If you want to change your posting name on PB, how do you do it?
The correct procedure is to storm off in a huff, then invent a new persona, but continue posting in exactly the same way while pretending to be someone else. Course you do lose your post count, but if you are prolific enough you'll soon get back up there... #leon #correcthorsebattery
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
He has reduced immigration.
Lol. Put that on a bus and see how it goes down.....
Net immigration year ending March 2023 = 944,000 Net immigration year ending June 2025 = 204,000
That's a 78% drop. If you want reduced immigration, Starmer has absolutely delivered reduced immigration. And the figures are still trending downwards.
Why miss out 2024 which was 345,000
The reduction is the result of the conservative tightening rules and little to do with Starmer
The fact still remains it was the Conservatives who oversaw a massive spike in immigration, by far the biggest increase ever.
Also, there were several on here in 2023/24 who claimed a Labour government would introduce an open doors immigration policy. Many of the same group who told us the IMF would be running the country by now.
Labour have been disappointing but still a huge improvement on the previous government.
If you want to change your posting name on PB, how do you do it?
The correct procedure is to storm off in a huff, then invent a new persona, but continue posting in exactly the same way while pretending to be someone else. Course you do lose your post count, but if you are prolific enough you'll soon get back up there... #leon #correcthorsebattery
Hang on, Mr/Ms Melon has been able to keep every last prior post ...
I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
What do you think?
Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.
Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next. None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
Thanks for confirming how vulnerable Buttigieg is on his dismal record of lying and incompetence.
And also thanks for reminding us of Hunter Biden, that great polymath whose PB defenders started with "Hunter Biden has done nothing wrong and is being politically persecuted" and ended at "Joe Biden will never give a presidential pardon to his son".
When you have seen how Trump has behaved do you not have any sympathy for Biden’s decision to protect his son?
It was wrong from a presidential perspective (I worried about the precedent but… well… ) but as a man it was completely understandable
Whoever the Democrats choose it must not be someone who can be characterised as a Wokester with a problematic beltway reputation to defend. Hillary and Kamala could have been chosen by Trump to be his opponents. Dreadful candidates, whatever other merits they may have possessed.
I think they need a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. Sorry to have to use those terms, but no use employing wishful thinking when dealing with MAGA and the Trump crowd. They cannot afford to lose in 2028 for all our sakes.
Whoever the Democrats choose, the Republicans will characterise them as a Wokester with a problematic reputation to defend. Hillary and Kamala were far less "woke" than many. They are both centrists within the party. Harris's problem when she stood to be the candidate was that she was seen within the party as too tough on crime and not woke enough.
There are, sure, strong arguments for picking a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. But I don't think the Dems need to convince the MAGA crowd to vote for them. They need to convince independents and non-MAGA Republicans who are getting ever more annoyed with Trump to vote for them.
Of course, a lot depends on where the US is by 2027/8. How will the economy be doing? Will Trump even be in office? Will inflation have exploded?
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
He has reduced immigration.
Lol. Put that on a bus and see how it goes down.....
Net immigration year ending March 2023 = 944,000 Net immigration year ending June 2025 = 204,000
That's a 78% drop. If you want reduced immigration, Starmer has absolutely delivered reduced immigration. And the figures are still trending downwards.
Why miss out 2024 which was 345,000
The reduction is the result of the conservative tightening rules and little to do with Starmer
The fact still remains it was the Conservatives who oversaw a massive spike in immigration by far the biggest increase ever.
Also, there were several on here in 2023/24 who claimed a Labour government would introduce an open doors immigration policy. Many of the same group who told us the IMF would be running the country by now.
Labour have been disappointing but still a huge improvement on the previous government.
LOL. Not sure the public agree with you on that. Y'know, the people who vote....
I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
What do you think?
Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.
Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next. None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
Thanks for confirming how vulnerable Buttigieg is on his dismal record of lying and incompetence.
And also thanks for reminding us of Hunter Biden, that great polymath whose PB defenders started with "Hunter Biden has done nothing wrong and is being politically persecuted" and ended at "Joe Biden will never give a presidential pardon to his son".
When you have seen how Trump has behaved do you not have any sympathy for Biden’s decision to protect his son?
It was wrong from a presidential perspective (I worried about the precedent but… well… ) but as a man it was completely understandable
Whoever the Democrats choose it must not be someone who can be characterised as a Wokester with a problematic beltway reputation to defend. Hillary and Kamala could have been chosen by Trump to be his opponents. Dreadful candidates, whatever other merits they may have possessed.
I think they need a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. Sorry to have to use those terms, but no use employing wishful thinking when dealing with MAGA and the Trump crowd. They cannot afford to lose in 2028 for all our sakes.
I'm not sure I agree. Thinking in terms of clever politics and identity is probably a mistake, as it gratuitously narrows the field. Obama wasn't the majority of those things, and Biden didn't tick all your boxes.
Americans expect to be inspired by their politicians' rhetoric much more than we do. So the Democrats need someone with charisma who can deliver inspiring speeches, or, in Obama's case, mediocre speeches inspiringly (Biden couldn't, but he was running against Trump during a pandemic). If that person can get the base to turn out and not terrify the moderates, their race, gender, etc don't matter.
I'm perhaps more with Burgessian on this one.
As I see it, a big chunk of the Republican Right take their values essentially from the Jim Crow and KKK traditions, currently minus actual lynchings *, and with different targets for their xenophobia - for example Irish, Italian and Jewish (to an extent) people are now allowed to be "us" not "them". And Trump was able to exploit that.
For good or ill, that's part of the environment in which the Democrats will have to operate.
( Though Trump's own demonising attacks on civil officials, and his indifference to actual attacks on political figures, are revealing.)
I would characterise it as being a big part of the American voters (specifically in the south east). They are currently republicans but until the 1960s they were Dixiecrats
£570mn a year for Erasmus?! I see the Chagos negotiators have already found a new job in government.
I have no problem re-joining Eramus but it seems strange that our granddaughter spent her penultimate Leeds degree course in 2024 in Turin University so what is the difference that will cost £570million pa ?
The £570m is the membership fee.
Taking money from the working class and giving it to the children of the middle classes.
For the first time in my life I am contemplating voting Labour.
Slowly but surely Starmer is unravelling Brexit.
Erasmus is a euro-federalist creation machine so money well spent.
I enjoyed it a lot. I got to spend a year in Marseilles instead of Durham. I learned shitloads about French literature and culture while taking massive amounts of PEDs and racing as semi-pro cyclist.
That the Tories have come out publicly against this small improvement in opportunity for our young people (cf. Cleverley on today’s WATO) does them no credit, and simply reminds us that so far they have learned very little from all of their past mistakes.
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
He has reduced immigration.
Lol. Put that on a bus and see how it goes down.....
Net immigration year ending March 2023 = 944,000 Net immigration year ending June 2025 = 204,000
That's a 78% drop. If you want reduced immigration, Starmer has absolutely delivered reduced immigration. And the figures are still trending downwards.
Why miss out 2024 which was 345,000
The reduction is the result of the conservative tightening rules and little to do with Starmer
The fact still remains it was the Conservatives who oversaw a massive spike in immigration by far the biggest increase ever.
Also, there were several on here in 2023/24 who claimed a Labour government would introduce an open doors immigration policy. Many of the same group who told us the IMF would be running the country by now.
Labour have been disappointing but still a huge improvement on the previous government.
