Skip to content

Could the World Cup cost Labour the Makerfield by-election? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,184
edited June 9 in General
Could the World Cup cost Labour the Makerfield by-election? – politicalbetting.com

Yesterday I was scheduling my availability next week for work, editing PB, and watching the World Cup next week and I realised that England’s first match at the World Cup is against Croatia the night before the Makerfield by-election.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,510
    edited June 9
    1st, like Burnham in a "who's got the biggest sense of entitlement" contest.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,558
    edited June 9
    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,321
    edited June 9
    So if England lost, would that be good or bad for [insert your choice here]?

    Good morning as well.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,558
    edited June 9
    Battlebus said:

    So if England lost, would that be good or bad for [insert your choice here]?

    If they win enough matches to go through to the final,* whoever is PM will have to share a platform with Donald Trump.

    That is not going to be good for them. As Starmer can attest.

    *Yes, I know, but let’s speculate a bit.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,364
    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,681

    1st, like Burnham in a "who's got the biggest sense of entitlement" contest.

    i think it is good we have a politician with lots of self belief and not plagued with self doubt.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,064

    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.

    Who are more not likely to vote because of the football, men or women?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,558

    1st, like Burnham in a "who's got the biggest sense of entitlement" contest.

    i think it is good we have a politician with lots of self belief and not plagued with self doubt.
    Because we’ve never had one of those before.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,630
    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,988
    I doubt the football will make the slightest difference. It is only a first round match and of course if you want to get rid of PM Starmer probably the best way to do so is for Burnham to win the by election anyway, I expect SKS secretly wants Reform to win as Labour members polls show he could beat Streeting with them even if Burnham beats him
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,932

    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.

    Yes, but given that Farage created the Reform party and still largely owns it, they're kind of stuck with Nigel.

    Oh, you meant their candidate in Makerfield?

    (But seriously, folks... the question of why Reform keep picking terrible people as candidates isn't just down to bad luck or poor vetting. Something about the party systematically attracts a certain sort of worst person.

    No, not every Reformer is awful, and other parties have awful people as well. But there's a definite pattern in the data.)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,651
    I suspect the impact of the 1970 world cup on the General Election is a myth.

    Immigration and economics drove it. And the inaccurate opinion polls probably depressed Labour voter turnout a little bit.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,988
    edited June 9
    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    Yes, Labour lost the 1970 general election as inflation was high, taxes were high and the unions were on strike regularly and they had to get a bailout from the IMF not because of the World Cup. The 1966-70 Wilson government was so bad that even Ted Heath beat it (and Sir Edward had no interest in football at all which he considered a plebs game, his interests were sailing and classical music)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,630
    On opinion polls.

    Thatcher actually governed using opinion polls. Her method was to front load the unpopular stuff at the start, and then build up to the next election.

    That is using opinion polls as a tool.

    The problem we have, is politicians trying to do populism by opinion poll, tactically.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,681
    ydoethur said:

    1st, like Burnham in a "who's got the biggest sense of entitlement" contest.

    i think it is good we have a politician with lots of self belief and not plagued with self doubt.
    Because we’ve never had one of those before.
    Burnham's different, Cambridge educated self belief is very different to other types of self belief.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,988
    edited June 9
    'Rules requiring public bodies such as schools and hospitals to promote equality when making decisions should be scrapped, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch will say in a speech on Tuesday.

    In what the party says is the first step in a wider programme to "restore common sense", Badenoch will argue that the Public Sector Equality Duty has been used to promote "dangerous and divisive agendas".

    She will say it has "become a minefield that exposes almost every significant public decision to legal challenge.

    Badenoch's speech comes after the murder of Henry Nowak and the police's response fuelled questions about equality policies and laws.

    The Conservatives are trying to forge a distinct response from both Labour, who have strengthened equality protections, and Reform UK, who want to go further than the Tories and scrap the Equality Act altogether.'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5vyqykpx5o
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,277

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Classic correlation not causation.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,364

    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.

    Yes, but given that Farage created the Reform party and still largely owns it, they're kind of stuck with Nigel.

    Oh, you meant their candidate in Makerfield?

    (But seriously, folks... the question of why Reform keep picking terrible people as candidates isn't just down to bad luck or poor vetting. Something about the party systematically attracts a certain sort of worst person.

    No, not every Reformer is awful, and other parties have awful people as well. But there's a definite pattern in the data.)
    You have made an important point. All parties end up housing bad people. Its inevitable. But its what they do with them that matters. People breaking onto candidate lists and getting elected does happen to all parties occasionally. Reform seem to do it most of the time, and their plea for Tories attracted the only worst of the worst.

    The baffling bit? Somewhere in Nige's head he must think these are the Best People to attract votes, which tells you what he really thinks about the voters.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,681
    HYUFD said:

    'Rules requiring public bodies such as schools and hospitals to promote equality when making decisions should be scrapped, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch will say in a speech on Tuesday.

    In what the party says is the first step in a wider programme to "restore common sense", Badenoch will argue that the Public Sector Equality Duty has been used to promote "dangerous and divisive agendas".

    She will say it has "become a minefield that exposes almost every significant public decision to legal challenge".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5vyqykpx5o

    She's going to be furious when she finds out who was Minister for Women and Equalities between October 2022 and July 2024.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,558
    edited June 9

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Classic correlation not causation.
    Is that the Falklands, Labour’s manifesto, or the size of the bribe paid to the official in question by Moscow?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,064
    Just with expect to the last thread, “populism” is not doing stuff that is popular (but possibly misguided). The root of the word is not in “popular”. “Populism” is, to quote Wikipedia, “a variety of political stances that emphasise the idea of the "common people", often in opposition to a perceived elite. It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.” It “divides society into two antagonistic groups: "the pure people" and "the corrupt elite"”.

    The article goes on: “By often claiming to represent the authentic will of the people, populists—particularly those aligned with right-wing movements—may ease executive power concentration and bypass or actively undermine liberal democratic institutions designed to safeguard minority rights, most notably the judiciary and the media, often portrayed as disconnected from the populace.”
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,651
    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    theProle said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    A case study in why resisting reasonable development entirely can come back to bite you (if the developer ploy here works)? Work in the system to resist where you can, don't just pretend the system doesn't exist because you don't like it.

    Council rejects 100 homes.

    Developer wins appeal for 75 homes.

    Developer then submits another 65 homes on the remaining land.

    End result? Residents could get 140 homes instead of the original 100. Now they claim they’re being “picked on”.


    https://nitter.poast.org/jakewg_/status/2063551764796752183#m

    No sympathy for NIMBYs
    What about local democracy?
    Sadly I seem to repeat the same issue

    we have the same population as France but 7 million fewer homes..
    We've arrived at this point almost entirely by virtually unrestricted immigration and given the birth rate we could very easily shrink our population back again by making further immigration almost impossible.

    That is a much better deal for almost everyone than continually concreting over the country to build horrible Barratt new builds without any accompanying infrastructure.

    No more immigration, almost no more new housing, and in 15 years time housing will be affordable again. As a bonus, we can fill in the various holes in our labour force by redeployment of the people who are building houses to cope with immigration.
    Here’s 170 you can redeploy already.

    https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/170-jobs-lost-historic-gateshead-34087173
    Where to start;

    No one is building homes to cope with immigration, we aren’t building enough homes because not enough people can afford new ones. Largely flatlining wages after inflation , higher prices and supply and demand mean there are too few buyers who can afford them.

    If we stop immigration the average age will be 45 in 2040 with far too few young people and a rapidly ageing population. Are the pensioners going to build their own houses.


    In this scenario under sixteens would drop from 18% to 14%, the working population from 62% to 55% and the over 67’s would grow from about 19% to 29%…

    So dependency would go from roughly 2:1 to close to 1:1.

    Hey Presto not only no need for new houses with a collapsed economy no money to build them either!

    Peter.
    We've spent 25 years trying the approach of allowing mass immigration to increase the working age population in the face of what would otherwise be a natural decline and it has led to poor productivity growth, stagnant wages, inflated asset values and political instability. It's about time the people who advocated it learned to have some humility.
    We have had 25 years of large scale immigration.
    We have increased the working age population.
    We have so far managed to avoid the economic cliff edge of a naturally declining population.
    We have had low productivity and low wage growth.

    And you have abjectly failed to establish a causal link between them.

    Other Countries with high immigration have had productivity growth; the US for one.

    Developed Countries like Japan have had slow wage growth and little immigration.

    Peter.

    The onus isn't on me to prove a causal link. I have democracy on my side.
    No you have Populism and what’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.

    Essential you are adopting the Trumpian logic, that for something to be true the majority just has to believe it.

    Much like his Meet the Press walk out. His evidence consisted of only what he believed, nothing more.

