All military targets on Kharg Island obliterated overnight, apparently.
Marines on their way to the region. Looks like this is where the boots on the ground are going in. Which, frankly, makes sense if they are going anywhere.
Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.
Elsewhere, Hegseth geting a serious kicking for his "no quarter" comment. Makes him a war criminal at risk of life imprisonment. Ooops.
Trump has claimed that all military targets on Kharg Island have been obliterated, but I don’t think we should confuse things Trump says and the truth. All military targets may or may not have been obliterated.
I'd give the US militay credit for being able to undertake that task.
That they did it without hitting any oil facilities is the bigger surprise. Thankfully, likely to be no girls' schools of any size on KI...
What were the ‘military targets’ on Kharg? I’ve read military installations were minimal there.
I can't take Kharg seriously.
It sounds too much like Klingon.
Or - lazy script writers just plundered Farsi for "Klingon"?
Fun fact, James Doohan who played Scotty, invented the Klingon language.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
All military targets on Kharg Island obliterated overnight, apparently.
Marines on their way to the region. Looks like this is where the boots on the ground are going in. Which, frankly, makes sense if they are going anywhere.
Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.
Elsewhere, Hegseth geting a serious kicking for his "no quarter" comment. Makes him a war criminal at risk of life imprisonment. Ooops.
You would have thought having grounds troops closer than 2 weeks away would have been a good plan
And then if those troops were getting hammered by missiles youd be moaning who put troops there to get killed ?
What if the aim is to seriously degrade Irans capabilities and then pick off things at their leisure ?
No. I’m not an armchair general.
But not having the marines closer than Japan does suggest a lack of scenario planning. Presumably there is somewhere closer that they could have been located as part of the military build up ahead of the war
Is Dubai some sort of holding facility for total tossers, a sort of Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B?
Harsh on the B Arkers.
As for Dubai, I'm sure it wasn't the intention, but the setup is catnip to a certain sort of total tosser, so it's not surprising that so many end up there.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
All military targets on Kharg Island obliterated overnight, apparently.
Marines on their way to the region. Looks like this is where the boots on the ground are going in. Which, frankly, makes sense if they are going anywhere.
Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.
Elsewhere, Hegseth geting a serious kicking for his "no quarter" comment. Makes him a war criminal at risk of life imprisonment. Ooops.
Trump has claimed that all military targets on Kharg Island have been obliterated, but I don’t think we should confuse things Trump says and the truth. All military targets may or may not have been obliterated.
I'd give the US militay credit for being able to undertake that task.
That they did it without hitting any oil facilities is the bigger surprise. Thankfully, likely to be no girls' schools of any size on KI...
What were the ‘military targets’ on Kharg? I’ve read military installations were minimal there.
I can't take Kharg seriously.
It sounds too much like Klingon.
Or - lazy script writers just plundered Farsi for "Klingon"?
Fun fact, James Doohan who played Scotty, invented the Klingon language.
He also invented the Vulcan language.
Linguist Marc Okrand invented the Klingon language, but he did develop it from the few guttural words created by actor James Doohan in ST The Motion Picture.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.
In the Times this morning Cherie Blair says she feels sorry for Mandelson. Words fail me.
I've never been quite sure why Cherie and Tony married.
From a far, they seem very different people to me.
Opposite attracts but watching the recent documentary it is clear they love each other and if events had turned out differently she would have become the politician and Tony the judge.
Anyhoo here's the full Cherie Blair quite, where she doesn't use the word sorry.
“I feel very sad that it’s come to this,” she said. “I think … when anyone’s life falls apart, we should remember that there’s still a human being. And also, of course, we should also remember that they’re entitled to a fair trial.”
She added: “In the media, and particularly today with social media, too many people forget that the people that they’re talking about are human beings with feelings and can be hurt.”
The view, as quoted, is completely decent, as long as it is a view consistently held about all the people who don't happen to be long term friends and allies. Ian Huntley in life might be a test case but other examples abound.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
The Government IS trying to push it
However if you listened to Vine R2 yesterday, you will get the dinosaurs of TUFTON STREET for the Oil and Gas lobby totally drown out any hope of a resonable debate.
It's certainly something Labour can, should and I'm sure will focus on befor next GE!
Is Dubai some sort of holding facility for total tossers, a sort of Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B?
No
You missed the point of the B Ark story. The “useless” people there were actually useful, but the A Ark people were arrogant enough to think they could decide who was useful.
It's a no brainer of an offer if it means what it says, but Swinney's bank account will soon run out. I think it means that Swinney has promised £10,000 of someone else's money to a third party.
All military targets on Kharg Island obliterated overnight, apparently.
Marines on their way to the region. Looks like this is where the boots on the ground are going in. Which, frankly, makes sense if they are going anywhere.
Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.
Elsewhere, Hegseth geting a serious kicking for his "no quarter" comment. Makes him a war criminal at risk of life imprisonment. Ooops.
Trump has claimed that all military targets on Kharg Island have been obliterated, but I don’t think we should confuse things Trump says and the truth. All military targets may or may not have been obliterated.
I'd give the US militay credit for being able to undertake that task.
That they did it without hitting any oil facilities is the bigger surprise. Thankfully, likely to be no girls' schools of any size on KI...
What were the ‘military targets’ on Kharg? I’ve read military installations were minimal there.
I can't take Kharg seriously.
It sounds too much like Klingon.
Or - lazy script writers just plundered Farsi for "Klingon"?
Fun fact, James Doohan who played Scotty, invented the Klingon language.
He also invented the Vulcan language.
Linguist Marc Okrand invented the Klingon language, but he did develop it from the few guttural words created by actor James Doohan in ST The Motion Picture.
Is Dubai some sort of holding facility for total tossers, a sort of Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B?
Harsh on the B Arkers.
As for Dubai, I'm sure it wasn't the intention, but the setup is catnip to a certain sort of total tosser, so it's not surprising that so many end up there.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
Optimistic of you, I think.
Business would need a lot of reassurance that won't change once the immediate crisis dies down and Miliband's zealotry reasserts itself over economic sense.
Is Dubai some sort of holding facility for total tossers, a sort of Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B?
Harsh on the B Arkers.
As for Dubai, I'm sure it wasn't the intention, but the setup is catnip to a certain sort of total tosser, so it's not surprising that so many end up there.
Is Dubai some sort of holding facility for total tossers, a sort of Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B?
No
You missed the point of the B Ark story. The useless people there were actually useful, but the A Ark people were arrogant enough to think they could decide who was useful.
The B Arkers adopted the leaf as a their currency then started burning down the forests to prevent inflation and they were shooting documentaries of themselves
It's a no brainer of an offer if it means what it says, but Swinney's bank account will soon run out. I think it means that Swinney has promised £10,000 of someone else's money to a third party.
You’ve missed a small, but vital, piece of the puzzle.
Swinney is a politician.
So his pockets are connected to the national wealth, rather as the drinking horn given to Thor was connected to the sea.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
Optimistic of you, I think.
Business would need a lot of reassurance that won't change once the immediate crisis dies down and Miliband's zealotry reasserts itself over economic sense.
Maybe, but economic needs trump zealotry [ managed to get Trump in there ]
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
A shame we can't just rely on peers just considering proposed legislation on its merits, rather than through party political prejudices.
It's a no brainer of an offer if it means what it says, but Swinney's bank account will soon run out. I think it means that Swinney has promised £10,000 of someone else's money to a third party.
... all to chase a fixed and inadequate supply. So prices overall go up, making housing less affordable for everybody else.
Really I can't help but feel that this country's legislatures are homes for the economically illiterate.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism insists that powerless people matter; to that extent it is good. The great politicians respond by superb explanation and communication alongside well publicised policy and action, aware that every interest group, with opposing needs, is capable of populist action, to the destruction of social cohesion. Populism is endemic. The only versions of non populism feasible are those which balance the competing interests of a vastly divergent nation and dangerous world. This is hard, and the work in the engine room is very boring.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
All military targets on Kharg Island obliterated overnight, apparently.
Marines on their way to the region. Looks like this is where the boots on the ground are going in. Which, frankly, makes sense if they are going anywhere.
Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.
Elsewhere, Hegseth geting a serious kicking for his "no quarter" comment. Makes him a war criminal at risk of life imprisonment. Ooops.
You would have thought having grounds troops closer than 2 weeks away would have been a good plan
And then if those troops were getting hammered by missiles youd be moaning who put troops there to get killed ?
What if the aim is to seriously degrade Irans capabilities and then pick off things at their leisure ?
No. I’m not an armchair general.
