Am absolutely sick of political parties foisting leaders on us. Labour did it with Brown and he was bloody useless. Then the Tories turned it into their hobby with May, Johnson (first time), Truss and Sunak. And now Milliband apparently. Well he's been rejected once by the voters. So he can piss off. As can Burnham and all the other wannabes.
They should stick by the leader they've got. Tell him to implement the manifesto instead of a load of stuff they never mentioned (jury abolition, digital ID etc.,) and concentrate on (a) housing (b) helping the young - student loans, for one thing and (c) trying to be vaguely competent and honest.
I don't have a problem with parties shifting leaders, as a principle. Nor for someone who lost once coming back, in fact I think that is to be encouraged, in theory. Not having a second chance is one reason we seem to require untested non-entities rise quickly, before they face any serious challenges to learn from.
But they need to show a little more steel or no leader will be able to survive in the 24 hour news, social media fury age - we've not had a PM last more than just over 3 years for awhile, and whilst many deserved that, some of it seems to be down to how things just spiral and pressure never lets up in a way that was easier pre-internet.
Good morning one and all. Back after a somewhat emotional funeral yesterday; wife's best friend. Moving, non-religious ceremony.
On topic, why should losing an election once mean that a party leader can never lead their party into another election. Looking back, in my youth it was the norm. Churchill fought the 1950 election having comprehensively lost in 1945, and having lost again, tried a third time and won. Wilson won, lost, but won again.
It should not, provided that they learn from their mistakes and use the experience they have gained since to good effect. Miliband is I think being underestimated as a political operator. He has certainly been one of the more effective Cabinet ministers in this government, fending off Starmer's attempts to dilute his agenda and sideline him. He was unfortunate in having to take on the wily duo of Cameron and Osborne and deal with a resurgent SNP following the 2014 referendum.
It was the SNP wot got Ed Miliband in 2015. He gained seats in England, though the Conservatives gained more.
The leaflet with Miliband peering out of Salmond's top pocket was the best piece of political positioning since "Labour Isn't Working".
As I reported on here at the time. Killed Labour on the doorsteps. Got LibDems coming back to the Tories to keep him out.
The enemies of one flailing Prime Minister were characterised as "happy to wound, afraid to kill". It might have been the ones listed in John Major's Bastards Book From Ryman's, but it might have been Gordon Brown's. Or it might be a standard trope going back centuries.
It still feels like that- and as long as supporters of Buggins don't want to risk Fuggins getting in, and vice versa, Muggins stays in place.
It was noted that nearly all the many wounds inflicted on Caesar, by his assassins, were performative.
Was that, though, not intended to display participation and responsibility, rather than avoid it ?
Following process, rather than conviction?
Rather, to display conviction.
The metaphor (or something very similar) crops up every time parties remove their leaders - cabinet members will have to "dip their hands in blood" etc.
(Unless they have a convenient dental appointment.)
If Labour aren’t to have a female leader then they should think out of the box and go for Al Carns .
He could at least tell the plastic patriot Farage to go fxck himself .
If Ed Miliband ends up as leader then Labour deserve to become extinct .
Al Carns might be a really good Prime Minister for 2035 or so. Maybe. That he's being promoted now, and the response isn't hysterical laughter, is a sign of just how frivolous our politics has become.
That's not to say he shouldn't be on our screens attracting NF as much as he can. Same goes for Burnham and the rest of them. One reason for all of this is that we have all let No 10 become the source and focus of everything, and then wondered why it keeps collapsing.
I don’t think you needs years of experience as an MP to become PM .
If Labour want a fresh start then I see no reason why Carns shouldn’t become leader .
He would represent an enormous gamble, though. What evidence is there that he'd actually be any good at it ?
I don't know that it's even possible to be good at it any more. AI, social media, etc. are changing society way faster than our system of democratic governance and legislative regime can adapt.
Maybe get AI Carns in then
Al Carns is Labour's Ben Wallace, a barely plausible figure from a military background. It is hard to see any route to Downing Street opening up in the next year or two.
The new Dan Jarvis. Everybody likes a soldier. It's something to do with the shoulders, the set of the head, the steady gaze and voice. It reassures. It says, "it's ok you're safe now".
Heath was our last PM who served in the Army.
I am not convinced that our voters really like ex military politicians, and military command is very different to the skills needed for parliamentary politics.
He was also the last PM whose political personality was completely forged by WW2. That idealistic vision of Western Europe moving beyond antagonism and nation states.
Yes, and it is quite interesting how public memory of WW2 has evolved over the years. From building a land fit for heroes, to establishing post-nationalist international organisations in the cause of peace to mawkish sentimentality and cable tying flags to lamposts.
"We stood alone once, we can do it again"
I remember that (and variations) in vox pops during the Brexit negotiations in support of the hardline No Deal position.
Those people will all be voting Reform now, I'd imagine.
Alone, apart from our large multicultural, multiethnic empire...and a lot of refugees of fighting age...
I do wonder if our reliance on said Empire in the war helps to explain our inability to stand up for western modernity and why we've made such a virtue of multiculturalism.
If Labour aren’t to have a female leader then they should think out of the box and go for Al Carns .
He could at least tell the plastic patriot Farage to go fxck himself .
If Ed Miliband ends up as leader then Labour deserve to become extinct .
Al Carns might be a really good Prime Minister for 2035 or so. Maybe. That he's being promoted now, and the response isn't hysterical laughter, is a sign of just how frivolous our politics has become.
That's not to say he shouldn't be on our screens attracting NF as much as he can. Same goes for Burnham and the rest of them. One reason for all of this is that we have all let No 10 become the source and focus of everything, and then wondered why it keeps collapsing.
I don’t think you needs years of experience as an MP to become PM .
If Labour want a fresh start then I see no reason why Carns shouldn’t become leader .
He would represent an enormous gamble, though. What evidence is there that he'd actually be any good at it ?
I don't know that it's even possible to be good at it any more. AI, social media, etc. are changing society way faster than our system of democratic governance and legislative regime can adapt.
Maybe get AI Carns in then
Al Carns is Labour's Ben Wallace, a barely plausible figure from a military background. It is hard to see any route to Downing Street opening up in the next year or two.
The new Dan Jarvis. Everybody likes a soldier. It's something to do with the shoulders, the set of the head, the steady gaze and voice. It reassures. It says, "it's ok you're safe now".
Heath was our last PM who served in the Army.
I am not convinced that our voters really like ex military politicians, and military command is very different to the skills needed for parliamentary politics.
He was also the last PM whose political personality was completely forged by WW2. That idealistic vision of Western Europe moving beyond antagonism and nation states.
Yes, and it is quite interesting how public memory of WW2 has evolved over the years. From building a land fit for heroes, to establishing post-nationalist international organisations in the cause of peace to mawkish sentimentality and cable tying flags to lamposts.
"We stood alone once, we can do it again"
I remember that (and variations) in vox pops during the Brexit negotiations in support of the hardline No Deal position.
Those people will all be voting Reform now, I'd imagine.
Alone, apart from our large multicultural, multiethnic empire...and a lot of refugees of fighting age...
I do wonder if our reliance on said Empire in the war helps to explain our inability to stand up for western modernity and why we've made such a virtue of multiculturalism.
If Labour aren’t to have a female leader then they should think out of the box and go for Al Carns .
He could at least tell the plastic patriot Farage to go fxck himself .
If Ed Miliband ends up as leader then Labour deserve to become extinct .
Al Carns might be a really good Prime Minister for 2035 or so. Maybe. That he's being promoted now, and the response isn't hysterical laughter, is a sign of just how frivolous our politics has become.
That's not to say he shouldn't be on our screens attracting NF as much as he can. Same goes for Burnham and the rest of them. One reason for all of this is that we have all let No 10 become the source and focus of everything, and then wondered why it keeps collapsing.
I don’t think you needs years of experience as an MP to become PM .
If Labour want a fresh start then I see no reason why Carns shouldn’t become leader .
He would represent an enormous gamble, though. What evidence is there that he'd actually be any good at it ?
I don't know that it's even possible to be good at it any more. AI, social media, etc. are changing society way faster than our system of democratic governance and legislative regime can adapt.
Maybe get AI Carns in then
Al Carns is Labour's Ben Wallace, a barely plausible figure from a military background. It is hard to see any route to Downing Street opening up in the next year or two.
The new Dan Jarvis. Everybody likes a soldier. It's something to do with the shoulders, the set of the head, the steady gaze and voice. It reassures. It says, "it's ok you're safe now".
Heath was our last PM who served in the Army.
I am not convinced that our voters really like ex military politicians, and military command is very different to the skills needed for parliamentary politics.
He was also the last PM whose political personality was completely forged by WW2. That idealistic vision of Western Europe moving beyond antagonism and nation states.
Yes, and it is quite interesting how public memory of WW2 has evolved over the years. From building a land fit for heroes, to establishing post-nationalist international organisations in the cause of peace to mawkish sentimentality and cable tying flags to lamposts.
"We stood alone once, we can do it again"
I remember that (and variations) in vox pops during the Brexit negotiations in support of the hardline No Deal position.
Those people will all be voting Reform now, I'd imagine.
Alone, apart from our large multicultural, multiethnic empire...and a lot of refugees of fighting age...
I do wonder if our reliance on said Empire in the war helps to explain our inability to stand up for western modernity and why we've made such a virtue of multiculturalism.
Which is indirectly why I am British. My great-grandfather was an ANZAC and died in the Gallipoli campaign. My grandfather had a hard upbringing on little money and came to Britain in 1932 to seek work and to see the old country, joined by his Australian fiancee the following year, she lost an uncle there herself on ANZAC day itself. They went back in the 1950s for a couple of months, but decided that England was home.
These things echo down the years.
Does that make him an escapee or parolee?
Just kidding. I am currently in Perth and I am surprised how big a thing they make Anzac Day. It is a public holiday (not in all Oz states). They have a dawn ceremony and lots of events through the day.
If Labour aren’t to have a female leader then they should think out of the box and go for Al Carns .
He could at least tell the plastic patriot Farage to go fxck himself .
If Ed Miliband ends up as leader then Labour deserve to become extinct .
Al Carns might be a really good Prime Minister for 2035 or so. Maybe. That he's being promoted now, and the response isn't hysterical laughter, is a sign of just how frivolous our politics has become.
That's not to say he shouldn't be on our screens attracting NF as much as he can. Same goes for Burnham and the rest of them. One reason for all of this is that we have all let No 10 become the source and focus of everything, and then wondered why it keeps collapsing.
I don’t think you needs years of experience as an MP to become PM .
If Labour want a fresh start then I see no reason why Carns shouldn’t become leader .
He would represent an enormous gamble, though. What evidence is there that he'd actually be any good at it ?
I don't know that it's even possible to be good at it any more. AI, social media, etc. are changing society way faster than our system of democratic governance and legislative regime can adapt.
Maybe get AI Carns in then
Al Carns is Labour's Ben Wallace, a barely plausible figure from a military background. It is hard to see any route to Downing Street opening up in the next year or two.
The new Dan Jarvis. Everybody likes a soldier. It's something to do with the shoulders, the set of the head, the steady gaze and voice. It reassures. It says, "it's ok you're safe now".
