts of the country.
It’s why we have devolution in Scotland and Wales. Otherwise English MPs would always exercise majority control over their affairs which would represent a democratic deficit.
The beauty of FPTP is that you need to win the most votes in multiple seats - and to get a majority you need to appeal to different regions and different types of communities (rural, city, semi rural, etc)
Under FPTP, you have to appeal to different types of geographically concentrated communities. Plaid Cymru do great from FPTP because the community they appeal to are concentrated in one place. If you appeal to a community that is geographically spread out, e.g. British Sign Language users or allied healthcare professionals or single mothers, then that’s not helpful.
That's a really useful prism to look at UK politics through. Explains the focus on the fishing industry but not forestry, for example, despite the latter employing twice as many people.
It’s always been one of the interesting debates - can you define national constituencies that should allow members a second vote (I would limit voters to 2 votes regardless of how many of these constituencies they belong to).
The TCD and other university seats are a good example, but they were abolished in 1950. I believe in that case all graduates could vote for the MP so they were distinct from the geographic MP.
Edit: out of curiosity I looked at the TCD seat. They still elect Senators in Ireland - this could be a good model for part of the reform of the Lords.
Despite those advantages, a number of Korean firms have preferred to hold their treasury shares as a way to safeguard the control of their largest shareholders, as such shares typically do not carry voting rights and can be transferred later to friendly stakeholders (with temporarily restored voting rights) when needed...
This arrangement likely also depresses artificially the value of family shareholdings for inheritance tax purposes.
It sounds potentially Liz Truss-ish to blow up an arrangement that has worked for decades in the confident but perhaps ill-founded hope that something better will replace it. ETA see also toppling Saddam and other Middle East dictators so democracy can bloom as Neocons predicted.
Niall Ferguson @nfergus · 6h That scraping sound you hear is @RachelReevesMP moving the deckchairs around on the Titanic. What’s that big white thing we’re sailing towards? The answer is an unsustainably high national debt. 1/13
Niall Ferguson @nfergus The lesson is clear. With Labour stuck in Harold Wilson/Jim Callaghan mode and heading inevitably for “Crisis, what crisis?”, and with Farage offering secondhand populism, @KemiBadenoch needs to unleash her inner Milei. That does not mean donning a leather jacket and wielding a chainsaw, which did not work for Elon Musk. It means being the committed free-market libertarian she is — and the symbol of a successful, multiracial society that she is uniquely placed to be. 12/13
And being a slash the state libertarian on the lines of Musk and Milei has even seen Trump fall out with the former after being accused of not going far enough by Musk who is too small state even for the President. Here it would just see some One Nation Tories still voting Tory go LD without winning over nationalist Reform voters
Kemi may well be stuffed whatever happens, and I'd say in that case it's better to go down supporting economically literate policies than moronic ones.
If nothing else, once Reform get power and their policies are proven to be unworkable, it puts the Conservatives in a better position to rebuild a decade from now.
Then again, four years is a long time, and at least some voters may be sick of tax and spend by then.
She risks being toppled by Tory MPs and replaced by Cleverly if she goes too far down the DOGE and Truss slash tax route. Reform are doing DOGE anyway
It's a bit early for toppling, any replacement will want that new boy smell still on them by next GE. If she gets through conference she will be fine until at least the locals next year, after that she'll need to be making progress or risk a toppling I think
Our defence procurement (and our manufacturers) should be taking a close look at this program. Something quite similar to Storm Shadow at (supposedly) less than a tenth of the price.
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/03/anduril-and-zone-5-technologies-advance-for-air-force-diu-enterprise-test-vehicle/ ..According to Mike Rothstein, Lockheed’s vice president of strategy and requirements for air weapons and sensors, the CMMT is designed to be an “upper subsonic” air vehicle with a range of “multiple hundreds of miles,” adding that larger variants can travel “upwards to 1,000-ish miles.” Besides features like scalability, the platform was also designed to more easily incorporate different payloads like warheads or sensors.