But not having the marines closer than Japan does suggest a lack of scenario planning. Presumably there is somewhere closer that they could have been located as part of the military build up ahead of the war
It's the entire 31st MEU with the Tripoli, San Diego and New Orleans plus logistics plus aviation plus combat engineering. They can't just put that lot in the Doha Sheraton. They also can't keep 2,000+ of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children on the ships for an indefinite amount of time, they can't put them ashore in a friendly port because fucking havoc will ensue so they aim to get the MEU in theatre just before it's actually required. I'm guessing they didn't think they'd be doing an amphibious assault until the end of last week when the regime inconveniently refused to change and the Madiq Hormuz closed for business.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.
But, populists rarely have good solutions.
The empathy for their peers is a variant on self interest.
See the comments on Mandy by C. Blair.
To the NU10Kers, Poor Peter is a proper chap. Who got caught. Which is an annoyance. Toxic now, but as soon as we can we will do something for him.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone speak in a way that so perfectly captures what a sentient penis would sound like. Hegseth is just unrelenting cystic cock. Roided id in the shape of a sad drunk.
It's a no brainer of an offer if it means what it says, but Swinney's bank account will soon run out. I think it means that Swinney has promised £10,000 of someone else's money to a third party.
... all to chase a fixed and inadequate supply. So prices overall go up, making housing less affordable for everybody else.
Really I can't help but feel that this country's legislatures are homes for the economically illiterate.
The really worrying bit is when you talk to many such politicians.
They aren’t just playing economic illiteracy to get votes. They really believe that stuff like the above works.
In the Times this morning Cherie Blair says she feels sorry for Mandelson. Words fail me.
I've never been quite sure why Cherie and Tony married.
From a far, they seem very different people to me.
Opposite attracts but watching the recent documentary it is clear they love each other and if events had turned out differently she would have become the politician and Tony the judge.
Anyhoo here's the full Cherie Blair quite, where she doesn't use the word sorry.
“I feel very sad that it’s come to this,” she said. “I think … when anyone’s life falls apart, we should remember that there’s still a human being. And also, of course, we should also remember that they’re entitled to a fair trial.”
She added: “In the media, and particularly today with social media, too many people forget that the people that they’re talking about are human beings with feelings and can be hurt.”
The view, as quoted, is completely decent, as long as it is a view consistently held about all the people who don't happen to be long term friends and allies. Ian Huntley in life might be a test case but other examples abound.
I was genuinely sad that Ian Huntley was murdered in prison.
We cannot have prisoners murdering other prisoners, whilst I know Huntley was genuinely guilty, but so were Stefan Kiszko and Andrew Malkinson according to the system.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism insists that powerless people matter; to that extent it is good. The great politicians respond by superb explanation and communication alongside well publicised policy and action, aware that every interest group, with opposing needs, is capable of populist action, to the destruction of social cohesion. Populism is endemic. The only versions of non populism feasible are those which balance the competing interests of a vastly divergent nation and dangerous world. This is hard, and the work in the engine room is very boring.
Look where a populist POTUS has got us.
The problem is the polarisation into Optimates vs Populares
In a democracy, getting enough votes to sustain “we hate the masses” is problematic. Which means that the Populares win. Which at the moment means Clodius. If we are lucky.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
Lol politics has been doing nothing but dancing to these numpties' tune for the last decade. Other voters are available.
All military targets on Kharg Island obliterated overnight, apparently.
Marines on their way to the region. Looks like this is where the boots on the ground are going in. Which, frankly, makes sense if they are going anywhere.
Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.
Elsewhere, Hegseth geting a serious kicking for his "no quarter" comment. Makes him a war criminal at risk of life imprisonment. Ooops.
You would have thought having grounds troops closer than 2 weeks away would have been a good plan
And then if those troops were getting hammered by missiles youd be moaning who put troops there to get killed ?
What if the aim is to seriously degrade Irans capabilities and then pick off things at their leisure ?
No. I’m not an armchair general.
But not having the marines closer than Japan does suggest a lack of scenario planning. Presumably there is somewhere closer that they could have been located as part of the military build up ahead of the war
It's the entire 31st MEU with the Tripoli, San Diego and New Orleans plus logistics plus aviation plus combat engineering. They can't just put that lot in the Doha Sheraton. They also can't keep 2,000+ of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children on the ships for an indefinite amount of time, they can't put them ashore in a friendly port because fucking havoc will ensue so they aim to get the MEU in theatre just before it's actually required. I'm guessing they didn't think they'd be doing an amphibious assault until the end of last week when the regime inconveniently refused to change and the Madiq Hormuz closed for business.
Beacause Iran closing the Straits was clearly such a bonkers out-there notion that no-one dare voice it to the Mango Nappy-wearer.
With their home airport out of bounds, Qatar Airways has operated a couple of flights overnight from Thailand to Manchester. How many passengers on board is an interesting question.
Loads of cranks at Manchester to see the A380 that has just landed.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
Lol politics has been doing nothing but dancing to these numpties' tune for the last decade. Other voters are available.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism insists that powerless people matter; to that extent it is good. The great politicians respond by superb explanation and communication alongside well publicised policy and action, aware that every interest group, with opposing needs, is capable of populist action, to the destruction of social cohesion. Populism is endemic. The only versions of non populism feasible are those which balance the competing interests of a vastly divergent nation and dangerous world. This is hard, and the work in the engine room is very boring.
Look where a populist POTUS has got us.
The problem is the polarisation into Optimates vs Populares
In a democracy, getting enough votes to sustain “we hate the masses” is problematic. Which means that the Populares win. Which at the moment means Clodius. If we are lucky.
A radical idea - perhaps some moderation?
The optimates are effective at getting their people into key positions. Hence the complete callous indifference which State institutions display towards the public.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.
But, populists rarely have good solutions.
That's a fair point, but it's one of communication and empathy, not so much of policy. In terms of "how to run the economy to best deliver a good life to people", the answer has settled a while back- a moderately open, moderately mixed economy. Everything else in the parameter space ends up worse.
The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
Lol politics has been doing nothing but dancing to these numpties' tune for the last decade. Other voters are available.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
But even when you give them what they want they demand more.
They got Brexit and all the Eastern Europeans went home with considerable economic damage to our country. Hurrah! Now they worry about immigration numbers, and as they drop down towards net zero, they are complaining that too many Isabel Oakeshotts leaving for Dubai is not a fair balance with the arrival of too many nurses from India.
So this ridiculous government panders to them again at great economic harm to our country. A failing health serve and social care, Universities bereft of the foreign student dollar. Hurrah. Next it will be their small boats win and then they will train their eye on people of the "wrong" cut who have been here for generations. Yet the Daily Mail reading squeezed middle flag wavers are having life with jam on it.
The poor who can't get a leg up have been gas lit for years. "It's the fault of the EU and foreigners, and that is why we need to be austere and cut all your services. It's them over there, not us who own newspapers and billion dollar hedge funds". It goes back to that Alexei Sayle joke that the World banking crisis was caused by too many libraries in Wolverhampton. And those who claim not to be listened to, believe the narrative..
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.
But, populists rarely have good solutions.
That's a fair point, but it's one of communication and empathy, not so much of policy. In terms of "how to run the economy to best deliver a good life to people", the answer has settled a while back- a moderately open, moderately mixed economy. Everything else in the parameter space ends up worse.
The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.
Yet it is part of policy.
The Optimates of our political class tend to ideas such as "If a small business goes under because of increased taxes or regulation, it was a zombie business". And then are surprised at the lack of enthusiasm among the small business owners at the Circus Maximus on race day.
Between the dreary love of Process as a God and the psychosis of DOGE - you get a few wittering about John Lewis style service and government. But what we need is a radically *moderate* approach to reforming government so as to be a *service for people*
When Sir Johnny Ives came up with a design for a phone that didn't need a small but thick book (printed in a font too tiny to read) to operate, he sparked a revolution. And government is still stuck in the "Another 10,000 pages of rules will do it".
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
"those with no connection to economic reality"
That's essentially all of the political class in every country.
We've got Javier Milei and Mark Carney who are in rock throwing distance of reality. And that's about it.
In the Times this morning Cherie Blair says she feels sorry for Mandelson. Words fail me.
I've never been quite sure why Cherie and Tony married.
From a far, they seem very different people to me.
Opposite attracts but watching the recent documentary it is clear they love each other and if events had turned out differently she would have become the politician and Tony the judge.
Anyhoo here's the full Cherie Blair quite, where she doesn't use the word sorry.
“I feel very sad that it’s come to this,” she said. “I think … when anyone’s life falls apart, we should remember that there’s still a human being. And also, of course, we should also remember that they’re entitled to a fair trial.”