On that we disagree
Reeves has done more long term damage to business and especially youth employment than anything even Truss conjured up
I have no idea why Johnson ballooned immigration other than Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan refugees but certainly Sunak took the measures that account for the substantial drop in the numbers
I doubt Labour would be at 10% in Wales if they were seen as the answer
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
Personally I had it embedded in the back of my wrist for maximum productivity enhancement
£570mn a year for Erasmus?! I see the Chagos negotiators have already found a new job in government.
I have no problem re-joining Eramus but it seems strange that our granddaughter spent her penultimate Leeds degree course in 2024 in Turin University so what is the difference that will cost £570million pa ?
The £570m is the membership fee.
Taking money from the working class and giving it to the children of the middle classes.
For the first time in my life I am contemplating voting Labour.
Slowly but surely Starmer is unravelling Brexit.
Erasmus is a euro-federalist creation machine so money well spent.
I enjoyed it a lot. I got to spend a year in Marseilles instead of Durham. I learned shitloads about French literature and culture while taking massive amounts of PEDs and racing as semi-pro cyclist.
That the Tories have come out publicly against this small improvement in opportunity for our young people (cf. Cleverley on today’s WATO) does them no credit, and simply reminds us that so far they have learned very little from all of their past mistakes.
It’s not obvious that it’s good value for money
Our granddaughter studied for a year in Turin University in 2024 as part of her Leeds degree so I do not understand what Eramus adds for over £500 million
If you want to change your posting name on PB, how do you do it?
The correct procedure is to storm off in a huff, then invent a new persona, but continue posting in exactly the same way while pretending to be someone else. Course you do lose your post count, but if you are prolific enough you'll soon get back up there... #leon #correcthorsebattery
Hang on, Mr/Ms Melon has been able to keep every last prior post ...
True, but sadly that fruity character has not followed the CORRECT way, they have found a cheaty way...
I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
What do you think?
Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.
Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next. None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
Thanks for confirming how vulnerable Buttigieg is on his dismal record of lying and incompetence.
And also thanks for reminding us of Hunter Biden, that great polymath whose PB defenders started with "Hunter Biden has done nothing wrong and is being politically persecuted" and ended at "Joe Biden will never give a presidential pardon to his son".
When you have seen how Trump has behaved do you not have any sympathy for Biden’s decision to protect his son?
It was wrong from a presidential perspective (I worried about the precedent but… well… ) but as a man it was completely understandable
Whoever the Democrats choose it must not be someone who can be characterised as a Wokester with a problematic beltway reputation to defend. Hillary and Kamala could have been chosen by Trump to be his opponents. Dreadful candidates, whatever other merits they may have possessed.
I think they need a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. Sorry to have to use those terms, but no use employing wishful thinking when dealing with MAGA and the Trump crowd. They cannot afford to lose in 2028 for all our sakes.
Hillary got more votes than Trump (just not in the right states). 3 million more votes, in fact.
£570mn a year for Erasmus?! I see the Chagos negotiators have already found a new job in government.
I have no problem re-joining Eramus but it seems strange that our granddaughter spent her penultimate Leeds degree course in 2024 in Turin University so what is the difference that will cost £570million pa ?
The £570m is the membership fee.
Taking money from the working class and giving it to the children of the middle classes.
For the first time in my life I am contemplating voting Labour.
Slowly but surely Starmer is unravelling Brexit.
Erasmus is a euro-federalist creation machine so money well spent.
I enjoyed it a lot. I got to spend a year in Marseilles instead of Durham. I learned shitloads about French literature and culture while taking massive amounts of PEDs and racing as semi-pro cyclist.
That the Tories have come out publicly against this small improvement in opportunity for our young people (cf. Cleverley on today’s WATO) does them no credit, and simply reminds us that so far they have learned very little from all of their past mistakes.
It’s not obvious that it’s good value for money
Our granddaughter studied for a year in Turin University in 2024 as part of her Leeds degree so I do not understand what Eramus adds for over £500 million
It’s a sop to Starmer’s party who wants “closer ties with the EU” that adds very little over what we can do ourselves
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
The good news for the Lib Dems is they scarcely register in 550 seats. It makes it easy to concentrate resources in the 72 seats they hold, and the 30 they have a fair chance in.
The bad news is that's the limit. They have a substantial niche vote, of well to do, centrist voters. But, they have very little appeal beyond that niche.
Thats simply not true. LD votes are heavily weighted to certain seats for sure, but the demographics of the LD vote are much less skewed by other demographic markers such as age, SE class, education etc than other parties, at least in England.
There's a lot more potential LD voters out there if they can be convinced that LDs have a decent chance of winning.
That isn't really true. At the last general election the LDs did best with ABs and voters earning over £70k. Indeed the LDs did 5% better with ABs than DEs, whereas Labour only did 2% better with ABs than DEs, the Greens 1% better with ABs than DEs and the Tories 4% better with ABs than DEs.
She was a terrible candidate. But people like @kinabalu were very disapproving when I told people that ahead of time.
They should have run a Republican. What were they thinking. Bloody self-indulgent Dems!
Any case, bit of a cheap shot but I like it. I'm fronting my very own "people like" grouping.
Few attain this ✊️
They needed a Democrat who could win against Trump.
A big part of Kamala’s problem was on the Left and with the black community. Hard charging prosecutor sounds like a good resume - except in America that means railroading people. Guess which community?
After BLM, that carefully crafted backstory became a liability.
£570mn a year for Erasmus?! I see the Chagos negotiators have already found a new job in government.
I have no problem re-joining Eramus but it seems strange that our granddaughter spent her penultimate Leeds degree course in 2024 in Turin University so what is the difference that will cost £570million pa ?
The £570m is the membership fee.
Taking money from the working class and giving it to the children of the middle classes.
For the first time in my life I am contemplating voting Labour.
Slowly but surely Starmer is unravelling Brexit.
Erasmus is a euro-federalist creation machine so money well spent.
I enjoyed it a lot. I got to spend a year in Marseilles instead of Durham. I learned shitloads about French literature and culture while taking massive amounts of PEDs and racing as semi-pro cyclist.
That the Tories have come out publicly against this small improvement in opportunity for our young people (cf. Cleverley on today’s WATO) does them no credit, and simply reminds us that so far they have learned very little from all of their past mistakes.
It’s not obvious that it’s good value for money
Our granddaughter studied for a year in Turin University in 2024 as part of her Leeds degree so I do not understand what Eramus adds for over £500 million
It provides help to those exchanging with their costs mainly. (Flights, accommodation etc)
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
He has reduced immigration.
Lol. Put that on a bus and see how it goes down.....
Net immigration year ending March 2023 = 944,000 Net immigration year ending June 2025 = 204,000
That's a 78% drop. If you want reduced immigration, Starmer has absolutely delivered reduced immigration. And the figures are still trending downwards.
Why miss out 2024 which was 345,000
The reduction is the result of the conservative tightening rules and little to do with Starmer
The fact still remains it was the Conservatives who oversaw a massive spike in immigration, by far the biggest increase ever.
Also, there were several on here in 2023/24 who claimed a Labour government would introduce an open doors immigration policy. Many of the same group who told us the IMF would be running the country by now.
Labour have been disappointing but still a huge improvement on the previous government.
The risk premium on gilts is now higher than it was under Liz Truss. Labour have smashed the economy, into tiny little pieces and the only "winners" are benefit claimants and public sector workers.