Heath was our last PM who served in the Army.
I am not convinced that our voters really like ex military politicians, and military command is very different to the skills needed for parliamentary politics.
He was also the last PM whose political personality was completely forged by WW2. That idealistic vision of Western Europe moving beyond antagonism and nation states.
Yes, and it is quite interesting how public memory of WW2 has evolved over the years. From building a land fit for heroes, to establishing post-nationalist international organisations in the cause of peace to mawkish sentimentality and cable tying flags to lamposts.
"We stood alone once, we can do it again"
I remember that (and variations) in vox pops during the Brexit negotiations in support of the hardline No Deal position.
Those people will all be voting Reform now, I'd imagine.
Alone, apart from our large multicultural, multiethnic empire...and a lot of refugees of fighting age...
I do wonder if our reliance on said Empire in the war helps to explain our inability to stand up for western modernity and why we've made such a virtue of multiculturalism.
Western modernity is multicultural.
Conflating diversity with modernity is at the root of a lot of our present problems. Progress comes from new technology, not demographic transformation.
If Labour aren’t to have a female leader then they should think out of the box and go for Al Carns .
He could at least tell the plastic patriot Farage to go fxck himself .
If Ed Miliband ends up as leader then Labour deserve to become extinct .
Al Carns might be a really good Prime Minister for 2035 or so. Maybe. That he's being promoted now, and the response isn't hysterical laughter, is a sign of just how frivolous our politics has become.
That's not to say he shouldn't be on our screens attracting NF as much as he can. Same goes for Burnham and the rest of them. One reason for all of this is that we have all let No 10 become the source and focus of everything, and then wondered why it keeps collapsing.
I don’t think you needs years of experience as an MP to become PM .
If Labour want a fresh start then I see no reason why Carns shouldn’t become leader .
He would represent an enormous gamble, though. What evidence is there that he'd actually be any good at it ?
I don't know that it's even possible to be good at it any more. AI, social media, etc. are changing society way faster than our system of democratic governance and legislative regime can adapt.
Maybe get AI Carns in then
Al Carns is Labour's Ben Wallace, a barely plausible figure from a military background. It is hard to see any route to Downing Street opening up in the next year or two.
The new Dan Jarvis. Everybody likes a soldier. It's something to do with the shoulders, the set of the head, the steady gaze and voice. It reassures. It says, "it's ok you're safe now".
Heath was our last PM who served in the Army.
I am not convinced that our voters really like ex military politicians, and military command is very different to the skills needed for parliamentary politics.
He was also the last PM whose political personality was completely forged by WW2. That idealistic vision of Western Europe moving beyond antagonism and nation states.
Yes, and it is quite interesting how public memory of WW2 has evolved over the years. From building a land fit for heroes, to establishing post-nationalist international organisations in the cause of peace to mawkish sentimentality and cable tying flags to lamposts.
"We stood alone once, we can do it again"
I remember that (and variations) in vox pops during the Brexit negotiations in support of the hardline No Deal position.
Those people will all be voting Reform now, I'd imagine.
Alone, apart from our large multicultural, multiethnic empire...and a lot of refugees of fighting age...
I do wonder if our reliance on said Empire in the war helps to explain our inability to stand up for western modernity and why we've made such a virtue of multiculturalism.
Western modernity is multicultural.
Conflating diversity with modernity is at the root of a lot of our present problems. Progress comes from new technology, not demographic transformation.
To be fair I'm not sure there is much conflation going on. People have just stopped talking about modernity at all. Perhaps because it is considered too divisive.
47% of power estimated to be from solar right now - 14.3 GW
Surely that must be close to a record?
Quite possibly as a percentage; the UK got to 15.15 MW on Thursday lunchtime, but the total demand would have been greater on a weekday, so a lower precentage.
On Wednesday afternoon, the zero carbon percentage was 98.8%, which is also a record.
If Labour aren’t to have a female leader then they should think out of the box and go for Al Carns .
He could at least tell the plastic patriot Farage to go fxck himself .
If Ed Miliband ends up as leader then Labour deserve to become extinct .
Al Carns might be a really good Prime Minister for 2035 or so. Maybe. That he's being promoted now, and the response isn't hysterical laughter, is a sign of just how frivolous our politics has become.
That's not to say he shouldn't be on our screens attracting NF as much as he can. Same goes for Burnham and the rest of them. One reason for all of this is that we have all let No 10 become the source and focus of everything, and then wondered why it keeps collapsing.
I don’t think you needs years of experience as an MP to become PM .
If Labour want a fresh start then I see no reason why Carns shouldn’t become leader .
He would represent an enormous gamble, though. What evidence is there that he'd actually be any good at it ?
I don't know that it's even possible to be good at it any more. AI, social media, etc. are changing society way faster than our system of democratic governance and legislative regime can adapt.
Maybe get AI Carns in then
Al Carns is Labour's Ben Wallace, a barely plausible figure from a military background. It is hard to see any route to Downing Street opening up in the next year or two.
The new Dan Jarvis. Everybody likes a soldier. It's something to do with the shoulders, the set of the head, the steady gaze and voice. It reassures. It says, "it's ok you're safe now".
Heath was our last PM who served in the Army.
I am not convinced that our voters really like ex military politicians, and military command is very different to the skills needed for parliamentary politics.
Probably different now, when military = highly-trained volunteers, as opposed to ex-WW2 when ex-miliary = everyman.
If Labour aren’t to have a female leader then they should think out of the box and go for Al Carns .
He could at least tell the plastic patriot Farage to go fxck himself .
If Ed Miliband ends up as leader then Labour deserve to become extinct .
Al Carns might be a really good Prime Minister for 2035 or so. Maybe. That he's being promoted now, and the response isn't hysterical laughter, is a sign of just how frivolous our politics has become.
That's not to say he shouldn't be on our screens attracting NF as much as he can. Same goes for Burnham and the rest of them. One reason for all of this is that we have all let No 10 become the source and focus of everything, and then wondered why it keeps collapsing.
I don’t think you needs years of experience as an MP to become PM .
If Labour want a fresh start then I see no reason why Carns shouldn’t become leader .
He would represent an enormous gamble, though. What evidence is there that he'd actually be any good at it ?
I don't know that it's even possible to be good at it any more. AI, social media, etc. are changing society way faster than our system of democratic governance and legislative regime can adapt.
Maybe get AI Carns in then
Al Carns is Labour's Ben Wallace, a barely plausible figure from a military background. It is hard to see any route to Downing Street opening up in the next year or two.
The new Dan Jarvis. Everybody likes a soldier. It's something to do with the shoulders, the set of the head, the steady gaze and voice. It reassures. It says, "it's ok you're safe now".
Heath was our last PM who served in the Army.
I am not convinced that our voters really like ex military politicians, and military command is very different to the skills needed for parliamentary politics.
He was also the last PM whose political personality was completely forged by WW2. That idealistic vision of Western Europe moving beyond antagonism and nation states.
Yes, and it is quite interesting how public memory of WW2 has evolved over the years. From building a land fit for heroes, to establishing post-nationalist international organisations in the cause of peace to mawkish sentimentality and cable tying flags to lamposts.
"We stood alone once, we can do it again"
I remember that (and variations) in vox pops during the Brexit negotiations in support of the hardline No Deal position.
Those people will all be voting Reform now, I'd imagine.
Alone, apart from our large multicultural, multiethnic empire...and a lot of refugees of fighting age...
I do wonder if our reliance on said Empire in the war helps to explain our inability to stand up for western modernity and why we've made such a virtue of multiculturalism.
Western modernity is multicultural.
Conflating diversity with modernity is at the root of a lot of our present problems. Progress comes from new technology, not demographic transformation.
Also, mistaking physical diversity for philosophical diversity.
See the parade of NU10K clowns - they are quite diverse in colour, sex etc. But no diversity of thought - the same ghastly word salad, avoiding all responsibility. If you read their words, they are utterly identical.
Similarly, I see plenty of immigrants who are “gammons” with a tan - spray them with some pink paint and they could adorn any 1950’s pub saloon bar.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
Industry lured agricultural workers with the promise of better pay and year-round work but machines were often dangerous, accommodation cramped and air, food and water polluted.
Which is indirectly why I am British. My great-grandfather was an ANZAC and died in the Gallipoli campaign. My grandfather had a hard upbringing on little money and came to Britain in 1932 to seek work and to see the old country, joined by his Australian fiancee the following year, she lost an uncle there herself on ANZAC day itself. They went back in the 1950s for a couple of months, but decided that England was home.
These things echo down the years.
Does that make him an escapee or parolee?
Just kidding. I am currently in Perth and I am surprised how big a thing they make Anzac Day. It is a public holiday (not in all Oz states). They have a dawn ceremony and lots of events through the day.
Yes, its a massive thing. I was in Sydney once for it, about 20 years ago. After the dawn ceremony there was a parade of old soldiers, sailors and airmen by unit organised by unit. At the tail end there were a lot of British units represented by post war migrants. Then they all go down the pub for games of two up and drinks, bought for all the old soldiers. There is a remembrance aspect but very different to Remembrance Sunday here.
My Australian ancestors were not "Government Men" to use the wording of my grandmothers generation. They were a mostly in the Goldrush, but particularly as a result of the Highland clearances, and the long agricultural depression.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do. They have passed their views down to the NU10K. Whereas the OLD10K preferred owning an estate to owning a factory, the NU10K prefer regulating a factory to running a factory l
Burnham has the fewest issues therefore is the default best. Get him into Parliament.
It’s not as simple as that. What even is his platform? What does he want to achieve?
He just wants to follow the 2024 manifesto, as seen on its cover.
He looks like one of the Krays in that picture !
Hopefully not the gay psychopathic one.
I don't think Starmer is gay.
Yeah but Lord Hermer has found a little used legal precedent that means he can't be moved out of Number 10 if he says he is and if he also self-identifies as a domestic abuse victim.
Top Attorney-Generalling! (And at very reasonable prices)
If Labour aren’t to have a female leader then they should think out of the box and go for Al Carns .
He could at least tell the plastic patriot Farage to go fxck himself .
If Ed Miliband ends up as leader then Labour deserve to become extinct .
Al Carns might be a really good Prime Minister for 2035 or so. Maybe. That he's being promoted now, and the response isn't hysterical laughter, is a sign of just how frivolous our politics has become.
That's not to say he shouldn't be on our screens attracting NF as much as he can. Same goes for Burnham and the rest of them. One reason for all of this is that we have all let No 10 become the source and focus of everything, and then wondered why it keeps collapsing.
I don’t think you needs years of experience as an MP to become PM .
If Labour want a fresh start then I see no reason why Carns shouldn’t become leader .
He would represent an enormous gamble, though. What evidence is there that he'd actually be any good at it ?
I don't know that it's even possible to be good at it any more. AI, social media, etc. are changing society way faster than our system of democratic governance and legislative regime can adapt.
Maybe get AI Carns in then
Al Carns is Labour's Ben Wallace, a barely plausible figure from a military background. It is hard to see any route to Downing Street opening up in the next year or two.
The new Dan Jarvis. Everybody likes a soldier. It's something to do with the shoulders, the set of the head, the steady gaze and voice. It reassures. It says, "it's ok you're safe now".