    I am old fashioned, I like evidence based argument and still believe in objective truth.

    Peter.
    That’s not Trumpoan logic. It’s politics.

    We’ve had governance by opinion poll for many years.
    It hasn't worked very well.
    So, you don't like democracy then?
    The problem is people having factually wrong opinions. On immigration for example you can legitimately want less of it, or be comfortable with a high level. But it's a problem if people think that immigration is currently very high when it isn't, or that most new housing goes to immigrants when it doesn't, and politicians devise policies based on those demonstrably wrong perceptions.
    I think your biggest problem (and that of your liberal ilk) is that you think you're always right - and any contrary opinion is therefore "wrong" - and are totally blind to the fact you have an ideology of your own; you genuinely think the facts support it.

    I'd anchor that ideology around the complete fungibility of all individuals, and championing things like choosing your own identity and free movement regardless of any evidence of the social problems this causes.
    We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal.
    We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't.
    We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't.
    We all do.

    The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.

    But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.

    So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
    Totally, my contention is that category of people think they're someone immune from it.

    A bit more humility wouldn't go amiss.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,321

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Nato is not defensive. It is responsible for the destruction of Afghanistan and Libya and a key tool of US imperialism, the greatest threat to peace in the world.


    Discuss!

    https://socialistworker.co.uk/in-depth/why-britain-should-leave-nato/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,558

    Just with expect to the last thread, “populism” is not doing stuff that is popular (but possibly misguided). The root of the word is not in “popular”. “Populism” is, to quote Wikipedia, “a variety of political stances that emphasise the idea of the "common people", often in opposition to a perceived elite. It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.” It “divides society into two antagonistic groups: "the pure people" and "the corrupt elite"”.

    The article goes on: “By often claiming to represent the authentic will of the people, populists—particularly those aligned with right-wing movements—may ease executive power concentration and bypass or actively undermine liberal democratic institutions designed to safeguard minority rights, most notably the judiciary and the media, often portrayed as disconnected from the populace.”

    To be fair, that’s very common on the left as well. Look at Lenin and his endless bullshit about expressing the will of ‘The People.’
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,988
    'Donald Trump has been booed at a basketball match in New York as he became the first sitting US president to attend the NBA Finals.

    The catcalls came after frustrated ticketholders waited for hours in lines that stretched more than two blocks outside Madison Square Garden on Monday due to the intense security restrictions that came with the president's appearance.'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czj89mz3mzzo
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,321

    ydoethur said:

    1st, like Burnham in a "who's got the biggest sense of entitlement" contest.

    i think it is good we have a politician with lots of self belief and not plagued with self doubt.
    Because we’ve never had one of those before.
    Burnham's different, Cambridge educated self belief is very different to other types of self belief.
    Didn't Vorderman go to Cambridge?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,988

    I suspect the impact of the 1970 world cup on the General Election is a myth.

    Immigration and economics drove it. And the inaccurate opinion polls probably depressed Labour voter turnout a little bit.

    Immigration was more the 1974 general election when even Enoch Powell abandoned the Tories, 1970 was yes mainly the poor economy
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,558
    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump has been booed at a basketball match in New York as he became the first sitting US president to attend the NBA Finals.

    The catcalls came after frustrated ticketholders waited for hours in lines that stretched more than two blocks outside Madison Square Garden on Monday due to the intense security restrictions that came with the president's appearance.'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czj89mz3mzzo

    Appropriate though that he attends a basketball match as he turns America into an unmatched basket case.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,988
    edited June 9
    Battlebus said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Nato is not defensive. It is responsible for the destruction of Afghanistan and Libya and a key tool of US imperialism, the greatest threat to peace in the world.


    Discuss!

    https://socialistworker.co.uk/in-depth/why-britain-should-leave-nato/
    As Afghanistan and Libya were such beautiful paradises of human rights under the Taliban and Bin Laden and Gaddafi of course
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 4,482

    HYUFD said:

    'Rules requiring public bodies such as schools and hospitals to promote equality when making decisions should be scrapped, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch will say in a speech on Tuesday.

    In what the party says is the first step in a wider programme to "restore common sense", Badenoch will argue that the Public Sector Equality Duty has been used to promote "dangerous and divisive agendas".

    She will say it has "become a minefield that exposes almost every significant public decision to legal challenge".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5vyqykpx5o

    She's going to be furious when she finds out who was Minister for Women and Equalities between October 2022 and July 2024.
    This is why the Tories are still barking up the wrong tree and why the potential fall in Reform may not benefit them, despite their aligning with a good deal of the Faragist agenda.

    It could be many years before Tory hypocrisy is not being called out- the gap between what they actually did in office and what they now say is the best policy is not just wide, it is oceanic, and they just lose all credibility when they try and play the populist song.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,558
    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Nato is not defensive. It is responsible for the destruction of Afghanistan and Libya and a key tool of US imperialism, the greatest threat to peace in the world.


    Discuss!

    https://socialistworker.co.uk/in-depth/why-britain-should-leave-nato/
    As Afghanistan and Libya were such beautiful paradises of human rights under the Taliban and Bin Laden and Gaddafi of course
    Er - why the past tense for Afghanistan?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 32,633
    edited June 9
    You might think that getting to Cambridge from your local comp might be perceived as a worthy representation of the "common people".
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,321
    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Nato is not defensive. It is responsible for the destruction of Afghanistan and Libya and a key tool of US imperialism, the greatest threat to peace in the world.


    Discuss!

    https://socialistworker.co.uk/in-depth/why-britain-should-leave-nato/
    As Afghanistan and Libya were such beautiful paradises of human rights under the Taliban and Bin Laden and Gaddafi of course
    You missed the comment on Polanski. He's certainly tacking leftwards at a rate of knots.

    The Labour Party is outraged that newly-elected Green leader Zack Polanski “seeks to undermine our membership of Nato”. Here’s hoping he does.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,932
    Battlebus said:

    ydoethur said:

    1st, like Burnham in a "who's got the biggest sense of entitlement" contest.

    i think it is good we have a politician with lots of self belief and not plagued with self doubt.
    Because we’ve never had one of those before.
    Burnham's different, Cambridge educated self belief is very different to other types of self belief.
    Didn't Vorderman go to Cambridge?
    Yes, but she did Engineering.

    Nothing like having to engage with physical reality all the time to keep you humble.

    Yes, I did do physical sciences; why do you ask?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 10,075

    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.

    Yes, but given that Farage created the Reform party and still largely owns it, they're kind of stuck with Nigel.

    Oh, you meant their candidate in Makerfield?

    (But seriously, folks... the question of why Reform keep picking terrible people as candidates isn't just down to bad luck or poor vetting. Something about the party systematically attracts a certain sort of worst person.

    No, not every Reformer is awful, and other parties have awful people as well. But there's a definite pattern in the data.)
    You have made an important point. All parties end up housing bad people. Its inevitable. But its what they do with them that matters. People breaking onto candidate lists and getting elected does happen to all parties occasionally. Reform seem to do it most of the time, and their plea for Tories attracted the only worst of the worst.

    The baffling bit? Somewhere in Nige's head he must think these are the Best People to attract votes, which tells you what he really thinks about the voters.
    The Lib Dems once supported Liz Truss, ZackPolanski and Lembit Öpik (who has joined Reform).
    It could happen to anyone.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,330
    Ben Stokes is, by some measures one of England's greatest ever Test cricket captains.

    I'm amazed that we seem to be poised to throw that away over an issue with alcohol.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,835

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    theProle said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    A case study in why resisting reasonable development entirely can come back to bite you (if the developer ploy here works)? Work in the system to resist where you can, don't just pretend the system doesn't exist because you don't like it.

    Council rejects 100 homes.

    Developer wins appeal for 75 homes.

    Developer then submits another 65 homes on the remaining land.

    End result? Residents could get 140 homes instead of the original 100. Now they claim they’re being “picked on”.


    https://nitter.poast.org/jakewg_/status/2063551764796752183#m

    No sympathy for NIMBYs
    What about local democracy?
    Sadly I seem to repeat the same issue

    we have the same population as France but 7 million fewer homes..
    We've arrived at this point almost entirely by virtually unrestricted immigration and given the birth rate we could very easily shrink our population back again by making further immigration almost impossible.

    That is a much better deal for almost everyone than continually concreting over the country to build horrible Barratt new builds without any accompanying infrastructure.

    No more immigration, almost no more new housing, and in 15 years time housing will be affordable again. As a bonus, we can fill in the various holes in our labour force by redeployment of the people who are building houses to cope with immigration.
    Here’s 170 you can redeploy already.

    https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/170-jobs-lost-historic-gateshead-34087173
    Where to start;

    No one is building homes to cope with immigration, we aren’t building enough homes because not enough people can afford new ones. Largely flatlining wages after inflation , higher prices and supply and demand mean there are too few buyers who can afford them.