She was a terrible candidate. But people like @kinabalu were very disapproving when I told people that ahead of time.
They should have run a Republican. What were they thinking. Bloody self-indulgent Dems!
Any case, bit of a cheap shot but I like it. I'm fronting my very own "people like" grouping.
Few attain this ✊️
No she was just a terrible candidate. She was unpopular and ineffective in California - and those were the people who knew her best
As I said at the time she was the worst Democratic candidate since Dukakis but largely got drowned out.
However the 226 EC votes Harris got was the lowest Democratic total since the 111 Dukakis got in 1988. Even Hillary got 227 EC votes in 2016 (and she won the popular vote unlike Harris) and Kerry got 251 EC votes in 2004
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
He has reduced immigration.
Lol. Put that on a bus and see how it goes down.....
Net immigration year ending March 2023 = 944,000 Net immigration year ending June 2025 = 204,000
That's a 78% drop. If you want reduced immigration, Starmer has absolutely delivered reduced immigration. And the figures are still trending downwards.
Why miss out 2024 which was 345,000
The reduction is the result of the conservative tightening rules and little to do with Starmer
The fact still remains it was the Conservatives who oversaw a massive spike in immigration by far the biggest increase ever.
Also, there were several on here in 2023/24 who claimed a Labour government would introduce an open doors immigration policy. Many of the same group who told us the IMF would be running the country by now.
Labour have been disappointing but still a huge improvement on the previous government.
LOL. Not sure the public agree with you on that. Y'know, the people who vote....
You may well be right on if you are commenting on the last point... although the Tories don't seem to be riding high in the polls either. I think the mood of many is 'a plague on both your houses'.
There seems to be a general ennui or sense of disillusion across Western democracies. It's not justified imo - life for most in the West is objectively pretty good relative to the past or to the rest of the world - but justification doesn't really come into emotional responses.
I am genuinely intrigued about what is driving the mood. I've quite enjoyed the recent BBC Civilisations Rise and Fall series, despite its many flaws - I at least have learnt some new things. My overriding impression though is that all great civilisations implode in the end. Maybe now is our time.
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
He has reduced immigration.
Lol. Put that on a bus and see how it goes down.....
Net immigration year ending March 2023 = 944,000 Net immigration year ending June 2025 = 204,000
That's a 78% drop. If you want reduced immigration, Starmer has absolutely delivered reduced immigration. And the figures are still trending downwards.
Why miss out 2024 which was 345,000
The reduction is the result of the conservative tightening rules and little to do with Starmer
The fact still remains it was the Conservatives who oversaw a massive spike in immigration by far the biggest increase ever.
Also, there were several on here in 2023/24 who claimed a Labour government would introduce an open doors immigration policy. Many of the same group who told us the IMF would be running the country by now.
Labour have been disappointing but still a huge improvement on the previous government.
On that we disagree
Reeves has done more long term damage to business and especially youth employment than anything even Truss conjured up
I have no idea why Johnson ballooned immigration other than Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan refugees but certainly Sunak took the measures that account for the substantial drop in the numbers
I doubt Labour would be at 10% in Wales if they were seen as the answer
The reason was published the other day - Treasury worries about a massive Labour shortage developing. So they let rip.
The care home farce has been shut down - I wonder how many other of the companies effectively writ in other own work visas, were selling them?
For those who don’t know, the care home direct visa scheme was shutdown, because nearly no-one under the scheme was being employed in care homes. And selling the visas was rife. To the point that the Indian government complained about its citizens being ripped off.
And this had an effect on stats. The fraud worked like this - invent some jobs that don’t actually exist. Sell the visas for 5 figures (£15k wasn’t uncommon). When the recruits arrive, they are told to go away - no job for them.
But the fake “job” on the paperwork hasn’t been filled. It’s still there in the government statistics. So there’s an apparent shortage of labour…
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
The good news for the Lib Dems is they scarcely register in 550 seats. It makes it easy to concentrate resources in the 72 seats they hold, and the 30 they have a fair chance in.
The bad news is that's the limit. They have a substantial niche vote, of well to do, centrist voters. But, they have very little appeal beyond that niche.
Thats simply not true. LD votes are heavily weighted to certain seats for sure, but the demographics of the LD vote are much less skewed by other demographic markers such as age, SE class, education etc than other parties, at least in England.
There's a lot more potential LD voters out there if they can be convinced that LDs have a decent chance of winning.
That isn't really true. At the last general election the LDs did best with ABs and voters earning over £70k. Indeed the LDs did 5% better with ABs than DEs, whereas Labour only did 2% better with ABs than DEs, the Greens 1% better with ABs than DEs and the Tories 4% better with ABs than DEs.
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
The good news for the Lib Dems is they scarcely register in 550 seats. It makes it easy to concentrate resources in the 72 seats they hold, and the 30 they have a fair chance in.
The bad news is that's the limit. They have a substantial niche vote, of well to do, centrist voters. But, they have very little appeal beyond that niche.
Thats simply not true. LD votes are heavily weighted to certain seats for sure, but the demographics of the LD vote are much less skewed by other demographic markers such as age, SE class, education etc than other parties, at least in England.
There's a lot more potential LD voters out there if they can be convinced that LDs have a decent chance of winning.
That isn't really true. At the last general election the LDs did best with ABs and voters earning over £70k. Indeed the LDs did 5% better with ABs than DEs, whereas Labour only did 2% better with ABs than DEs, the Greens 1% better with ABs than DEs and the Tories 4% better with ABs than DEs.
She was a terrible candidate. But people like @kinabalu were very disapproving when I told people that ahead of time.
They should have run a Republican. What were they thinking. Bloody self-indulgent Dems!
Any case, bit of a cheap shot but I like it. I'm fronting my very own "people like" grouping.
Few attain this ✊️
No she was just a terrible candidate. She was unpopular and ineffective in California - and those were the people who knew her best
Here's the nutshell. Biden put the party in a hole by clinging on. It then pretty much had to be Harris. She fought a good campaign but was handicapped by her start point, the cost of living crisis, and her own limitations. And she lost. A small fraction the other way in the rustbelt would have flipped it but so what, she lost. Terrible candidate, mediocre candidate, good candidate, whatever. I'd say mediocre myself fwiw. One thing's for sure, all the warnings from the Dem campaign about Trump were correct and then some.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
Yesterday, I left my ID card at home when I came into the office. I had to use the emergency spare lanyard and keycard!
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
The good news for the Lib Dems is they scarcely register in 550 seats. It makes it easy to concentrate resources in the 72 seats they hold, and the 30 they have a fair chance in.
The bad news is that's the limit. They have a substantial niche vote, of well to do, centrist voters. But, they have very little appeal beyond that niche.
Thats simply not true. LD votes are heavily weighted to certain seats for sure, but the demographics of the LD vote are much less skewed by other demographic markers such as age, SE class, education etc than other parties, at least in England.
There's a lot more potential LD voters out there if they can be convinced that LDs have a decent chance of winning.
That isn't really true. At the last general election the LDs did best with ABs and voters earning over £70k. Indeed the LDs did 5% better with ABs than DEs, whereas Labour only did 2% better with ABs than DEs, the Greens 1% better with ABs than DEs and the Tories 4% better with ABs than DEs.
I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
What do you think?
Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.
Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next. None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
Thanks for confirming how vulnerable Buttigieg is on his dismal record of lying and incompetence.
