Starmer probably does need replacing but no obviously good replacement IMO.
He tied himself to the genocidal killers in the Israeli government at the worst possible time and Jews and Gentiles from a leftish persuasion haven't trusted him since. Then along comes Zack with all the right credentials and snatches 15% of his potential vote.
Whether they go back to a genocidal Starmer led Labour Party for fear of Farage or Badenoch (both of whom are worse) is too difficult to say. I and several others I know are struggling for a good answer
You are possibly the most tone deaf person I've ever come across online or IRL
Very sad news coming out of Australia. Of course the media won’t dare state the obvious that there’s a direct link with this massive increase in anti-Semitic attacks and the Gaza War .
And that Netenyahu and the IDF actions have increased anti-Semitism globally .
How utterly sick victim blaming.
The Gaza War was not caused by Netanyahu, it was caused by Hamas. It ended when Hamas surrendered and released the hostages, which could have happened at any point prior or if they had not done the attack the war would never have happened.
And now you blame a terror attack, not on the terrorists, but the people who went to war to defend themselves after Hamas atrocity?
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
Not a fan of the stiff upper lip then?
What might work would be a crack down on the organised crime behind illegal employment etc.
By going after the rich bosses who abuse migrants, rather than migrants themselves, he would get on the right side (ha!) of the left.
Further it could be marketed as strong defence of the Minimum Wage - make sure to charge the scumbags with violating that, as well.
It would be seen (if effective) as Broken Windows policing - the very evident fake business upset many of the quiet law abiding types. So popular in the middle.
And given that the gangsters are themselves, nearly always, from the communities they exploit, the Reform types would be, at least, not unhappy.
Add in my idea to reward the illegally employed for giving evidence, and it would require an epic scale of policing to deal with cases…..
Starmer probably does need replacing but no obviously good replacement IMO.
He tied himself to the genocidal killers in the Israeli government at the worst possible time and Jews and Gentiles from a leftish persuasion haven't trusted him since. Then along comes Zack with all the right credentials and snatches 15% of his potential vote.
Whether they go back to a genocidal Starmer led Labour Party for fear of Farage or Badenoch (both of whom are worse) is too difficult to say. I and several others I know are struggling for a good answer
The ordinary Palestinians and Jews have every right to live their lives in peace but their murderous leaders continue an unwinnable fight and until the world stands equally opposed to both Netanyahu and Hamas division will prevail
I call out all those responsible, with Netanyahu and Hamas the principal evil, in this terrible tragedy out for utter condemnation
It would be much more convenient for Roger if Israelis agreed to be genocided.
Jews outside Israel could then feel like victims rather than being associated with a militarily successful country.
On a related note Roger is an 'artistic' Jew.
Now if Israel had produced successors to Kafka, Mahler and Pissarro (or Einstein and Freud) then Roger would view it more favourably.
But it hasn't.
Israel has recreated a more ancient culture, based on killing different tribes for the possession of the better land and to determine whose bronze age sky fairy is the best.
The culture of Joshua, Samson, David.
It is perhaps appropriate to describe Israel as a Hebrew state as much as a Jewish state.
Starmer probably does need replacing but no obviously good replacement IMO.
He tied himself to the genocidal killers in the Israeli government at the worst possible time and Jews and Gentiles from a leftish persuasion haven't trusted him since. Then along comes Zack with all the right credentials and snatches 15% of his potential vote.
Whether they go back to a genocidal Starmer led Labour Party for fear of Farage or Badenoch (both of whom are worse) is too difficult to say. I and several others I know are struggling for a good answer
Having bitten my lip and taken a deep breath...calling Starmer 'genocidal' is inflammatory hyperbole, but the 'Jews and Gentiles' framing is infinitely more concerning, even with the "from a leftish persuasion" qualifier. You're treating Jewish voters as a monolithic bloc separate from other voters defined primarily by Israel-Palestine policy, which is both inaccurate and plays into problematic (at the very least) stereotypes. Jewish people in the UK have diverse political views across many issues, just like everyone else.
There are legitimate concerns about Labour's foreign policy, but this kind of framing isn't helpful. Particularly given the news from Sydney. I'd like to think the editorial team will take a look at this one.
Starmer probably does need replacing but no obviously good replacement IMO.
He tied himself to the genocidal killers in the Israeli government at the worst possible time and Jews and Gentiles from a leftish persuasion haven't trusted him since. Then along comes Zack with all the right credentials and snatches 15% of his potential vote.
Whether they go back to a genocidal Starmer led Labour Party for fear of Farage or Badenoch (both of whom are worse) is too difficult to say. I and several others I know are struggling for a good answer
Apparently worrying about terrorist attacks is islamophobic. Too many people in the west have suicidal empathy and it's time for the government to get real about immigration from Islamic countries.
Two things seemed likely at that time - Labour would win a huge election victory, and Starmer was a poor leader, unwilling to sell policy to the country.
It suggests that Burnham has poor judgement over the likelihood of Starmer being a success, so doesn't speak to him knowing what it takes to do the job well.
I don't hold a candle for Starmer, and he's doing epically badly, but surely the Tory experience is that things can always get worse. There's no point putting someone else in as least unless there's a clear idea of what they will do differently to make things better (which isn't insane).
Wouldnt have been shortlisted not right wing or Zionist enough.
Candidates effectively hanx picke by the right wing Cabal SKS alloeed to run things.
Hence Luke Akehurst MP, Mike Tapp MP etc etc etc
Burnham was re-elected as Mayor of Greater Manchester in May 2024, so standing as an MP as well may have been awkward.
He has also iirc previously expressed his preference for the Mayoral Job, over a life as lobby fodder.
On the topic of the Sydney attacks, that looks to be some serious weaponry being used. Australia has very tough gun laws so it has to be asked where they got those from.
Would Starmer have scrapped the two child cap without the worry of a leadership challenge? I'm not sure.
I see Burnham has been calling for the end to housing benefit freeze. I think thats sensible. It's surely a false economy when you consider the costs of homelessness.
You don't create extra homes by increasing housing benefit. You make landlords richer.
Build more houses!
@Cookie or @BartholomewRoberts may know better, but aiui Greater Manchester has been building a lot of new houses, though I have no idea of the detailed (say comparative pro rate to population vs peer cities) numbers.
On the topic of the Sydney attacks, that looks to be some serious weaponry being used. Australia has very tough gun laws so it has to be asked where they got those from.
Straight pull shotgun and a bolt action rifle.
Both would be legal (probably) to buy in the UK. Shotgun might have too much magazine capacity.
Would Starmer have scrapped the two child cap without the worry of a leadership challenge? I'm not sure.
I see Burnham has been calling for the end to housing benefit freeze. I think thats sensible. It's surely a false economy when you consider the costs of homelessness.
You don't create extra homes by increasing housing benefit. You make landlords richer.
Build more houses!