Rothstein said the CMMT “fits very well inside [FAMM]” effort, and that the company was aiming to meet unit cost goals under the program of $150,000 per round. According to a Lockheed press release, the weapon comes in two air-launched variants: one configuration can deploy from airlifters, fighters and bombers, while a smaller version can act as a launched effect from rotary aircraft...
It looks like Ukrainian innovation is forcing Lockheed and others to come up with much more bang for buck.
It’s forcing adoption of the technologies of low cost.
But this stuff was on the way for a long time. Habit, “Aerospace prices/inflation”, defence employment games* and the employment of decision makers after they retire in the pyramid of contractors kept things as they were.
SpaceX were the first to dynamite a lot of the preconceptions. They’ve gone through the big contractors like a chainsaw through cheese.
A number of other companies sprang up, noticing that the DoD spend dwarfs anything the US government spends on space. And the same pricing issues mean that they could deliver for a handful of percent. Compared to the usual suspects.
*In government aerospace, in the US, each big project is carefully structured to deliver the right amount of work to enough politician’s districts to get the votes to fund the project. There is a whole discipline in doing this.
Here he attacks the BOE for paying commercial banks tens of billions in interest on their QE holdings (why?) and their disgracefully wasteful QT programme, where they burn money at the Treasury's expense.
These are two items of Government spend that could be cut with nary a granny going cold or a bunion untreated, so why is nobody bar Tice and probably still Redwood (I haven't dipped into his blog for a while) even at the races on this?
I'd love to see Canada join the EU, if only for the look on Brexiteers' faces.
Sez one newbie German MEP as he launches as “aspirational” campaign.
The EU would have to radically change in function and purpose.
It’s not happening. (And if it did change to accommodate Canada then it might well be interesting again for the UK as I assume it would be a much looser arrangement)
I seem to recall hearing about how incredibly tough Canada are when it comes to trade agreements so I’m not sure how their position on protecting agriculture for example would dovetail with the EU’s position.
Then there is free movement which isn’t going to go down overly well in Canada so many reasons not to see it remotely happening.
It does however add to the sense that the EU needs to have that “outer ring” that Macron suggested or alternatively to itself become a looser arrangement based on trade and defence which would then be more attractive to potential new members.
I'm not sure why free movement wouldn't go down well in Canada. It's one of the few countries I work in which feels serously short of people. As for Canadians free moving in Europe it would be unnoticable. The Cote d'Azur at the moment is absolutely heaving and seemingly with every nationality under the sun. For the French it must feel like they're floating in cash machines
Niall Ferguson @nfergus · 6h That scraping sound you hear is @RachelReevesMP moving the deckchairs around on the Titanic. What’s that big white thing we’re sailing towards? The answer is an unsustainably high national debt. 1/13
Niall Ferguson @nfergus The lesson is clear. With Labour stuck in Harold Wilson/Jim Callaghan mode and heading inevitably for “Crisis, what crisis?”, and with Farage offering secondhand populism, @KemiBadenoch needs to unleash her inner Milei. That does not mean donning a leather jacket and wielding a chainsaw, which did not work for Elon Musk. It means being the committed free-market libertarian she is — and the symbol of a successful, multiracial society that she is uniquely placed to be. 12/13
And being a slash the state libertarian on the lines of Musk and Milei has even seen Trump fall out with the former after being accused of not going far enough by Musk who is too small state even for the President. Here it would just see some One Nation Tories still voting Tory go LD without winning over nationalist Reform voters
Kemi may well be stuffed whatever happens, and I'd say in that case it's better to go down supporting economically literate policies than moronic ones.
If nothing else, once Reform get power and their policies are proven to be unworkable, it puts the Conservatives in a better position to rebuild a decade from now.
Then again, four years is a long time, and at least some voters may be sick of tax and spend by then.
She risks being toppled by Tory MPs and replaced by Cleverly if she goes too far down the DOGE and Truss slash tax route. Reform are doing DOGE anyway
Reform are doing welfarism and posturing about DOGE.
Pretty much the opposite of balanced budgets.
Good morning everyone,
It will be interesting to see how things develop in Durham, Kent and Lincolnshire, although I rather fear for the elderly and disabled in those counties.