And also thanks for reminding us of Hunter Biden, that great polymath whose PB defenders started with "Hunter Biden has done nothing wrong and is being politically persecuted" and ended at "Joe Biden will never give a presidential pardon to his son".
When you have seen how Trump has behaved do you not have any sympathy for Biden’s decision to protect his son?
It was wrong from a presidential perspective (I worried about the precedent but… well… ) but as a man it was completely understandable
Whoever the Democrats choose it must not be someone who can be characterised as a Wokester with a problematic beltway reputation to defend. Hillary and Kamala could have been chosen by Trump to be his opponents. Dreadful candidates, whatever other merits they may have possessed.
I think they need a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. Sorry to have to use those terms, but no use employing wishful thinking when dealing with MAGA and the Trump crowd. They cannot afford to lose in 2028 for all our sakes.
As tipped earlier, Andy Beshear from Kentucky.
Andy Beshear from Kentucky is a Democratic Governor in a border state (thought of as in the South but was on the Union side in ACW1). He is the logical candidate for President with an appeal beyond the Democratic core into an area they have to get, and is my choice for Democratic candidate
She was a terrible candidate. But people like @kinabalu were very disapproving when I told people that ahead of time.
They should have run a Republican. What were they thinking. Bloody self-indulgent Dems!
Any case, bit of a cheap shot but I like it. I'm fronting my very own "people like" grouping.
Few attain this ✊️
No she was just a terrible candidate. She was unpopular and ineffective in California - and those were the people who knew her best
Well, she outperformed my expectations.
Albeit, my expectations were very, very low.
There are a dozen good reasons why shouldn't be the Democratic candidate. Here are my top two.
1. When she ran in a competitive Democratic primary, she didn't even make it to the first caucus in Iowa. That's how bad she was. Her poll ratings were terrible. A young gay Mayor from a small town in Indiana was outpolling her 3-1.
2. Of all the potential candidates, she was the most complicit in covering up Biden's dementia. I don't think it's in the Democrat's interests to be reminded of that.
2. Of all the potential candidates, she was the most complicit in covering up Biden's dementia. I don't think it's in the Democrat's interests to be reminded of that.
Trump's brains are leaking out of his ears on live TV every day
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
Personally I had it embedded in the back of my wrist for maximum productivity enhancement
Back of the neck works better. Wrists can be severed.
She was a terrible candidate. But people like @kinabalu were very disapproving when I told people that ahead of time.
They should have run a Republican. What were they thinking. Bloody self-indulgent Dems!
Any case, bit of a cheap shot but I like it. I'm fronting my very own "people like" grouping.
Few attain this ✊️
No she was just a terrible candidate. She was unpopular and ineffective in California - and those were the people who knew her best
Well, she outperformed my expectations.
Albeit, my expectations were very, very low.
There are a dozen good reasons why shouldn't be the Democratic candidate. Here are my top two.
1. When she ran in a competitive Democratic primary, she didn't even make it to the first caucus in Iowa. That's how bad she was. Her poll ratings were terrible. A young gay Mayor from a small town in Indiana was outpolling her 3-1.
2. Of all the potential candidates, she was the most complicit in covering up Biden's dementia. I don't think it's in the Democrat's interests to be reminded of that.
Quite.
She’s worse than Hillary at national level elective politics.
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
He has reduced immigration.
Lol. Put that on a bus and see how it goes down.....
Net immigration year ending March 2023 = 944,000 Net immigration year ending June 2025 = 204,000
That's a 78% drop. If you want reduced immigration, Starmer has absolutely delivered reduced immigration. And the figures are still trending downwards.
Why miss out 2024 which was 345,000
The reduction is the result of the conservative tightening rules and little to do with Starmer
The fact still remains it was the Conservatives who oversaw a massive spike in immigration, by far the biggest increase ever.
Also, there were several on here in 2023/24 who claimed a Labour government would introduce an open doors immigration policy. Many of the same group who told us the IMF would be running the country by now.
Labour have been disappointing but still a huge improvement on the previous government.
The risk premium on gilts is now higher than it was under Liz Truss. Labour have smashed the economy, into tiny little pieces and the only "winners" are benefit claimants and public sector workers.
The 'smashed into tiny little pieces' economy still grew over the last 12 months, the FTSE is 20% up since the election, the Economic Inactivity rate has declined.
I am not saying it's a rosy picture overall, far from it, but 'smashed into tiny little pieces' is hyperbole bullshit.
£570mn a year for Erasmus?! I see the Chagos negotiators have already found a new job in government.
I have no problem re-joining Eramus but it seems strange that our granddaughter spent her penultimate Leeds degree course in 2024 in Turin University so what is the difference that will cost £570million pa ?
The £570m is the membership fee.
Taking money from the working class and giving it to the children of the middle classes.
For the first time in my life I am contemplating voting Labour.
Slowly but surely Starmer is unravelling Brexit.
Erasmus is a euro-federalist creation machine so money well spent.
I enjoyed it a lot. I got to spend a year in Marseilles instead of Durham. I learned shitloads about French literature and culture while taking massive amounts of PEDs and racing as semi-pro cyclist.
That the Tories have come out publicly against this small improvement in opportunity for our young people (cf. Cleverley on today’s WATO) does them no credit, and simply reminds us that so far they have learned very little from all of their past mistakes.
It’s not obvious that it’s good value for money
Our granddaughter studied for a year in Turin University in 2024 as part of her Leeds degree so I do not understand what Eramus adds for over £500 million
It provides help to those exchanging with their costs mainly. (Flights, accommodation etc)
It would be useful to see a budget breakdown but it isn't easy to find one on the EU site.
She was a terrible candidate. But people like @kinabalu were very disapproving when I told people that ahead of time.
They should have run a Republican. What were they thinking. Bloody self-indulgent Dems!
Any case, bit of a cheap shot but I like it. I'm fronting my very own "people like" grouping.
Few attain this ✊️
No she was just a terrible candidate. She was unpopular and ineffective in California - and those were the people who knew her best
Well, she outperformed my expectations.
Albeit, my expectations were very, very low.
There are a dozen good reasons why shouldn't be the Democratic candidate. Here are my top two.
1. When she ran in a competitive Democratic primary, she didn't even make it to the first caucus in Iowa. That's how bad she was. Her poll ratings were terrible. A young gay Mayor from a small town in Indiana was outpolling her 3-1.
2. Of all the potential candidates, she was the most complicit in covering up Biden's dementia. I don't think it's in the Democrat's interests to be reminded of that.
Point 1. kind of makes this discussion pointless. Harris will not be the Dem candidate unless she wins the primaries this time. Which she won't.
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
The good news for the Lib Dems is they scarcely register in 550 seats. It makes it easy to concentrate resources in the 72 seats they hold, and the 30 they have a fair chance in.
The bad news is that's the limit. They have a substantial niche vote, of well to do, centrist voters. But, they have very little appeal beyond that niche.
Thats simply not true. LD votes are heavily weighted to certain seats for sure, but the demographics of the LD vote are much less skewed by other demographic markers such as age, SE class, education etc than other parties, at least in England.
There's a lot more potential LD voters out there if they can be convinced that LDs have a decent chance of winning.