She added: “In the media, and particularly today with social media, too many people forget that the people that they’re talking about are human beings with feelings and can be hurt.”
She may not use the word sorry, but she obviously is saying she does feel sorry for him, and that people should, and I think she is right to. The baying mob mentality over public figures is horrible to see, people should remember they are ‘human beings with feelings and can be hurt’. I often feel sorry for criminals who get caught or people who get caught lying, because deep down they must be so ashamed
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Like saying “We won’t put up taxes on working people”?
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.
But, populists rarely have good solutions.
That's a fair point, but it's one of communication and empathy, not so much of policy. In terms of "how to run the economy to best deliver a good life to people", the answer has settled a while back- a moderately open, moderately mixed economy. Everything else in the parameter space ends up worse.
The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.
Yet it is part of policy.
The Optima's of our political tend to ideas such as "If a small business goes under because of increased taxes or regulation, it was a zombie business". And then are surprised at the lack of enthusiasm among the small business owners at the Circus Maximus on race day.
Between the dreary love of Process as a God and the psychosis of DOGE - you get a few wittering about John Lewis style service and government. But what we need is a radically *moderate* approach to reforming government so as to be a *service for people*
When Sir Johnny Ives came up with a design for a phone that didn't need a small but thick book (printed in a font too tiny to read) to operate, he sparked a revolution. And government is still stuck in the "Another 10,000 pages of rules will do it".
I do not think it is possible for a solicitors’ firm (other than the very largest, who in turn, run the risk that they are so large that employees can go rogue), not to be in breach of some the absolute cascade of regulations to which they are now subject. And, I’m sure that goes for any number of businesses.
There is a belief that society can be perfected through regulations.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
But even when you give them what they want they demand more.
They got Brexit and all the Eastern Europeans went home with considerable economic damage to our country. Hurrah! Now they worry about immigration numbers, and as they drop down towards net zero, they are complaining that too many Isabel Oakeshotts leaving for Dubai is not a fair balance with the arrival of too many nurses from India.
So this ridiculous government panders to them again at great economic harm to our country. A failing health serve and social care, Universities bereft of the foreign student dollar. Hurrah. Next it will be their small boats win and then they will train their eye on people of the "wrong" cut who have been here for generations. Yet the Daily Mail reading squeezed middle flag wavers are having life with jam on it.
The poor who can't get a leg up have been gas lit for years. "It's the fault of the EU and foreigners, and that is why we need to be austere and cut all your services. It's them over there, not us who own newspapers and billion dollar hedge funds". It goes back to that Alexei Sayle joke that the World banking crisis was caused by too many libraries in Wolverhampton. And those who claim not to be listened to, believe the narrative..
And the Sayle comment is just a different kind of populism.
The reality was something closer to "It turns out that the libraries in Wolverhampton were being paid for by the taxes on bankers doing stupid stuff. When the bubble burst, you lose your libraries, because the hospitals come first. Maybe do things different next time?"
No, Boris won't join Reform and he made clear that he was still backing Kemi and the Tories when Jenrick defected. For starters he has no interest in playing second fiddle to Farage.
Remember too apart from Brexit on immigration and spending and net zero and social issues Boris was often on the left of the Conservative Party, indeed in 2001 when first elected as an MP Boris even backed Ken Clarke to be Tory leader over the more Thatcherite IDS and Portillo. On Brexit Boris still got a deal with the EU and took a relaxed approach to immigration via his points system even if he ended EEA free movement
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.
But, populists rarely have good solutions.
That's a fair point, but it's one of communication and empathy, not so much of policy. In terms of "how to run the economy to best deliver a good life to people", the answer has settled a while back- a moderately open, moderately mixed economy. Everything else in the parameter space ends up worse.
The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.
Yet it is part of policy.
The Optima's of our political tend to ideas such as "If a small business goes under because of increased taxes or regulation, it was a zombie business". And then are surprised at the lack of enthusiasm among the small business owners at the Circus Maximus on race day.
Between the dreary love of Process as a God and the psychosis of DOGE - you get a few wittering about John Lewis style service and government. But what we need is a radically *moderate* approach to reforming government so as to be a *service for people*
When Sir Johnny Ives came up with a design for a phone that didn't need a small but thick book (printed in a font too tiny to read) to operate, he sparked a revolution. And government is still stuck in the "Another 10,000 pages of rules will do it".
I do not think it is possible for a solicitors’ firm (other than the very largest, who in turn, run the risk that they are so large that employees can go rogue), not to be in breach of some the absolute cascade of regulations to which they are now subject. And, I’m sure that goes for any number of businesses.
There is a belief that society can be perfected through regulations.
It is basically impossible, in domestic small building (think loft conversion scale) to not be massively in breach of regulations. Because paying double for paperwork is simply not pssoible Mr & Mrs Miggin of No 32. Who just want to do a loft conversion so their son can have a proper room.
I had mine house done safely and to the intent of regs - insulation etc. The paperwork - no.
Two doors down, they've just had a nice cheap job done. It's will burn well, I think, when the electrics they've had bodged go.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
But even when you give them what they want they demand more.
They got Brexit and all the Eastern Europeans went home with considerable economic damage to our country. Hurrah! Now they worry about immigration numbers, and as they drop down towards net zero, they are complaining that too many Isabel Oakeshotts leaving for Dubai is not a fair balance with the arrival of too many nurses from India.
So this ridiculous government panders to them again at great economic harm to our country. A failing health serve and social care, Universities bereft of the foreign student dollar. Hurrah. Next it will be their small boats win and then they will train their eye on people of the "wrong" cut who have been here for generations. Yet the Daily Mail reading squeezed middle flag wavers are having life with jam on it.
The poor who can't get a leg up have been gas lit for years. "It's the fault of the EU and foreigners, and that is why we need to be austere and cut all your services. It's them over there, not us who own newspapers and billion dollar hedge funds". It goes back to that Alexei Sayle joke that the World banking crisis was caused by too many libraries in Wolverhampton. And those who claim not to be listened to, believe the narrative..
It is interesting to see who would run a Reform government. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
But even when you give them what they want they demand more.
They got Brexit and all the Eastern Europeans went home with considerable economic damage to our country. Hurrah! Now they worry about immigration numbers, and as they drop down towards net zero, they are complaining that too many Isabel Oakeshotts leaving for Dubai is not a fair balance with the arrival of too many nurses from India.
So this ridiculous government panders to them again at great economic harm to our country. A failing health serve and social care, Universities bereft of the foreign student dollar. Hurrah. Next it will be their small boats win and then they will train their eye on people of the "wrong" cut who have been here for generations. Yet the Daily Mail reading squeezed middle flag wavers are having life with jam on it.
The poor who can't get a leg up have been gas lit for years. "It's the fault of the EU and foreigners, and that is why we need to be austere and cut all your services. It's them over there, not us who own newspapers and billion dollar hedge funds". It goes back to that Alexei Sayle joke that the World banking crisis was caused by too many libraries in Wolverhampton. And those who claim not to be listened to, believe the narrative..
And the Sayle comment is just a different kind of populism.
The reality was something closer to "It turns out that the libraries in Wolverhampton were being paid for by the taxes on bankers doing stupid stuff. When the bubble burst, you lose your libraries, because the hospitals come first. Maybe do things different next time?"
No, austerity was predicated on the notion that Conservatism understands the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Binning the Surestart programme has cost far more, both socially and financially than Osborne saved.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.
But, populists rarely have good solutions.
That's a fair point, but it's one of communication and empathy, not so much of policy. In terms of "how to run the economy to best deliver a good life to people", the answer has settled a while back- a moderately open, moderately mixed economy. Everything else in the parameter space ends up worse.
The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.
Yet it is part of policy.
The Optima's of our political tend to ideas such as "If a small business goes under because of increased taxes or regulation, it was a zombie business". And then are surprised at the lack of enthusiasm among the small business owners at the Circus Maximus on race day.
Between the dreary love of Process as a God and the psychosis of DOGE - you get a few wittering about John Lewis style service and government. But what we need is a radically *moderate* approach to reforming government so as to be a *service for people*
When Sir Johnny Ives came up with a design for a phone that didn't need a small but thick book (printed in a font too tiny to read) to operate, he sparked a revolution. And government is still stuck in the "Another 10,000 pages of rules will do it".
I do not think it is possible for a solicitors’ firm (other than the very largest, who in turn, run the risk that they are so large that employees can go rogue), not to be in breach of some the absolute cascade of regulations to which they are now subject. And, I’m sure that goes for any number of businesses.
There is a belief that society can be perfected through regulations.