Our defence procurement (and our manufacturers) should be taking a close look at this program. Something quite similar to Storm Shadow at (supposedly) less than a tenth of the price.
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/03/anduril-and-zone-5-technologies-advance-for-air-force-diu-enterprise-test-vehicle/ ..According to Mike Rothstein, Lockheed’s vice president of strategy and requirements for air weapons and sensors, the CMMT is designed to be an “upper subsonic” air vehicle with a range of “multiple hundreds of miles,” adding that larger variants can travel “upwards to 1,000-ish miles.” Besides features like scalability, the platform was also designed to more easily incorporate different payloads like warheads or sensors.
Rothstein said the CMMT “fits very well inside [FAMM]” effort, and that the company was aiming to meet unit cost goals under the program of $150,000 per round. According to a Lockheed press release, the weapon comes in two air-launched variants: one configuration can deploy from airlifters, fighters and bombers, while a smaller version can act as a launched effect from rotary aircraft...
I think TBH we are already on quite a lot of that, including innovation fed back from Ukraine.
The SDSR talks about a "Hi-Low" mix (Chapter 1, Page 19, Section 30) - that is there are posh, excellent versions of whatever, that can do 100%, and further ones that do perhaps 80%, where 100% is not needed. Take the contrast between Type 45 frigates ("destroyers") at £1.2bn each from BAE and the Type 31 frigates from Babcock, at £313m each.
The type 45s uses an anti-air missile from the French/Italians, Aster 15/30 at £1-2 million each. Type 23 / and the new Type 31 uses CAMM and CAMM-ER, British, at £200k or £1 million each. I'd describe that as High-Low. If I have it right, CAMM is also up for use on land and potentially in the air as well.
I think that's a decent summary.
More to do, and new ideas coming up all the time, of course. But there's has imo been a measure of coherence in a fair amount of our defence procurement for some time.
I'd love to see Canada join the EU, if only for the look on Brexiteers' faces.
Sez one newbie German MEP as he launches as “aspirational” campaign.
The EU would have to radically change in function and purpose.
It’s not happening. (And if it did change to accommodate Canada then it might well be interesting again for the UK as I assume it would be a much looser arrangement)
I seem to recall hearing about how incredibly tough Canada are when it comes to trade agreements so I’m not sure how their position on protecting agriculture for example would dovetail with the EU’s position.
Then there is free movement which isn’t going to go down overly well in Canada so many reasons not to see it remotely happening.
It does however add to the sense that the EU needs to have that “outer ring” that Macron suggested or alternatively to itself become a looser arrangement based on trade and defence which would then be more attractive to potential new members.
I'm not sure why free movement wouldn't go down well in Canada. It's one of the few countries I work in which feels serously short of people. As for Canadians free moving in Europe it would be unnoticable. The Cote d'Azur at the moment is absolutely heaving and seemingly with every nationality under the sun. For the French it must feel like they're floating in cash machines
Have you not read up on Canadian politics? They had their version of a Boriswave and a lot of people are not happy with the result.
It was only Trump and his 51st state garbage that saved the Liberals. This time.
The head to head scores in YG and now Ashcroft have me thinking on the next GE - if reform look strong still, tactical voting seems likely but how far will that spread into LD/Lab and Con trading votes? For example locally if LD and some Lab voters swing behind the Tories against Reform then I can see Tory holds in Broadland, NW Norfolk and Mid Norfolk (S Norfolk is Lab held so complicated and SW Norfolk is a mess), but I am dubious and I think its more likely residual Tory hate will prevent tactical voting to a large extent. Of course Tories are dumb arses and will happily vote LD or Lab elsewhere thinking they'll get sweeties in return
I'd love to see Canada join the EU, if only for the look on Brexiteers' faces.
Sez one newbie German MEP as he launches as “aspirational” campaign.
The EU would have to radically change in function and purpose.
It’s not happening. (And if it did change to accommodate Canada then it might well be interesting again for the UK as I assume it would be a much looser arrangement)
I seem to recall hearing about how incredibly tough Canada are when it comes to trade agreements so I’m not sure how their position on protecting agriculture for example would dovetail with the EU’s position.