That isn't really true. At the last general election the LDs did best with ABs and voters earning over £70k. Indeed the LDs did 5% better with ABs than DEs, whereas Labour only did 2% better with ABs than DEs, the Greens 1% better with ABs than DEs and the Tories 4% better with ABs than DEs.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
Personally I had it embedded in the back of my wrist for maximum productivity enhancement
Back of the neck works better. Wrists can be severed.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
Personally I had it embedded in the back of my wrist for maximum productivity enhancement
Back of the neck works better. Wrists can be severed.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
Personally I had it embedded in the back of my wrist for maximum productivity enhancement
Back of the neck works better. Wrists can be severed.
You are Bud from The Diamond Age...
...a copy of which lies within reach of my outstretched hand. Paperback, 1995 edition
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
In my last job, the card operated my PC. So it was worth having round your neck for ease of access. If you put it in a trouser pocket, you would have to stand up again to get it out.
When we moved to face recognition, it was only used to operate the doors and it went into my pocket.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
In my last job, the card operated my PC. So it was worth having round your neck for ease of access. If you put it in a trouser pocket, you would have to stand up again to get it out.
When we moved to face recognition, it was only used to operate the doors and it went into my pocket.
We have two cards. One to access the office, the other to access the bogs. So leave your cards on your desk and you are stuck in the corridor trying to hold it in. Having them on a lanyard is "compulsory". I'm wearing mine right now.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
Personally I had it embedded in the back of my wrist for maximum productivity enhancement
Back of the neck works better. Wrists can be severed.
You are Bud from The Diamond Age.
I hope not.
Have you seen next year's Sentencing Policy Review? :-)
2. Of all the potential candidates, she was the most complicit in covering up Biden's dementia. I don't think it's in the Democrat's interests to be reminded of that.
Trump's brains are leaking out of his ears on live TV every day
Which is exactly why the Democrats need to run someone under the age of 60, who is fit. And can make it an issue. Then it's like free money
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
Wallets? What are they? I keep my keycard round my neck for the simple reason I've too often been locked out on my way back from the gents.
She was a terrible candidate. But people like @kinabalu were very disapproving when I told people that ahead of time.
They should have run a Republican. What were they thinking. Bloody self-indulgent Dems!
Any case, bit of a cheap shot but I like it. I'm fronting my very own "people like" grouping.
Few attain this ✊️
No she was just a terrible candidate. She was unpopular and ineffective in California - and those were the people who knew her best
Well, she outperformed my expectations.
Albeit, my expectations were very, very low.
There are a dozen good reasons why shouldn't be the Democratic candidate. Here are my top two.
1. When she ran in a competitive Democratic primary, she didn't even make it to the first caucus in Iowa. That's how bad she was. Her poll ratings were terrible. A young gay Mayor from a small town in Indiana was outpolling her 3-1.
2. Of all the potential candidates, she was the most complicit in covering up Biden's dementia. I don't think it's in the Democrat's interests to be reminded of that.
Point 1. kind of makes this discussion pointless. Harris will not be the Dem candidate unless she wins the primaries this time. Which she won't.
2. Of all the potential candidates, she was the most complicit in covering up Biden's dementia. I don't think it's in the Democrat's interests to be reminded of that.
Trump's brains are leaking out of his ears on live TV every day
Which is exactly why the Democrats need to run someone under the age of 60, who is fit. And can make it an issue. Then it's like free money
And is male. And not gay, preferably married. And ideally not too Democrat either......
I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
What do you think?
Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.
Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next. None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
Thanks for confirming how vulnerable Buttigieg is on his dismal record of lying and incompetence.
And also thanks for reminding us of Hunter Biden, that great polymath whose PB defenders started with "Hunter Biden has done nothing wrong and is being politically persecuted" and ended at "Joe Biden will never give a presidential pardon to his son".
When you have seen how Trump has behaved do you not have any sympathy for Biden’s decision to protect his son?
It was wrong from a presidential perspective (I worried about the precedent but… well… ) but as a man it was completely understandable
Whoever the Democrats choose it must not be someone who can be characterised as a Wokester with a problematic beltway reputation to defend. Hillary and Kamala could have been chosen by Trump to be his opponents. Dreadful candidates, whatever other merits they may have possessed.
I think they need a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. Sorry to have to use those terms, but no use employing wishful thinking when dealing with MAGA and the Trump crowd. They cannot afford to lose in 2028 for all our sakes.
I'm not sure I agree. Thinking in terms of clever politics and identity is probably a mistake, as it gratuitously narrows the field. Obama wasn't the majority of those things, and Biden didn't tick all your boxes.
Americans expect to be inspired by their politicians' rhetoric much more than we do. So the Democrats need someone with charisma who can deliver inspiring speeches, or, in Obama's case, mediocre speeches inspiringly (Biden couldn't, but he was running against Trump during a pandemic). If that person can get the base to turn out and not terrify the moderates, their race, gender, etc don't matter.
I'm perhaps more with Burgessian on this one.
As I see it, a big chunk of the Republican Right take their values essentially from the Jim Crow and KKK traditions, currently minus actual lynchings *, and with different targets for their xenophobia - for example Irish, Italian and Jewish (to an extent) people are now allowed to be "us" not "them". And Trump was able to exploit that.
For good or ill, that's part of the environment in which the Democrats will have to operate.
( Though Trump's own demonising attacks on civil officials, and his indifference to actual attacks on political figures, are revealing.)
I would characterise it as being a big part of the American voters (specifically in the south east). They are currently republicans but until the 1960s they were Dixiecrats
I'd say it is rather wider than that, including small town / rural more nationwide.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
Personally I had it embedded in the back of my wrist for maximum productivity enhancement
Back of the neck works better. Wrists can be severed.
You are Bud from The Diamond Age.
I hope not.
Did you recently have a medical procedure to your skull, and do you have -perhaps- a headache?
2. Of all the potential candidates, she was the most complicit in covering up Biden's dementia. I don't think it's in the Democrat's interests to be reminded of that.
Trump's brains are leaking out of his ears on live TV every day
Which is exactly why the Democrats need to run someone under the age of 60, who is fit. And can make it an issue. Then it's like free money
And is male. And not gay, preferably married. And ideally not too Democrat either......
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
A classic example of why personal anecdote us no measure of objective reality. I have never worked in an office where you didn't have to display your ID card at all times. It is considered a fundamental part of data security
2. Of all the potential candidates, she was the most complicit in covering up Biden's dementia. I don't think it's in the Democrat's interests to be reminded of that.
Trump's brains are leaking out of his ears on live TV every day
Which is exactly why the Democrats need to run someone under the age of 60, who is fit. And can make it an issue. Then it's like free money
And is male. And not gay, preferably married. And ideally not too Democrat either......
Rubio?
Hands too small for much of the US electorate apparently.
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
The good news for the Lib Dems is they scarcely register in 550 seats. It makes it easy to concentrate resources in the 72 seats they hold, and the 30 they have a fair chance in.
The bad news is that's the limit. They have a substantial niche vote, of well to do, centrist voters. But, they have very little appeal beyond that niche.
Thats simply not true. LD votes are heavily weighted to certain seats for sure, but the demographics of the LD vote are much less skewed by other demographic markers such as age, SE class, education etc than other parties, at least in England.
There's a lot more potential LD voters out there if they can be convinced that LDs have a decent chance of winning.
The LD vote is now unbelievably soft and squeezable, and a product of anti-Tory tactical voting more than anything else.
You can now find examples of seats where their vote share goes from 5% to 45% or vice versa within a few years. There are neighbouring, demographically similar seats where the LD vote goes up in one but down in the other, and Labour does the opposite. The only plausible explanation for this non-uniformity is highly coordinated tactical voting and targeting. Collusion, really.