It is basically impossible, in domestic small building (think loft conversion scale) to not be massively in breach of regulations. Because paying double for paperwork is simply not pssoible Mr & Mrs Miggin of No 32. Who just want to do a loft conversion so their son can have a proper room.
I had mine house done safely and to the intent of regs - insulation etc. The paperwork - no.
Two doors down, they've just had a nice cheap job done. It's will burn well, I think, when the electrics they've had bodged go.
But bad drives out good.
We are constantly told that it is not good enough to comply with the regulations. You must record and document your compliance, and establish a paper trail which can be audited.
It’s debatable whether one would have any time left to practise law, if one did so.
No, Boris won't join Reform and he made clear that he was still backing Kemi and the Tories when Jenrick defected. For starters he has no interest in playing second fiddle to Farage.
Remember too apart from Brexit on immigration and spending and net zero and social issues Boris was often on the left of the Conservative Party, indeed in 2001 when first elected as an MP Boris even backed Ken Clarke to be Tory leader over the more Thatcherite IDS and Portillo. On Brexit Boris still got a deal with the EU and took a relaxed approach to immigration via his points system even if he ended EEA free movement
So in other words Swinney has offered more taxes from long suffering middle and higher earning Scots pockets for a deposit of less than 10% of the average Scottish house price. Building more homes for first time buyers would be a better use of his time
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
"those with no connection to economic reality"
That's essentially all of the political class in every country.
We've got Javier Milei and Mark Carney who are in rock throwing distance of reality. And that's about it.
My back-of-envelope based on OEUK figures (the O&G lobby) gets me perhaps £5 billion increased GVA by 2030-31, maybe £3 billion extra tax? That's with opening all licences up and abolishing EPL.
O&G would represent about 0.7% of GDP by 2030-31, compared with about 0.6% on our current course.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Like saying “We won’t put up taxes on working people”?
Can I perhaps introduce you to this thing called politics?
It's not very difficult - all you have to remember is what people say to get votes to get elected to get into Government and what they do once they are in Government are often very different things.
The notion a politician may lie or not do what they promised may be difficult for some to get past as we want all our politicians to be paragons of virtue and honesty but I live in the real world and know sometimes things are said and done which might contradict earlier statements or commitments.
Whether it's quoting St Francis of Assisi on the steps of No.10 or making commitments not to raise taxes, none of it should be accepted literally - all of it is politics.
The cynic might well ask why bother with democracy at all - they're all liars and they are all the same - and I get that but you can either look past specifics and consider generalities (is this bunch of corrupt liars really as bad as the other lot?) or look at it selfishly (they may be corrupt liars but I'm doing well and they aren't bothering me that much whereas the other lot will tax me stupid).
Populism - more accurately, saying what you think the audience immediately in front of you wants to hear - is an extreme form of this. I note Trump often speaks to crowds of supporters - the real populist can charm a hostile crowd and that's almost an art form. Johnson is very good at that, so was Blair in his pomp.
On topic, I've spoken at length about Johnson and being Prime Minister - I'm sure he'd like another go and I'm sure he earnestly believes he can do good things for Britain and Boris Johnson and I'm equally sure he sees himself as the answer (though whether he's worked out the question I'm less certain).
Whats the evidence that Johnson wants anything more than family time of domestic bliss and child rearing?
I have heard anecdotally from those who Boris Johnson well that he considers being Prime Minister unfinished business.
He thinks he was unfairly oustsed and the counry and world needs him.
Like Winston Churchill he considers this wilderness years, Winnie also had two separate stints as PM, he's still younger than when Winnie first became PM.
Boris also hates it when friends of Dave remind him that Dave (pbuh) was PM for twice as long as Boris.
Also, Churchill also defected from the Tories.
John Major served longer as PM than Boris or Dave,
Johnson was the most pro-immigration PM we’ve ever had.
It’s absolutely astonishing how anyone says the Tories are good on lowering immigration.
And, quite possibly, he killed the Conservative Party.
Liverpool’s council elections, where the Conservatives went from 48% in 1970, to 1.4% in 2023, from 6,000 votes in Aigburth in 1979, to 8 on Thursday, show that a big party can die.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.
But, populists rarely have good solutions.
That's a fair point, but it's one of communication and empathy, not so much of policy. In terms of "how to run the economy to best deliver a good life to people", the answer has settled a while back- a moderately open, moderately mixed economy. Everything else in the parameter space ends up worse.
The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.
Yet it is part of policy.
The Optima's of our political tend to ideas such as "If a small business goes under because of increased taxes or regulation, it was a zombie business". And then are surprised at the lack of enthusiasm among the small business owners at the Circus Maximus on race day.
Between the dreary love of Process as a God and the psychosis of DOGE - you get a few wittering about John Lewis style service and government. But what we need is a radically *moderate* approach to reforming government so as to be a *service for people*
When Sir Johnny Ives came up with a design for a phone that didn't need a small but thick book (printed in a font too tiny to read) to operate, he sparked a revolution. And government is still stuck in the "Another 10,000 pages of rules will do it".
I do not think it is possible for a solicitors’ firm (other than the very largest, who in turn, run the risk that they are so large that employees can go rogue), not to be in breach of some the absolute cascade of regulations to which they are now subject. And, I’m sure that goes for any number of businesses.
There is a belief that society can be perfected through regulations.
It is basically impossible, in domestic small building (think loft conversion scale) to not be massively in breach of regulations. Because paying double for paperwork is simply not pssoible Mr & Mrs Miggin of No 32. Who just want to do a loft conversion so their son can have a proper room.
I had mine house done safely and to the intent of regs - insulation etc. The paperwork - no.
Two doors down, they've just had a nice cheap job done. It's will burn well, I think, when the electrics they've had bodged go.
But bad drives out good.
We are constantly told that it is not good enough to comply with the regulations. You must record and document your compliance, and establish a paper trail which can be audited.
It’s debatable whether one would have any time left to practise law, if one did so.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
But even when you give them what they want they demand more.
They got Brexit and all the Eastern Europeans went home with considerable economic damage to our country. Hurrah! Now they worry about immigration numbers, and as they drop down towards net zero, they are complaining that too many Isabel Oakeshotts leaving for Dubai is not a fair balance with the arrival of too many nurses from India.
So this ridiculous government panders to them again at great economic harm to our country. A failing health serve and social care, Universities bereft of the foreign student dollar. Hurrah. Next it will be their small boats win and then they will train their eye on people of the "wrong" cut who have been here for generations. Yet the Daily Mail reading squeezed middle flag wavers are having life with jam on it.
The poor who can't get a leg up have been gas lit for years. "It's the fault of the EU and foreigners, and that is why we need to be austere and cut all your services. It's them over there, not us who own newspapers and billion dollar hedge funds". It goes back to that Alexei Sayle joke that the World banking crisis was caused by too many libraries in Wolverhampton. And those who claim not to be listened to, believe the narrative..
It is interesting to see who would run a Reform government. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
The reality that someone who operates a scheme that creates no discernible benefit to mankind and lives in Thailand can determine the number of libraries in Wolverhampton is outrageous
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
But even when you give them what they want they demand more.
They got Brexit and all the Eastern Europeans went home with considerable economic damage to our country. Hurrah! Now they worry about immigration numbers, and as they drop down towards net zero, they are complaining that too many Isabel Oakeshotts leaving for Dubai is not a fair balance with the arrival of too many nurses from India.
So this ridiculous government panders to them again at great economic harm to our country. A failing health serve and social care, Universities bereft of the foreign student dollar. Hurrah. Next it will be their small boats win and then they will train their eye on people of the "wrong" cut who have been here for generations. Yet the Daily Mail reading squeezed middle flag wavers are having life with jam on it.
The poor who can't get a leg up have been gas lit for years. "It's the fault of the EU and foreigners, and that is why we need to be austere and cut all your services. It's them over there, not us who own newspapers and billion dollar hedge funds". It goes back to that Alexei Sayle joke that the World banking crisis was caused by too many libraries in Wolverhampton. And those who claim not to be listened to, believe the narrative..
And the Sayle comment is just a different kind of populism.
The reality was something closer to "It turns out that the libraries in Wolverhampton were being paid for by the taxes on bankers doing stupid stuff. When the bubble burst, you lose your libraries, because the hospitals come first. Maybe do things different next time?"
No, austerity was predicated on the notion that Conservatism understands the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Binning the Surestart programme has cost far more, both socially and financially than Osborne saved.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
But even when you give them what they want they demand more.
They got Brexit and all the Eastern Europeans went home with considerable economic damage to our country. Hurrah! Now they worry about immigration numbers, and as they drop down towards net zero, they are complaining that too many Isabel Oakeshotts leaving for Dubai is not a fair balance with the arrival of too many nurses from India.