@Cookie or @BartholomewRoberts may know better, but aiui Greater Manchester has been building a lot of new houses, though I have no idea of the detailed (say comparative pro rate to population vs peer cities) numbers.
There is a lot of construction, but nowhere near enough. We have a lot of demand and a lot of population growth - and an aging population* which means we need more houses than we would have even with a stable population, which we don't have.
* People live longer without kids now, meaning that occupancy rates per home are going down, which is not a problem except that their adult grandkids need a home and can't live with their parents/grandparents forever.
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
He tried that with the Piers Morgan interview, the constant banging on about his Dad being a toolmaker during the election campaign, and the stories of how he had it so tough as a kid (although his parents were private homeowners in the 1960s, which is not typical of a working class family at the time).
He's just not that much of a likeable character. He doesn't come across as being fun, or good company, at all. Charisma and charm are things you've either got or you haven't, and he has neither.
A Jewish witness, who has lost a colleague turned to the Sky camera and appealed to the world to light a candle for the Jewish Community
My wife has just lit the candle, and we said a silent prayer for the Jewish community
Don't forget to add "thoughts" as is traditional.
This sort of thing is going to continue unless somebody reins in the Millwall of the Middle East. As DJT (and others) appear to be owned and operated by the Zionist Entity, it seems unlikely.
Completely irrelevant. The earliest they will be in power is 2029 by when manufactures aren't going to change their cars for the following year.
Haven't they got something better to do than virtue signal over this?
Not really.
That's why being in opposition sucks.
I think it is also bad politics - the anti-Green people are going to vote Reform, and the Tories won't be able to out Reform them with demand for Reform lite pretty low. Whereas there is a chunk of Green party centrists and right of centre who would be ripe for picking by the Conservatives with Polanski taking the party further left.
On the topic of the Sydney attacks, that looks to be some serious weaponry being used. Australia has very tough gun laws so it has to be asked where they got those from.
From my views of the video, they weapons seem to be single-shot-at-once types, which can be legally held with a modest magazine (max 5 rounds), rather than say the semi-automatic machine guns by another name that are legal in the USA, and can fire 30 or 40 rounds in 5 seconds.
As I understand Ozzie gun laws, the aim is - like the UK - to render illegal guns which can be hidden risks to the public, but are not quite as comprehensive as ours. In the UK a "handgun" must aiui have a minimum barrel length of 300mm, which makes it a bit difficult to hide in your trouser pocket or handbag. (Shades of Kim Darby's horse pistol in True Grit.)
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
He tried that with the Piers Morgan interview, the constant banging on about his Dad being a toolmaker during the election campaign, and the stories of how he had it so tough as a kid (although his parents were private homeowners in the 1960s, which is not typical of a working class family at the time).
He's just not that much of a likeable character. He doesn't come across as being fun, or good company, at all. Charisma and charm are things you've either got or you haven't, and he has neither.
i don't think the image thing will help at this point. Even without a charisma and charm filled image he would have a chance of doing ok if he could sustain a credible account, matched by deeds, of:
Where are we Where are we going What do we believe How are we going to get there.
My feeling was and is that the budget was the last chance of the Starmer /Reeves show doing this, and they flopped badly. If they couldn't do it then I don't think they can do it now.
However something may turn up to help. But of the three possible governments (Lab, Tory, Reform) I feel that sentiment among the Never Reform 60% may start thinking that Tory is to be slightly preferred to Labour. The 'tax and spend' turn has done no good among the economically literate.
A Jewish witness, who has lost a colleague turned to the Sky camera and appealed to the world to light a candle for the Jewish Community
My wife has just lit the candle, and we said a silent prayer for the Jewish community
Don't forget to add "thoughts" as is traditional.
This sort of thing is going to continue unless somebody reins in the Millwall of the Middle East. As DJT (and others) appear to be owned and operated by the Zionist Entity, it seems unlikely.
Arab territory (22 states) = 13,000,000 sq. km. Israeli territory = 20,000 sq. km.
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
He tried that with the Piers Morgan interview, the constant banging on about his Dad being a toolmaker during the election campaign, and the stories of how he had it so tough as a kid (although his parents were private homeowners in the 1960s, which is not typical of a working class family at the time).
He's just not that much of a likeable character. He doesn't come across as being fun, or good company, at all. Charisma and charm are things you've either got or you haven't, and he has neither.
I don't think a lack of charisma and charm is Starmer's problem. All the of bit I have bolded applied to Margaret Thatcher, possibly more than Starmer, and it didn't stop her.
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
Andy Murray is a good parallel but striking you couldn't find one from politics. I think after office he may be remembered more fondly like John Major but of course that is too late.
I think his best bet is to take the fight to Farage and be unparliamentary (ie use the language of everyday people) about it. Call him a traitor who has sold out to the Russians or something. He needs to do something unexpected to cut through.
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
The political equivalent? I note you are of no use to him by actually suggesting such a moment!
He's doomed unless he can generate a loaves and fishes moment. Even then, folk would complain, "he only fed the 5,000 in the know...."
You know what I mean. Something to change perceptions. I'm saying it's difficult. That's why he's in trouble.
The obvious potential change is peace in Ukraine leading to an economic dividend including lower food prices, not just reduced inflation, but reduced prices on food and energy.
If it changes it will be external as Starmer and his team are too passive to make it happen themselves, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.
An economic upswing would help, yes, but IMO the core problem (why his personal ratings are in the toilet and thus his leadership under threat) is his inability to connect with the public.
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
He tried that with the Piers Morgan interview, the constant banging on about his Dad being a toolmaker during the election campaign, and the stories of how he had it so tough as a kid (although his parents were private homeowners in the 1960s, which is not typical of a working class family at the time).
He's just not that much of a likeable character. He doesn't come across as being fun, or good company, at all. Charisma and charm are things you've either got or you haven't, and he has neither.
I don't think a lack of charisma and charm is Starmer's problem. All the of bit I have bolded applied to Margaret Thatcher, possibly more than Starmer, and it didn't stop her.
I think a change of leader is needed for Labour to change direction, but first they need to decide on a clear direction. At the moment they seem to be trying (and failing) to mine what should be a fertile seam of voters: Socially conservative voters who desire a welfare state. This is failing, but it isn't just because of the leadership of Starmer, or lack of it.
It is a fundamental error to conflate centrist economic and social policy with an authoritarian state.
It is a mistake that Badenoch makes too. Being centrist involves more than being slightly less Fash than Farage.
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
Not a fan of the stiff upper lip then?
I am - very much so - but the public aren't. They need some emotional projection.
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
A Jewish witness, who has lost a colleague turned to the Sky camera and appealed to the world to light a candle for the Jewish Community
My wife has just lit the candle, and we said a silent prayer for the Jewish community
Don't forget to add "thoughts" as is traditional.