Heath was our last PM who served in the Army.
I am not convinced that our voters really like ex military politicians, and military command is very different to the skills needed for parliamentary politics.
He was also the last PM whose political personality was completely forged by WW2. That idealistic vision of Western Europe moving beyond antagonism and nation states.
Yes, and it is quite interesting how public memory of WW2 has evolved over the years. From building a land fit for heroes, to establishing post-nationalist international organisations in the cause of peace to mawkish sentimentality and cable tying flags to lamposts.
"We stood alone once, we can do it again"
I remember that (and variations) in vox pops during the Brexit negotiations in support of the hardline No Deal position.
Those people will all be voting Reform now, I'd imagine.
Alone, apart from our large multicultural, multiethnic empire...and a lot of refugees of fighting age...
I do wonder if our reliance on said Empire in the war helps to explain our inability to stand up for western modernity and why we've made such a virtue of multiculturalism.
Western modernity is multicultural.
Go on define it then.
All modern western countries are now multicultural.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do. They have passed their views down to the NU10K. Whereas the OLD10K preferred owning an estate to owning a factory, the NU10K prefer regulating a factory to running a factory l
The positive hatred for technical knowledge is quite startling to behold. If you aren’t used to it.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do. They have passed their views down to the NU10K. Whereas the OLD10K preferred owning an estate to owning a factory, the NU10K prefer regulating a factory to running a factory l
The positive hatred for technical knowledge is quite startling to behold. If you aren’t used to it.
Yes but a lot of people *were* particularly exercised by the idea of recent arrivals being put up in 'hotels', which to them meant luxury. Hence all of that frothing '5 star' commentary. The boil of resentment (of those people) will be lanced somewhat if they can picture asylum seekers in cramped grotty HMOs.
Up to a point Lord Copper, but I think the real problem is the housing within communities.
Old army bases really did seem like the solution....HMOs will be worse than hotels because there will be more examples, hence more communities incensed.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do. They have passed their views down to the NU10K. Whereas the OLD10K preferred owning an estate to owning a factory, the NU10K prefer regulating a factory to running a factory l
The positive hatred for technical knowledge is quite startling to behold. If you aren’t used to it.
That attitude also spreads over into the media.
Expect that to increase as people take 10 minutes to chatGPT themselves into 'expertise' and get flummoxed or angry that they cannot actually interact seamlessly with human beings with actual knowledge or experience of the issues.
Of course, politics is about mostly non-experts collectively coming together to make common sense judgements about matters, but it shouldn't mean actual disdain for technical knowledge.
Am absolutely sick of political parties foisting leaders on us. Labour did it with Brown and he was bloody useless. Then the Tories turned it into their hobby with May, Johnson (first time), Truss and Sunak. And now Milliband apparently. Well he's been rejected once by the voters. So he can piss off. As can Burnham and all the other wannabes.
They should stick by the leader they've got. Tell him to implement the manifesto instead of a load of stuff they never mentioned (jury abolition, digital ID etc.,) and concentrate on (a) housing (b) helping the young - student loans, for one thing and (c) trying to be vaguely competent and honest.
I don't have a problem with parties shifting leaders, as a principle. Nor for someone who lost once coming back, in fact I think that is to be encouraged, in theory. Not having a second chance is one reason we seem to require untested non-entities rise quickly, before they face any serious challenges to learn from.
But they need to show a little more steel or no leader will be able to survive in the 24 hour news, social media fury age - we've not had a PM last more than just over 3 years for awhile, and whilst many deserved that, some of it seems to be down to how things just spiral and pressure never lets up in a way that was easier pre-internet.
Good morning one and all. Back after a somewhat emotional funeral yesterday; wife's best friend. Moving, non-religious ceremony.
On topic, why should losing an election once mean that a party leader can never lead their party into another election. Looking back, in my youth it was the norm. Churchill fought the 1950 election having comprehensively lost in 1945, and having lost again, tried a third time and won. Wilson won, lost, but won again.
It should not, provided that they learn from their mistakes and use the experience they have gained since to good effect. Miliband is I think being underestimated as a political operator. He has certainly been one of the more effective Cabinet ministers in this government, fending off Starmer's attempts to dilute his agenda and sideline him. He was unfortunate in having to take on the wily duo of Cameron and Osborne and deal with a resurgent SNP following the 2014 referendum.
It was the SNP wot got Ed Miliband in 2015. He gained seats in England, though the Conservatives gained more.
It was being crap wot got Ed M.
Loved by the average lefty, disliked by the average Brit.
As The Spectator reminds us this week, Starmer “is now on his third chief of staff, third cabinet secretary and fifth director of communications”, and all in 22 months. Not even Donald Trump’s first presidency saw such rates of senior staff turnover.
You know why you hear a mate saying I keep doing the dating apps and all I get is total dickheads. You sure its not you that is the problem?
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do.
Reminds me of a moment during the show Rome when Ceasar has expanded the number of Senators, with some existing ones noting 'I think I saw that one selling fish in the forum'.
To which the other responded 'Well, at least he's Roman' as the Gaulish ones entered.
If Labour aren’t to have a female leader then they should think out of the box and go for Al Carns .
He could at least tell the plastic patriot Farage to go fxck himself .
If Ed Miliband ends up as leader then Labour deserve to become extinct .
Al Carns might be a really good Prime Minister for 2035 or so. Maybe. That he's being promoted now, and the response isn't hysterical laughter, is a sign of just how frivolous our politics has become.
That's not to say he shouldn't be on our screens attracting NF as much as he can. Same goes for Burnham and the rest of them. One reason for all of this is that we have all let No 10 become the source and focus of everything, and then wondered why it keeps collapsing.
I don’t think you needs years of experience as an MP to become PM .
If Labour want a fresh start then I see no reason why Carns shouldn’t become leader .
He would represent an enormous gamble, though. What evidence is there that he'd actually be any good at it ?
I don't know that it's even possible to be good at it any more. AI, social media, etc. are changing society way faster than our system of democratic governance and legislative regime can adapt.
Maybe get AI Carns in then
Al Carns is Labour's Ben Wallace, a barely plausible figure from a military background. It is hard to see any route to Downing Street opening up in the next year or two.
The new Dan Jarvis. Everybody likes a soldier. It's something to do with the shoulders, the set of the head, the steady gaze and voice. It reassures. It says, "it's ok you're safe now".
Heath was our last PM who served in the Army.
I am not convinced that our voters really like ex military politicians, and military command is very different to the skills needed for parliamentary politics.
He was also the last PM whose political personality was completely forged by WW2. That idealistic vision of Western Europe moving beyond antagonism and nation states.
Yes, and it is quite interesting how public memory of WW2 has evolved over the years. From building a land fit for heroes, to establishing post-nationalist international organisations in the cause of peace to mawkish sentimentality and cable tying flags to lamposts.
"We stood alone once, we can do it again"
I remember that (and variations) in vox pops during the Brexit negotiations in support of the hardline No Deal position.
Those people will all be voting Reform now, I'd imagine.
Alone, apart from our large multicultural, multiethnic empire...and a lot of refugees of fighting age...
I do wonder if our reliance on said Empire in the war helps to explain our inability to stand up for western modernity and why we've made such a virtue of multiculturalism.
If Labour aren’t to have a female leader then they should think out of the box and go for Al Carns .
He could at least tell the plastic patriot Farage to go fxck himself .
If Ed Miliband ends up as leader then Labour deserve to become extinct .
Al Carns might be a really good Prime Minister for 2035 or so. Maybe. That he's being promoted now, and the response isn't hysterical laughter, is a sign of just how frivolous our politics has become.
That's not to say he shouldn't be on our screens attracting NF as much as he can. Same goes for Burnham and the rest of them. One reason for all of this is that we have all let No 10 become the source and focus of everything, and then wondered why it keeps collapsing.
I don’t think you needs years of experience as an MP to become PM .
If Labour want a fresh start then I see no reason why Carns shouldn’t become leader .
He would represent an enormous gamble, though. What evidence is there that he'd actually be any good at it ?
I don't know that it's even possible to be good at it any more. AI, social media, etc. are changing society way faster than our system of democratic governance and legislative regime can adapt.
Maybe get AI Carns in then
Al Carns is Labour's Ben Wallace, a barely plausible figure from a military background. It is hard to see any route to Downing Street opening up in the next year or two.
The new Dan Jarvis. Everybody likes a soldier. It's something to do with the shoulders, the set of the head, the steady gaze and voice. It reassures. It says, "it's ok you're safe now".
Heath was our last PM who served in the Army.
I am not convinced that our voters really like ex military politicians, and military command is very different to the skills needed for parliamentary politics.
He was also the last PM whose political personality was completely forged by WW2. That idealistic vision of Western Europe moving beyond antagonism and nation states.
Yes, and it is quite interesting how public memory of WW2 has evolved over the years. From building a land fit for heroes, to establishing post-nationalist international organisations in the cause of peace to mawkish sentimentality and cable tying flags to lamposts.
"We stood alone once, we can do it again"
I remember that (and variations) in vox pops during the Brexit negotiations in support of the hardline No Deal position.
Those people will all be voting Reform now, I'd imagine.
Alone, apart from our large multicultural, multiethnic empire...and a lot of refugees of fighting age...
I do wonder if our reliance on said Empire in the war helps to explain our inability to stand up for western modernity and why we've made such a virtue of multiculturalism.
Western modernity is multicultural.
Go on define it then.
All modern western countries are now multicultural.
So you sidestepped the issue of modernity. But the question is what do you mean by multicultural? Some cultures believe in the primacy of individual rights and expression. Others don't and they are incompatible with it.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do. They have passed their views down to the NU10K. Whereas the OLD10K preferred owning an estate to owning a factory, the NU10K prefer regulating a factory to running a factory l
The positive hatred for technical knowledge is quite startling to behold. If you aren’t used to it.
"Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should!"
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do. They have passed their views down to the NU10K. Whereas the OLD10K preferred owning an estate to owning a factory, the NU10K prefer regulating a factory to running a factory l
The positive hatred for technical knowledge is quite startling to behold. If you aren’t used to it.
That attitude also spreads over into the media.
Trouble is that technical stuff is: a) often quite difficult unless you know things b) tends to a brute yes/no answer that can't be debated into something else c) leads to unpleasant conclusions.
That makes it highly disagreeable to think about.
Look at UK politics this week. A huge energy supply crunch is incoming, with all sorts of bad consequences. And we've all been talking about whether Starmer's Shame is a sacking offence.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do.
Reminds me of a moment during the show Rome when Ceasar has expanded the number of Senators, with some existing ones noting 'I think I saw that one selling fish in the forum'.
To which the other responded 'Well, at least he's Roman' as the Gaulish ones entered.
Membership in the Roman senate required an explicit level of wealth in land (or cash, which few had). “Trade” was explicitly excluded.
The job of the Censors was to throw anyone out, who wasn’t rich enough, in the right way.
As The Spectator reminds us this week, Starmer “is now on his third chief of staff, third cabinet secretary and fifth director of communications”, and all in 22 months. Not even Donald Trump’s first presidency saw such rates of senior staff turnover.