So this ridiculous government panders to them again at great economic harm to our country. A failing health serve and social care, Universities bereft of the foreign student dollar. Hurrah. Next it will be their small boats win and then they will train their eye on people of the "wrong" cut who have been here for generations. Yet the Daily Mail reading squeezed middle flag wavers are having life with jam on it.
The poor who can't get a leg up have been gas lit for years. "It's the fault of the EU and foreigners, and that is why we need to be austere and cut all your services. It's them over there, not us who own newspapers and billion dollar hedge funds". It goes back to that Alexei Sayle joke that the World banking crisis was caused by too many libraries in Wolverhampton. And those who claim not to be listened to, believe the narrative..
And the Sayle comment is just a different kind of populism.
The reality was something closer to "It turns out that the libraries in Wolverhampton were being paid for by the taxes on bankers doing stupid stuff. When the bubble burst, you lose your libraries, because the hospitals come first. Maybe do things different next time?"
No, austerity was predicated on the notion that Conservatism understands the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Binning the Surestart programme has cost far more, both socially and financially than Osborne saved.
So ignore the bond markets while trying to borrow from them? It’s not very novel.
So in other words Swinney has offered more taxes from long suffering middle and higher earning Scots pockets for a deposit of less than 10% of the average Scottish house price. Building more homes for first time buyers would be a better use of his time
Housebuilding is excellent in Scotland - we've significantly increased the stock compared to our population change (which is essentially flat). Giving first-time buyers a boost to help compete with BTL leeches is a good thing, though I'd rather they did it by targeting landlords (particularly from outside Scotland using it as an investment) than this method.
I found out before Christmas that two flats in my tenement are owned by a property firm based in London. They've bought over 40 in the last two years (all cash, so young people can't compete), and flip them in order to turf tenants out . ****s.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
But even when you give them what they want they demand more.
They got Brexit and all the Eastern Europeans went home with considerable economic damage to our country. Hurrah! Now they worry about immigration numbers, and as they drop down towards net zero, they are complaining that too many Isabel Oakeshotts leaving for Dubai is not a fair balance with the arrival of too many nurses from India.
So this ridiculous government panders to them again at great economic harm to our country. A failing health serve and social care, Universities bereft of the foreign student dollar. Hurrah. Next it will be their small boats win and then they will train their eye on people of the "wrong" cut who have been here for generations. Yet the Daily Mail reading squeezed middle flag wavers are having life with jam on it.
The poor who can't get a leg up have been gas lit for years. "It's the fault of the EU and foreigners, and that is why we need to be austere and cut all your services. It's them over there, not us who own newspapers and billion dollar hedge funds". It goes back to that Alexei Sayle joke that the World banking crisis was caused by too many libraries in Wolverhampton. And those who claim not to be listened to, believe the narrative..
And the Sayle comment is just a different kind of populism.
The reality was something closer to "It turns out that the libraries in Wolverhampton were being paid for by the taxes on bankers doing stupid stuff. When the bubble burst, you lose your libraries, because the hospitals come first. Maybe do things different next time?"
There's a chunk of truth in that- Blair's popularity, like Thatcher's, was in large part down to being able to give voters Something for Nothing. But we all know how that tends to end up.
But the libraries one is interesting, because that's local government. And local government is in a mess because it's been lumbered with the huge and growing cost of social care with no way of paying for it. Grants are fixed and council tax rises are capped unsustainably low. So all the stuff that makes us think we are living in a nice place- parks, pothole fixing, libraries, Christmas lights- gets cut.
There have been some attempts to deal with that, but voters have spat them out because they involve tax rises. The other toxic lie of populism is that a shadowy Them is responsible for things that we don't like. Mostly, it's choices voted for by Us, or delivered by politicians who want Us 5o vote for them.
With their home airport out of bounds, Qatar Airways has operated a couple of flights overnight from Thailand to Manchester. How many passengers on board is an interesting question.
Loads of cranks at Manchester to see the A380 that has just landed.
Love an A380, on my constitutional yesterday evening, the Emirates big bird from Dubai into the last 20 odd miles towards Manchester Airport came over just a couple of hundred yards to my left. My taxi timings were such a year or two back that, as I headed out into the valleys in a Manchester ward direction, it would often overtake me, apparently following the stream of a particularly pastoral tributary of the Holme and seemingly just hanging there but still stretching into the distance and the moorlands. A contrast from the overhead in the terraces of central Hyde, much louder, much lower, similarly impressive but with a very different vibe.
Whats the evidence that Johnson wants anything more than family time of domestic bliss and child rearing?
I have heard anecdotally from those who Boris Johnson well that he considers being Prime Minister unfinished business.
He thinks he was unfairly oustsed and the counry and world needs him.
Like Winston Churchill he considers this wilderness years, Winnie also had two separate stints as PM, he's still younger than when Winnie first became PM.
Boris also hates it when friends of Dave remind him that Dave (pbuh) was PM for twice as long as Boris.
Also, Churchill also defected from the Tories.
There is also Donald Trump as his "unfinished business" second term role model.
And Trump 47 seems to be working just fine.
When the Tories are languishing 4th o 5th in the Polls in 18 months time, regretting not switching to Cleverly in summer 2026, and signs that a centre left alliance of Labour / LD / Green is going to carve up over 400 seats between them and relegate Reform to main opposition Party ad Tories to 30-40 seats, there will only be one option left to them.
Boris may not get on with Farage but many Reform voters would find him palatable and it's not hard to visualise a Mail / Express / GB News campaign to GET BORIS BACK to save the Tories and the Right!
Will he join Reform = never! Will he rejoin Tory push and lead again = never say never !
Cleverly is also close to Boris, was loyal to him in 2022 even when Jenrick and Kemi and Rishi weren't. I expect if he were Tory leader he would allow Boris back as a parliamentary candidate, Kemi I expect wouldn't.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
But even when you give them what they want they demand more.
They got Brexit and all the Eastern Europeans went home with considerable economic damage to our country. Hurrah! Now they worry about immigration numbers, and as they drop down towards net zero, they are complaining that too many Isabel Oakeshotts leaving for Dubai is not a fair balance with the arrival of too many nurses from India.
So this ridiculous government panders to them again at great economic harm to our country. A failing health serve and social care, Universities bereft of the foreign student dollar. Hurrah. Next it will be their small boats win and then they will train their eye on people of the "wrong" cut who have been here for generations. Yet the Daily Mail reading squeezed middle flag wavers are having life with jam on it.
The poor who can't get a leg up have been gas lit for years. "It's the fault of the EU and foreigners, and that is why we need to be austere and cut all your services. It's them over there, not us who own newspapers and billion dollar hedge funds". It goes back to that Alexei Sayle joke that the World banking crisis was caused by too many libraries in Wolverhampton. And those who claim not to be listened to, believe the narrative..
And the Sayle comment is just a different kind of populism.
The reality was something closer to "It turns out that the libraries in Wolverhampton were being paid for by the taxes on bankers doing stupid stuff. When the bubble burst, you lose your libraries, because the hospitals come first. Maybe do things different next time?"
No, austerity was predicated on the notion that Conservatism understands the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Binning the Surestart programme has cost far more, both socially and financially than Osborne saved.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
But even when you give them what they want they demand more.
They got Brexit and all the Eastern Europeans went home with considerable economic damage to our country. Hurrah! Now they worry about immigration numbers, and as they drop down towards net zero, they are complaining that too many Isabel Oakeshotts leaving for Dubai is not a fair balance with the arrival of too many nurses from India.
So this ridiculous government panders to them again at great economic harm to our country. A failing health serve and social care, Universities bereft of the foreign student dollar. Hurrah. Next it will be their small boats win and then they will train their eye on people of the "wrong" cut who have been here for generations. Yet the Daily Mail reading squeezed middle flag wavers are having life with jam on it.
The poor who can't get a leg up have been gas lit for years. "It's the fault of the EU and foreigners, and that is why we need to be austere and cut all your services. It's them over there, not us who own newspapers and billion dollar hedge funds". It goes back to that Alexei Sayle joke that the World banking crisis was caused by too many libraries in Wolverhampton. And those who claim not to be listened to, believe the narrative..
And the Sayle comment is just a different kind of populism.
The reality was something closer to "It turns out that the libraries in Wolverhampton were being paid for by the taxes on bankers doing stupid stuff. When the bubble burst, you lose your libraries, because the hospitals come first. Maybe do things different next time?"
No, austerity was predicated on the notion that Conservatism understands the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Binning the Surestart programme has cost far more, both socially and financially than Osborne saved.