This sort of thing is going to continue unless somebody reins in the Millwall of the Middle East. As DJT (and others) appear to be owned and operated by the Zionist Entity, it seems unlikely.
The antisemitic trope that political leaders are "owned and operated" is exactly the kind of bile that fuels the very antisemitic attacks you claim to be concerned about.
Really shocking scenes from bondi beach in amongst some extraordinary bravery.
I do not think the western world or its politicians are suited to the new world we find ourselves in.
The issue is that the ones who might do something about it will also do lots of other stuff that isn't as acceptable and necessary.
Indeed. The apologetic wet blanket style of government we have endured for years needs to get a grip and adopt diamond hard migration and criminal justice policies. If they don’t then democracies will elect people who will.
A Jewish witness, who has lost a colleague turned to the Sky camera and appealed to the world to light a candle for the Jewish Community
My wife has just lit the candle, and we said a silent prayer for the Jewish community
Don't forget to add "thoughts" as is traditional.
This sort of thing is going to continue unless somebody reins in the Millwall of the Middle East. As DJT (and others) appear to be owned and operated by the Zionist Entity, it seems unlikely.
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
BYD electric buses galore in London nowadays, both single- and double-deckers.
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
He tried that with the Piers Morgan interview, the constant banging on about his Dad being a toolmaker during the election campaign, and the stories of how he had it so tough as a kid (although his parents were private homeowners in the 1960s, which is not typical of a working class family at the time).
He's just not that much of a likeable character. He doesn't come across as being fun, or good company, at all. Charisma and charm are things you've either got or you haven't, and he has neither.
I don't feel that way at all about him but it's undeniable that lots of people do. This is my exact point actually. It's why I'm not laying him at 1.7 to exit in 2026. Normally I'd be all over a bet like that. Policies you can change. Economies can pick up. Personas, once fixed in the public mind, are the very devil to shift.
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
He tried that with the Piers Morgan interview, the constant banging on about his Dad being a toolmaker during the election campaign, and the stories of how he had it so tough as a kid (although his parents were private homeowners in the 1960s, which is not typical of a working class family at the time).
He's just not that much of a likeable character. He doesn't come across as being fun, or good company, at all. Charisma and charm are things you've either got or you haven't, and he has neither.
I don't think a lack of charisma and charm is Starmer's problem. All the of bit I have bolded applied to Margaret Thatcher, possibly more than Starmer, and it didn't stop her.
I think Starmer's actual problem is buried in his psyche and is to do with an inability to commit to a course of action. Maybe it's a fear of failure. Whatever it is, it seems fatal.
Very sad news coming out of Australia. Of course the media won’t dare state the obvious that there’s a direct link with this massive increase in anti-Semitic attacks and the Gaza War .
And that Netenyahu and the IDF actions have increased anti-Semitism globally .
How utterly sick victim blaming.
The Gaza War was not caused by Netanyahu, it was caused by Hamas. It ended when Hamas surrendered and released the hostages, which could have happened at any point prior or if they had not done the attack the war would never have happened.
And now you blame a terror attack, not on the terrorists, but the people who went to war to defend themselves after Hamas atrocity?
You are sick.
Jeez stop the lecturing . I never victim blamed and you’d have to be a fruit fly to not connect the Gaza War with increased anti -Semitism . No one said Israel didn’t have a right to react to the October massacre . If you think the response was proportionate then really there’s nothing more to say !
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
BYD electric buses galore in London nowadays, both single- and double-deckers.
For urban buses, delivery vans, taxis etc electric vehicles are such a complete no-brainer that I'm amazed there are any ICE vehicles left in those roles.
An Amazon delivery van stopping and starting every fifty yards is just not suited for diesel engines. Wears them out and costs a fortune in fuel.
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
EU is fairly obviously going to either ditch the ban or pushing it back a very long way. That's going to put a lot of pressure on UK policy makers to do the same.
Being first out of the traps to call for the inevitable is reasonably smart opposition politics.
Despite this, when presented with a binary choice the public are split on whether they prefer a Labour government led by Keir Starmer (37%) or a Reform-led government led by Nigel Farage (37%). Farage and Reform had led by 3 points in October.
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
The Chinese newcomers are getting expensive though. I recently had a BYD Sealion hire car in Spain, closely followed by an Audi Q4 e-tron in Switzerland. The suspension of the BYD was obviously just drawn not designed but the interior finish was probably better than the Audi which had a "Middle of Lidl" feel to it. However, the BYD is now not any cheaper than the Audi and I know which is the stronger brand...
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
Well, the obvious approach is to pivot on his approach to Farage, and go for him with more vigour. As he's a human rights lawyer that at least would be authentic. He may win some support and understanding by going hard on Reform's attempt to benefit from appealing to people's worst instincts.
(While at the same time quietly closing down the grievances about immigration with effective action).
His fear must be that hammering Farage will benefit the Tories more than him, certainly in the short term until there is a valid reason to vote Labour.
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
Andy Murray is a good parallel but striking you couldn't find one from politics. I think after office he may be remembered more fondly like John Major but of course that is too late.
I think his best bet is to take the fight to Farage and be unparliamentary (ie use the language of everyday people) about it. Call him a traitor who has sold out to the Russians or something. He needs to do something unexpected to cut through.
Yes, I'd like to see that. Also less careful language about Trump.
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
He tried that with the Piers Morgan interview, the constant banging on about his Dad being a toolmaker during the election campaign, and the stories of how he had it so tough as a kid (although his parents were private homeowners in the 1960s, which is not typical of a working class family at the time).
He's just not that much of a likeable character. He doesn't come across as being fun, or good company, at all. Charisma and charm are things you've either got or you haven't, and he has neither.
I don't feel that way at all about him but it's undeniable that lots of people do. This is my exact point actually. It's why I'm not laying him at 1.7 to exit in 2026. Normally I'd be all over a bet like that. Policies you can change. Economies can pick up. Personas, once fixed in the public mind, are the very devil to shift.
I doubt he will make the next election, or even wants to, but that's different to saying he will go next year.
The nearest, imperfect, analogy, I can think of is the fifth-choice bowler whose task is to survive the overs until the new ball becomes available for the proper quick to take.
It's not a perfect analogy because it's not totally obvious that a proper quick is on the field.
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
The Chinese newcomers are getting expensive though. I recently had a BYD Sealion hire car in Spain, closely followed by an Audi Q4 e-tron in Switzerland. The suspension of the BYD was obviously just drawn not designed but the interior finish was probably better than the Audi which had a "Middle of Lidl" feel to it. However, the BYD is now not any cheaper than the Audi and I know which is the stronger brand...
There's a recent article here on the next generation EVs on the way, really quite interesting reading for any former petrolhead turned volthead.
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
BYD electric buses galore in London nowadays, both single- and double-deckers.
For urban buses, delivery vans, taxis etc electric vehicles are such a complete no-brainer that I'm amazed there are any ICE vehicles left in those roles.