You know why you hear a mate saying I keep doing the dating apps and all I get is total dickheads. You sure its not you that is the problem?
“If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.”
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do.
Reminds me of a moment during the show Rome when Ceasar has expanded the number of Senators, with some existing ones noting 'I think I saw that one selling fish in the forum'.
To which the other responded 'Well, at least he's Roman' as the Gaulish ones entered.
Membership in the Roman senate required an explicit level of wealth in land (or cash, which few had). “Trade” was explicitly excluded.
The job of the Censors was to throw anyone out, who wasn’t rich enough, in the right way.
I don't know if such people exist, but I like to think there are some who think the Roman Senate operated exactly ike the US Senate.
Where you possibly don't have to be quite as wealthy, but you can certainly leverage your position to become so.
On topic... it's hard to see Ed M developing into a coronating situation. Labour show no signs of halting their headlong pursuit of Fukker votes and Ed M, being the human embodiment of Net Zero, is Belphagor to the vaping class.
Labour have been going after the Fukker vote? I must have missed that, apart from the Mahmood stuff which I feel must be ineffective because they give the impression of doing it very reluctantly and with most of the membership hating her.
And Our Ange is said to be keen on reversing the Mahmood changes, and kicking out the Home Sec
Basically Labour are doing everything they possibly can to deliver a Reform government
In other news the FT has a new Saturday “lunch with” article today (where they lunch with a notable person and chat about the food and the notable person and their views: an oddly excellent format)
This weekend it’s Lord Chagos Hermer, the controversial Attorney General. The comments below the line are brutal and contemptuous of Hermer, so much so that one FT journalist tried to wade in and complain about the rage and hatred and change the tone, but he failed, and so they’ve closed comments completely. Before noon on the day of publication
And this is the FT! Not the Telegraph. The anger and disgust now directed at Labour is, I think, unprecedented
Hermer is an absolute disgrace. The actions against British soldiers on, being polite, unreliable evidence, and the Chagos deal. The fact Starmer would have such a man as AG tells you far more about him than he would like you to know.
Yes. Absolutely
I think there is a serious chance Hermer will face charges if the Tories/Reform win next time
Our legal system should not be politicised but it has been, mainly by the left. And the right will one day take power again
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do. They have passed their views down to the NU10K. Whereas the OLD10K preferred owning an estate to owning a factory, the NU10K prefer regulating a factory to running a factory l
The positive hatred for technical knowledge is quite startling to behold. If you aren’t used to it.
That attitude also spreads over into the media.
Trouble is that technical stuff is: a) often quite difficult unless you know things b) tends to a brute yes/no answer that can't be debated into something else c) leads to unpleasant conclusions.
That makes it highly disagreeable to think about.
Look at UK politics this week. A huge energy supply crunch is incoming, with all sorts of bad consequences. And we've all been talking about whether Starmer's Shame is a sacking offence.
Big problems are hard. Kick the can down the road and hope for the best - our politicians do it constantly, and it's our fault for incentivising that behaviour.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do. They have passed their views down to the NU10K. Whereas the OLD10K preferred owning an estate to owning a factory, the NU10K prefer regulating a factory to running a factory l
The positive hatred for technical knowledge is quite startling to behold. If you aren’t used to it.
That attitude also spreads over into the media.
Trouble is that technical stuff is: a) often quite difficult unless you know things b) tends to a brute yes/no answer that can't be debated into something else c) leads to unpleasant conclusions.
That makes it highly disagreeable to think about.
Look at UK politics this week. A huge energy supply crunch is incoming, with all sorts of bad consequences. And we've all been talking about whether Starmer's Shame is a sacking offence.
When I was at university, we put on a play based on “The Cold Equations”.
The technical types (like me) wanted to follow the story. Others found the premise “cold”, “aggressive”, “unfeeling”, “wrong” and wanted the ending changed.
The idea that cold facts can’t be changed to match personal ideology really scares some people.
Edit; on the energy crisis. I’ve encountered senior people who find talking about it “disturbing” and who are avoiding thinking about it.
I side with Herman Kahn - we must think about the unthinkable. Otherwise it willl become reality
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
Industry lured agricultural workers with the promise of better pay and year-round work but machines were often dangerous, accommodation cramped and air, food and water polluted.
The life of a menial agricultural worker was long hours of hard work, seasonal unemployment and continual deprivation.
It was not some 'merry old England' rural idyll.
For that matter the problems of the modern rural working class are often overlooked.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do. They have passed their views down to the NU10K. Whereas the OLD10K preferred owning an estate to owning a factory, the NU10K prefer regulating a factory to running a factory l
The positive hatred for technical knowledge is quite startling to behold. If you aren’t used to it.
That attitude also spreads over into the media.
Trouble is that technical stuff is: a) often quite difficult unless you know things b) tends to a brute yes/no answer that can't be debated into something else c) leads to unpleasant conclusions.
That makes it highly disagreeable to think about.
Look at UK politics this week. A huge energy supply crunch is incoming, with all sorts of bad consequences. And we've all been talking about whether Starmer's Shame is a sacking offence.
When I was at university, we put on a play based on “The Cold Equations”.
The technical types (like me) wanted to follow the story. Others found the premise “cold”, “aggressive”, “unfeeling”, “wrong” and wanted the ending changed.
The idea that cold facts can’t be changed to match personal ideology really scares some people.
I've never read it, but looking at the summary online how could it even be the same story if the ending was changed? It's there in the title,
It's interesting as that you cannot fight facts/fate is the premise of many a more emotional tale as well.
Have to say, credit where credit is due the service provided by the Passport Office has been impressive. Regular and useful updates and prompt delivery today.
I am accepting, of course, that the west running out of jet fuel and the inevitable cancellation of pretty much all foreign holidays over the summer because of the actions of that lunatic in the White House, was something rather out of their control.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
Industry lured agricultural workers with the promise of better pay and year-round work but machines were often dangerous, accommodation cramped and air, food and water polluted.
The life of a menial agricultural worker was long hours of hard work, seasonal unemployment and continual deprivation.
It was not some 'merry old England' rural idyll.
For that matter the problems of the modern rural working class are often overlooked.
I don't think it is a major thing, but I think there is an undercurrent of societal thought that industrialising was all one big mistake and life was better before.
I'd not have liked to have personally been there during the industrialising years, but I'm very grateful they happened.
Rochdale score in the 95th minute to take the lead 1-0, a score which would be good enough to get them back into the football league. York equalise in the 113th minute, and it ends 1-1, York are promoted, Rochdale to play offs.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do.
Reminds me of a moment during the show Rome when Ceasar has expanded the number of Senators, with some existing ones noting 'I think I saw that one selling fish in the forum'.
To which the other responded 'Well, at least he's Roman' as the Gaulish ones entered.
Membership in the Roman senate required an explicit level of wealth in land (or cash, which few had). “Trade” was explicitly excluded.
The job of the Censors was to throw anyone out, who wasn’t rich enough, in the right way.
I don't know if such people exist, but I like to think there are some who think the Roman Senate operated exactly ike the US Senate.
Where you possibly don't have to be quite as wealthy, but you can certainly leverage your position to become so.
The US senate originally was supposed to be a version of the Roman Senate. Two men from each state, picked by the governing class there (not directly elected), who would represent the state in Washington.
They would, of course, been from the highest of the elite.
Also, given there were 13 states, very few of them. Given that about half wouldn’t have been in Washington at any one time (13 or so at most session) the US Senate was more of a board meeting than an assembly.
Rochdale score in the 95th minute to take the lead 1-0, a score which would be good enough to get them back into the football league. York equalise in the 113th minute, and it ends 1-1, York are promoted, Rochdale to play offs.
Have to say, credit where credit is due the service provided by the Passport Office has been impressive. Regular and useful updates and prompt delivery today.
I've found updating passports and driver's licences to be very easy and efficient. When I mentioned it someone said they were outsourced, I don't know if that is true for both.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do. They have passed their views down to the NU10K. Whereas the OLD10K preferred owning an estate to owning a factory, the NU10K prefer regulating a factory to running a factory l
The positive hatred for technical knowledge is quite startling to behold. If you aren’t used to it.
That attitude also spreads over into the media.
Trouble is that technical stuff is: a) often quite difficult unless you know things b) tends to a brute yes/no answer that can't be debated into something else c) leads to unpleasant conclusions.
That makes it highly disagreeable to think about.
Look at UK politics this week. A huge energy supply crunch is incoming, with all sorts of bad consequences. And we've all been talking about whether Starmer's Shame is a sacking offence.
When I was at university, we put on a play based on “The Cold Equations”.
The technical types (like me) wanted to follow the story. Others found the premise “cold”, “aggressive”, “unfeeling”, “wrong” and wanted the ending changed.
The idea that cold facts can’t be changed to match personal ideology really scares some people.
I've never read it, but looking at the summary online how could it even be the same story if the ending was changed? It's there in the title,
It's interesting as that you cannot fight facts/fate is the premise of many a more emotional tale as well.
Indeed
Nearly all the tales in the Hagakure are of the form “the daimyos created an impossible situation. So some samurai resolved it by dying.”
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do.
Reminds me of a moment during the show Rome when Ceasar has expanded the number of Senators, with some existing ones noting 'I think I saw that one selling fish in the forum'.
To which the other responded 'Well, at least he's Roman' as the Gaulish ones entered.
Membership in the Roman senate required an explicit level of wealth in land (or cash, which few had). “Trade” was explicitly excluded.
The job of the Censors was to throw anyone out, who wasn’t rich enough, in the right way.
I don't know if such people exist, but I like to think there are some who think the Roman Senate operated exactly ike the US Senate.
Where you possibly don't have to be quite as wealthy, but you can certainly leverage your position to become so.
The US senate originally was supposed to be a version of the Roman Senate. Two men from each state, picked by the governing class there (not directly elected), who would represent the state in Washington.
They would, of course, been from the highest of the elite.
Also, given there were 13 states, very few of them. Given that about half wouldn’t have been in Washington at any one time (13 or so at most session) the US Senate was more of a board meeting than an assembly.
Makes that Senator expelled for treason all the more significant in that case.
(According to wiki he continued to serve in the state senate afterwards!)
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
Industry lured agricultural workers with the promise of better pay and year-round work but machines were often dangerous, accommodation cramped and air, food and water polluted.
The life of a menial agricultural worker was long hours of hard work, seasonal unemployment and continual deprivation.
It was not some 'merry old England' rural idyll.
For that matter the problems of the modern rural working class are often overlooked.
I don't think it is a major thing, but I think there is an undercurrent of societal thought that industrialising was all one big mistake and life was better before.
I'd not have liked to have personally been there during the industrialising years, but I'm very grateful they happened.
Romanticising subsistence agriculture is an old trope.
Usually by those who’ve never held a spade.