    If we stop immigration the average age will be 45 in 2040 with far too few young people and a rapidly ageing population. Are the pensioners going to build their own houses.


    In this scenario under sixteens would drop from 18% to 14%, the working population from 62% to 55% and the over 67’s would grow from about 19% to 29%…

    So dependency would go from roughly 2:1 to close to 1:1.

    Hey Presto not only no need for new houses with a collapsed economy no money to build them either!

    Peter.
    We've spent 25 years trying the approach of allowing mass immigration to increase the working age population in the face of what would otherwise be a natural decline and it has led to poor productivity growth, stagnant wages, inflated asset values and political instability. It's about time the people who advocated it learned to have some humility.
    We have had 25 years of large scale immigration.
    We have increased the working age population.
    We have so far managed to avoid the economic cliff edge of a naturally declining population.
    We have had low productivity and low wage growth.

    And you have abjectly failed to establish a causal link between them.

    Other Countries with high immigration have had productivity growth; the US for one.

    Developed Countries like Japan have had slow wage growth and little immigration.

    Peter.

    The onus isn't on me to prove a causal link. I have democracy on my side.
    No you have Populism and what’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.

    Essential you are adopting the Trumpian logic, that for something to be true the majority just has to believe it.

    Much like his Meet the Press walk out. His evidence consisted of only what he believed, nothing more.

    I am old fashioned, I like evidence based argument and still believe in objective truth.

    Peter.
    That’s not Trumpoan logic. It’s politics.

    We’ve had governance by opinion poll for many years.
    It hasn't worked very well.
    So, you don't like democracy then?
    The problem is people having factually wrong opinions. On immigration for example you can legitimately want less of it, or be comfortable with a high level. But it's a problem if people think that immigration is currently very high when it isn't, or that most new housing goes to immigrants when it doesn't, and politicians devise policies based on those demonstrably wrong perceptions.
    I think your biggest problem (and that of your liberal ilk) is that you think you're always right - and any contrary opinion is therefore "wrong" - and are totally blind to the fact you have an ideology of your own; you genuinely think the facts support it.

    I'd anchor that ideology around the complete fungibility of all individuals, and championing things like choosing your own identity and free movement regardless of any evidence of the social problems this causes.
    We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal.
    We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't.
    We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't.
    We all do.

    The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.

    But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.

    So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
    Totally, my contention is that category of people think they're someone immune from it.

    A bit more humility wouldn't go amiss.
    Which is what we were gently suggesting to william on the last thread.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,933
    ...
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Classic correlation not causation.
    Is that the Falklands, Labour’s manifesto, or the size of the bribe paid to the official in question by Moscow?
    Thank goodness with Labour jettisoning socialism we no longer have any politicians left who would trouser dirty Russian money.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,321
    edited June 9

    Battlebus said:

    ydoethur said:

    1st, like Burnham in a "who's got the biggest sense of entitlement" contest.

    i think it is good we have a politician with lots of self belief and not plagued with self doubt.
    Because we’ve never had one of those before.
    Burnham's different, Cambridge educated self belief is very different to other types of self belief.
    Didn't Vorderman go to Cambridge?
    Yes, but she did Engineering.

    Nothing like having to engage with physical reality all the time to keep you humble.

    Yes, I did do physical sciences; why do you ask?
    She can count too - and with that skill she should go into politics.

    Engineers like lawyers make the world work.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,835
    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump has been booed at a basketball match in New York as he became the first sitting US president to attend the NBA Finals.

    The catcalls came after frustrated ticketholders waited for hours in lines that stretched more than two blocks outside Madison Square Garden on Monday due to the intense security restrictions that came with the president's appearance.'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czj89mz3mzzo

    A load of pregame parties had to be cancelled, and the local bars weren't happy either.
    To cap it all he fell asleep during the game.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,558

    Battlebus said:

    ydoethur said:

    1st, like Burnham in a "who's got the biggest sense of entitlement" contest.

    i think it is good we have a politician with lots of self belief and not plagued with self doubt.
    Because we’ve never had one of those before.
    Burnham's different, Cambridge educated self belief is very different to other types of self belief.
    Didn't Vorderman go to Cambridge?
    Yes, but she did Engineering.

    Nothing like having to engage with physical reality all the time to keep you humble.

    Yes, I did do physical sciences; why do you ask?
    Is that the reality?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,681

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    theProle said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    A case study in why resisting reasonable development entirely can come back to bite you (if the developer ploy here works)? Work in the system to resist where you can, don't just pretend the system doesn't exist because you don't like it.

    Council rejects 100 homes.

    Developer wins appeal for 75 homes.

    Developer then submits another 65 homes on the remaining land.

    End result? Residents could get 140 homes instead of the original 100. Now they claim they’re being “picked on”.


    https://nitter.poast.org/jakewg_/status/2063551764796752183#m

    No sympathy for NIMBYs
    What about local democracy?
    Sadly I seem to repeat the same issue

    we have the same population as France but 7 million fewer homes..
    We've arrived at this point almost entirely by virtually unrestricted immigration and given the birth rate we could very easily shrink our population back again by making further immigration almost impossible.

    That is a much better deal for almost everyone than continually concreting over the country to build horrible Barratt new builds without any accompanying infrastructure.

    No more immigration, almost no more new housing, and in 15 years time housing will be affordable again. As a bonus, we can fill in the various holes in our labour force by redeployment of the people who are building houses to cope with immigration.
    Here’s 170 you can redeploy already.

    https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/170-jobs-lost-historic-gateshead-34087173
    Where to start;

    No one is building homes to cope with immigration, we aren’t building enough homes because not enough people can afford new ones. Largely flatlining wages after inflation , higher prices and supply and demand mean there are too few buyers who can afford them.

    If we stop immigration the average age will be 45 in 2040 with far too few young people and a rapidly ageing population. Are the pensioners going to build their own houses.


    In this scenario under sixteens would drop from 18% to 14%, the working population from 62% to 55% and the over 67’s would grow from about 19% to 29%…

    So dependency would go from roughly 2:1 to close to 1:1.

    Hey Presto not only no need for new houses with a collapsed economy no money to build them either!

    Peter.
    We've spent 25 years trying the approach of allowing mass immigration to increase the working age population in the face of what would otherwise be a natural decline and it has led to poor productivity growth, stagnant wages, inflated asset values and political instability. It's about time the people who advocated it learned to have some humility.
    We have had 25 years of large scale immigration.
    We have increased the working age population.
    We have so far managed to avoid the economic cliff edge of a naturally declining population.
    We have had low productivity and low wage growth.

    And you have abjectly failed to establish a causal link between them.

    Other Countries with high immigration have had productivity growth; the US for one.

    Developed Countries like Japan have had slow wage growth and little immigration.

    Peter.

    The onus isn't on me to prove a causal link. I have democracy on my side.
    No you have Populism and what’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.

    Essential you are adopting the Trumpian logic, that for something to be true the majority just has to believe it.

    Much like his Meet the Press walk out. His evidence consisted of only what he believed, nothing more.

    I am old fashioned, I like evidence based argument and still believe in objective truth.

    Peter.
    That’s not Trumpoan logic. It’s politics.

    We’ve had governance by opinion poll for many years.
    It hasn't worked very well.
    So, you don't like democracy then?
    The problem is people having factually wrong opinions. On immigration for example you can legitimately want less of it, or be comfortable with a high level. But it's a problem if people think that immigration is currently very high when it isn't, or that most new housing goes to immigrants when it doesn't, and politicians devise policies based on those demonstrably wrong perceptions.
    I think your biggest problem (and that of your liberal ilk) is that you think you're always right - and any contrary opinion is therefore "wrong" - and are totally blind to the fact you have an ideology of your own; you genuinely think the facts support it.

    I'd anchor that ideology around the complete fungibility of all individuals, and championing things like choosing your own identity and free movement regardless of any evidence of the social problems this causes.
    We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal.
    We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't.
    We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't.
    We all do.

    The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.

    But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.

    So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
    Totally, my contention is that category of people think they're someone immune from it.

    A bit more humility wouldn't go amiss.
    My contention is that there should be a greater respect for demonstrable measurable facts. "Humility" in accepting incorrect facts because people believing them are somehow deemed more sincere than I am is not something I subscribe to. Guilty as charged I suppose.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,467
    If nothing else, it will be material for prolonged PB debate on whether the circumstances or result of the match did affect the turnout or result of the by-election. What's not to like?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,558

    ...