An Amazon delivery van stopping and starting every fifty yards is just not suited for diesel engines. Wears them out and costs a fortune in fuel.
Stop/start means regenerative braking means electric motors win easily.
Very sad news coming out of Australia. Of course the media won’t dare state the obvious that there’s a direct link with this massive increase in anti-Semitic attacks and the Gaza War .
And that Netenyahu and the IDF actions have increased anti-Semitism globally .
How utterly sick victim blaming.
The Gaza War was not caused by Netanyahu, it was caused by Hamas. It ended when Hamas surrendered and released the hostages, which could have happened at any point prior or if they had not done the attack the war would never have happened.
And now you blame a terror attack, not on the terrorists, but the people who went to war to defend themselves after Hamas atrocity?
You are sick.
Jeez stop the lecturing . I never victim blamed and you’d have to be a fruit fly to not connect the Gaza War with increased anti -Semitism . No one said Israel didn’t have a right to react to the October massacre . If you think the response was proportionate then really there’s nothing more to say !
The poster calling you sick reacted to the destruction of Gaza and its population with "Good. Well done, Israel".
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
Andy Murray is a good parallel but striking you couldn't find one from politics. I think after office he may be remembered more fondly like John Major but of course that is too late.
I think his best bet is to take the fight to Farage and be unparliamentary (ie use the language of everyday people) about it. Call him a traitor who has sold out to the Russians or something. He needs to do something unexpected to cut through.
Yes, I'd like to see that. Also less careful language about Trump.
You're wasting your time hoping for or expecting that from SKS. His entire posture toward DJT is like that of an anxious eunuch in the Purple Forbidden City where success is exclusively defined as not offending the emperor.
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
Andy Murray is a good parallel but striking you couldn't find one from politics. I think after office he may be remembered more fondly like John Major but of course that is too late.
I think his best bet is to take the fight to Farage and be unparliamentary (ie use the language of everyday people) about it. Call him a traitor who has sold out to the Russians or something. He needs to do something unexpected to cut through.
Yes, I'd like to see that. Also less careful language about Trump.
You're wasting your time hoping for or expecting that from SKS. His entire posture toward DJT is like that of an anxious eunuch in the Purple Forbidden City where success is exclusively defined as not offending the emperor.
A eunuch is a good description for a man whose chief achievement is cutting his nutters off.
Despite this, when presented with a binary choice the public are split on whether they prefer a Labour government led by Keir Starmer (37%) or a Reform-led government led by Nigel Farage (37%). Farage and Reform had led by 3 points in October.
Really shocking scenes from bondi beach in amongst some extraordinary bravery.
I do not think the western world or its politicians are suited to the new world we find ourselves in.
The issue is that the ones who might do something about it will also do lots of other stuff that isn't as acceptable and necessary.
Indeed. The apologetic wet blanket style of government we have endured for years needs to get a grip and adopt diamond hard migration and criminal justice policies. If they don’t then democracies will elect people who will.
The 1970s were a period of rampant terrorism in the West. I personally do not wish we had reacted to it by electing strongman crackdown leaders.
Very sad news coming out of Australia. Of course the media won’t dare state the obvious that there’s a direct link with this massive increase in anti-Semitic attacks and the Gaza War .
And that Netenyahu and the IDF actions have increased anti-Semitism globally .
How utterly sick victim blaming.
The Gaza War was not caused by Netanyahu, it was caused by Hamas. It ended when Hamas surrendered and released the hostages, which could have happened at any point prior or if they had not done the attack the war would never have happened.
And now you blame a terror attack, not on the terrorists, but the people who went to war to defend themselves after Hamas atrocity?
You are sick.
Jeez stop the lecturing . I never victim blamed and you’d have to be a fruit fly to not connect the Gaza War with increased anti -Semitism . No one said Israel didn’t have a right to react to the October massacre . If you think the response was proportionate then really there’s nothing more to say !
Don't worry - I think you were a little clumsy but no honest reader of your posts could construe any malevolence from them.
It isn't wrong to suggest that rates of anti-Semitism have increased or strengthened as a result of the actions of the Israeli government - indeed it's important for us to acknowledge that and confront it.
If you hold those bigoted views in the first place, the IDF's destruction of Gaza is hardly going to dissuade you of them. Happily, we have the massed protests against Netanyahu in Israel, and British Jews expressing their abhorrence at what is going on, to serve as a reminder of how wrong those anti-Semitic views are.
It’s almost as if the process is the punishment for Peggie, one hopes that she ends up with her costs in full.
She won't. This is an employment tribunal. They don't award costs and nor does the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which is the next stop. However, she has a rich backer who is apparently willing to fund her as far as necessary, so that isn't a problem for her.
Very sad news coming out of Australia. Of course the media won’t dare state the obvious that there’s a direct link with this massive increase in anti-Semitic attacks and the Gaza War .
And that Netenyahu and the IDF actions have increased anti-Semitism globally .
How utterly sick victim blaming.
The Gaza War was not caused by Netanyahu, it was caused by Hamas. It ended when Hamas surrendered and released the hostages, which could have happened at any point prior or if they had not done the attack the war would never have happened.
And now you blame a terror attack, not on the terrorists, but the people who went to war to defend themselves after Hamas atrocity?
You are sick.
Jeez stop the lecturing . I never victim blamed and you’d have to be a fruit fly to not connect the Gaza War with increased anti -Semitism . No one said Israel didn’t have a right to react to the October massacre . If you think the response was proportionate then really there’s nothing more to say !
The poster calling you sick reacted to the destruction of Gaza and its population with "Good. Well done, Israel".
What destruction of its people? The people are still there.
The destruction of Hamas on the other hand was entirely merited. The second Hamas surrendered, the war ended.
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
Andy Murray is a good parallel but striking you couldn't find one from politics. I think after office he may be remembered more fondly like John Major but of course that is too late.
I think his best bet is to take the fight to Farage and be unparliamentary (ie use the language of everyday people) about it. Call him a traitor who has sold out to the Russians or something. He needs to do something unexpected to cut through.
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
Andy Murray is a good parallel but striking you couldn't find one from politics. I think after office he may be remembered more fondly like John Major but of course that is too late.
I think his best bet is to take the fight to Farage and be unparliamentary (ie use the language of everyday people) about it. Call him a traitor who has sold out to the Russians or something. He needs to do something unexpected to cut through.
Yes, I'd like to see that. Also less careful language about Trump.
You're wasting your time hoping for or expecting that from SKS. His entire posture toward DJT is like that of an anxious eunuch in the Purple Forbidden City where success is exclusively defined as not offending the emperor.
It's painful. And plenty of others tbf. Rutte probably wins with his "Daddy" note. That wasn't just the death of satire, it was satire burnt to ashes and scattered to the four winds.