Then there is free movement which isn’t going to go down overly well in Canada so many reasons not to see it remotely happening.
It does however add to the sense that the EU needs to have that “outer ring” that Macron suggested or alternatively to itself become a looser arrangement based on trade and defence which would then be more attractive to potential new members.
I'm not sure why free movement wouldn't go down well in Canada. It's one of the few countries I work in which feels serously short of people. As for Canadians free moving in Europe it would be unnoticable. The Cote d'Azur at the moment is absolutely heaving and seemingly with every nationality under the sun. For the French it must feel like they're floating in cash machines
Have you not read up on Canadian politics? They had their version of a Boriswave and a lot of people are not happy with the result.
It was only Trump and his 51st state garbage that saved the Liberals. This time.
They won’t double down on that.
Free movement of Europeans is not necessarily the free movement they don't like. Similat to the UK if only they would admit to it.
The median PB demographic, who were alive during the Apollo program will. But as you note, it's over half a century since the last Apollo flight.
I don't believe the median PB demographic is over 53. Mid 40s maybe.
I'd just turned 45 when I first posted on here. I'm 51 now. Which is depressing.
I'm 75, but I think the statistic has limited value - it's one of the first things you learn about public figures, but they vary enormously. Look at David Attenborough, currently 99 and still campaigning lucidly for ocean protection. One thing I do notice, being reasonably comfortable on a pension, is diminishing interest in short-term change - a penny on income tax, etc. - and more in long-term issues like overseas aid. People with lots of descendants are often really interested in estate duties etc., about which I coudn't care less. It's nearly impossible to generalise usefully.
What is probably true, and IMO sad, is that participation in discursive and serious forums like this is becoming rarer.
I'd love to see Canada join the EU, if only for the look on Brexiteers' faces.
Sez one newbie German MEP as he launches as “aspirational” campaign.
The EU would have to radically change in function and purpose.
It’s not happening. (And if it did change to accommodate Canada then it might well be interesting again for the UK as I assume it would be a much looser arrangement)
I seem to recall hearing about how incredibly tough Canada are when it comes to trade agreements so I’m not sure how their position on protecting agriculture for example would dovetail with the EU’s position.
Then there is free movement which isn’t going to go down overly well in Canada so many reasons not to see it remotely happening.
It does however add to the sense that the EU needs to have that “outer ring” that Macron suggested or alternatively to itself become a looser arrangement based on trade and defence which would then be more attractive to potential new members.
I'm not sure why free movement wouldn't go down well in Canada. It's one of the few countries I work in which feels serously short of people. As for Canadians free moving in Europe it would be unnoticable. The Cote d'Azur at the moment is absolutely heaving and seemingly with every nationality under the sun. For the French it must feel like they're floating in cash machines
Have you not read up on Canadian politics? They had their version of a Boriswave and a lot of people are not happy with the result.
It was only Trump and his 51st state garbage that saved the Liberals. This time.
They won’t double down on that.
Free movement of Europeans is not necessarily the free movement they don't like. Similat to the UK if only they would admit to it.
If you mixed with the lower orders, you might find a reason why they don’t like huge influxes of Poles, Romanians etc, either. It’s not just racism.
As Stuart Rose admitted, at the lower end, it is about wage suppression.
One friend, who left school at 16 etc, went though a series of trades that were, one by one, reduced to minimum wage. With shitty conditions.
In the end, he emigrated to Australia, where wages for non-white collar are protected. He was lucky - his wife is Australian. So he lives in a Perth suburb, in a house he owns, with time and money to waste on having time off, rather than working a zillion hours of overtime. So he can go cycling with friends. Or even go see a play - yes, culture has arrived in Perth.
(FWIW: So far, I seem to have been following his advice, without ever having heard of him. I'll be 82 in August and have no serious health problems.
I am not joking when I say that cross country skiing has been a big benefit for me, but will add that swimming is, as far as I know, just as good an exercise.
I suspect that the clean air achievements under GHWB and, to a lesser extent, GWB, have benefited me, too.)
Comments
The US is effectively FPTP, of course.
But I wonder how far down the list of winners you'd have to go before you found a clean competitor?