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Classic correlation not causation.
    Is that the Falklands, Labour’s manifesto, or the size of the bribe paid to the official in question by Moscow?
    Thank goodness with Labour jettisoning socialism we no longer have any politicians left who would trouser dirty Russian money.
    It’s interesting isn’t it that it’s now the right that cost up to Russia and trouser the millions, not the left.

    The right used to think of themselves as patriots and now they are traitors.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,558
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump has been booed at a basketball match in New York as he became the first sitting US president to attend the NBA Finals.

    The catcalls came after frustrated ticketholders waited for hours in lines that stretched more than two blocks outside Madison Square Garden on Monday due to the intense security restrictions that came with the president's appearance.'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czj89mz3mzzo

    A load of pregame parties had to be cancelled, and the local bars weren't happy either.
    To cap it all he fell asleep during the game.
    From Sleepy Joe to Dozy Donny.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 10,075
    Battlebus said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Nato is not defensive. It is responsible for the destruction of Afghanistan and Libya and a key tool of US imperialism, the greatest threat to peace in the world.


    Discuss!

    https://socialistworker.co.uk/in-depth/why-britain-should-leave-nato/
    As Afghanistan and Libya were such beautiful paradises of human rights under the Taliban and Bin Laden and Gaddafi of course
    You missed the comment on Polanski. He's certainly tacking leftwards at a rate of knots.

    The Labour Party is outraged that newly-elected Green leader Zack Polanski “seeks to undermine our membership of Nato”. Here’s hoping he does.
    Polanski argues that the UK shouldn't leave NATO overnight. Instead, he wants the UK to first build an alternative security framework with European neighbours and Global South countries. Once that security is established, the UK would transition out of NATO. That sounds to me to be a defendable policy.

    His opposition is largely driven by Donald Trump's presidency. Polanski argues that the US dominates the alliance to a degree that makes NATO impossible to reform from within, making heavy reliance on an unpredictable US a national security risk. He's not wrong. Though Trump won't last forever.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,330

    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.

    Is that gender divide all that different to the national opinion polls?

    The last national Survation poll (in March!) had Labour behind Reform by 11.3pp with men and 4.5pp with women, so the gap is twice as large in the by-election poll.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,630
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Classic correlation not causation.
    Is that the Falklands, Labour’s manifesto, or the size of the bribe paid to the official in question by Moscow?
    The Labour Party, at that point was on a course to merry self destruction, based on a spiral of ideological purity to ever more socialism. Completely ignoring the wishes of the voters.

    Hence the SDP.

    The main opposition party self destructing was the reason the main opposition party got a rather low vote in the general election.

    The official in question almost certainly wasn’t paid by Moscow. The KGB called such people Useful Idiots. They would do whatever Moscow wanted, without instruction or pay.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,946
    FF43 said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    theProle said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    A case study in why resisting reasonable development entirely can come back to bite you (if the developer ploy here works)? Work in the system to resist where you can, don't just pretend the system doesn't exist because you don't like it.

    Council rejects 100 homes.

    Developer wins appeal for 75 homes.

    Developer then submits another 65 homes on the remaining land.

    End result? Residents could get 140 homes instead of the original 100. Now they claim they’re being “picked on”.


    https://nitter.poast.org/jakewg_/status/2063551764796752183#m

    No sympathy for NIMBYs
    What about local democracy?
    Sadly I seem to repeat the same issue

    we have the same population as France but 7 million fewer homes..
    We've arrived at this point almost entirely by virtually unrestricted immigration and given the birth rate we could very easily shrink our population back again by making further immigration almost impossible.

    That is a much better deal for almost everyone than continually concreting over the country to build horrible Barratt new builds without any accompanying infrastructure.

    No more immigration, almost no more new housing, and in 15 years time housing will be affordable again. As a bonus, we can fill in the various holes in our labour force by redeployment of the people who are building houses to cope with immigration.
    Here’s 170 you can redeploy already.

    https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/170-jobs-lost-historic-gateshead-34087173
    Where to start;

    No one is building homes to cope with immigration, we aren’t building enough homes because not enough people can afford new ones. Largely flatlining wages after inflation , higher prices and supply and demand mean there are too few buyers who can afford them.

    If we stop immigration the average age will be 45 in 2040 with far too few young people and a rapidly ageing population. Are the pensioners going to build their own houses.


    In this scenario under sixteens would drop from 18% to 14%, the working population from 62% to 55% and the over 67’s would grow from about 19% to 29%…

    So dependency would go from roughly 2:1 to close to 1:1.

    Hey Presto not only no need for new houses with a collapsed economy no money to build them either!

    Peter.
    We've spent 25 years trying the approach of allowing mass immigration to increase the working age population in the face of what would otherwise be a natural decline and it has led to poor productivity growth, stagnant wages, inflated asset values and political instability. It's about time the people who advocated it learned to have some humility.
    We have had 25 years of large scale immigration.
    We have increased the working age population.
    We have so far managed to avoid the economic cliff edge of a naturally declining population.
    We have had low productivity and low wage growth.

    And you have abjectly failed to establish a causal link between them.

    Other Countries with high immigration have had productivity growth; the US for one.

    Developed Countries like Japan have had slow wage growth and little immigration.

    Peter.

    The onus isn't on me to prove a causal link. I have democracy on my side.
    No you have Populism and what’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.

    Essential you are adopting the Trumpian logic, that for something to be true the majority just has to believe it.

    Much like his Meet the Press walk out. His evidence consisted of only what he believed, nothing more.

    I am old fashioned, I like evidence based argument and still believe in objective truth.

    Peter.
    That’s not Trumpoan logic. It’s politics.

    We’ve had governance by opinion poll for many years.
    It hasn't worked very well.
    So, you don't like democracy then?
    The problem is people having factually wrong opinions. On immigration for example you can legitimately want less of it, or be comfortable with a high level. But it's a problem if people think that immigration is currently very high when it isn't, or that most new housing goes to immigrants when it doesn't, and politicians devise policies based on those demonstrably wrong perceptions.
    I think your biggest problem (and that of your liberal ilk) is that you think you're always right - and any contrary opinion is therefore "wrong" - and are totally blind to the fact you have an ideology of your own; you genuinely think the facts support it.

    I'd anchor that ideology around the complete fungibility of all individuals, and championing things like choosing your own identity and free movement regardless of any evidence of the social problems this causes.
    We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal.
    We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't.
    We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't.
    We all do.

    The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.

    But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.

    So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
    Totally, my contention is that category of people think they're someone immune from it.

    A bit more humility wouldn't go amiss.
    My contention is that there should be a greater respect for demonstrable measurable facts. "Humility" in accepting incorrect facts because people believing them are somehow deemed more sincere than I am is not something I subscribe to. Guilty as charged I suppose.
    That sentiment reminds me of the fantastic novella "The Machine Stops". Well worth reading. Predates WWI yet predicts instant communication, over reliance on technology, and a sedentary lifestyle with more interaction with strangers (ahem) than people we know and see in reality.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,063

    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.

    Yes, but given that Farage created the Reform party and still largely owns it, they're kind of stuck with Nigel.

    Oh, you meant their candidate in Makerfield?

    (But seriously, folks... the question of why Reform keep picking terrible people as candidates isn't just down to bad luck or poor vetting. Something about the party systematically attracts a certain sort of worst person.

    No, not every Reformer is awful, and other parties have awful people as well. But there's a definite pattern in the data.)
    Nasty, bigoted party attracts nasty, bigoted candidates - shock!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,681

    Ben Stokes is, by some measures one of England's greatest ever Test cricket captains.

    I'm amazed that we seem to be poised to throw that away over an issue with alcohol.

    Clearly Ben Stokes and Gus Atkinson are the victims and should not be punished.

    Full story on Stokes-Saracens incident

    * Rugby player understood to have thrown a punch at Gus Atkinson but connected with ECB security guard supervising the players

    * ECB sources are adamant the cricketers were “not the aggressors” at Chelsea nightclub


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2026/06/08/ben-stokes-gus-atkinson-nightclub-incident-new-zealand-test/
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,932

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Classic correlation not causation.
    Is that the Falklands, Labour’s manifesto, or the size of the bribe paid to the official in question by Moscow?
    The Labour Party, at that point was on a course to merry self destruction, based on a spiral of ideological purity to ever more socialism. Completely ignoring the wishes of the voters.

    Hence the SDP.

    The main opposition party self destructing was the reason the main opposition party got a rather low vote in the general election.

    The official in question almost certainly wasn’t paid by Moscow. The KGB called such people Useful Idiots. They would do whatever Moscow wanted, without instruction or pay.
    Thank goodness there's nobody like that now.

    It would be terrible to have a Useful Idiot running a powerful country.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,558

    Ben Stokes is, by some measures one of England's greatest ever Test cricket captains.