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
BYD electric buses galore in London nowadays, both single- and double-deckers.
typical UK , give away everything for cheap stuff and then find that they are locked in , no industry and have to pay China whatever they ask. You would think they might learn to try and get some local industry built up.
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
The Chinese newcomers are getting expensive though. I recently had a BYD Sealion hire car in Spain, closely followed by an Audi Q4 e-tron in Switzerland. The suspension of the BYD was obviously just drawn not designed but the interior finish was probably better than the Audi which had a "Middle of Lidl" feel to it. However, the BYD is now not any cheaper than the Audi and I know which is the stronger brand...
The problem for European manufacturers is fewer people are buying cars AND they are losing share of the declining market to the Chinese.
I agree Chinese manufacturers no longer beat the best European manufacturers on VFM.
Really shocking scenes from bondi beach in amongst some extraordinary bravery.
I do not think the western world or its politicians are suited to the new world we find ourselves in.
The issue is that the ones who might do something about it will also do lots of other stuff that isn't as acceptable and necessary.
Indeed. The apologetic wet blanket style of government we have endured for years needs to get a grip and adopt diamond hard migration and criminal justice policies. If they don’t then democracies will elect people who will.
The 1970s were a period of rampant terrorism in the West. I personally do not wish we had reacted to it by electing strongman crackdown leaders.
Except we didn’t.
Thatcher rejected internment without trial.
She even rejected sanctioning the unemployment benefit of convicted terrorists. No one even mentioned the modern idea of throwing people out of their council houses for being an extremist.
The “traditional response” to terrorism - heavy handed military operations to demonstrate “presence” in the terrorist strongholds didn’t happen, either.
Instead a twin track, political and intelligence based policy was used. Which eventually gave us the Good Friday agreement.
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.
For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.
Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.
Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
The Chinese newcomers are getting expensive though. I recently had a BYD Sealion hire car in Spain, closely followed by an Audi Q4 e-tron in Switzerland. The suspension of the BYD was obviously just drawn not designed but the interior finish was probably better than the Audi which had a "Middle of Lidl" feel to it. However, the BYD is now not any cheaper than the Audi and I know which is the stronger brand...
Audi is a brand for middle aged aspiring hooligans who never managed to get a Fiesta XR2 when they were tweenagers.
Or for current tweenagers who want to pretend to be Clarkson circa 2002.
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
BYD electric buses galore in London nowadays, both single- and double-deckers.
typical UK , give away everything for cheap stuff and then find that they are locked in , no industry and have to pay China whatever they ask. You would think they might learn to try and get some local industry built up.
Mayor Kahn shutdown the production of the existing, operating hybrid powered double deckers. Made in the U.K.
Which had been designed to evolve into fully electric vehicles when batteries got cheaper.
Great plan, that.
The ones that were in service when he cancelled the further buys are still in service. Seem to be pretty tough.
It’s almost as if the process is the punishment for Peggie, one hopes that she ends up with her costs in full.
The weird thing is that I spoke to a distinguished employment lawyer and he assured me that Kemp had an excellent reputation as a safe pair of hands. I was having reservations because it seemed to me that he had lost control of the process and was hearing absurd amounts of irrelevant evidence to the question that was actually before him with the consequence that the evidential part of the hearing took multiple times longer than it should have.
The questions before the Tribunal were pretty straightforward: was Peggie entitled to object to a biological male using a female changing room because they identified as female? If she was, was her employer wrong to suspend her for her complaint? And, additionally, was the historic disciplinary procedure brought against her (and ultimately, if belatedly dismissed) harassment?
The first of these questions might have been thought to be somewhat uncertain given various official guides issued by the Scottish government until the FWS decision but really that should have ended that issue. I am as bewildered as most as to what has happened here but this is starting to look career ending.
Speaking seriously I: Should the case have been decided as per the rules as they were thought to be at the time, or per the rules as FWS decided they were? I assume this isn't the first time a SC decision changed the rules (I know, I know) in the middle of a case?
Speaking seriously II: Do you have a date for your discussant contribution to my article? I'm assuming it's around tomorrow and I'm incorporating the other discussants this weekend to clear the runway for you.
Really shocking scenes from bondi beach in amongst some extraordinary bravery.
I do not think the western world or its politicians are suited to the new world we find ourselves in.
The issue is that the ones who might do something about it will also do lots of other stuff that isn't as acceptable and necessary.
Indeed. The apologetic wet blanket style of government we have endured for years needs to get a grip and adopt diamond hard migration and criminal justice policies. If they don’t then democracies will elect people who will.
The 1970s were a period of rampant terrorism in the West. I personally do not wish we had reacted to it by electing strongman crackdown leaders.
Except we didn’t.
Thatcher rejected internment without trial.
She even rejected sanctioning the unemployment benefit of convicted terrorists. No one even mentioned the modern idea of throwing people out of their council houses for being an extremist.
The “traditional response” to terrorism - heavy handed military operations to demonstrate “presence” in the terrorist strongholds didn’t happen, either.
Instead a twin track, political and intelligence based policy was used. Which eventually gave us the Good Friday agreement.
Could you misinterpret a post any more wildly! Hats off.
Yes, that is what I was saying. Western countries (inc the UK) did not react that way and I'm glad we didn't.
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
BYD electric buses galore in London nowadays, both single- and double-deckers.
typical UK , give away everything for cheap stuff and then find that they are locked in , no industry and have to pay China whatever they ask. You would think they might learn to try and get some local industry built up.
I think those are just 1st Gen Alexander Dennis electric buses on BYD chassis - 2nd/3rd gen aren't BYD I think. Lothian run Volvos.
Really shocking scenes from bondi beach in amongst some extraordinary bravery.
I do not think the western world or its politicians are suited to the new world we find ourselves in.
The issue is that the ones who might do something about it will also do lots of other stuff that isn't as acceptable and necessary.
Indeed. The apologetic wet blanket style of government we have endured for years needs to get a grip and adopt diamond hard migration and criminal justice policies. If they don’t then democracies will elect people who will.
The 1970s were a period of rampant terrorism in the West. I personally do not wish we had reacted to it by electing strongman crackdown leaders.
Except we didn’t.
Thatcher rejected internment without trial.
She even rejected sanctioning the unemployment benefit of convicted terrorists. No one even mentioned the modern idea of throwing people out of their council houses for being an extremist.
The “traditional response” to terrorism - heavy handed military operations to demonstrate “presence” in the terrorist strongholds didn’t happen, either.
Instead a twin track, political and intelligence based policy was used. Which eventually gave us the Good Friday agreement.
Although she wasn't averse to headline-grabbing Mrs T combined that with a VERY close interest in policy detail. As many of her ministers could testify. However it does require a fair amount of critical intelligence and a powerful work ethic. And not being too bothered about opinion polls.
It’s almost as if the process is the punishment for Peggie, one hopes that she ends up with her costs in full.