(A spade is not a shovel. Only people who’ve used neither would think they are the same
Running focus groups in England & Scotland over past few days & I think for perceptions of Starmer personally the Robbins sacking is one of the worst things he has done. Other things obviously hurt more politically but this seems to have gone directly to how people feel about him
Everywhere it’s “scapegoat” “fall guy” “doing what he was told” “buck stops with the PM” and it’s not about the who knew what where when, or following it that closely but a sense of unfairness
I know I keep banging on about this, but it's pointless changing Starmer until Labour picks an ideology (if that's the right word) - what are the problems facing the UK and how do we fix them. Miliband has an ideology - do lots of Green stuff, that'll fix things. Mahmood has an ideology - deport everybody who isn't Christian or Hindu, and how dare somebody call her a racist for saying that you dirty white liberal you. Streeting has an ideology - privatise things, that'll fix things!
Miliband - Green Labour Mahmood - Blue Labour Streeting - New Labour
To be honest, I'm not convinced by any of them, but in terms of the marketplace of ideas, that's what's on the table.
I feel this illustrates a problem. The word 'ideology' is hard. The examples here are hardly ideology, they are the alleged one word solutions to what look like single issues of of the manifold.
I suggest ideology is a pyramid. What sort of concepts you put at the top both tells you what to expect, and also declares how serious you are about the universe and everything.
For example, Reform have at least two competing concepts at or towards the top of the pyramid. Two are: nationalist post WWII social democrat and the other, entirely inconsistent, is some sort of nationalist free market buccaneering libertarianism. Both accompanied by a sneaking regard for autocracy. The first belongs to the voters of Clacton etc, the second to Nigel Farage in his natural evolved habitat.
I can just about do this about Reform. As to Labour, not a clue. And if I read him rightly even the great Nick Palmer doesn't know either. Tories? Don't ask. Greens? The mirror of Reform - two competing and incompatible systems fighting. Not being looked at closely because unlike Reform they are not (yet) taken seriously.
Er, blush. Yes, it's not knowing what Labour stands for any more that is making me flirt with the Greens - I went along with Blair even though I wasn't sure about aspects of his project, as the existence of a project was exciting in itself. It was interesting that Zack won overwhelmingly - I think that part of that was simply relief at the offer of a reasonably clear vision, even if it was not entirely realistic. Moreover, what discussion of strategy goes on in Labour seems focused on what will work to win back voters (whether from Reform or elsewhere) - IMO we should be discussing a) what we think is right and b) how to sell it and who to sell it to, not putting b) first.
Rochdale score in the 95th minute to take the lead 1-0, a score which would be good enough to get them back into the football league. York equalise in the 113th minute, and it ends 1-1, York are promoted, Rochdale to play offs.
There was only signalled to be 4 mins injury time
*apologies, was 8 extra mins signalled, duff source
Rochdale pitch invasion with 2 mins left caused a delay in the game!
Far from the trivialities, inanities and irrelevancies of this site, REAL politics is happening in Newham.
Proper politics, street politics, street theatre...
I come out of Sainsbury's this morning having got the items from Mrs Stodge's shopping list (and paid for them all to be clear) and who should I see on the street corner on his Jack Jones but Sir Stephen Timms MP. Now, I like Timms, I consider him a "bloody nice bloke" and if his majority was ever seriously threatened, I'd vote tactically for him over the dimwits in Reform, Greens or the Newham Independents.
As his acolytes hadn't arrived, I managed a few minutes of conversation on local Services and a development being planned near Stodge Towers. By then, his Party fans were arriving to set up the traditional Labour stall outside the pawnbrokers (no giggling in the cheap seats!)
Having left Labour to set up their stll, I turned into the Barking Road and after a few yards was confronted by the Greens who had set up a stall outside "Clippers and Curlers", a hairdressers frequented mainly by the Afro-Caribbean community. Those of a certain vintage will remember the comedy Desmond's featuring Norman Beaton, Carmen Munroe, Ram John Holder and that bloke who went on to be in Star Trek: Enterprise - "Clippers and Curlers" is a bit like that.
The Greens had set up their stall and were trying to engage with the passers-by and those seeking to reach the ex-Spoons pub which is now run by Indians and offers a full Caribbean Breakfast (whatever that is).
I'm out later after the racing and will see if the Newham Independents are getting into this - they normally stand outside Poundland (yes, I know) but there's a market stall there these days.
Top 20 all women; some older books; often romantasy.
All women. The beeb will be wetting themselves over that
Not only that, there is still a quite important prize for “women in fiction” (used to be the Orange prize). Like women need some kind of help in an industry dominated completely by women
It’s fucking nuts. Like having a special prize for “Jews in Hollywood” or “Oxford graduates with a PPE degree who do well in politics”
To be fair there aren’t many Oxford PPE grads who do well in politics. Most of them are utter sh1te
Interesting article on the BBC highlighting boundary changes in Scotland. Most of the big changes in the central belt, Edinburgh and Lothians have big shifts.
Scotland's population is drifting east, and is becoming more concentrated in the central belt and around cities
So you sidestepped the issue of modernity. But the question is what do you mean by multicultural? Some cultures believe in the primacy of individual rights and expression. Others don't and they are incompatible with it.
The Danish approach is interesting - quite liberal on openness to refugees, but insistent that they should initially live in areas without many others. The downside is that it's absolutely natural to want to be close to people like you when you flee to another country. The upside is that it encourages a blurring of difference and fosters variety if you have to find your way among different sorts of people. I live in a part of Oxfordshire where you almost never see a single person who isn't white (and usually middle-aged), and I talk with liberal-minded people who express bewliderment that there are areas where the reverse is true - they're not necessarily against it, but find it hard to imagine.
The Danish approach didn't get huge support in their recent elections, but it's worth considering. You're still free as an individual to pursue a narrow agenda, but are surrounded by people with diverse alternative ideas about how to live. It'll be natural for the next generation to be more diverse than in the de facto apartheid system that arises by default in Britain.
My friend advises that Rochdale scored in the 5th minute of added time and immediately the daft bastards invaded the pitch thinking it was the last kick of the game and they had secured promotion.
Nope. Endless delay to get them off the pitch. Match restarts. York run it straight to the end of the pitch and score an equaliser. At which point the *York* fans invade thinking its the last kick of the game and they had secured promotion...
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
Industry lured agricultural workers with the promise of better pay and year-round work but machines were often dangerous, accommodation cramped and air, food and water polluted.
The life of a menial agricultural worker was long hours of hard work, seasonal unemployment and continual deprivation.
It was not some 'merry old England' rural idyll.
For that matter the problems of the modern rural working class are often overlooked.
Until 100 years ago the rural working classes rarely left their village, unless to somewhere nearby that was within walking distance. After WW1, local buses enabled them to go to the nearest market town for the pictures, dancing and to meet non local people. Since the destruction of local bus services, they now need a car. If they don’t, and particularly if they are elderly, they can rarely leave their village again. Progress followed by regress. Edited to remove previously unnoticed gubbins.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
Industry lured agricultural workers with the promise of better pay and year-round work but machines were often dangerous, accommodation cramped and air, food and water polluted.
The life of a menial agricultural worker was long hours of hard work, seasonal unemployment and continual deprivation.
It was not some 'merry old England' rural idyll.
For that matter the problems of the modern rural working class are often overlooked.
I don't think it is a major thing, but I think there is an undercurrent of societal thought that industrialising was all one big mistake and life was better before.
I'd not have liked to have personally been there during the industrialising years, but I'm very grateful they happened.
Romanticising subsistence agriculture is an old trope.
Usually by those who’ve never held a spade.
(A spade is not a shovel. Only people who’ve used neither would think they are the same
One quickly learns the difference if you try to use one where the other would be better.
Running focus groups in England & Scotland over past few days & I think for perceptions of Starmer personally the Robbins sacking is one of the worst things he has done. Other things obviously hurt more politically but this seems to have gone directly to how people feel about him
Everywhere it’s “scapegoat” “fall guy” “doing what he was told” “buck stops with the PM” and it’s not about the who knew what where when, or following it that closely but a sense of unfairness
I find little to disagree with. Starmer has destroyed his image in my eyes.
Labour needs to dump him and do a complete reset. It's not all over.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
Industry lured agricultural workers with the promise of better pay and year-round work but machines were often dangerous, accommodation cramped and air, food and water polluted.
The life of a menial agricultural worker was long hours of hard work, seasonal unemployment and continual deprivation.
It was not some 'merry old England' rural idyll.
For that matter the problems of the modern rural working class are often overlooked.
I don't think it is a major thing, but I think there is an undercurrent of societal thought that industrialising was all one big mistake and life was better before.
I'd not have liked to have personally been there during the industrialising years, but I'm very grateful they happened.
Romanticising subsistence agriculture is an old trope.
Usually by those who’ve never held a spade.
(A spade is not a shovel. Only people who’ve used neither would think they are the same
One quickly learns the difference if you try to use one where the other would be better.
I assume the risk assessment for using a shovel will recommend you use a spade instead, and vice versa.
Running focus groups in England & Scotland over past few days & I think for perceptions of Starmer personally the Robbins sacking is one of the worst things he has done. Other things obviously hurt more politically but this seems to have gone directly to how people feel about him
Everywhere it’s “scapegoat” “fall guy” “doing what he was told” “buck stops with the PM” and it’s not about the who knew what where when, or following it that closely but a sense of unfairness
I find little to disagree with. Starmer has destroyed his image in my eyes.
Labour needs to dump him and do a complete reset. It's not all over.
The next thing that should cross Starmer’s desk is Starmer, on his way out of the no.10 door.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
Industry lured agricultural workers with the promise of better pay and year-round work but machines were often dangerous, accommodation cramped and air, food and water polluted.
The life of a menial agricultural worker was long hours of hard work, seasonal unemployment and continual deprivation.
It was not some 'merry old England' rural idyll.
For that matter the problems of the modern rural working class are often overlooked.
I don't think it is a major thing, but I think there is an undercurrent of societal thought that industrialising was all one big mistake and life was better before.
I'd not have liked to have personally been there during the industrialising years, but I'm very grateful they happened.
Romanticising subsistence agriculture is an old trope.
Usually by those who’ve never held a spade.
(A spade is not a shovel. Only people who’ve used neither would think they are the same
One quickly learns the difference if you try to use one where the other would be better.
I assume the risk assessment for using a shovel will recommend you use a spade instead, and vice versa.
Offering the option of a fork would utterly confuse. Even though it might be exactly what is required.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do. They have passed their views down to the NU10K. Whereas the OLD10K preferred owning an estate to owning a factory, the NU10K prefer regulating a factory to running a factory l
The positive hatred for technical knowledge is quite startling to behold. If you aren’t used to it.
That attitude also spreads over into the media.
Trouble is that technical stuff is: a) often quite difficult unless you know things b) tends to a brute yes/no answer that can't be debated into something else c) leads to unpleasant conclusions.
That makes it highly disagreeable to think about.
Look at UK politics this week. A huge energy supply crunch is incoming, with all sorts of bad consequences. And we've all been talking about whether Starmer's Shame is a sacking offence.
I'd like to think that replacing Starmer would mean that Britain had better leadership to deal with the developing energy and food crises, but you're probably right that it's displacement activity.
On technical stuff I'd disagree slightly that it tends to brute yes/no answers that can't be debated with. There are always tradeoffs and alternative choices, and often a technical problem is a challenge for a bright young engineer to develop a smart fix for.