    I'm amazed that we seem to be poised to throw that away over an issue with alcohol.

    Clearly Ben Stokes and Gus Atkinson are the victims and should not be punished.

    Full story on Stokes-Saracens incident

    * Rugby player understood to have thrown a punch at Gus Atkinson but connected with ECB security guard supervising the players

    * ECB sources are adamant the cricketers were “not the aggressors” at Chelsea nightclub


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2026/06/08/ben-stokes-gus-atkinson-nightclub-incident-new-zealand-test/
    It’s not that, though, Is it? It’s that they were out after curfew.

    With a guard which begs some rather odd questions.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,429
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump has been booed at a basketball match in New York as he became the first sitting US president to attend the NBA Finals.

    The catcalls came after frustrated ticketholders waited for hours in lines that stretched more than two blocks outside Madison Square Garden on Monday due to the intense security restrictions that came with the president's appearance.'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czj89mz3mzzo

    A load of pregame parties had to be cancelled, and the local bars weren't happy either.
    To cap it all he fell asleep during the game.
    Wasn't that a throwaway subplot in the West Wing? Granting full security to a political rival so he would be tainted by disrupting traffic?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,558

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Classic correlation not causation.
    Is that the Falklands, Labour’s manifesto, or the size of the bribe paid to the official in question by Moscow?
    The Labour Party, at that point was on a course to merry self destruction, based on a spiral of ideological purity to ever more socialism. Completely ignoring the wishes of the voters.

    Hence the SDP.

    The main opposition party self destructing was the reason the main opposition party got a rather low vote in the general election.

    The official in question almost certainly wasn’t paid by Moscow. The KGB called such people Useful Idiots. They would do whatever Moscow wanted, without instruction or pay.
    Thank goodness there's nobody like that now.

    It would be terrible to have a Useful Idiot running a powerful country.
    Trump’s not really that useful.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,064

    FF43 said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    theProle said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    A case study in why resisting reasonable development entirely can come back to bite you (if the developer ploy here works)? Work in the system to resist where you can, don't just pretend the system doesn't exist because you don't like it.

    Council rejects 100 homes.

    Developer wins appeal for 75 homes.

    Developer then submits another 65 homes on the remaining land.

    End result? Residents could get 140 homes instead of the original 100. Now they claim they’re being “picked on”.


    https://nitter.poast.org/jakewg_/status/2063551764796752183#m

    No sympathy for NIMBYs
    What about local democracy?
    Sadly I seem to repeat the same issue

    we have the same population as France but 7 million fewer homes..
    We've arrived at this point almost entirely by virtually unrestricted immigration and given the birth rate we could very easily shrink our population back again by making further immigration almost impossible.

    That is a much better deal for almost everyone than continually concreting over the country to build horrible Barratt new builds without any accompanying infrastructure.

    No more immigration, almost no more new housing, and in 15 years time housing will be affordable again. As a bonus, we can fill in the various holes in our labour force by redeployment of the people who are building houses to cope with immigration.
    Here’s 170 you can redeploy already.

    https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/170-jobs-lost-historic-gateshead-34087173
    Where to start;

    No one is building homes to cope with immigration, we aren’t building enough homes because not enough people can afford new ones. Largely flatlining wages after inflation , higher prices and supply and demand mean there are too few buyers who can afford them.

    If we stop immigration the average age will be 45 in 2040 with far too few young people and a rapidly ageing population. Are the pensioners going to build their own houses.


    In this scenario under sixteens would drop from 18% to 14%, the working population from 62% to 55% and the over 67’s would grow from about 19% to 29%…

    So dependency would go from roughly 2:1 to close to 1:1.

    Hey Presto not only no need for new houses with a collapsed economy no money to build them either!

    Peter.
    We've spent 25 years trying the approach of allowing mass immigration to increase the working age population in the face of what would otherwise be a natural decline and it has led to poor productivity growth, stagnant wages, inflated asset values and political instability. It's about time the people who advocated it learned to have some humility.
    We have had 25 years of large scale immigration.
    We have increased the working age population.
    We have so far managed to avoid the economic cliff edge of a naturally declining population.
    We have had low productivity and low wage growth.

    And you have abjectly failed to establish a causal link between them.

    Other Countries with high immigration have had productivity growth; the US for one.

    Developed Countries like Japan have had slow wage growth and little immigration.

    Peter.

    The onus isn't on me to prove a causal link. I have democracy on my side.
    No you have Populism and what’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.

    Essential you are adopting the Trumpian logic, that for something to be true the majority just has to believe it.

    Much like his Meet the Press walk out. His evidence consisted of only what he believed, nothing more.

    I am old fashioned, I like evidence based argument and still believe in objective truth.

    Peter.
    That’s not Trumpoan logic. It’s politics.

    We’ve had governance by opinion poll for many years.
    It hasn't worked very well.
    So, you don't like democracy then?
    The problem is people having factually wrong opinions. On immigration for example you can legitimately want less of it, or be comfortable with a high level. But it's a problem if people think that immigration is currently very high when it isn't, or that most new housing goes to immigrants when it doesn't, and politicians devise policies based on those demonstrably wrong perceptions.
    I think your biggest problem (and that of your liberal ilk) is that you think you're always right - and any contrary opinion is therefore "wrong" - and are totally blind to the fact you have an ideology of your own; you genuinely think the facts support it.

    I'd anchor that ideology around the complete fungibility of all individuals, and championing things like choosing your own identity and free movement regardless of any evidence of the social problems this causes.
    We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal.
    We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't.
    We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't.
    We all do.

    The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.

    But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.

    So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
    Totally, my contention is that category of people think they're someone immune from it.

    A bit more humility wouldn't go amiss.
    My contention is that there should be a greater respect for demonstrable measurable facts. "Humility" in accepting incorrect facts because people believing them are somehow deemed more sincere than I am is not something I subscribe to. Guilty as charged I suppose.
    That sentiment reminds me of the fantastic novella "The Machine Stops". Well worth reading. Predates WWI yet predicts instant communication, over reliance on technology, and a sedentary lifestyle with more interaction with strangers (ahem) than people we know and see in reality.
    Adapted by the BBC in 1966.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,681

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump has been booed at a basketball match in New York as he became the first sitting US president to attend the NBA Finals.

    The catcalls came after frustrated ticketholders waited for hours in lines that stretched more than two blocks outside Madison Square Garden on Monday due to the intense security restrictions that came with the president's appearance.'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czj89mz3mzzo

    A load of pregame parties had to be cancelled, and the local bars weren't happy either.
    To cap it all he fell asleep during the game.
    Wasn't that a throwaway subplot in the West Wing? Granting full security to a political rival so he would be tainted by disrupting traffic?
    Yes, in the episode Posse Comitatus, the finale of season 3.

    That too involved New York City.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,932
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Classic correlation not causation.
    Is that the Falklands, Labour’s manifesto, or the size of the bribe paid to the official in question by Moscow?
    The Labour Party, at that point was on a course to merry self destruction, based on a spiral of ideological purity to ever more socialism. Completely ignoring the wishes of the voters.

    Hence the SDP.

    The main opposition party self destructing was the reason the main opposition party got a rather low vote in the general election.

    The official in question almost certainly wasn’t paid by Moscow. The KGB called such people Useful Idiots. They would do whatever Moscow wanted, without instruction or pay.
    Thank goodness there's nobody like that now.

    It would be terrible to have a Useful Idiot running a powerful country.
    Trump’s not really that useful.
    But what he lacks in usefulness, he more than makes up for in idiocy.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,429
    edited June 9

    I suspect the impact of the 1970 world cup on the General Election is a myth.

    Immigration and economics drove it. And the inaccurate opinion polls probably depressed Labour voter turnout a little bit.

    Are you abreast of claims that the CIA poisoned Gordon Banks in order to help Brazil whose pro-American regime needed a boost for re-election?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqpd7pr9yjo
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,835

    I suspect the impact of the 1970 world cup on the General Election is a myth.

    Immigration and economics drove it. And the inaccurate opinion polls probably depressed Labour voter turnout a little bit.

    It's possible that the national euphoria of a win might have won a few more votes, but the height of hubris for a government to expect the win as their due, in any event.

    The anecdotes in the header suggest a naive (or in Jenkin's case, arrogant) belief about how interested the average person is in politics:
    ..On the Monday morning Howell and home secretary and aesthete Roy Jenkins, held a massed factory-gate meeting in Birmingham: “Roy was totally bemused that no question concerned either trade figures nor immigration, but solely the football..
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,330
    FF43 said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    theProle said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    A case study in why resisting reasonable development entirely can come back to bite you (if the developer ploy here works)? Work in the system to resist where you can, don't just pretend the system doesn't exist because you don't like it.