The days of the genuine Liberal strongholds in the SW and Celtic fringes are long gone. You'd have to go back to a time when they were actually a Liberal party...
2. Of all the potential candidates, she was the most complicit in covering up Biden's dementia. I don't think it's in the Democrat's interests to be reminded of that.
Trump's brains are leaking out of his ears on live TV every day
Which is exactly why the Democrats need to run someone under the age of 60, who is fit. And can make it an issue. Then it's like free money
And is male. And not gay, preferably married. And ideally not too Democrat either......
Nope. That’s nonesense that keeps coming up. Hillary and Kamala had problems in getting the Democratic *base* to turn out.
Their problem wasn’t being women. Their problem was not being A list politicians.
It’s perfectly possible to combine Democratic core politics with not pissing off everyone else in the country. There are a number of Democrats who can do this right now.
The whole “not too Democrat” thing is the whine from the kind of idiots who think Bernie Sanders is a right wing.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
A classic example of why personal anecdote us no measure of objective reality. I have never worked in an office where you didn't have to display your ID card at all times. It is considered a fundamental part of data security
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
Wallets? What are they? I keep my keycard round my neck for the simple reason I've too often been locked out on my way back from the gents.
Just mulling over how the discussion has shifted from lanyards (still mentioned as if they were somehow evil, the Mark of the Beast) to the lords of private sector creation who can keep their passes in their pockets. Allegedly on anecdata.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
A classic example of why personal anecdote us no measure of objective reality. I have never worked in an office where you didn't have to display your ID card at all times. It is considered a fundamental part of data security
I'm now very worried about the firms where Mortimer worked. I hope none of them are my banks, insurance companies, etc.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
Wallets? What are they? I keep my keycard round my neck for the simple reason I've too often been locked out on my way back from the gents.
Just mulling over how the discussion has shifted from lanyards (still mentioned as if they were somehow evil, the Mark of the Beast) to the lords of private sector creation who can keep their passes in their pockets. Allegedly on anecdata.
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
The good news for the Lib Dems is they scarcely register in 550 seats. It makes it easy to concentrate resources in the 72 seats they hold, and the 30 they have a fair chance in.
The bad news is that's the limit. They have a substantial niche vote, of well to do, centrist voters. But, they have very little appeal beyond that niche.
I would expect the LibDems to gain seats at the next General Election, so long as Conservative/Reform continue to split the right wing vote.
1. Other than Reform, they are -by far- the biggest winners in local elections this year. Their activist base is therefore good a 2. Smaller parties with concentrated votes do really well when their opponents votes are dispersed. If Conservative and Labour get 20% of the vote each, and the Greens 15%, and it's widely distributed, while the LibDems get 12.5%, but 80% of that is in 150 constituencies, then that really plays in their favour. 3. The LibDems are strongest where Reform is weakest. This is their real trump card - because it means the hurdle they need to get over is that much smaller.
That said, I'd expect their gains to be pretty modest: say 5-15 seats, and would be a combination of 20 new seats, and losing 10 to Reform.
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
The good news for the Lib Dems is they scarcely register in 550 seats. It makes it easy to concentrate resources in the 72 seats they hold, and the 30 they have a fair chance in.
The bad news is that's the limit. They have a substantial niche vote, of well to do, centrist voters. But, they have very little appeal beyond that niche.
Thats simply not true. LD votes are heavily weighted to certain seats for sure, but the demographics of the LD vote are much less skewed by other demographic markers such as age, SE class, education etc than other parties, at least in England.
There's a lot more potential LD voters out there if they can be convinced that LDs have a decent chance of winning.
The LD vote is now unbelievably soft and squeezable, and a product of anti-Tory tactical voting more than anything else.
You can now find examples of seats where their vote share goes from 5% to 45% or vice versa within a few years. There are neighbouring, demographically similar seats where the LD vote goes up in one but down in the other, and Labour does the opposite. The only plausible explanation for this non-uniformity is highly coordinated tactical voting and targeting. Collusion, really.
The days of the genuine Liberal strongholds in the SW and Celtic fringes are long gone. You'd have to go back to a time when they were actually a Liberal party...
Yes, yes, you don’t like the Liberal Democrats. What did they do - have the temerity to win your Conservative constituency last time?
As you clearly struggle with politics, let me help you. Yes, to some extent the LD and Labour votes are related and yes you can argue they are an anti-Conservative vote, however hard you may struggle with the concept some people in 2024 didn’t like the Conservatives or want them to remain in Government.
You can also argue the Conservative vote is largely an anti-Labour vote but you now have a problem called Reform because once the Conservatives were the only home for those dissatisfied with Labour but now who needs the Tories and their 14 years of abject failure and self indulgence when you can vote for Reform and Nigel who tells it how it is.
That may explain why a third of those who voted Conservative in July 2024 will now vote Reform so you can now see the LD vote might be “soft and squeezable” but so are both the Labour and Conservative 2024 votes as well. The only parties holding on to the bulk of their 2024 voters are Reform and the Greens - Tory and LD retention is in the 60s per cent, Labour in the high 40s.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
In my last job, the card operated my PC. So it was worth having round your neck for ease of access. If you put it in a trouser pocket, you would have to stand up again to get it out.
When we moved to face recognition, it was only used to operate the doors and it went into my pocket.
We have two cards. One to access the office, the other to access the bogs. So leave your cards on your desk and you are stuck in the corridor trying to hold it in. Having them on a lanyard is "compulsory". I'm wearing mine right now.
To me the 'lanyard class' refers to those that insist on wearing it once they've left work.
A lot of hospital and council staff seem to do this for some reason. Am I supposed to be impressed?
I never wore mine on the street. Ever. Indeed, doing so is usually seen as a security risk.
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
He has reduced immigration.
Lol. Put that on a bus and see how it goes down.....
Net immigration year ending March 2023 = 944,000 Net immigration year ending June 2025 = 204,000
That's a 78% drop. If you want reduced immigration, Starmer has absolutely delivered reduced immigration. And the figures are still trending downwards.
Why miss out 2024 which was 345,000
The reduction is the result of the conservative tightening rules and little to do with Starmer
The fact still remains it was the Conservatives who oversaw a massive spike in immigration, by far the biggest increase ever.
Also, there were several on here in 2023/24 who claimed a Labour government would introduce an open doors immigration policy. Many of the same group who told us the IMF would be running the country by now.
Labour have been disappointing but still a huge improvement on the previous government.
The risk premium on gilts is now higher than it was under Liz Truss. Labour have smashed the economy, into tiny little pieces and the only "winners" are benefit claimants and public sector workers.
The 'smashed into tiny little pieces' economy still grew over the last 12 months, the FTSE is 20% up since the election, the Economic Inactivity rate has declined.
I am not saying it's a rosy picture overall, far from it, but 'smashed into tiny little pieces' is hyperbole bullshit.
Yes, the 30 year rate was 5.6% in August so today’s number is a little off the top. The FTSE 100 isn’t a reliable indicator of the UK economy and the FTSE 250 is up about 7% since the election.
The fall in oil prices is helping with inflation and I imagine most are happy to see fuel prices steady or declining but for all the hyperbole and partisan over reaction, @MaxPB does have a point. The actions taken by Reeves since coming to office have failed to slow the borrowing train to any extent and when people see energy prices for example continuing to rise it’s little surprise the mood remains worried and pessimistic.