The weird thing is that I spoke to a distinguished employment lawyer and he assured me that Kemp had an excellent reputation as a safe pair of hands. I was having reservations because it seemed to me that he had lost control of the process and was hearing absurd amounts of irrelevant evidence to the question that was actually before him with the consequence that the evidential part of the hearing took multiple times longer than it should have.
The questions before the Tribunal were pretty straightforward: was Peggie entitled to object to a biological male using a female changing room because they identified as female? If she was, was her employer wrong to suspend her for her complaint? And, additionally, was the historic disciplinary procedure brought against her (and ultimately, if belatedly dismissed) harassment?
The first of these questions might have been thought to be somewhat uncertain given various official guides issued by the Scottish government until the FWS decision but really that should have ended that issue. I am as bewildered as most as to what has happened here but this is starting to look career ending.
Speaking seriously I: Should the case have been decided as per the rules as they were thought to be at the time, or per the rules as FWS decided they were? I assume this isn't the first time a SC decision changed the rules (I know, I know) in the middle of a case?
Speaking seriously II: Do you have a date for your discussant contribution to my article? I'm assuming it's around tomorrow and I'm incorporating the other discussants this weekend to clear the runway for you.
IANAL but surely on point 1, the very point of the Supreme Court is the rules were always what the SC ruled they were, is it not?
The people who "thought" the rules were different, were wrong. As per the SC ruling.
So yes, the case should be decided according to precedence of the Court, even if some had mistakenly thought the rules were different, prior to the ruling.
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
BYD electric buses galore in London nowadays, both single- and double-deckers.
typical UK , give away everything for cheap stuff and then find that they are locked in , no industry and have to pay China whatever they ask. You would think they might learn to try and get some local industry built up.
Through subsidy, for example? If the solution to every problem is subsidy, your taxes are going to be much larger than now.
Really shocking scenes from bondi beach in amongst some extraordinary bravery.
I do not think the western world or its politicians are suited to the new world we find ourselves in.
The issue is that the ones who might do something about it will also do lots of other stuff that isn't as acceptable and necessary.
Indeed. The apologetic wet blanket style of government we have endured for years needs to get a grip and adopt diamond hard migration and criminal justice policies. If they don’t then democracies will elect people who will.
The 1970s were a period of rampant terrorism in the West. I personally do not wish we had reacted to it by electing strongman crackdown leaders.
Except we didn’t.
Thatcher rejected internment without trial.
She even rejected sanctioning the unemployment benefit of convicted terrorists. No one even mentioned the modern idea of throwing people out of their council houses for being an extremist.
The “traditional response” to terrorism - heavy handed military operations to demonstrate “presence” in the terrorist strongholds didn’t happen, either.
Instead a twin track, political and intelligence based policy was used. Which eventually gave us the Good Friday agreement.
What sort of Good Friday Agreement do you envisage with those who spray bullets into strangers, systematically rape children and even mutilate their own daughters?
Really shocking scenes from bondi beach in amongst some extraordinary bravery.
I do not think the western world or its politicians are suited to the new world we find ourselves in.
The issue is that the ones who might do something about it will also do lots of other stuff that isn't as acceptable and necessary.
Indeed. The apologetic wet blanket style of government we have endured for years needs to get a grip and adopt diamond hard migration and criminal justice policies. If they don’t then democracies will elect people who will.
The 1970s were a period of rampant terrorism in the West. I personally do not wish we had reacted to it by electing strongman crackdown leaders.
Except we didn’t.
Thatcher rejected internment without trial.
She even rejected sanctioning the unemployment benefit of convicted terrorists. No one even mentioned the modern idea of throwing people out of their council houses for being an extremist.
The “traditional response” to terrorism - heavy handed military operations to demonstrate “presence” in the terrorist strongholds didn’t happen, either.
Instead a twin track, political and intelligence based policy was used. Which eventually gave us the Good Friday agreement.
Could you misinterpret a post any more wildly! Hats off.
Yes, that is what I was saying. Western countries (inc the UK) did not react that way and I'm glad we didn't.
It did take a while to realise that the brutal response (Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy etc) and Internment were not only ineffective, they were counterproductive, driving recruits to the PIRA etc.
It was intelligence led policing, and socio-economic progress that brought the terrorism to an end, albeit a fossilised stalemate.
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.
For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.
Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.
Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
It is market forces that will kill off the ICE vehicle market.
Really shocking scenes from bondi beach in amongst some extraordinary bravery.
I do not think the western world or its politicians are suited to the new world we find ourselves in.
The issue is that the ones who might do something about it will also do lots of other stuff that isn't as acceptable and necessary.
Indeed. The apologetic wet blanket style of government we have endured for years needs to get a grip and adopt diamond hard migration and criminal justice policies. If they don’t then democracies will elect people who will.
The 1970s were a period of rampant terrorism in the West. I personally do not wish we had reacted to it by electing strongman crackdown leaders.
Except we didn’t.
Thatcher rejected internment without trial.
She even rejected sanctioning the unemployment benefit of convicted terrorists. No one even mentioned the modern idea of throwing people out of their council houses for being an extremist.
The “traditional response” to terrorism - heavy handed military operations to demonstrate “presence” in the terrorist strongholds didn’t happen, either.
Instead a twin track, political and intelligence based policy was used. Which eventually gave us the Good Friday agreement.
Although she wasn't averse to headline-grabbing Mrs T combined that with a VERY close interest in policy detail. As many of her ministers could testify. However it does require a fair amount of critical intelligence and a powerful work ethic. And not being too bothered about opinion polls.
In the meeting immediately after the Brighton Bomb, Thatcher literally had dust from the bomb on her. The Home Office recommended internment without trial. She instantly said no and the official in question was sidelined from future discussion.
I shudder to think what Blair or Starmer would do in that circumstance.
There's no doubt Starmer is in trouble. What makes it worse is it's less about government policies (which can be easily changed) than his persona (which can't). A critical mass of the public have taken against the guy. It's a chemical thing. So whilst not writing him off I'm not that bullish on his survival prospects.
If I search for positive portents (which I do since I don't share the dislike) what comes to mind is Andy Murray. He too suffered from 'public hate me' syndrome. For years he did until one day in 2012 (and I was there) he lost a Wimbledon final to Roger Federer and his courtside interview afterwards with Sue Barker, raw and vulnerable (Andy, that is, not Sue), changed everything. From then on, apart from vacuous snobs and hardcore Scotophobes, Murray was loved. He went on to be knighted and to win Spoty a record three times.
Now Keir is already knighted and he isn't eligible for Spoty, but what he needs is the political equivalent of a moment like that. If I were on his team of Spads that's what I'd be telling him. Take a risk. It's worth it because there's far more to gain than lose. I know it goes against all your instincts but do it. Let the public in. Trust them.