So ignore the bond markets while trying to borrow from them? It’s not very novel.
Austerity wasn't the only option on the table. If we feel they are worthy and we want services like libraries in Wolverhampton taxation is another option.
It comes back to my point about saving some cash by jettisoning Surestart has cost more over the medium term both financially and socially.
If you don't believe me have a look at some of the high tax Scandinavian models.
Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.
It leaves Iran with nowhere to go except sink every ship they possibly can, which I am sure is exactly the outcome Donny boy was aiming for...
Something they're already doing.
Cut their oil revenue and choke their finances.
Bankruptcy is a plausible route to regime change. Grunts want to be paid.
I don't buy that at all. I don't think terrorists demand the National Living Wage. They are in it for the "love of the game", as my Gen Z colleagues say all the time.
They've turned the Middle East into a 'live fire theological debate' about which is the superior Abrahamic religion. No wonder the Buddhists, Shinto and Daoists are sitting this one out.
Johnson was the most pro-immigration PM we’ve ever had.
It’s absolutely astonishing how anyone says the Tories are good on lowering immigration.
And, quite possibly, he killed the Conservative Party.
Liverpool’s council elections, where the Conservatives went from 48% in 1970, to 1.4% in 2023, from 6,000 votes in Aigburth in 1979, to 8 on Thursday, show that a big party can die.
Rubbish, it was Boris who won the biggest Conservative landslide since Thatcher in 2019 when under May we were heading for a hung parliament and possibly Corbyn as PM. It was removing Boris that saw Reform surge
All military targets on Kharg Island obliterated overnight, apparently.
Marines on their way to the region. Looks like this is where the boots on the ground are going in. Which, frankly, makes sense if they are going anywhere.
Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.
Elsewhere, Hegseth geting a serious kicking for his "no quarter" comment. Makes him a war criminal at risk of life imprisonment. Ooops.
You would have thought having grounds troops closer than 2 weeks away would have been a good plan
And then if those troops were getting hammered by missiles youd be moaning who put troops there to get killed ?
What if the aim is to seriously degrade Irans capabilities and then pick off things at their leisure ?
No. I’m not an armchair general.
But not having the marines closer than Japan does suggest a lack of scenario planning. Presumably there is somewhere closer that they could have been located as part of the military build up ahead of the war
It's the entire 31st MEU with the Tripoli, San Diego and New Orleans plus logistics plus aviation plus combat engineering. They can't just put that lot in the Doha Sheraton. They also can't keep 2,000+ of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children on the ships for an indefinite amount of time, they can't put them ashore in a friendly port because fucking havoc will ensue so they aim to get the MEU in theatre just before it's actually required. I'm guessing they didn't think they'd be doing an amphibious assault until the end of last week when the regime inconveniently refused to change and the Madiq Hormuz closed for business.
Not much sign of off-ramps from either side. Which means the Gulf substantially ruined - Iran (and Lebanon) even more than now, and other Gulf states not escaping either. Oil and gas in short supply for several years.
No, Boris won't join Reform and he made clear that he was still backing Kemi and the Tories when Jenrick defected. For starters he has no interest in playing second fiddle to Farage.
Remember too apart from Brexit on immigration and spending and net zero and social issues Boris was often on the left of the Conservative Party, indeed in 2001 when first elected as an MP Boris even backed Ken Clarke to be Tory leader over the more Thatcherite IDS and Portillo. On Brexit Boris still got a deal with the EU and took a relaxed approach to immigration via his points system even if he ended EEA free movement
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
But even when you give them what they want they demand more.
They got Brexit and all the Eastern Europeans went home with considerable economic damage to our country. Hurrah! Now they worry about immigration numbers, and as they drop down towards net zero, they are complaining that too many Isabel Oakeshotts leaving for Dubai is not a fair balance with the arrival of too many nurses from India.
So this ridiculous government panders to them again at great economic harm to our country. A failing health serve and social care, Universities bereft of the foreign student dollar. Hurrah. Next it will be their small boats win and then they will train their eye on people of the "wrong" cut who have been here for generations. Yet the Daily Mail reading squeezed middle flag wavers are having life with jam on it.
The poor who can't get a leg up have been gas lit for years. "It's the fault of the EU and foreigners, and that is why we need to be austere and cut all your services. It's them over there, not us who own newspapers and billion dollar hedge funds". It goes back to that Alexei Sayle joke that the World banking crisis was caused by too many libraries in Wolverhampton. And those who claim not to be listened to, believe the narrative..
It's very hard and almost certainly misguided to ascribe a single 'want' to a large amorphous blob of people, but, with misgivings, I'm going to try: I would argue that for 'them', leaving the EU was never the main priority, just the one they got a vote on. The main priority was always immigration, specifically unskilled third world immigration of people with a very different set of behavioural norms. I would argue that the EU vote would havr been won - comfortably - by remain had the mainland EU not itself been facing considerable difficulty itself with that sort of immigration in the summer of 2016.
There are 2 separate wars happening now (arguably 3 if you count Israel/Lebanon)
Trump is trying to bomb Iran into submission
Iran is trying to price the US into submission
It is not immediately obvious which one of these is more likely to succeed
It depends which one can wait the other out. Closing the Straits of Hormuz means that Iran cannot generate much oil revenue, even as it causes hardship to everyone else. Even more so, if the USA seizes Kharg.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.
But, populists rarely have good solutions.
That's a fair point, but it's one of communication and empathy, not so much of policy. In terms of "how to run the economy to best deliver a good life to people", the answer has settled a while back- a moderately open, moderately mixed economy. Everything else in the parameter space ends up worse.
The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.
Yet it is part of policy.
The Optima's of our political tend to ideas such as "If a small business goes under because of increased taxes or regulation, it was a zombie business". And then are surprised at the lack of enthusiasm among the small business owners at the Circus Maximus on race day.
Between the dreary love of Process as a God and the psychosis of DOGE - you get a few wittering about John Lewis style service and government. But what we need is a radically *moderate* approach to reforming government so as to be a *service for people*
When Sir Johnny Ives came up with a design for a phone that didn't need a small but thick book (printed in a font too tiny to read) to operate, he sparked a revolution. And government is still stuck in the "Another 10,000 pages of rules will do it".
I do not think it is possible for a solicitors’ firm (other than the very largest, who in turn, run the risk that they are so large that employees can go rogue), not to be in breach of some the absolute cascade of regulations to which they are now subject. And, I’m sure that goes for any number of businesses.
There is a belief that society can be perfected through regulations.
We need some regulations but not so many they cripple business and the professions
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
But even when you give them what they want they demand more.
They got Brexit and all the Eastern Europeans went home with considerable economic damage to our country. Hurrah! Now they worry about immigration numbers, and as they drop down towards net zero, they are complaining that too many Isabel Oakeshotts leaving for Dubai is not a fair balance with the arrival of too many nurses from India.
So this ridiculous government panders to them again at great economic harm to our country. A failing health serve and social care, Universities bereft of the foreign student dollar. Hurrah. Next it will be their small boats win and then they will train their eye on people of the "wrong" cut who have been here for generations. Yet the Daily Mail reading squeezed middle flag wavers are having life with jam on it.
The poor who can't get a leg up have been gas lit for years. "It's the fault of the EU and foreigners, and that is why we need to be austere and cut all your services. It's them over there, not us who own newspapers and billion dollar hedge funds". It goes back to that Alexei Sayle joke that the World banking crisis was caused by too many libraries in Wolverhampton. And those who claim not to be listened to, believe the narrative..
And the Sayle comment is just a different kind of populism.
The reality was something closer to "It turns out that the libraries in Wolverhampton were being paid for by the taxes on bankers doing stupid stuff. When the bubble burst, you lose your libraries, because the hospitals come first. Maybe do things different next time?"
No, austerity was predicated on the notion that Conservatism understands the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Binning the Surestart programme has cost far more, both socially and financially than Osborne saved.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .
And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.
But even when you give them what they want they demand more.
They got Brexit and all the Eastern Europeans went home with considerable economic damage to our country. Hurrah! Now they worry about immigration numbers, and as they drop down towards net zero, they are complaining that too many Isabel Oakeshotts leaving for Dubai is not a fair balance with the arrival of too many nurses from India.
So this ridiculous government panders to them again at great economic harm to our country. A failing health serve and social care, Universities bereft of the foreign student dollar. Hurrah. Next it will be their small boats win and then they will train their eye on people of the "wrong" cut who have been here for generations. Yet the Daily Mail reading squeezed middle flag wavers are having life with jam on it.