    Council rejects 100 homes.

    Developer wins appeal for 75 homes.

    Developer then submits another 65 homes on the remaining land.

    End result? Residents could get 140 homes instead of the original 100. Now they claim they’re being “picked on”.


    https://nitter.poast.org/jakewg_/status/2063551764796752183#m

    No sympathy for NIMBYs
    What about local democracy?
    Sadly I seem to repeat the same issue

    we have the same population as France but 7 million fewer homes..
    We've arrived at this point almost entirely by virtually unrestricted immigration and given the birth rate we could very easily shrink our population back again by making further immigration almost impossible.

    That is a much better deal for almost everyone than continually concreting over the country to build horrible Barratt new builds without any accompanying infrastructure.

    No more immigration, almost no more new housing, and in 15 years time housing will be affordable again. As a bonus, we can fill in the various holes in our labour force by redeployment of the people who are building houses to cope with immigration.
    Here’s 170 you can redeploy already.

    https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/170-jobs-lost-historic-gateshead-34087173
    Where to start;

    No one is building homes to cope with immigration, we aren’t building enough homes because not enough people can afford new ones. Largely flatlining wages after inflation , higher prices and supply and demand mean there are too few buyers who can afford them.

    If we stop immigration the average age will be 45 in 2040 with far too few young people and a rapidly ageing population. Are the pensioners going to build their own houses.


    In this scenario under sixteens would drop from 18% to 14%, the working population from 62% to 55% and the over 67’s would grow from about 19% to 29%…

    So dependency would go from roughly 2:1 to close to 1:1.

    Hey Presto not only no need for new houses with a collapsed economy no money to build them either!

    Peter.
    We've spent 25 years trying the approach of allowing mass immigration to increase the working age population in the face of what would otherwise be a natural decline and it has led to poor productivity growth, stagnant wages, inflated asset values and political instability. It's about time the people who advocated it learned to have some humility.
    We have had 25 years of large scale immigration.
    We have increased the working age population.
    We have so far managed to avoid the economic cliff edge of a naturally declining population.
    We have had low productivity and low wage growth.

    And you have abjectly failed to establish a causal link between them.

    Other Countries with high immigration have had productivity growth; the US for one.

    Developed Countries like Japan have had slow wage growth and little immigration.

    Peter.

    The onus isn't on me to prove a causal link. I have democracy on my side.
    No you have Populism and what’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.

    Essential you are adopting the Trumpian logic, that for something to be true the majority just has to believe it.

    Much like his Meet the Press walk out. His evidence consisted of only what he believed, nothing more.

    I am old fashioned, I like evidence based argument and still believe in objective truth.

    Peter.
    That’s not Trumpoan logic. It’s politics.

    We’ve had governance by opinion poll for many years.
    It hasn't worked very well.
    So, you don't like democracy then?
    The problem is people having factually wrong opinions. On immigration for example you can legitimately want less of it, or be comfortable with a high level. But it's a problem if people think that immigration is currently very high when it isn't, or that most new housing goes to immigrants when it doesn't, and politicians devise policies based on those demonstrably wrong perceptions.
    I think your biggest problem (and that of your liberal ilk) is that you think you're always right - and any contrary opinion is therefore "wrong" - and are totally blind to the fact you have an ideology of your own; you genuinely think the facts support it.

    I'd anchor that ideology around the complete fungibility of all individuals, and championing things like choosing your own identity and free movement regardless of any evidence of the social problems this causes.
    We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal.
    We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't.
    We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't.
    We all do.

    The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.

    But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.

    So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
    Totally, my contention is that category of people think they're someone immune from it.

    A bit more humility wouldn't go amiss.
    My contention is that there should be a greater respect for demonstrable measurable facts. "Humility" in accepting incorrect facts because people believing them are somehow deemed more sincere than I am is not something I subscribe to. Guilty as charged I suppose.
    I agree with that, and yet it is insufficient.

    People generally do not make decisions or choices on the basis of a rational evaluation of well-attested facts. They make a judgement, based on part on facts, or perceptions of them, at least, but in a greater part on other factors. On feelings, values and belief.

    One of the corrosive impacts on political disorder has been the attempt but politicians to frame debate in terms of fact so that disagreement with them is impossible. But it's rare that the facts are such that a specific policy response is unavoidable. There are almost always choices based on values, or some degree of a guess about how the future might unfold.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,630

    ...

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Classic correlation not causation.
    Is that the Falklands, Labour’s manifesto, or the size of the bribe paid to the official in question by Moscow?
    Thank goodness with Labour jettisoning socialism we no longer have any politicians left who would trouser dirty Russian money.
    There's plenty of socialism that isn’t like the comic Suicide Note manifesto.

    It’s not a choice between unfettered capitalism and East Germany. As large numbers of social democratic parties have proved, around the world.

    If the Labour Party had been selling the politics of, say, the German SPD, in 1983, them there would have been no split. And they might well have won a majority at the election.

    Instead they chose East Germany.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,835
    edited June 9

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Classic correlation not causation.
    What was - the Falklands, or the suicide note ?
    The latter definitely had an effect on quite a few people I knew. Were you around at the time ?

    The former is harder to assess; it certainly boosted the morale of those who supported the government, and called into question the judgment of those who pronounced it a reckless gamble.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,681
    Looks like Harry Brook will be captaining England next Wednesday, the day before the Makerfield by-election, could that swing the by-election?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,558

    Looks like Harry Brook will be captaining England next Wednesday, the day before the Makerfield by-election, could that swing the by-election?

    With Atkinson and Anderson both out it will be about bounce rather than swing.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 5,548

    FF43 said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    theProle said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    A case study in why resisting reasonable development entirely can come back to bite you (if the developer ploy here works)? Work in the system to resist where you can, don't just pretend the system doesn't exist because you don't like it.

    Council rejects 100 homes.

    Developer wins appeal for 75 homes.

    Developer then submits another 65 homes on the remaining land.

    End result? Residents could get 140 homes instead of the original 100. Now they claim they’re being “picked on”.


    https://nitter.poast.org/jakewg_/status/2063551764796752183#m

    No sympathy for NIMBYs
    What about local democracy?
    Sadly I seem to repeat the same issue

    we have the same population as France but 7 million fewer homes..
    We've arrived at this point almost entirely by virtually unrestricted immigration and given the birth rate we could very easily shrink our population back again by making further immigration almost impossible.

    That is a much better deal for almost everyone than continually concreting over the country to build horrible Barratt new builds without any accompanying infrastructure.

    No more immigration, almost no more new housing, and in 15 years time housing will be affordable again. As a bonus, we can fill in the various holes in our labour force by redeployment of the people who are building houses to cope with immigration.
    Here’s 170 you can redeploy already.

    https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/170-jobs-lost-historic-gateshead-34087173
    Where to start;

    No one is building homes to cope with immigration, we aren’t building enough homes because not enough people can afford new ones. Largely flatlining wages after inflation , higher prices and supply and demand mean there are too few buyers who can afford them.

    If we stop immigration the average age will be 45 in 2040 with far too few young people and a rapidly ageing population. Are the pensioners going to build their own houses.


    In this scenario under sixteens would drop from 18% to 14%, the working population from 62% to 55% and the over 67’s would grow from about 19% to 29%…

    So dependency would go from roughly 2:1 to close to 1:1.

    Hey Presto not only no need for new houses with a collapsed economy no money to build them either!

    Peter.
    We've spent 25 years trying the approach of allowing mass immigration to increase the working age population in the face of what would otherwise be a natural decline and it has led to poor productivity growth, stagnant wages, inflated asset values and political instability. It's about time the people who advocated it learned to have some humility.
    We have had 25 years of large scale immigration.
    We have increased the working age population.
    We have so far managed to avoid the economic cliff edge of a naturally declining population.
    We have had low productivity and low wage growth.

    And you have abjectly failed to establish a causal link between them.

    Other Countries with high immigration have had productivity growth; the US for one.

    Developed Countries like Japan have had slow wage growth and little immigration.

    Peter.

    The onus isn't on me to prove a causal link. I have democracy on my side.
    No you have Populism and what’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.

    Essential you are adopting the Trumpian logic, that for something to be true the majority just has to believe it.

    Much like his Meet the Press walk out. His evidence consisted of only what he believed, nothing more.

    I am old fashioned, I like evidence based argument and still believe in objective truth.

    Peter.
    That’s not Trumpoan logic. It’s politics.

    We’ve had governance by opinion poll for many years.
    It hasn't worked very well.
    So, you don't like democracy then?
    The problem is people having factually wrong opinions. On immigration for example you can legitimately want less of it, or be comfortable with a high level. But it's a problem if people think that immigration is currently very high when it isn't, or that most new housing goes to immigrants when it doesn't, and politicians devise policies based on those demonstrably wrong perceptions.
    I think your biggest problem (and that of your liberal ilk) is that you think you're always right - and any contrary opinion is therefore "wrong" - and are totally blind to the fact you have an ideology of your own; you genuinely think the facts support it.