He tried that with the Piers Morgan interview, the constant banging on about his Dad being a toolmaker during the election campaign, and the stories of how he had it so tough as a kid (although his parents were private homeowners in the 1960s, which is not typical of a working class family at the time).
He's just not that much of a likeable character. He doesn't come across as being fun, or good company, at all. Charisma and charm are things you've either got or you haven't, and he has neither.
I don't feel that way at all about him but it's undeniable that lots of people do. This is my exact point actually. It's why I'm not laying him at 1.7 to exit in 2026. Normally I'd be all over a bet like that. Policies you can change. Economies can pick up. Personas, once fixed in the public mind, are the very devil to shift.
I doubt he will make the next election, or even wants to, but that's different to saying he will go next year.
The nearest, imperfect, analogy, I can think of is the fifth-choice bowler whose task is to survive the overs until the new ball becomes available for the proper quick to take.
It's not a perfect analogy because it's not totally obvious that a proper quick is on the field.
"Whirlwind" Wes Streeting. Angela "Rocket" Rayner. These two will no doubt be putting some nets time in.
(but yes, where I'd be betting is 27/28 where the odds offer more value imo)
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
BYD electric buses galore in London nowadays, both single- and double-deckers.
typical UK , give away everything for cheap stuff and then find that they are locked in , no industry and have to pay China whatever they ask. You would think they might learn to try and get some local industry built up.
I think those are just 1st Gen Alexander Dennis electric buses on BYD chassis - 2nd/3rd gen aren't BYD I think. Lothian run Volvos.
BYD badges on the front in London. For example routes 366 and 396 in Ilford, the SL4 through Silvertown Tunnel, etc.
Really shocking scenes from bondi beach in amongst some extraordinary bravery.
I do not think the western world or its politicians are suited to the new world we find ourselves in.
The issue is that the ones who might do something about it will also do lots of other stuff that isn't as acceptable and necessary.
Indeed. The apologetic wet blanket style of government we have endured for years needs to get a grip and adopt diamond hard migration and criminal justice policies. If they don’t then democracies will elect people who will.
The 1970s were a period of rampant terrorism in the West. I personally do not wish we had reacted to it by electing strongman crackdown leaders.
Except we didn’t.
Thatcher rejected internment without trial.
She even rejected sanctioning the unemployment benefit of convicted terrorists. No one even mentioned the modern idea of throwing people out of their council houses for being an extremist.
The “traditional response” to terrorism - heavy handed military operations to demonstrate “presence” in the terrorist strongholds didn’t happen, either.
Instead a twin track, political and intelligence based policy was used. Which eventually gave us the Good Friday agreement.
What sort of Good Friday Agreement do you envisage with those who spray bullets into strangers, systematically rape children and even mutilate their own daughters?
Well between Gerry and his brother, they had most of that.
I would put them on the payroll, 6 figure jobs. When they realise that if the war restarts, they are going to lose the nice big house and the daughters will have to give up the riding lessons....
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.
For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.
Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.
Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
"Gunshots and injuries reported at Australia's Bondi Beach as police say two in custody.
I've just spoken to an eyewitness, Barry, who was attending the Hanukkah event at Bondi Beach.
He told me he was at the event with his kids when the sound of gunshots ran out. He said two men were on a bridge and they started shooting at the crowd. There were bodies on the ground, he said. "
So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...
It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
I don't think that is the point
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.
For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.
For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.
Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.
Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
It is market forces that will kill off the ICE vehicle market.
How, when tens of millions of people find ICE vehicles to be cheaper to operate per mile and not just to buy?
For those who have off-road parking, absolutely it will, but tens of millions of people don't have that and you are not addressing the point with your "I'm alrite Jack, I can charge at home" attitude.
Really shocking scenes from bondi beach in amongst some extraordinary bravery.
I do not think the western world or its politicians are suited to the new world we find ourselves in.
The issue is that the ones who might do something about it will also do lots of other stuff that isn't as acceptable and necessary.
Indeed. The apologetic wet blanket style of government we have endured for years needs to get a grip and adopt diamond hard migration and criminal justice policies. If they don’t then democracies will elect people who will.
The 1970s were a period of rampant terrorism in the West. I personally do not wish we had reacted to it by electing strongman crackdown leaders.
Except we didn’t.
Thatcher rejected internment without trial.
She even rejected sanctioning the unemployment benefit of convicted terrorists. No one even mentioned the modern idea of throwing people out of their council houses for being an extremist.
The “traditional response” to terrorism - heavy handed military operations to demonstrate “presence” in the terrorist strongholds didn’t happen, either.
Instead a twin track, political and intelligence based policy was used. Which eventually gave us the Good Friday agreement.
Could you misinterpret a post any more wildly! Hats off.
Yes, that is what I was saying. Western countries (inc the UK) did not react that way and I'm glad we didn't.
It did take a while to realise that the brutal response (Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy etc) and Internment were not only ineffective, they were counterproductive, driving recruits to the PIRA etc.
It was intelligence led policing, and socio-economic progress that brought the terrorism to an end, albeit a fossilised stalemate.
Yes, although I was thinking more Western Europe as a whole rather than specifically us and the Troubles. The 70s were rife with terrorism.
Really shocking scenes from bondi beach in amongst some extraordinary bravery.
I do not think the western world or its politicians are suited to the new world we find ourselves in.
The issue is that the ones who might do something about it will also do lots of other stuff that isn't as acceptable and necessary.
Indeed. The apologetic wet blanket style of government we have endured for years needs to get a grip and adopt diamond hard migration and criminal justice policies. If they don’t then democracies will elect people who will.
The 1970s were a period of rampant terrorism in the West. I personally do not wish we had reacted to it by electing strongman crackdown leaders.
Except we didn’t.
Thatcher rejected internment without trial.
She even rejected sanctioning the unemployment benefit of convicted terrorists. No one even mentioned the modern idea of throwing people out of their council houses for being an extremist.
The “traditional response” to terrorism - heavy handed military operations to demonstrate “presence” in the terrorist strongholds didn’t happen, either.
Instead a twin track, political and intelligence based policy was used. Which eventually gave us the Good Friday agreement.
Could you misinterpret a post any more wildly! Hats off.
Yes, that is what I was saying. Western countries (inc the UK) did not react that way and I'm glad we didn't.
It did take a while to realise that the brutal response (Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy etc) and Internment were not only ineffective, they were counterproductive, driving recruits to the PIRA etc.
It was intelligence led policing, and socio-economic progress that brought the terrorism to an end, albeit a fossilised stalemate.
And, perchance, a realisation by the PIRA that many of their units had been penetrated by the Intelligence people.
Comments
The Gaza War was not caused by Netanyahu, it was caused by Hamas. It ended when Hamas surrendered and released the hostages, which could have happened at any point prior or if they had not done the attack the war would never have happened.
And now you blame a terror attack, not on the terrorists, but the people who went to war to defend themselves after Hamas atrocity?
You are sick.