The poor who can't get a leg up have been gas lit for years. "It's the fault of the EU and foreigners, and that is why we need to be austere and cut all your services. It's them over there, not us who own newspapers and billion dollar hedge funds". It goes back to that Alexei Sayle joke that the World banking crisis was caused by too many libraries in Wolverhampton. And those who claim not to be listened to, believe the narrative..
And the Sayle comment is just a different kind of populism.
The reality was something closer to "It turns out that the libraries in Wolverhampton were being paid for by the taxes on bankers doing stupid stuff. When the bubble burst, you lose your libraries, because the hospitals come first. Maybe do things different next time?"
No, austerity was predicated on the notion that Conservatism understands the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Binning the Surestart programme has cost far more, both socially and financially than Osborne saved.
So ignore the bond markets while trying to borrow from them? It’s not very novel.
Austerity wasn't the only option on the table. If we feel they are worthy and we want services like libraries in Wolverhampton taxation is another option.
It comes back to my point about saving some cash by jettisoning Surestart has cost more over the medium term both financially and socially.
Taxing your way out of a recession isn’t a novel idea, either. It doesn’t work.
Johnson was the most pro-immigration PM we’ve ever had.
It’s absolutely astonishing how anyone says the Tories are good on lowering immigration.
And, quite possibly, he killed the Conservative Party.
Liverpool’s council elections, where the Conservatives went from 48% in 1970, to 1.4% in 2023, from 6,000 votes in Aigburth in 1979, to 8 on Thursday, show that a big party can die.
Rubbish, it was Boris who won the biggest Conservative landslide since Thatcher in 2019 when under May we were heading for a hung parliament and possibly Corbyn as PM. It was removing Boris that saw Reform surge
So in other words Swinney has offered more taxes from long suffering middle and higher earning Scots pockets for a deposit of less than 10% of the average Scottish house price. Building more homes for first time buyers would be a better use of his time
Johnson was the most pro-immigration PM we’ve ever had.
It’s absolutely astonishing how anyone says the Tories are good on lowering immigration.
And, quite possibly, he killed the Conservative Party.
Liverpool’s council elections, where the Conservatives went from 48% in 1970, to 1.4% in 2023, from 6,000 votes in Aigburth in 1979, to 8 on Thursday, show that a big party can die.
The Conservative Party coalition was built on economic competence, and controlled immigration.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Like saying “We won’t put up taxes on working people”?
Can I perhaps introduce you to this thing called politics?
It's not very difficult - all you have to remember is what people say to get votes to get elected to get into Government and what they do once they are in Government are often very different things.
The notion a politician may lie or not do what they promised may be difficult for some to get past as we want all our politicians to be paragons of virtue and honesty but I live in the real world and know sometimes things are said and done which might contradict earlier statements or commitments.
Whether it's quoting St Francis of Assisi on the steps of No.10 or making commitments not to raise taxes, none of it should be accepted literally - all of it is politics.
The cynic might well ask why bother with democracy at all - they're all liars and they are all the same - and I get that but you can either look past specifics and consider generalities (is this bunch of corrupt liars really as bad as the other lot?) or look at it selfishly (they may be corrupt liars but I'm doing well and they aren't bothering me that much whereas the other lot will tax me stupid).
Populism - more accurately, saying what you think the audience immediately in front of you wants to hear - is an extreme form of this. I note Trump often speaks to crowds of supporters - the real populist can charm a hostile crowd and that's almost an art form. Johnson is very good at that, so was Blair in his pomp.
On topic, I've spoken at length about Johnson and being Prime Minister - I'm sure he'd like another go and I'm sure he earnestly believes he can do good things for Britain and Boris Johnson and I'm equally sure he sees himself as the answer (though whether he's worked out the question I'm less certain).
It just struck me that Starmer’s biggest fan was describing what Sir Keir did in the campaign as a way of denigrating the likes of Farage and Boris
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
"those with no connection to economic reality"
That's essentially all of the political class in every country.
We've got Javier Milei and Mark Carney who are in rock throwing distance of reality. And that's about it.
My back-of-envelope based on OEUK figures (the O&G lobby) gets me perhaps £5 billion increased GVA by 2030-31, maybe £3 billion extra tax? That's with opening all licences up and abolishing EPL.
O&G would represent about 0.7% of GDP by 2030-31, compared with about 0.6% on our current course.
And massive pinch of salt given the source.
My view is that every little helps, the impact on emissions would be very marginal, and keeping the industry going for a bit might scrape some barnacles off the boat and allow us to keep making meaningful investments in renewables and transmission.
Perhaps some quasi-hypothecation of oil and gas tax receipts to subsidise investments in power transmission and storage infrastructure.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.
But, populists rarely have good solutions.
That's a fair point, but it's one of communication and empathy, not so much of policy. In terms of "how to run the economy to best deliver a good life to people", the answer has settled a while back- a moderately open, moderately mixed economy. Everything else in the parameter space ends up worse.
The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.
Yet it is part of policy.
The Optima's of our political tend to ideas such as "If a small business goes under because of increased taxes or regulation, it was a zombie business". And then are surprised at the lack of enthusiasm among the small business owners at the Circus Maximus on race day.
Between the dreary love of Process as a God and the psychosis of DOGE - you get a few wittering about John Lewis style service and government. But what we need is a radically *moderate* approach to reforming government so as to be a *service for people*
When Sir Johnny Ives came up with a design for a phone that didn't need a small but thick book (printed in a font too tiny to read) to operate, he sparked a revolution. And government is still stuck in the "Another 10,000 pages of rules will do it".
I do not think it is possible for a solicitors’ firm (other than the very largest, who in turn, run the risk that they are so large that employees can go rogue), not to be in breach of some the absolute cascade of regulations to which they are now subject. And, I’m sure that goes for any number of businesses.
There is a belief that society can be perfected through regulations.
We need some regulations but not so many they cripple business and the professions
The professions depend on regulations and laws. That's the main source of their income. If you work in law or accountancy you want as much complex red tape as possible - that's why American accountancy firms lobby so hard to stop individuals doing their own tax returns, for example.
Johnson was the most pro-immigration PM we’ve ever had.
It’s absolutely astonishing how anyone says the Tories are good on lowering immigration.
And, quite possibly, he killed the Conservative Party.
Liverpool’s council elections, where the Conservatives went from 48% in 1970, to 1.4% in 2023, from 6,000 votes in Aigburth in 1979, to 8 on Thursday, show that a big party can die.
Rubbish, it was Boris who won the biggest Conservative landslide since Thatcher in 2019 when under May we were heading for a hung parliament and possibly Corbyn as PM. It was removing Boris that saw Reform surge
You could argue the way Johnson comported himself in office brought the Parliamentary Party to the point when they could no longser support him as leader - you will of course argue the MPs sould have shown more loyalty and spine and stuck with Boris who would have recovered and won the 2024 election.
The problem is the very MPs for whom you go and pound the streets are profoundly ungrateful - look what they did to Margaret Thatcher after she won three election victories. They challenged John Major after he won an election and then conspired to weaken his Government so much they were comprehensively defeated by Blair.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.
It leaves Iran with nowhere to go except sink every ship they possibly can, which I am sure is exactly the outcome Donny boy was aiming for...
Something they're already doing.
Cut their oil revenue and choke their finances.
Bankruptcy is a plausible route to regime change. Grunts want to be paid.
I don't buy that at all. I don't think terrorists demand the National Living Wage. They are in it for the "love of the game", as my Gen Z colleagues say all the time.
Who said terrorists? You mock, but soldiers absolutely expect to be paid.
The regime is hated, but they have the military.
Several regime collapses have been in no small part due to the inability to pay the military properly, which undercuts their survival.
Ceaușescu ran out of money and could not pay his soldiers properly. When protests occured and soldiers decided not to shoot them, the result was regime change.
There are plenty of other authoritarian regimes that have changed because they could no longer pay the military, so the military turned against them.
Comments
He also invented the Vulcan language.
Interesting SNP offer
BBC News - Swinney pledges £10,000 deposit to support first-time buyers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2jz1gvz7no
And on Boris - no
But not having the marines closer than Japan does suggest a lack of scenario planning. Presumably there is somewhere closer that they could have been located as part of the military build up ahead of the war
As for Dubai, I'm sure it wasn't the intention, but the setup is catnip to a certain sort of total tosser, so it's not surprising that so many end up there.
But, populists rarely have good solutions.
What was the fate of the Golgafrinchans ?
They all died from a disease that came from a dirty telephone as the telephone sanitisers had been expunged.
So, far from being tossers, they contributed to society but were not valued or appreciated. Until it was too late
However if you listened to Vine R2 yesterday, you will get the dinosaurs of TUFTON STREET for the Oil and Gas lobby totally drown out any hope of a resonable debate.