    I'd anchor that ideology around the complete fungibility of all individuals, and championing things like choosing your own identity and free movement regardless of any evidence of the social problems this causes.
    We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal.
    We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't.
    We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't.
    We all do.

    The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.

    But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.

    So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
    Totally, my contention is that category of people think they're someone immune from it.

    A bit more humility wouldn't go amiss.
    My contention is that there should be a greater respect for demonstrable measurable facts. "Humility" in accepting incorrect facts because people believing them are somehow deemed more sincere than I am is not something I subscribe to. Guilty as charged I suppose.
    That sentiment reminds me of the fantastic novella "The Machine Stops". Well worth reading. Predates WWI yet predicts instant communication, over reliance on technology, and a sedentary lifestyle with more interaction with strangers (ahem) than people we know and see in reality.
    Adapted by the BBC in 1966.
    That was one of the short stories we did at O level in the 70s.

    Twentieth century short stories i think.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,988
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Nato is not defensive. It is responsible for the destruction of Afghanistan and Libya and a key tool of US imperialism, the greatest threat to peace in the world.


    Discuss!

    https://socialistworker.co.uk/in-depth/why-britain-should-leave-nato/
    As Afghanistan and Libya were such beautiful paradises of human rights under the Taliban and Bin Laden and Gaddafi of course
    Er - why the past tense for Afghanistan?
    Bin Laden is gone even if the Taliban are back, the only reason they came back is troops were withdrawn not the invasion which was the only reason it was Taliban free for a few years
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,651
    Nigelb said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    theProle said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    A case study in why resisting reasonable development entirely can come back to bite you (if the developer ploy here works)? Work in the system to resist where you can, don't just pretend the system doesn't exist because you don't like it.

    Council rejects 100 homes.

    Developer wins appeal for 75 homes.

    Developer then submits another 65 homes on the remaining land.

    End result? Residents could get 140 homes instead of the original 100. Now they claim they’re being “picked on”.


    https://nitter.poast.org/jakewg_/status/2063551764796752183#m

    No sympathy for NIMBYs
    What about local democracy?
    Sadly I seem to repeat the same issue

    we have the same population as France but 7 million fewer homes..
    We've arrived at this point almost entirely by virtually unrestricted immigration and given the birth rate we could very easily shrink our population back again by making further immigration almost impossible.

    That is a much better deal for almost everyone than continually concreting over the country to build horrible Barratt new builds without any accompanying infrastructure.

    No more immigration, almost no more new housing, and in 15 years time housing will be affordable again. As a bonus, we can fill in the various holes in our labour force by redeployment of the people who are building houses to cope with immigration.
    Here’s 170 you can redeploy already.

    https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/170-jobs-lost-historic-gateshead-34087173
    Where to start;

    No one is building homes to cope with immigration, we aren’t building enough homes because not enough people can afford new ones. Largely flatlining wages after inflation , higher prices and supply and demand mean there are too few buyers who can afford them.

    If we stop immigration the average age will be 45 in 2040 with far too few young people and a rapidly ageing population. Are the pensioners going to build their own houses.


    In this scenario under sixteens would drop from 18% to 14%, the working population from 62% to 55% and the over 67’s would grow from about 19% to 29%…

    So dependency would go from roughly 2:1 to close to 1:1.

    Hey Presto not only no need for new houses with a collapsed economy no money to build them either!

    Peter.
    We've spent 25 years trying the approach of allowing mass immigration to increase the working age population in the face of what would otherwise be a natural decline and it has led to poor productivity growth, stagnant wages, inflated asset values and political instability. It's about time the people who advocated it learned to have some humility.
    We have had 25 years of large scale immigration.
    We have increased the working age population.
    We have so far managed to avoid the economic cliff edge of a naturally declining population.
    We have had low productivity and low wage growth.

    And you have abjectly failed to establish a causal link between them.

    Other Countries with high immigration have had productivity growth; the US for one.

    Developed Countries like Japan have had slow wage growth and little immigration.

    Peter.

    The onus isn't on me to prove a causal link. I have democracy on my side.
    No you have Populism and what’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.

    Essential you are adopting the Trumpian logic, that for something to be true the majority just has to believe it.

    Much like his Meet the Press walk out. His evidence consisted of only what he believed, nothing more.

    I am old fashioned, I like evidence based argument and still believe in objective truth.

    Peter.
    That’s not Trumpoan logic. It’s politics.

    We’ve had governance by opinion poll for many years.
    It hasn't worked very well.
    So, you don't like democracy then?
    The problem is people having factually wrong opinions. On immigration for example you can legitimately want less of it, or be comfortable with a high level. But it's a problem if people think that immigration is currently very high when it isn't, or that most new housing goes to immigrants when it doesn't, and politicians devise policies based on those demonstrably wrong perceptions.
    I think your biggest problem (and that of your liberal ilk) is that you think you're always right - and any contrary opinion is therefore "wrong" - and are totally blind to the fact you have an ideology of your own; you genuinely think the facts support it.

    I'd anchor that ideology around the complete fungibility of all individuals, and championing things like choosing your own identity and free movement regardless of any evidence of the social problems this causes.
    We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal.
    We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't.
    We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't.
    We all do.

    The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.

    But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.

    So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
    Totally, my contention is that category of people think they're someone immune from it.

    A bit more humility wouldn't go amiss.
    Which is what we were gently suggesting to william on the last thread.
    You are exactly the sort of person who needs it most.

    And you know it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,835
    Barnesian said:

    Battlebus said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Nato is not defensive. It is responsible for the destruction of Afghanistan and Libya and a key tool of US imperialism, the greatest threat to peace in the world.


    Discuss!

    https://socialistworker.co.uk/in-depth/why-britain-should-leave-nato/
    As Afghanistan and Libya were such beautiful paradises of human rights under the Taliban and Bin Laden and Gaddafi of course
    You missed the comment on Polanski. He's certainly tacking leftwards at a rate of knots.

    The Labour Party is outraged that newly-elected Green leader Zack Polanski “seeks to undermine our membership of Nato”. Here’s hoping he does.
    Polanski argues that the UK shouldn't leave NATO overnight. Instead, he wants the UK to first build an alternative security framework with European neighbours and Global South countries. Once that security is established, the UK would transition out of NATO. That sounds to me to be a defendable policy...
    What common defence interest do we have with "the Global South" ?
    Not a few countries which fall into that category backed Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

    There's a case for a European defence strategy, but his ideas sound like nebulous nonsense to me.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,558
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Nato is not defensive. It is responsible for the destruction of Afghanistan and Libya and a key tool of US imperialism, the greatest threat to peace in the world.


    Discuss!

    https://socialistworker.co.uk/in-depth/why-britain-should-leave-nato/
    As Afghanistan and Libya were such beautiful paradises of human rights under the Taliban and Bin Laden and Gaddafi of course
    Er - why the past tense for Afghanistan?
    Bin Laden is gone even if the Taliban are back, the only reason they came back is troops were withdrawn not the invasion which was the only reason it was Taliban free for a few years
    Kabul was Taliban free, the rest rather less so.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,854

    I suspect the impact of the 1970 world cup on the General Election is a myth.

    Immigration and economics drove it. And the inaccurate opinion polls probably depressed Labour voter turnout a little bit.

    The 1970 and Feb 1974 general elections are an example of people totally ignoring the influence of Powellism. It shifted around three million votes (from memory: happy to be corrected) one way then the other and yet people still insist that 1970 was affected by smidgens like Gordon Banks and buying 747s
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,452

    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.

    Yes, but given that Farage created the Reform party and still largely owns it, they're kind of stuck with Nigel.

    Oh, you meant their candidate in Makerfield?

    (But seriously, folks... the question of why Reform keep picking terrible people as candidates isn't just down to bad luck or poor vetting. Something about the party systematically attracts a certain sort of worst person.

    No, not every Reformer is awful, and other parties have awful people as well. But there's a definite pattern in the data.)
    Not every Reformer is awful, true, but the last time I saw Kruger he was explaining Kenyon's interesting public stance towards Vorderman and looked like a hostage uncertain as to how exactly this mess had occurred to him and how on earth an upstanding Etonian evangelical finds himself temporising with a foot soldier of Geiseric.

    Lots of decent people support Reform. Most of them have the limited sense required to do so at a substantial distance with a wary eye on the the exit. Potential candidates they are not.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,988

    ...