Running focus groups in England & Scotland over past few days & I think for perceptions of Starmer personally the Robbins sacking is one of the worst things he has done. Other things obviously hurt more politically but this seems to have gone directly to how people feel about him
Everywhere it’s “scapegoat” “fall guy” “doing what he was told” “buck stops with the PM” and it’s not about the who knew what where when, or following it that closely but a sense of unfairness
Several of us on here concluded at the time the Robbins sacking would do for Starmer. It has subsequently turned out that Robbins was a bit of a tit, but the damage was already enormous with awful optics for Starmer.
I think he could have argued the case for Mandelson's appointment, bearing in mind the incumbent in the Oval Office, but throwing everyone under the bus and pretending Starmer knew nothing was the work of a bounder.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
Industry lured agricultural workers with the promise of better pay and year-round work but machines were often dangerous, accommodation cramped and air, food and water polluted.
The life of a menial agricultural worker was long hours of hard work, seasonal unemployment and continual deprivation.
It was not some 'merry old England' rural idyll.
For that matter the problems of the modern rural working class are often overlooked.
I don't think it is a major thing, but I think there is an undercurrent of societal thought that industrialising was all one big mistake and life was better before.
I'd not have liked to have personally been there during the industrialising years, but I'm very grateful they happened.
Romanticising subsistence agriculture is an old trope.
Usually by those who’ve never held a spade.
(A spade is not a shovel. Only people who’ve used neither would think they are the same
One quickly learns the difference if you try to use one where the other would be better.
I assume the risk assessment for using a shovel will recommend you use a spade instead, and vice versa.
Only after you have completed your 6 Week Shovel Operator course. And your manager has completed his 12 week course in Shovel Operator Management.
On topic, might I offer the following advice to the Labour Party? It may not be felt welcome - may not be felt genuine - but trust me, as a Tory, we've been here. Get this wrong and you could be facing two more changes before the election. And if so, the voters will hate you for it.
Following Starmer, the very LAST thing you need as a replacement is a slightly weird, somewhat aloof, supercilious north London wanker of a guy. Be brave. Skip a generation. SERIOUSLY consider a woman. (You are fifty plus years overdue, for God's sake.) Choose someone the voters haven't already rejected. Choose someone the voters don't yet actively dislike.
You may hate the Tories. But at least learn from them.
The Tories and Labour BOTH need to up their game to prevent PM Farage. Start now.
Rochdale score in the 95th minute to take the lead 1-0, a score which would be good enough to get them back into the football league. York equalise in the 113th minute, and it ends 1-1, York are promoted, Rochdale to play offs.
I know I keep banging on about this, but it's pointless changing Starmer until Labour picks an ideology (if that's the right word) - what are the problems facing the UK and how do we fix them. Miliband has an ideology - do lots of Green stuff, that'll fix things. Mahmood has an ideology - deport everybody who isn't Christian or Hindu, and how dare somebody call her a racist for saying that you dirty white liberal you. Streeting has an ideology - privatise things, that'll fix things!
Miliband - Green Labour Mahmood - Blue Labour Streeting - New Labour
To be honest, I'm not convinced by any of them, but in terms of the marketplace of ideas, that's what's on the table.
I feel this illustrates a problem. The word 'ideology' is hard. The examples here are hardly ideology, they are the alleged one word solutions to what look like single issues of of the manifold.
I suggest ideology is a pyramid. What sort of concepts you put at the top both tells you what to expect, and also declares how serious you are about the universe and everything.
For example, Reform have at least two competing concepts at or towards the top of the pyramid. Two are: nationalist post WWII social democrat and the other, entirely inconsistent, is some sort of nationalist free market buccaneering libertarianism. Both accompanied by a sneaking regard for autocracy. The first belongs to the voters of Clacton etc, the second to Nigel Farage in his natural evolved habitat.
I can just about do this about Reform. As to Labour, not a clue. And if I read him rightly even the great Nick Palmer doesn't know either. Tories? Don't ask. Greens? The mirror of Reform - two competing and incompatible systems fighting. Not being looked at closely because unlike Reform they are not (yet) taken seriously.
Er, blush. Yes, it's not knowing what Labour stands for any more that is making me flirt with the Greens - I went along with Blair even though I wasn't sure about aspects of his project, as the existence of a project was exciting in itself. It was interesting that Zack won overwhelmingly - I think that part of that was simply relief at the offer of a reasonably clear vision, even if it was not entirely realistic. Moreover, what discussion of strategy goes on in Labour seems focused on what will work to win back voters (whether from Reform or elsewhere) - IMO we should be discussing a) what we think is right and b) how to sell it and who to sell it to, not putting b) first.
I'm curious as to how you judge what is right in order to follow theme #a?
As a floating voter (ok, a disenfranchised Tory) if I did your abc stuff I'd have economic prosperity as 'A', and not that bothered about the other letters of the alphabet. I believe (without proof) that economic prosperity brings with it all the goodies that we all might care to list in our alphabet.
Of course 'what is right' is a noble theme, and you'd argue that it was the keystone that unlocked the full alphabet too.
But this back to my original question - given it's theme A for you - how do you judge what is right?
Mahmood’s spokesman dismissing something as “tittle-tattle”: that means it’s true. If it was simply false, he’d have said that. “Tittle-tattle” is belittling what was said, but not actually denying it.
If Labour aren’t to have a female leader then they should think out of the box and go for Al Carns .
He could at least tell the plastic patriot Farage to go fxck himself .
If Ed Miliband ends up as leader then Labour deserve to become extinct .
Al Carns might be a really good Prime Minister for 2035 or so. Maybe. That he's being promoted now, and the response isn't hysterical laughter, is a sign of just how frivolous our politics has become.
That's not to say he shouldn't be on our screens attracting NF as much as he can. Same goes for Burnham and the rest of them. One reason for all of this is that we have all let No 10 become the source and focus of everything, and then wondered why it keeps collapsing.
I don’t think you needs years of experience as an MP to become PM .
If Labour want a fresh start then I see no reason why Carns shouldn’t become leader .
He would represent an enormous gamble, though. What evidence is there that he'd actually be any good at it ?
I don't know that it's even possible to be good at it any more. AI, social media, etc. are changing society way faster than our system of democratic governance and legislative regime can adapt.
Maybe get AI Carns in then
Al Carns is Labour's Ben Wallace, a barely plausible figure from a military background. It is hard to see any route to Downing Street opening up in the next year or two.
The new Dan Jarvis. Everybody likes a soldier. It's something to do with the shoulders, the set of the head, the steady gaze and voice. It reassures. It says, "it's ok you're safe now".
Heath was our last PM who served in the Army.
I am not convinced that our voters really like ex military politicians, and military command is very different to the skills needed for parliamentary politics.
He was also the last PM whose political personality was completely forged by WW2. That idealistic vision of Western Europe moving beyond antagonism and nation states.
Yes, and it is quite interesting how public memory of WW2 has evolved over the years. From building a land fit for heroes, to establishing post-nationalist international organisations in the cause of peace to mawkish sentimentality and cable tying flags to lamposts.
"We stood alone once, we can do it again"
I remember that (and variations) in vox pops during the Brexit negotiations in support of the hardline No Deal position.
Those people will all be voting Reform now, I'd imagine.
Alone, apart from our large multicultural, multiethnic empire...and a lot of refugees of fighting age...
I do wonder if our reliance on said Empire in the war helps to explain our inability to stand up for western modernity and why we've made such a virtue of multiculturalism.
Western modernity is multiculturalism. (Of one sort or another.)
Mahmood’s spokesman dismissing something as “tittle-tattle”: that means it’s true. If it was simply false, he’d have said that. “Tittle-tattle” is belittling what was said, but not actually denying it.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
Industry lured agricultural workers with the promise of better pay and year-round work but machines were often dangerous, accommodation cramped and air, food and water polluted.
The life of a menial agricultural worker was long hours of hard work, seasonal unemployment and continual deprivation.
It was not some 'merry old England' rural idyll.
For that matter the problems of the modern rural working class are often overlooked.
I don't think it is a major thing, but I think there is an undercurrent of societal thought that industrialising was all one big mistake and life was better before.
I'd not have liked to have personally been there during the industrialising years, but I'm very grateful they happened.
Romanticising subsistence agriculture is an old trope.
Usually by those who’ve never held a spade.
(A spade is not a shovel. Only people who’ve used neither would think they are the same
One quickly learns the difference if you try to use one where the other would be better.
I assume the risk assessment for using a shovel will recommend you use a spade instead, and vice versa.
Only after you have completed your 6 Week Shovel Operator course. And your manager has completed his 12 week course in Shovel Operator Management.
And WHATEVER you do, don't make the Michael Palin "Ripping Yarns" mistake of thinking a Spear and Jackson No. 3 is a shovel.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
Industry lured agricultural workers with the promise of better pay and year-round work but machines were often dangerous, accommodation cramped and air, food and water polluted.
The life of a menial agricultural worker was long hours of hard work, seasonal unemployment and continual deprivation.
It was not some 'merry old England' rural idyll.
For that matter the problems of the modern rural working class are often overlooked.
I don't think it is a major thing, but I think there is an undercurrent of societal thought that industrialising was all one big mistake and life was better before.
I'd not have liked to have personally been there during the industrialising years, but I'm very grateful they happened.
Romanticising subsistence agriculture is an old trope.
Usually by those who’ve never held a spade.
(A spade is not a shovel. Only people who’ve used neither would think they are the same
One quickly learns the difference if you try to use one where the other would be better.
I assume the risk assessment for using a shovel will recommend you use a spade instead, and vice versa.
Only after you have completed your 6 Week Shovel Operator course. And your manager has completed his 12 week course in Shovel Operator Management.
And WHATEVER you do, don't make the Michael Palin "Ripping Yarns" mistake of thinking a Spear and Jackson No. 3 is a shovel.
It's a hand-plane.
Don't be too harsh, it was after all the testing of the man.
Running focus groups in England & Scotland over past few days & I think for perceptions of Starmer personally the Robbins sacking is one of the worst things he has done. Other things obviously hurt more politically but this seems to have gone directly to how people feel about him
Everywhere it’s “scapegoat” “fall guy” “doing what he was told” “buck stops with the PM” and it’s not about the who knew what where when, or following it that closely but a sense of unfairness
Feels right. I'm not a Starmer hater - I find a lot of the abuse sloppy and unhinged - but the Robbins thing has landed badly with me. If it wasn't for my betting position I'd now be onboard with an exit and leadership contest this summer.
Mahmood’s spokesman dismissing something as “tittle-tattle”: that means it’s true. If it was simply false, he’d have said that. “Tittle-tattle” is belittling what was said, but not actually denying it.
Who would vote for Mahmood? Not left-wing Labour or into the Greens. Not Reform and their kin for the obvious reason. Not LD for her Reform-like performance. So maybe Blue Labour and the Tory rump of May and Sunak? But the latter are not voting Labour anyway.
I just don't see where she has the support to even get close to being Labour leader, much less the country.
On topic, might I offer the following advice to the Labour Party? It may not be felt welcome - may not be felt genuine - but trust me, as a Tory, we've been here. Get this wrong and you could be facing two more changes before the election. And if so, the voters will hate you for it.