It's certainly something Labour can, should and I'm sure will focus on befor next GE!
You missed the point of the B Ark story. The “useless” people there were actually useful, but the A Ark people were arrogant enough to think they could decide who was useful.
Business would need a lot of reassurance that won't change once the immediate crisis dies down and Miliband's zealotry reasserts itself over economic sense.
Vegan Venison Bacon for the win.
Douglas Adams did pretty much predict influencers
Swinney is a politician.
So his pockets are connected to the national wealth, rather as the drinking horn given to Thor was connected to the sea.
French Riviera when Somerset Maugham wrote those words. Presumably will be somewhere else after Dubai.
Really I can't help but feel that this country's legislatures are homes for the economically illiterate.
Look where a populist POTUS has got us.
See the comments on Mandy by C. Blair.
To the NU10Kers, Poor Peter is a proper chap. Who got caught. Which is an annoyance. Toxic now, but as soon as we can we will do something for him.
Hence my bet with @kinabalu
If that helps.
They aren’t just playing economic illiteracy to get votes. They really believe that stuff like the above works.
We cannot have prisoners murdering other prisoners, whilst I know Huntley was genuinely guilty, but so were Stefan Kiszko and Andrew Malkinson according to the system.
In a democracy, getting enough votes to sustain “we hate the masses” is problematic. Which means that the Populares win. Which at the moment means Clodius. If we are lucky.
A radical idea - perhaps some moderation?
https://bsky.app/profile/mrhenrymorris.substack.com/post/3mgx3sq5mtk2e
Loads of cranks at Manchester to see the A380 that has just landed.
The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.
They got Brexit and all the Eastern Europeans went home with considerable economic damage to our country. Hurrah! Now they worry about immigration numbers, and as they drop down towards net zero, they are complaining that too many Isabel Oakeshotts leaving for Dubai is not a fair balance with the arrival of too many nurses from India.
So this ridiculous government panders to them again at great economic harm to our country. A failing health serve and social care, Universities bereft of the foreign student dollar. Hurrah. Next it will be their small boats win and then they will train their eye on people of the "wrong" cut who have been here for generations. Yet the Daily Mail reading squeezed middle flag wavers are having life with jam on it.
The poor who can't get a leg up have been gas lit for years. "It's the fault of the EU and foreigners, and that is why we need to be austere and cut all your services. It's them over there, not us who own newspapers and billion dollar hedge funds". It goes back to that Alexei Sayle joke that the World banking crisis was caused by too many libraries in Wolverhampton. And those who claim not to be listened to, believe the narrative..
The Optimates of our political class tend to ideas such as "If a small business goes under because of increased taxes or regulation, it was a zombie business". And then are surprised at the lack of enthusiasm among the small business owners at the Circus Maximus on race day.
Between the dreary love of Process as a God and the psychosis of DOGE - you get a few wittering about John Lewis style service and government. But what we need is a radically *moderate* approach to reforming government so as to be a *service for people*
When Sir Johnny Ives came up with a design for a phone that didn't need a small but thick book (printed in a font too tiny to read) to operate, he sparked a revolution. And government is still stuck in the "Another 10,000 pages of rules will do it".
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
That's essentially all of the political class in every country.
We've got Javier Milei and Mark Carney who are in rock throwing distance of reality. And that's about it.
There is a belief that society can be perfected through regulations.
The reality was something closer to "It turns out that the libraries in Wolverhampton were being paid for by the taxes on bankers doing stupid stuff. When the bubble burst, you lose your libraries, because the hospitals come first. Maybe do things different next time?"
Remember too apart from Brexit on immigration and spending and net zero and social issues Boris was often on the left of the Conservative Party, indeed in 2001 when first elected as an MP Boris even backed Ken Clarke to be Tory leader over the more Thatcherite IDS and Portillo. On Brexit Boris still got a deal with the EU and took a relaxed approach to immigration via his points system even if he ended EEA free movement
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15471195/BORIS-JOHNSON-public-dont-care-narcissistic-defections.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/aug/20/conservatives.uk
I had mine house done safely and to the intent of regs - insulation etc. The paperwork - no.
Two doors down, they've just had a nice cheap job done. It's will burn well, I think, when the electrics they've had bodged go.
But bad drives out good.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/06/crypto-billionaire-christopher-harborne-reform-tory-election-pact?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
It’s debatable whether one would have any time left to practise law, if one did so.
It’s absolutely astonishing how anyone says the Tories are good on lowering immigration.
O&G would represent about 0.7% of GDP by 2030-31, compared with about 0.6% on our current course.
And massive pinch of salt given the source.
https://www.voice-online.co.uk/news/uk-news/2026/02/03/black-man-has-criminal-prosecution-dropped-after-he-called-black-police-officer-my-n-word/
Chief Constable Sir Ronald Savage OBE DiPsHit lives!
It's not very difficult - all you have to remember is what people say to get votes to get elected to get into Government and what they do once they are in Government are often very different things.
The notion a politician may lie or not do what they promised may be difficult for some to get past as we want all our politicians to be paragons of virtue and honesty but I live in the real world and know sometimes things are said and done which might contradict earlier statements or commitments.
Whether it's quoting St Francis of Assisi on the steps of No.10 or making commitments not to raise taxes, none of it should be accepted literally - all of it is politics.
The cynic might well ask why bother with democracy at all - they're all liars and they are all the same - and I get that but you can either look past specifics and consider generalities (is this bunch of corrupt liars really as bad as the other lot?) or look at it selfishly (they may be corrupt liars but I'm doing well and they aren't bothering me that much whereas the other lot will tax me stupid).
Populism - more accurately, saying what you think the audience immediately in front of you wants to hear - is an extreme form of this. I note Trump often speaks to crowds of supporters - the real populist can charm a hostile crowd and that's almost an art form. Johnson is very good at that, so was Blair in his pomp.
On topic, I've spoken at length about Johnson and being Prime Minister - I'm sure he'd like another go and I'm sure he earnestly believes he can do good things for Britain and Boris Johnson and I'm equally sure he sees himself as the answer (though whether he's worked out the question I'm less certain).
Liverpool’s council elections, where the Conservatives went from 48% in 1970, to 1.4% in 2023, from 6,000 votes in Aigburth in 1979, to 8 on Thursday, show that a big party can die.
I found out before Christmas that two flats in my tenement are owned by a property firm based in London. They've bought over 40 in the last two years (all cash, so young people can't compete), and flip them in order to turf tenants out . ****s.
But the libraries one is interesting, because that's local government. And local government is in a mess because it's been lumbered with the huge and growing cost of social care with no way of paying for it. Grants are fixed and council tax rises are capped unsustainably low. So all the stuff that makes us think we are living in a nice place- parks, pothole fixing, libraries, Christmas lights- gets cut.
There have been some attempts to deal with that, but voters have spat them out because they involve tax rises. The other toxic lie of populism is that a shadowy Them is responsible for things that we don't like. Mostly, it's choices voted for by Us, or delivered by politicians who want Us 5o vote for them.
Trump is trying to bomb Iran into submission
Iran is trying to price the US into submission
It is not immediately obvious which one of these is more likely to succeed
Remember the More in Common poll last year that had a Boris led Conservatives narrowly ahead of Reform on 26% to 23% for Reform and 22% for Labour, whereas under Kemi the Conservatives were third on 21% to 22% for Labour and 29% for Reform? (p48)
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/j5jhk22f/more-in-common-post-election-briefing-4.pdf
Cut their oil revenue and choke their finances.
Bankruptcy is a plausible route to regime change. Grunts want to be paid.
It comes back to my point about saving some cash by jettisoning Surestart has cost more over the medium term both financially and socially.
If you don't believe me have a look at some of the high tax Scandinavian models.
The IRGC and the Iranian Army could basically put the whole country up for sale.
We could do it - Disney might buy it and rename it the United Magic Kingdom.
He destroyed both.
Perhaps some quasi-hypothecation of oil and gas tax receipts to subsidise investments in power transmission and storage infrastructure.
The problem is the very MPs for whom you go and pound the streets are profoundly ungrateful - look what they did to Margaret Thatcher after she won three election victories. They challenged John Major after he won an election and then conspired to weaken his Government so much they were comprehensively defeated by Blair.
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
The regime is hated, but they have the military.
Several regime collapses have been in no small part due to the inability to pay the military properly, which undercuts their survival.
Ceaușescu ran out of money and could not pay his soldiers properly. When protests occured and soldiers decided not to shoot them, the result was regime change.
There are plenty of other authoritarian regimes that have changed because they could no longer pay the military, so the military turned against them.