The Budget was a missed opportunity to take some radical action - rather like her predecessor at No.11 it will be timidity which finishes Reeves.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
A classic example of why personal anecdote us no measure of objective reality. I have never worked in an office where you didn't have to display your ID card at all times. It is considered a fundamental part of data security
I'm now very worried about the firms where Mortimer worked. I hope none of them are my banks, insurance companies, etc.
Actually, displayed ID is terrible for improving security. One of the first things that crooks do, when trying to infiltrate companies (and they do this) is to fake/clone cards.
Proper security is implemented by not printing material out, clear desk polices, restricting transfers of data from secure system, always lock your computer when you get a coffee etc etc.
You should assume that bad actors will get into so called "secured spaces"
A physical access method without a second factor (a card that works without a pin or palm scan etc) adds virtually nothing.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
A classic example of why personal anecdote us no measure of objective reality. I have never worked in an office where you didn't have to display your ID card at all times. It is considered a fundamental part of data security
I'm now very worried about the firms where Mortimer worked. I hope none of them are my banks, insurance companies, etc.
Actually, displayed ID is terrible for improving security. One of the first things that crooks do, when trying to infiltrate companies (and they do this) is to fake/clone cards.
Proper security is implemented by not printing material out, clear desk polices, restricting transfers of data from secure system, always lock your computer when you get a coffee etc etc.
You should assume that bad actors will get into so called "secured spaces"
A physical access method without a second factor (a card that works without a pin or palm scan etc) adds virtually nothing.
All our computers are password protected so card alone cannot log on.
We swipe to get in and out of wards, but also deal with multiple members of the public and staff who are constantly changing so photo ID is required, which also works as swipe access to doors.
Sure in a small private sector office where everyonr knows everyone and the only security is at the front door of the building then putting the card in a wallet is fine, but in this social organisation above the ordinary working "lanyard" class is the pompous, arrogant "don't you know who I am?" class.
It isn't snobbery to wear a lanyard ID in a public facing job, it is very much a marker of humility so that everyone can confirm your identity and role.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
A classic example of why personal anecdote us no measure of objective reality. I have never worked in an office where you didn't have to display your ID card at all times. It is considered a fundamental part of data security
I'm now very worried about the firms where Mortimer worked. I hope none of them are my banks, insurance companies, etc.
Actually, displayed ID is terrible for improving security. One of the first things that crooks do, when trying to infiltrate companies (and they do this) is to fake/clone cards.
Proper security is implemented by not printing material out, clear desk polices, restricting transfers of data from secure system, always lock your computer when you get a coffee etc etc.
You should assume that bad actors will get into so called "secured spaces"
A physical access method without a second factor (a card that works without a pin or palm scan etc) adds virtually nothing.
All our computers are password protected so card alone cannot log on.
We swipe to get in and out of wards, but also deal with multiple members of the public and staff who are constantly changing so photo ID is required, which also works as swipe access to doors.
Sure in a small private sector office where everyonr knows everyone and the only security is at the front door of the building then putting the card in a wallet is fine, but in this social organisation above the ordinary working "lanyard" class is the pompous, arrogant "don't you know who I am?" class.
It isn't snobbery to wear a lanyard ID in a public facing job, it is very much a marker of humility so that everyone can confirm your identity and role.
And the people infiltrating secure zones
- steal cards and glue on a picture that matches - clone cards using a machine, return them and create a new card that has their picture on it - tail gait into the secure zone - get a job as a cleaner. And get given the badge.
All these have happened in the banks, so regularly that we roll our eyes.
A card with your picture on it that opens doors, is pretty much security theatre. It looks like you are doing something.
Did you know that some of the most secure sites in the world don't have locks on the doors?
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
He has reduced immigration.
Lol. Put that on a bus and see how it goes down.....
Net immigration year ending March 2023 = 944,000 Net immigration year ending June 2025 = 204,000
That's a 78% drop. If you want reduced immigration, Starmer has absolutely delivered reduced immigration. And the figures are still trending downwards.
Why miss out 2024 which was 345,000
The reduction is the result of the conservative tightening rules and little to do with Starmer
The fact still remains it was the Conservatives who oversaw a massive spike in immigration, by far the biggest increase ever.
Also, there were several on here in 2023/24 who claimed a Labour government would introduce an open doors immigration policy. Many of the same group who told us the IMF would be running the country by now.
Labour have been disappointing but still a huge improvement on the previous government.
The risk premium on gilts is now higher than it was under Liz Truss. Labour have smashed the economy, into tiny little pieces and the only "winners" are benefit claimants and public sector workers.
The 'smashed into tiny little pieces' economy still grew over the last 12 months, the FTSE is 20% up since the election, the Economic Inactivity rate has declined.
I am not saying it's a rosy picture overall, far from it, but 'smashed into tiny little pieces' is hyperbole bullshit.
Yes, the 30 year rate was 5.6% in August so today’s number is a little off the top. The FTSE 100 isn’t a reliable indicator of the UK economy and the FTSE 250 is up about 7% since the election.
The fall in oil prices is helping with inflation and I imagine most are happy to see fuel prices steady or declining but for all the hyperbole and partisan over reaction, @MaxPB does have a point. The actions taken by Reeves since coming to office have failed to slow the borrowing train to any extent and when people see energy prices for example continuing to rise it’s little surprise the mood remains worried and pessimistic.
The Budget was a missed opportunity to take some radical action - rather like her predecessor at No.11 it will be timidity which finishes Reeves.
Might I suggest that the Budget is the completely wrong place to set up the future of the economy. It starts with all the little changes such as the Renters Reform Bill which ought to slow down rent price increase. Then there is the Minimum Wage which will increase the gap between benefits and work i.e. making work pay. Then there is the Employees Rights Act and the inbuilt hit squad that will tackle some of the abuses by a minority of employers in trying to underpay staff. And items like today's Erasmus which ought to have some beneficial effect on a) the supply of less insular graduates and b) provide a boost to university incomes in the shape of more EU students.
Having some sort of annual raft of changes is counterproductive. A continuing flow of changes which rectify some of the ideological nonsense of the last lot, allows companies and organisations to make sequential changes rather than some big bang.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
Personally I had it embedded in the back of my wrist for maximum productivity enhancement
Back of the neck works better. Wrists can be severed.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
A classic example of why personal anecdote us no measure of objective reality. I have never worked in an office where you didn't have to display your ID card at all times. It is considered a fundamental part of data security
Public sector office. Displayed at all times
Private sector office. Never displayed.
Never worked public sector. Always displayed in all the private sector firms I have worked for.
Comments
#leon #correcthorsebattery
Also, there were several on here in 2023/24 who claimed a Labour government would introduce an open doors immigration policy. Many of the same group who told us the IMF would be running the country by now.
Labour have been disappointing but still a huge improvement on the previous government.
https://x.com/trussliz/status/2001258274990252196
Reeves has done more long term damage to business and especially youth employment than anything even Truss conjured up
I have no idea why Johnson ballooned immigration other than Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan refugees but certainly Sunak took the measures that account for the substantial drop in the numbers
I doubt Labour would be at 10% in Wales if they were seen as the answer
Only Reform had a bigger social divide, doing 9% better with DEs than ABs and 10% better with C2s than ABs.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election
A big part of Kamala’s problem was on the Left and with the black community. Hard charging prosecutor sounds like a good resume - except in America that means railroading people. Guess which community?