Following Starmer, the very LAST thing you need as a replacement is a slightly weird, somewhat aloof, supercilious north London wanker of a guy. Be brave. Skip a generation. SERIOUSLY consider a woman. (You are fifty plus years overdue, for God's sake.) Choose someone the voters haven't already rejected. Choose someone the voters don't yet actively dislike.
You may hate the Tories. But at least learn from them.
The Tories and Labour BOTH need to up their game to prevent PM Farage. Start now.
Problem is women left liberal leaders don’t have that great a record against populist right leaders, see Gillard, Hillary and Harris.
A white male more macho than Ed Miliband and with a bit more personality than Starmer is their best bet eg their own Biden or Albanese or Carney or Macron. On that basis Streeting or Burnham
Yes but a lot of people *were* particularly exercised by the idea of recent arrivals being put up in 'hotels', which to them meant luxury. Hence all of that frothing '5 star' commentary. The boil of resentment (of those people) will be lanced somewhat if they can picture asylum seekers in cramped grotty HMOs.
I doubt it to be honest. Camped on the edge of town in a hotel vs 6 of them living in a 3 bed semi next door, hmmm... I think if you asked the public they'd say "On a return boat to Calais please, or a flight to Rwanda"
On topic, might I offer the following advice to the Labour Party? It may not be felt welcome - may not be felt genuine - but trust me, as a Tory, we've been here. Get this wrong and you could be facing two more changes before the election. And if so, the voters will hate you for it.
Following Starmer, the very LAST thing you need as a replacement is a slightly weird, somewhat aloof, supercilious north London wanker of a guy. Be brave. Skip a generation. SERIOUSLY consider a woman. (You are fifty plus years overdue, for God's sake.) Choose someone the voters haven't already rejected. Choose someone the voters don't yet actively dislike.
You may hate the Tories. But at least learn from them.
The Tories and Labour BOTH need to up their game to prevent PM Farage. Start now.
It's a decent person spec. The challenge is attaching a name to it.
You're not describing Cooper, I don't think you're describing Mahmood (yes, some agree with her policies, but she is putting them forward with waaay too much relish). I'm unconvinced it's Rayner. I guess it could be Phillipson. Nothing too awful has happened in education, and she didn't embarass herself in the deputy leadership election.
I do think they need someone to do the John Major thing of getting the self-procaimed Big Beasts to naff off.
The Greens had set up their stall and were trying to engage with the passers-by and those seeking to reach the ex-Spoons pub which is now run by Indians and offers a full Caribbean Breakfast (whatever that is).
Running focus groups in England & Scotland over past few days & I think for perceptions of Starmer personally the Robbins sacking is one of the worst things he has done. Other things obviously hurt more politically but this seems to have gone directly to how people feel about him
Everywhere it’s “scapegoat” “fall guy” “doing what he was told” “buck stops with the PM” and it’s not about the who knew what where when, or following it that closely but a sense of unfairness
Feels right. I'm not a Starmer hater - I find a lot of the abuse sloppy and unhinged - but the Robbins thing has landed badly with me. If it wasn't for my betting position I'd now be onboard with an exit and leadership contest this summer.
This just proves you’re a slow learner. Which you are
The rest of us realised Starmer is a venal prick many months ago. You’ve now caught up. Belatedly
Ironically this means I’m not that outraged by the Robbins sacking. But only because I already accept this is what Starmer does. So I expect nothing better
He achieves nothing, he believes in almost nothing (except his career and hating Britain), he is largely a void. But he is very good at forcing blame for his own mistakes onto others. I’ll give him that
If Labour aren’t to have a female leader then they should think out of the box and go for Al Carns .
He could at least tell the plastic patriot Farage to go fxck himself .
If Ed Miliband ends up as leader then Labour deserve to become extinct .
Al Carns might be a really good Prime Minister for 2035 or so. Maybe. That he's being promoted now, and the response isn't hysterical laughter, is a sign of just how frivolous our politics has become.
That's not to say he shouldn't be on our screens attracting NF as much as he can. Same goes for Burnham and the rest of them. One reason for all of this is that we have all let No 10 become the source and focus of everything, and then wondered why it keeps collapsing.
I don’t think you needs years of experience as an MP to become PM .
If Labour want a fresh start then I see no reason why Carns shouldn’t become leader .
He would represent an enormous gamble, though. What evidence is there that he'd actually be any good at it ?
I don't know that it's even possible to be good at it any more. AI, social media, etc. are changing society way faster than our system of democratic governance and legislative regime can adapt.
Maybe get AI Carns in then
Al Carns is Labour's Ben Wallace, a barely plausible figure from a military background. It is hard to see any route to Downing Street opening up in the next year or two.
The new Dan Jarvis. Everybody likes a soldier. It's something to do with the shoulders, the set of the head, the steady gaze and voice. It reassures. It says, "it's ok you're safe now".
Heath was our last PM who served in the Army.
I am not convinced that our voters really like ex military politicians, and military command is very different to the skills needed for parliamentary politics.
He was also the last PM whose political personality was completely forged by WW2. That idealistic vision of Western Europe moving beyond antagonism and nation states.
Yes, and it is quite interesting how public memory of WW2 has evolved over the years. From building a land fit for heroes, to establishing post-nationalist international organisations in the cause of peace to mawkish sentimentality and cable tying flags to lamposts.
"We stood alone once, we can do it again"
I remember that (and variations) in vox pops during the Brexit negotiations in support of the hardline No Deal position.
Those people will all be voting Reform now, I'd imagine.
Alone, apart from our large multicultural, multiethnic empire...and a lot of refugees of fighting age...
I do wonder if our reliance on said Empire in the war helps to explain our inability to stand up for western modernity and why we've made such a virtue of multiculturalism.
Western modernity is multicultural.
Go on define it then.
Western modernity is defined by the horrors of two world wars, that were, in large part, wars of ethnonationalism. Pre-WWII, there was plenty of antiSemitism in countries like France and the UK, but the Holocaust forced a different perspective, one that was more welcoming of ethnic minorities. The horror of war drove Europe to bind itself in international agreements, subsuming a bit of nationalism for supranational identities. Meanwhile, the dominant country in the world became clearly the US, a melting pot country made of immigrants. Well, except, of course, there was also the Soviet Union, and the Cold War also meant subsuming ethnic or national identities to political identities: capitalism vs communism. Plus, of course, the end of Empire and a new relationship between former imperial powers and new immigrant populations (be they South Asian and Afro-Caribbean in the UK, Indonesian in the Netherlands, African and Afro-Caribbean in France, etc.).
That all meant that different countries evolved how they saw different cultural identities existing within the nation state. Sometimes that meant civil rights campaigns, be that Catholics in Northern Ireland or African Americans in the US, groups demanding a place at the table. More recently, that has meant people with different cultural backgrounds becoming more visible, even becoming political leaders (e.g., Obama, Harris, Sunak, Badenoch, Costa, Yeşilgöz). Modernity became rooted in science and technological progress, in cultural movements that crossed cultural identity (e.g., in music, with rock music and hip-hop).
The end of the Cold War, however, saw a resurgence of ethnonationalism, in the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union.
What lands and wasn't doesn't land with the public can be very unpredictable. You don't even necessarily have to be in the wrong.
I am sure Starmer is thinking I ran a fantastic defence case over the past 2 weeks, which technically he did. It seems like the public had different opinion. I think there can also be a bit of a totting up effect, bit like a dirty player in football, they definitely get booked more often after getting that reputation as the ref just starts to think the worst of them in marginal situations.
On topic, might I offer the following advice to the Labour Party? It may not be felt welcome - may not be felt genuine - but trust me, as a Tory, we've been here. Get this wrong and you could be facing two more changes before the election. And if so, the voters will hate you for it.
Following Starmer, the very LAST thing you need as a replacement is a slightly weird, somewhat aloof, supercilious north London wanker of a guy. Be brave. Skip a generation. SERIOUSLY consider a woman. (You are fifty plus years overdue, for God's sake.) Choose someone the voters haven't already rejected. Choose someone the voters don't yet actively dislike.
You may hate the Tories. But at least learn from them.
The Tories and Labour BOTH need to up their game to prevent PM Farage. Start now.
Problem is women left liberal leaders don’t have that great a record against populist right leaders, see Gillard, Hillary and Harris.
A white male more macho than Ed Miliband and with a bit more personality than Starmer is their best bet eg their own Biden or Albanese or Carney or Macron. On that basis Streeting or Burnham
'A white male more macho than Ed Miliband'
Are you serious
It is time labour appointed a woman, not some white macho male
If Labour aren’t to have a female leader then they should think out of the box and go for Al Carns .
He could at least tell the plastic patriot Farage to go fxck himself .
If Ed Miliband ends up as leader then Labour deserve to become extinct .
Al Carns might be a really good Prime Minister for 2035 or so. Maybe. That he's being promoted now, and the response isn't hysterical laughter, is a sign of just how frivolous our politics has become.
That's not to say he shouldn't be on our screens attracting NF as much as he can. Same goes for Burnham and the rest of them. One reason for all of this is that we have all let No 10 become the source and focus of everything, and then wondered why it keeps collapsing.
I don’t think you needs years of experience as an MP to become PM .
If Labour want a fresh start then I see no reason why Carns shouldn’t become leader .
He would represent an enormous gamble, though. What evidence is there that he'd actually be any good at it ?
I don't know that it's even possible to be good at it any more. AI, social media, etc. are changing society way faster than our system of democratic governance and legislative regime can adapt.
Maybe get AI Carns in then
Al Carns is Labour's Ben Wallace, a barely plausible figure from a military background. It is hard to see any route to Downing Street opening up in the next year or two.
The new Dan Jarvis. Everybody likes a soldier. It's something to do with the shoulders, the set of the head, the steady gaze and voice. It reassures. It says, "it's ok you're safe now".
Heath was our last PM who served in the Army.
I am not convinced that our voters really like ex military politicians, and military command is very different to the skills needed for parliamentary politics.
He was also the last PM whose political personality was completely forged by WW2. That idealistic vision of Western Europe moving beyond antagonism and nation states.
Yes, and it is quite interesting how public memory of WW2 has evolved over the years. From building a land fit for heroes, to establishing post-nationalist international organisations in the cause of peace to mawkish sentimentality and cable tying flags to lamposts.
"We stood alone once, we can do it again"
I remember that (and variations) in vox pops during the Brexit negotiations in support of the hardline No Deal position.
Those people will all be voting Reform now, I'd imagine.
Alone, apart from our large multicultural, multiethnic empire...and a lot of refugees of fighting age...
I do wonder if our reliance on said Empire in the war helps to explain our inability to stand up for western modernity and why we've made such a virtue of multiculturalism.
Western modernity is multicultural.
Conflating diversity with modernity is at the root of a lot of our present problems. Progress comes from new technology, not demographic transformation.
But the mere act of defining modernity or progress in technological terms is a rejection of earlier definitions of progress in terms of the Volk, of the advancement of one ethnic group. Technocracy is definitionally anti-racist.
“Which Reform tribe are you? Take this quick quiz!