You could end up with a government very similar to Netanyahu's, with significantly fewer votes between the parties that compose it.
(He also looks suspsiciously like a young Trump!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycumxKt1zFk&ab_channel=CharacterToys
Quite properly they put the matter directly to voters from time to time. As the SNP themselves said, it should be “once in a generation”.
So it would be reasonable to retest around 2030-35.
Something quite similar to Storm Shadow at (supposedly) less than a tenth of the price.
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/03/anduril-and-zone-5-technologies-advance-for-air-force-diu-enterprise-test-vehicle/
..According to Mike Rothstein, Lockheed’s vice president of strategy and requirements for air weapons and sensors, the CMMT is designed to be an “upper subsonic” air vehicle with a range of “multiple hundreds of miles,” adding that larger variants can travel “upwards to 1,000-ish miles.” Besides features like scalability, the platform was also designed to more easily incorporate different payloads like warheads or sensors.
Rothstein said the CMMT “fits very well inside [FAMM]” effort, and that the company was aiming to meet unit cost goals under the program of $150,000 per round. According to a Lockheed press release, the weapon comes in two air-launched variants: one configuration can deploy from airlifters, fighters and bombers, while a smaller version can act as a launched effect from rotary aircraft...
Don’t dig your heels in on this one. It’s just a fact.
That's just a fact.
I am 3 decades older than @DougSeal and I am not depressed, but grateful for our family and the medics who gave me my pacemaker
No idea.
Otherwise English MPs would always exercise majority control over their affairs which would represent a democratic deficit.
I never brought party into it. If English MPs voted as a bloc they would overrule the Scottish MPs.
If the English MPs within a government insisted on a certain course of action and were willing to accept the collapse of the government in consequence they could overrule the Scottish MPs.
Instead what we've done now is get an actual democratic deficit where MPs can vote on matters that don't affect them. Or even when the law in Scotland is the opposite.
Like Scottish MSPs ensuring Scottish students have free tuition while Scottish MPs triple the tuition on English students, when a majority of English MPs rejected that.
Or Scottish MPs banning expanding Sunday trading in England, when a majority of English MPs backed it. When expanded Sunday trading is permitted in Scotland.
I’m going with maths. There are more English MPs than Scottish MPs.
If they chose not the overrule Scottish MPs that’s an indirect exercise of power. Because they *can*
At the start, they proclaim they’ve won - high power x-raying of everything. If there are people hidden inside, they are walking dead after the scan….
Things get worse from there.
Thanks to moves by the new president to end one of the primary methods, I now get it.
President's idea to mandate treasury stock cancellation frightens firms
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/business/companies/20250606/lees-idea-to-mandate-treasury-stock-cancellation-frightens-firms
... Unlike the U.S. and other advanced economies, there are many cases here of listed companies holding their own shares without canceling them. Treasury share cancellation refers to a company retiring its own shares, whether already held or repurchased, to reduce the number of shares in circulation and potentially boost its stock price.
Despite those advantages, a number of Korean firms have preferred to hold their treasury shares as a way to safeguard the control of their largest shareholders, as such shares typically do not carry voting rights and can be transferred later to friendly stakeholders (with temporarily restored voting rights) when needed...
This arrangement likely also depresses artificially the value of family shareholdings for inheritance tax purposes.
I like to start the day with a thoroughly good polling, so I'm grateful to Lord Ashcroft for his monthly offering.
Lots of nuggets in it, notable stuff like 2 child cap to remain being favoured (overwhelmingly by Con and Reform, take note Nige), Starmer narrowly over Farage for best PM, Kemi way off but public not in favour of another Tory defenestration. Farage loses the head to heads again against both SKS and KB (oddly to KB by slightly more) and only 22% think the Tories have learned from their shellacking, although that's not nothing to work with as it were.
VI Ashcroft goes for over 5/10 certainty to vote and hasnt given the headline, but the raw including WNV is
Ref 17
Labour 14
Con 12
LD 8
Green 8
Which translates to something like 28 23 19 12 12, in line with other polling, LDs a little lower (as they have been with his polling before) SNP 2 PC 1 too
Pretty much the opposite of balanced budgets.