After BLM, that carefully crafted backstory became a liability.
"Trump sets the pace, and his apparatchiks follow. Many of them have gained power and made money dumping toxic sewage into our civic water supply."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2025/12/trump-rob-reiner/685280/?taid=6941f60bd05e42000115f949&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=true-anthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
However the 226 EC votes Harris got was the lowest Democratic total since the 111 Dukakis got in 1988. Even Hillary got 227 EC votes in 2016 (and she won the popular vote unlike Harris) and Kerry got 251 EC votes in 2004
There seems to be a general ennui or sense of disillusion across Western democracies. It's not justified imo - life for most in the West is objectively pretty good relative to the past or to the rest of the world - but justification doesn't really come into emotional responses.
I am genuinely intrigued about what is driving the mood. I've quite enjoyed the recent BBC Civilisations Rise and Fall series, despite its many flaws - I at least have learnt some new things. My overriding impression though is that all great civilisations implode in the end. Maybe now is our time.
The care home farce has been shut down - I wonder how many other of the companies effectively writ in other own work visas, were selling them?
For those who don’t know, the care home direct visa scheme was shutdown, because nearly no-one under the scheme was being employed in care homes. And selling the visas was rife. To the point that the Indian government complained about its citizens being ripped off.
And this had an effect on stats. The fraud worked like this - invent some jobs that don’t actually exist. Sell the visas for 5 figures (£15k wasn’t uncommon). When the recruits arrive, they are told to go away - no job for them.
But the fake “job” on the paperwork hasn’t been filled. It’s still there in the government statistics. So there’s an apparent shortage of labour…
It’s the hole that never fills in.
Analysing UK voting behaviour by class is an irrelevant hangover from the fifties and sixties.
The LDs are now the party of posh upper middle class Remainers most of all and Reform the party of working class Leavers
So they won't pick him...
Albeit, my expectations were very, very low.
There are a dozen good reasons why shouldn't be the Democratic candidate. Here are my top two.
1. When she ran in a competitive Democratic primary, she didn't even make it to the first caucus in Iowa. That's how bad she was. Her poll ratings were terrible. A young gay Mayor from a small town in Indiana was outpolling her 3-1.
2. Of all the potential candidates, she was the most complicit in covering up Biden's dementia. I don't think it's in the Democrat's interests to be reminded of that.
She’s worse than Hillary at national level elective politics.
I am not saying it's a rosy picture overall, far from it, but 'smashed into tiny little pieces' is hyperbole bullshit.
Reform has got Lidl and Aldi sown up. They need Netto to make another comeback, and they'll be nailed-on for a majority.
The Greens have abandoned the Organic Farmers' Market and are now targeting the bins round the back of the local convenience store.
When we moved to face recognition, it was only used to operate the doors and it went into my pocket.
The LD vote is now unbelievably soft and squeezable, and a product of anti-Tory tactical voting more than anything else.
You can now find examples of seats where their vote share goes from 5% to 45% or vice versa within a few years. There are neighbouring, demographically similar seats where the LD vote goes up in one but down in the other, and Labour does the opposite. The only plausible explanation for this non-uniformity is highly coordinated tactical voting and targeting. Collusion, really.
The days of the genuine Liberal strongholds in the SW and Celtic fringes are long gone. You'd have to go back to a time when they were actually a Liberal party...
Their problem wasn’t being women. Their problem was not being A list politicians.
It’s perfectly possible to combine Democratic core politics with not pissing off everyone else in the country. There are a number of Democrats who can do this right now.
The whole “not too Democrat” thing is the whine from the kind of idiots who think Bernie Sanders is a right wing.
Private sector office. Never displayed.
Sometimes PB can seem very male.
1. Other than Reform, they are -by far- the biggest winners in local elections this year. Their activist base is therefore good a
2. Smaller parties with concentrated votes do really well when their opponents votes are dispersed. If Conservative and Labour get 20% of the vote each, and the Greens 15%, and it's widely distributed, while the LibDems get 12.5%, but 80% of that is in 150 constituencies, then that really plays in their favour.
3. The LibDems are strongest where Reform is weakest. This is their real trump card - because it means the hurdle they need to get over is that much smaller.
That said, I'd expect their gains to be pretty modest: say 5-15 seats, and would be a combination of 20 new seats, and losing 10 to Reform.
As you clearly struggle with politics, let me help you. Yes, to some extent the LD and Labour votes are related and yes you can argue they are an anti-Conservative vote, however hard you may struggle with the concept some people in 2024 didn’t like the Conservatives or want them to remain in Government.
You can also argue the Conservative vote is largely an anti-Labour vote but you now have a problem called Reform because once the Conservatives were the only home for those dissatisfied with Labour but now who needs the Tories and their 14 years of abject failure and self indulgence when you can vote for Reform and Nigel who tells it how it is.
That may explain why a third of those who voted Conservative in July 2024 will now vote Reform so you can now see the LD vote might be “soft and squeezable” but so are both the Labour and Conservative 2024 votes as well. The only parties holding on to the bulk of their 2024 voters are Reform and the Greens - Tory and LD retention is in the 60s per cent, Labour in the high 40s.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/dec/17/ukraine-russia-war-eu-european-council-frozen-assets-zelenskyy-europe-live-news
A lot of hospital and council staff seem to do this for some reason. Am I supposed to be impressed?
I never wore mine on the street. Ever. Indeed, doing so is usually seen as a security risk.
Verasight poll - 2028 presidential poll
🔵 AOC 51%
🔴 Vance 49%
https://bsky.app/profile/polltracker.bsky.social/post/3ma76zbg5w22m
NEW THREAD
The fall in oil prices is helping with inflation and I imagine most are happy to see fuel prices steady or declining but for all the hyperbole and partisan over reaction, @MaxPB does have a point. The actions taken by Reeves since coming to office have failed to slow the borrowing train to any extent and when people see energy prices for example continuing to rise it’s little surprise the mood remains worried and pessimistic.
The Budget was a missed opportunity to take some radical action - rather like her predecessor at No.11 it will be timidity which finishes Reeves.
Proper security is implemented by not printing material out, clear desk polices, restricting transfers of data from secure system, always lock your computer when you get a coffee etc etc.
You should assume that bad actors will get into so called "secured spaces"
A physical access method without a second factor (a card that works without a pin or palm scan etc) adds virtually nothing.
We swipe to get in and out of wards, but also deal with multiple members of the public and staff who are constantly changing so photo ID is required, which also works as swipe access to doors.
Sure in a small private sector office where everyonr knows everyone and the only security is at the front door of the building then putting the card in a wallet is fine, but in this social organisation above the ordinary working "lanyard" class is the pompous, arrogant "don't you know who I am?" class.
It isn't snobbery to wear a lanyard ID in a public facing job, it is very much a marker of humility so that everyone can confirm your identity and role.
- steal cards and glue on a picture that matches
- clone cards using a machine, return them and create a new card that has their picture on it
- tail gait into the secure zone
- get a job as a cleaner. And get given the badge.
All these have happened in the banks, so regularly that we roll our eyes.
A card with your picture on it that opens doors, is pretty much security theatre. It looks like you are doing something.
Did you know that some of the most secure sites in the world don't have locks on the doors?
Having some sort of annual raft of changes is counterproductive. A continuing flow of changes which rectify some of the ideological nonsense of the last lot, allows companies and organisations to make sequential changes rather than some big bang.