Q1: the English language: A. Is ever-evolving and open-source B. Has correct and incorrect usage
Q2: what do you hate most? A. Immigrants B. Wind turbines
Q3: Liz Truss was: A. Into kink B. On the right track, economically”
Etc”
I don't really hate wind turbines - how can you hate an object? Though I do believe that people regarding them as beautiful just stems from a misguided associating with 'cheap, clean energy' - we regard belching smoke stacks as ugly because of their association with planetary destruction. But perhaps there is a beauty in a belching smoke stack. It means prosperity - energy turning into things. People in gainful work. Plants and trees growing with greater vigour. I wonder if people did find them beautiful in the early days of industrialisation (though obviously whole sooty cities of them wasn't very nice).
Dark satanic mills?
They gained that reputation yes. Perhaps we have always regarded industry as ugly from the beginning. I haven't really read around it.
The OLD10K always looked down on trade, and still do. They have passed their views down to the NU10K. Whereas the OLD10K preferred owning an estate to owning a factory, the NU10K prefer regulating a factory to running a factory l
The positive hatred for technical knowledge is quite startling to behold. If you aren’t used to it.
You can’t find more hatred for science and technology than in the likes of MAGA.
Comments
As I reported on here at the time. Killed Labour on the doorsteps. Got LibDems coming back to the Tories to keep him out.
The metaphor (or something very similar) crops up every time parties remove their leaders - cabinet members will have to "dip their hands in blood" etc.
(Unless they have a convenient dental appointment.)
It is hardly surprising potential Labour leaders are not going to be popular with the public at large.
Just kidding. I am currently in Perth and I am surprised how big a thing they make Anzac Day. It is a public holiday (not in all Oz states). They have a dawn ceremony and lots of events through the day.
On Wednesday afternoon, the zero carbon percentage was 98.8%, which is also a record.
See the parade of NU10K clowns - they are quite diverse in colour, sex etc. But no diversity of thought - the same ghastly word salad, avoiding all responsibility. If you read their words, they are utterly identical.
Similarly, I see plenty of immigrants who are “gammons” with a tan - spray them with some pink paint and they could adorn any 1950’s pub saloon bar.
My Australian ancestors were not "Government Men" to use the wording of my grandmothers generation. They were a mostly in the Goldrush, but particularly as a result of the Highland clearances, and the long agricultural depression.
Top Attorney-Generalling! (And at very reasonable prices)
Perhaps people aren't being serious.
Old army bases really did seem like the solution....HMOs will be worse than hotels because there will be more examples, hence more communities incensed.
Of course, politics is about mostly non-experts collectively coming together to make common sense judgements about matters, but it shouldn't mean actual disdain for technical knowledge.
Loved by the average lefty, disliked by the average Brit.
It really isn't hard....
You know why you hear a mate saying I keep doing the dating apps and all I get is total dickheads. You sure its not you that is the problem?
To which the other responded 'Well, at least he's Roman' as the Gaulish ones entered.
a) often quite difficult unless you know things
b) tends to a brute yes/no answer that can't be debated into something else
c) leads to unpleasant conclusions.
That makes it highly disagreeable to think about.
Look at UK politics this week. A huge energy supply crunch is incoming, with all sorts of bad consequences. And we've all been talking about whether Starmer's Shame is a sacking offence.
The job of the Censors was to throw anyone out, who wasn’t rich enough, in the right way.
Where you possibly don't have to be quite as wealthy, but you can certainly leverage your position to become so.
I think there is a serious chance Hermer will face charges if the Tories/Reform win next time
Our legal system should not be politicised but it has been, mainly by the left. And the right will one day take power again
The technical types (like me) wanted to follow the story. Others found the premise “cold”, “aggressive”, “unfeeling”, “wrong” and wanted the ending changed.
The idea that cold facts can’t be changed to match personal ideology really scares some people.
Edit; on the energy crisis. I’ve encountered senior people who find talking about it “disturbing” and who are avoiding thinking about it.
I side with Herman Kahn - we must think about the unthinkable. Otherwise it willl become reality
It was not some 'merry old England' rural idyll.
For that matter the problems of the modern rural working class are often overlooked.
It's interesting as that you cannot fight facts/fate is the premise of many a more emotional tale as well.
I am accepting, of course, that the west running out of jet fuel and the inevitable cancellation of pretty much all foreign holidays over the summer because of the actions of that lunatic in the White House, was something rather out of their control.
Rochdale v York.
FOOTBALL, FUCKING HELL!
I'd not have liked to have personally been there during the industrialising years, but I'm very grateful they happened.
Rochdale score in the 95th minute to take the lead 1-0, a score which would be good enough to get them back into the football league. York equalise in the 113th minute, and it ends 1-1, York are promoted, Rochdale to play offs.
There was only signalled to be 4 mins injury time
They would, of course, been from the highest of the elite.
Also, given there were 13 states, very few of them. Given that about half wouldn’t have been in Washington at any one time (13 or so at most session) the US Senate was more of a board meeting than an assembly.
Nearly all the tales in the Hagakure are of the form “the daimyos created an impossible situation. So some samurai resolved it by dying.”
(According to wiki he continued to serve in the state senate afterwards!)
Usually by those who’ve never held a spade.
(A spade is not a shovel. Only people who’ve used neither would think they are the same
Running focus groups in England & Scotland over past few days & I think for perceptions of Starmer personally the Robbins sacking is one of the worst things he has done. Other things obviously hurt more politically but this seems to have gone directly to how people feel about him
Everywhere it’s “scapegoat” “fall guy” “doing what he was told” “buck stops with the PM” and it’s not about the who knew what where when, or following it that closely but a sense of unfairness
Rochdale pitch invasion with 2 mins left caused a delay in the game!
Far from the trivialities, inanities and irrelevancies of this site, REAL politics is happening in Newham.
Proper politics, street politics, street theatre...
I come out of Sainsbury's this morning having got the items from Mrs Stodge's shopping list (and paid for them all to be clear) and who should I see on the street corner on his Jack Jones but Sir Stephen Timms MP. Now, I like Timms, I consider him a "bloody nice bloke" and if his majority was ever seriously threatened, I'd vote tactically for him over the dimwits in Reform, Greens or the Newham Independents.
As his acolytes hadn't arrived, I managed a few minutes of conversation on local Services and a development being planned near Stodge Towers. By then, his Party fans were arriving to set up the traditional Labour stall outside the pawnbrokers (no giggling in the cheap seats!)
Having left Labour to set up their stll, I turned into the Barking Road and after a few yards was confronted by the Greens who had set up a stall outside "Clippers and Curlers", a hairdressers frequented mainly by the Afro-Caribbean community. Those of a certain vintage will remember the comedy Desmond's featuring Norman Beaton, Carmen Munroe, Ram John Holder and that bloke who went on to be in Star Trek: Enterprise - "Clippers and Curlers" is a bit like that.
The Greens had set up their stall and were trying to engage with the passers-by and those seeking to reach the ex-Spoons pub which is now run by Indians and offers a full Caribbean Breakfast (whatever that is).
I'm out later after the racing and will see if the Newham Independents are getting into this - they normally stand outside Poundland (yes, I know) but there's a market stall there these days.
Elections are fun, aren't they?
Scotland's population is drifting east, and is becoming more concentrated in the central belt and around cities
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvxej8ly8yo
After his first match loss as Caretaker Manager James Morrison is on a clean sheet for each match thereafter. James Morrison is a Baggies!
Boing, boing! Apologies to @boulay
The Danish approach didn't get huge support in their recent elections, but it's worth considering. You're still free as an individual to pursue a narrow agenda, but are surrounded by people with diverse alternative ideas about how to live. It'll be natural for the next generation to be more diverse than in the de facto apartheid system that arises by default in Britain.
Nope. Endless delay to get them off the pitch. Match restarts. York run it straight to the end of the pitch and score an equaliser. At which point the *York* fans invade thinking its the last kick of the game and they had secured promotion...
Edited to remove previously unnoticed gubbins.
Labour needs to dump him and do a complete reset. It's not all over.
On technical stuff I'd disagree slightly that it tends to brute yes/no answers that can't be debated with. There are always tradeoffs and alternative choices, and often a technical problem is a challenge for a bright young engineer to develop a smart fix for.
I think he could have argued the case for Mandelson's appointment, bearing in mind the incumbent in the Oval Office, but throwing everyone under the bus and pretending Starmer knew nothing was the work of a bounder.
Following Starmer, the very LAST thing you need as a replacement is a slightly weird, somewhat aloof, supercilious north London wanker of a guy. Be brave. Skip a generation. SERIOUSLY consider a woman. (You are fifty plus years overdue, for God's sake.) Choose someone the voters haven't already rejected. Choose someone the voters don't yet actively dislike.
You may hate the Tories. But at least learn from them.
The Tories and Labour BOTH need to up their game to prevent PM Farage. Start now.
As a floating voter (ok, a disenfranchised Tory) if I did your abc stuff I'd have economic prosperity as 'A', and not that bothered about the other letters of the alphabet. I believe (without proof) that economic prosperity brings with it all the goodies that we all might care to list in our alphabet.
Of course 'what is right' is a noble theme, and you'd argue that it was the keystone that unlocked the full alphabet too.
But this back to my original question - given it's theme A for you - how do you judge what is right?
EDIT: Oh, @Foxy beat me to this by many hours!
It's a hand-plane.
EDIT: you can thank me later, TSE...
I just don't see where she has the support to even get close to being Labour leader, much less the country.
A white male more macho than Ed Miliband and with a bit more personality than Starmer is their best bet eg their own Biden or Albanese or Carney or Macron. On that basis Streeting or Burnham
You're not describing Cooper, I don't think you're describing Mahmood (yes, some agree with her policies, but she is putting them forward with waaay too much relish). I'm unconvinced it's Rayner. I guess it could be Phillipson. Nothing too awful has happened in education, and she didn't embarass herself in the deputy leadership election.
I do think they need someone to do the John Major thing of getting the self-procaimed Big Beasts to naff off.
The rest of us realised Starmer is a venal prick many months ago. You’ve now caught up. Belatedly
Ironically this means I’m not that outraged by the Robbins sacking. But only because I already accept this is what Starmer does. So I expect nothing better
He achieves nothing, he believes in almost nothing (except his career and hating Britain), he is largely a void. But he is very good at forcing blame for his own mistakes onto others. I’ll give him that
That all meant that different countries evolved how they saw different cultural identities existing within the nation state. Sometimes that meant civil rights campaigns, be that Catholics in Northern Ireland or African Americans in the US, groups demanding a place at the table. More recently, that has meant people with different cultural backgrounds becoming more visible, even becoming political leaders (e.g., Obama, Harris, Sunak, Badenoch, Costa, Yeşilgöz). Modernity became rooted in science and technological progress, in cultural movements that crossed cultural identity (e.g., in music, with rock music and hip-hop).
The end of the Cold War, however, saw a resurgence of ethnonationalism, in the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union.
I am sure Starmer is thinking I ran a fantastic defence case over the past 2 weeks, which technically he did. It seems like the public had different opinion. I think there can also be a bit of a totting up effect, bit like a dirty player in football, they definitely get booked more often after getting that reputation as the ref just starts to think the worst of them in marginal situations.
Are you serious
It is time labour appointed a woman, not some white macho male