The TCD and other university seats are a good example, but they were abolished in 1950. I believe in that case all graduates could vote for the MP so they were distinct from the geographic MP.
Edit: out of curiosity I looked at the TCD seat. They still elect Senators in Ireland - this could be a good model for part of the reform of the Lords.
If she gets through conference she will be fine until at least the locals next year, after that she'll need to be making progress or risk a toppling I think
But this stuff was on the way for a long time. Habit, “Aerospace prices/inflation”, defence employment games* and the employment of decision makers after they retire in the pyramid of contractors kept things as they were.
SpaceX were the first to dynamite a lot of the preconceptions. They’ve gone through the big contractors like a chainsaw through cheese.
A number of other companies sprang up, noticing that the DoD spend dwarfs anything the US government spends on space. And the same pricing issues mean that they could deliver for a handful of percent. Compared to the usual suspects.
*In government aerospace, in the US, each big project is carefully structured to deliver the right amount of work to enough politician’s districts to get the votes to fund the project. There is a whole discipline in doing this.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/06/08/reform-launches-attack-bank-of-england/
Here he attacks the BOE for paying commercial banks tens of billions in interest on their QE holdings (why?) and their disgracefully wasteful QT programme, where they burn money at the Treasury's expense.
These are two items of Government spend that could be cut with nary a granny going cold or a bunion untreated, so why is nobody bar Tice and probably still Redwood (I haven't dipped into his blog for a while) even at the races on this?
It will be interesting to see how things develop in Durham, Kent and Lincolnshire, although I rather fear for the elderly and disabled in those counties.
NEW THREAD
Her critics say the chancellor has no clear vision, but she tells our political editor that education is her true mission
https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/rachel-reeves-i-did-well-at-school-but-im-here-for-the-girls-who-didnt
Reshuffle incoming?
The SDSR talks about a "Hi-Low" mix (Chapter 1, Page 19, Section 30) - that is there are posh, excellent versions of whatever, that can do 100%, and further ones that do perhaps 80%, where 100% is not needed. Take the contrast between Type 45 frigates ("destroyers") at £1.2bn each from BAE and the Type 31 frigates from Babcock, at £313m each.
The type 45s uses an anti-air missile from the French/Italians, Aster 15/30 at £1-2 million each. Type 23 / and the new Type 31 uses CAMM and CAMM-ER, British, at £200k or £1 million each. I'd describe that as High-Low. If I have it right, CAMM is also up for use on land and potentially in the air as well.
I think that's a decent summary.
More to do, and new ideas coming up all the time, of course. But there's has imo been a measure of coherence in a fair amount of our defence procurement for some time.
It was only Trump and his 51st state garbage that saved the Liberals. This time.
They won’t double down on that.
For example locally if LD and some Lab voters swing behind the Tories against Reform then I can see Tory holds in Broadland, NW Norfolk and Mid Norfolk (S Norfolk is Lab held so complicated and SW Norfolk is a mess), but I am dubious and I think its more likely residual Tory hate will prevent tactical voting to a large extent. Of course Tories are dumb arses and will happily vote LD or Lab elsewhere thinking they'll get sweeties in return
What is probably true, and IMO sad, is that participation in discursive and serious forums like this is becoming rarer.
As Stuart Rose admitted, at the lower end, it is about wage suppression.
One friend, who left school at 16 etc, went though a series of trades that were, one by one, reduced to minimum wage. With shitty conditions.
In the end, he emigrated to Australia, where wages for non-white collar are protected. He was lucky - his wife is Australian. So he lives in a Perth suburb, in a house he owns, with time and money to waste on having time off, rather than working a zillion hours of overtime. So he can go cycling with friends. Or even go see a play - yes, culture has arrived in Perth.
(FWIW: So far, I seem to have been following his advice, without ever having heard of him. I'll be 82 in August and have no serious health problems.
I am not joking when I say that cross country skiing has been a big benefit for me, but will add that swimming is, as far as I know, just as good an exercise.
I suspect that the clean air achievements under GHWB and, to a lesser extent, GWB, have benefited me, too.)