That's why being in opposition sucks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Valour_(Australia)
By going after the rich bosses who abuse migrants, rather than migrants themselves, he would get on the right side (ha!) of the left.
Further it could be marketed as strong defence of the Minimum Wage - make sure to charge the scumbags with violating that, as well.
It would be seen (if effective) as Broken Windows policing - the very evident fake business upset many of the quiet law abiding types. So popular in the middle.
And given that the gangsters are themselves, nearly always, from the communities they exploit, the Reform types would be, at least, not unhappy.
Add in my idea to reward the illegally employed for giving evidence, and it would require an epic scale of policing to deal with cases…..
Now if Israel had produced successors to Kafka, Mahler and Pissarro (or Einstein and Freud) then Roger would view it more favourably.
But it hasn't.
Israel has recreated a more ancient culture, based on killing different tribes for the possession of the better land and to determine whose bronze age sky fairy is the best.
The culture of Joshua, Samson, David.
It is perhaps appropriate to describe Israel as a Hebrew state as much as a Jewish state.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2dz7r708dxo
There are legitimate concerns about Labour's foreign policy, but this kind of framing isn't helpful. Particularly given the news from Sydney. I'd like to think the editorial team will take a look at this one.
There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
At the end imo it comes back to personal brands, and knowing their biases and blind spots.
If the market changes as you expect then they can quietly drop this policy and concentrate on 2029 issues.
If it does not, and the government extends the date of the ban, they can claim to be ahead/setting the agenda.
Either way they got a headline which is about as much as oppositions can do.
He has also iirc previously expressed his preference for the Mayoral Job, over a life as lobby fodder.
My wife has just lit the candle, and we said a silent prayer for the Jewish community
Both would be legal (probably) to buy in the UK. Shotgun might have too much magazine capacity.
* People live longer without kids now, meaning that occupancy rates per home are going down, which is not a problem except that their adult grandkids need a home and can't live with their parents/grandparents forever.
He's just not that much of a likeable character. He doesn't come across as being fun, or good company, at all. Charisma and charm are things you've either got or you haven't, and he has neither.
This sort of thing is going to continue unless somebody reins in the Millwall of the Middle East. As DJT (and others) appear to be owned and operated by the Zionist Entity, it seems unlikely.
As I understand Ozzie gun laws, the aim is - like the UK - to render illegal guns which can be hidden risks to the public, but are not quite as comprehensive as ours. In the UK a "handgun" must aiui have a minimum barrel length of 300mm, which makes it a bit difficult to hide in your trouser pocket or handbag. (Shades of Kim Darby's horse pistol in True Grit.)
Where are we
Where are we going
What do we believe
How are we going to get there.
My feeling was and is that the budget was the last chance of the Starmer /Reeves show doing this, and they flopped badly. If they couldn't do it then I don't think they can do it now.
However something may turn up to help. But of the three possible governments (Lab, Tory, Reform) I feel that sentiment among the Never Reform 60% may start thinking that Tory is to be slightly preferred to Labour. The 'tax and spend' turn has done no good among the economically literate.
Israeli territory = 20,000 sq. km.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DN4EH_KqRZA
I thought you were just a nihilist?
I think his best bet is to take the fight to Farage and be unparliamentary (ie use the language of everyday people) about it. Call him a traitor who has sold out to the Russians or something. He needs to do something unexpected to cut through.
I do not think the western world or its politicians are suited to the new world we find ourselves in.
ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
It is a fundamental error to conflate centrist economic and social policy with an authoritarian state.
It is a mistake that Badenoch makes too. Being centrist involves more than being slightly less Fash than Farage.
Apparently he's in hospital with two bullet wounds (presumably shot by the other gunman) but recovering in hospital.
Otherwise, what a horrific terrorist attack.
An Amazon delivery van stopping and starting every fifty yards is just not suited for diesel engines. Wears them out and costs a fortune in fuel.
Being first out of the traps to call for the inevitable is reasonably smart opposition politics.
IPSOS did some polling.
Or vote for Burnham at least.
I suspect many won't, not because they don't care but because they fear the abuse they will get for doing so.
The nearest, imperfect, analogy, I can think of is the fifth-choice bowler whose task is to survive the overs until the new ball becomes available for the proper quick to take.
It's not a perfect analogy because it's not totally obvious that a proper quick is on the field.
https://insideevs.com/features/781390/gen-3-electric-vehicles-report/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ckgk391yzm7t?post=asset:6dc719b3-6381-46db-9d6d-8a9d828dd45d#post
IPSOS did some polling.
That Badenoch is now in a statiscal tie with Starmer and Farage following her recent improvement is intriguing
It isn't wrong to suggest that rates of anti-Semitism have increased or strengthened as a result of the actions of the Israeli government - indeed it's important for us to acknowledge that and confront it.
If you hold those bigoted views in the first place, the IDF's destruction of Gaza is hardly going to dissuade you of them. Happily, we have the massed protests against Netanyahu in Israel, and British Jews expressing their abhorrence at what is going on, to serve as a reminder of how wrong those anti-Semitic views are.
The destruction of Hamas on the other hand was entirely merited. The second Hamas surrendered, the war ended.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuVJUKEQZ1E
I agree Chinese manufacturers no longer beat the best European manufacturers on VFM.
Thatcher rejected internment without trial.
She even rejected sanctioning the unemployment benefit of convicted terrorists. No one even mentioned the modern idea of throwing people out of their council houses for being an extremist.
The “traditional response” to terrorism - heavy handed military operations to demonstrate “presence” in the terrorist strongholds didn’t happen, either.
Instead a twin track, political and intelligence based policy was used. Which eventually gave us the Good Friday agreement.
For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.
Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.
Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
Or for current tweenagers who want to pretend to be Clarkson circa 2002.
Apart from the TT, which is for hairdressers.
Which had been designed to evolve into fully electric vehicles when batteries got cheaper.
Great plan, that.
The ones that were in service when he cancelled the further buys are still in service. Seem to be pretty tough.
Yes, that is what I was saying. Western countries (inc the UK) did not react that way and I'm glad we didn't.
The people who "thought" the rules were different, were wrong. As per the SC ruling.
So yes, the case should be decided according to precedence of the Court, even if some had mistakenly thought the rules were different, prior to the ruling.
It was intelligence led policing, and socio-economic progress that brought the terrorism to an end, albeit a fossilised stalemate.
I shudder to think what Blair or Starmer would do in that circumstance.
(but yes, where I'd be betting is 27/28 where the odds offer more value imo)
I would put them on the payroll, 6 figure jobs. When they realise that if the war restarts, they are going to lose the nice big house and the daughters will have to give up the riding lessons....
also, from yesterday
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Brown_University_shooting
For those who have off-road parking, absolutely it will, but tens of millions of people don't have that and you are not addressing the point with your "I'm alrite Jack, I can charge at home" attitude.