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Classic correlation not causation.
    Is that the Falklands, Labour’s manifesto, or the size of the bribe paid to the official in question by Moscow?
    Thank goodness with Labour jettisoning socialism we no longer have any politicians left who would trouser dirty Russian money.
    There's plenty of socialism that isn’t like the comic Suicide Note manifesto.

    It’s not a choice between unfettered capitalism and East Germany. As large numbers of social democratic parties have proved, around the world.

    If the Labour Party had been selling the politics of, say, the German SPD, in 1983, them there would have been no split. And they might well have won a majority at the election.

    Instead they chose East Germany.
    Thatcher clearly led best PM polls in 1983 so likely would have won anyway
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,651
    Nigelb said:

    I suspect the impact of the 1970 world cup on the General Election is a myth.

    Immigration and economics drove it. And the inaccurate opinion polls probably depressed Labour voter turnout a little bit.

    It's possible that the national euphoria of a win might have won a few more votes, but the height of hubris for a government to expect the win as their due, in any event.

    The anecdotes in the header suggest a naive (or in Jenkin's case, arrogant) belief about how interested the average person is in politics:
    ..On the Monday morning Howell and home secretary and aesthete Roy Jenkins, held a massed factory-gate meeting in Birmingham: “Roy was totally bemused that no question concerned either trade figures nor immigration, but solely the football..
    I don't think it's any shock the average person is more interested in football than politics.

    I've never met anyone who casts their vote on it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,835
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Classic correlation not causation.
    Is that the Falklands, Labour’s manifesto, or the size of the bribe paid to the official in question by Moscow?
    The Labour Party, at that point was on a course to merry self destruction, based on a spiral of ideological purity to ever more socialism. Completely ignoring the wishes of the voters.

    Hence the SDP.

    The main opposition party self destructing was the reason the main opposition party got a rather low vote in the general election.

    The official in question almost certainly wasn’t paid by Moscow. The KGB called such people Useful Idiots. They would do whatever Moscow wanted, without instruction or pay.
    Thank goodness there's nobody like that now.

    It would be terrible to have a Useful Idiot running a powerful country.
    Trump’s not really that useful.
    To America's enemies ?
    I'd say he's very useful indeed, if a little unreliable.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,835
    edited June 9

    Nigelb said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    theProle said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    A case study in why resisting reasonable development entirely can come back to bite you (if the developer ploy here works)? Work in the system to resist where you can, don't just pretend the system doesn't exist because you don't like it.

    Council rejects 100 homes.

    Developer wins appeal for 75 homes.

    Developer then submits another 65 homes on the remaining land.

    End result? Residents could get 140 homes instead of the original 100. Now they claim they’re being “picked on”.


    https://nitter.poast.org/jakewg_/status/2063551764796752183#m

    No sympathy for NIMBYs
    What about local democracy?
    Sadly I seem to repeat the same issue

    we have the same population as France but 7 million fewer homes..
    We've arrived at this point almost entirely by virtually unrestricted immigration and given the birth rate we could very easily shrink our population back again by making further immigration almost impossible.

    That is a much better deal for almost everyone than continually concreting over the country to build horrible Barratt new builds without any accompanying infrastructure.

    No more immigration, almost no more new housing, and in 15 years time housing will be affordable again. As a bonus, we can fill in the various holes in our labour force by redeployment of the people who are building houses to cope with immigration.
    Here’s 170 you can redeploy already.

    https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/170-jobs-lost-historic-gateshead-34087173
    Where to start;

    No one is building homes to cope with immigration, we aren’t building enough homes because not enough people can afford new ones. Largely flatlining wages after inflation , higher prices and supply and demand mean there are too few buyers who can afford them.

    If we stop immigration the average age will be 45 in 2040 with far too few young people and a rapidly ageing population. Are the pensioners going to build their own houses.


    In this scenario under sixteens would drop from 18% to 14%, the working population from 62% to 55% and the over 67’s would grow from about 19% to 29%…

    So dependency would go from roughly 2:1 to close to 1:1.

    Hey Presto not only no need for new houses with a collapsed economy no money to build them either!

    Peter.
    We've spent 25 years trying the approach of allowing mass immigration to increase the working age population in the face of what would otherwise be a natural decline and it has led to poor productivity growth, stagnant wages, inflated asset values and political instability. It's about time the people who advocated it learned to have some humility.
    We have had 25 years of large scale immigration.
    We have increased the working age population.
    We have so far managed to avoid the economic cliff edge of a naturally declining population.
    We have had low productivity and low wage growth.

    And you have abjectly failed to establish a causal link between them.

    Other Countries with high immigration have had productivity growth; the US for one.

    Developed Countries like Japan have had slow wage growth and little immigration.

    Peter.

    The onus isn't on me to prove a causal link. I have democracy on my side.
    No you have Populism and what’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.

    Essential you are adopting the Trumpian logic, that for something to be true the majority just has to believe it.

    Much like his Meet the Press walk out. His evidence consisted of only what he believed, nothing more.

    I am old fashioned, I like evidence based argument and still believe in objective truth.

    Peter.
    That’s not Trumpoan logic. It’s politics.

    We’ve had governance by opinion poll for many years.
    It hasn't worked very well.
    So, you don't like democracy then?
    The problem is people having factually wrong opinions. On immigration for example you can legitimately want less of it, or be comfortable with a high level. But it's a problem if people think that immigration is currently very high when it isn't, or that most new housing goes to immigrants when it doesn't, and politicians devise policies based on those demonstrably wrong perceptions.
    I think your biggest problem (and that of your liberal ilk) is that you think you're always right - and any contrary opinion is therefore "wrong" - and are totally blind to the fact you have an ideology of your own; you genuinely think the facts support it.

    I'd anchor that ideology around the complete fungibility of all individuals, and championing things like choosing your own identity and free movement regardless of any evidence of the social problems this causes.
    We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal.
    We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't.
    We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't.
    We all do.

    The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.

    But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.

    So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
    Totally, my contention is that category of people think they're someone immune from it.

    A bit more humility wouldn't go amiss.
    Which is what we were gently suggesting to william on the last thread.
    You are exactly the sort of person who needs it most.

    And you know it.
    Back at you, Casino.
    Though I'm not entirely sure you do.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,651
    FF43 said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    theProle said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    A case study in why resisting reasonable development entirely can come back to bite you (if the developer ploy here works)? Work in the system to resist where you can, don't just pretend the system doesn't exist because you don't like it.

    Council rejects 100 homes.

    Developer wins appeal for 75 homes.

    Developer then submits another 65 homes on the remaining land.

    End result? Residents could get 140 homes instead of the original 100. Now they claim they’re being “picked on”.


    https://nitter.poast.org/jakewg_/status/2063551764796752183#m

    No sympathy for NIMBYs
    What about local democracy?
    Sadly I seem to repeat the same issue

    we have the same population as France but 7 million fewer homes..
    We've arrived at this point almost entirely by virtually unrestricted immigration and given the birth rate we could very easily shrink our population back again by making further immigration almost impossible.

    That is a much better deal for almost everyone than continually concreting over the country to build horrible Barratt new builds without any accompanying infrastructure.

    No more immigration, almost no more new housing, and in 15 years time housing will be affordable again. As a bonus, we can fill in the various holes in our labour force by redeployment of the people who are building houses to cope with immigration.
    Here’s 170 you can redeploy already.

    https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/170-jobs-lost-historic-gateshead-34087173
    Where to start;

    No one is building homes to cope with immigration, we aren’t building enough homes because not enough people can afford new ones. Largely flatlining wages after inflation , higher prices and supply and demand mean there are too few buyers who can afford them.

    If we stop immigration the average age will be 45 in 2040 with far too few young people and a rapidly ageing population. Are the pensioners going to build their own houses.


    In this scenario under sixteens would drop from 18% to 14%, the working population from 62% to 55% and the over 67’s would grow from about 19% to 29%…

    So dependency would go from roughly 2:1 to close to 1:1.

    Hey Presto not only no need for new houses with a collapsed economy no money to build them either!

    Peter.
    We've spent 25 years trying the approach of allowing mass immigration to increase the working age population in the face of what would otherwise be a natural decline and it has led to poor productivity growth, stagnant wages, inflated asset values and political instability. It's about time the people who advocated it learned to have some humility.
    We have had 25 years of large scale immigration.
    We have increased the working age population.
    We have so far managed to avoid the economic cliff edge of a naturally declining population.
    We have had low productivity and low wage growth.

    And you have abjectly failed to establish a causal link between them.

    Other Countries with high immigration have had productivity growth; the US for one.

    Developed Countries like Japan have had slow wage growth and little immigration.

    Peter.

    The onus isn't on me to prove a causal link. I have democracy on my side.
    No you have Populism and what’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.

    Essential you are adopting the Trumpian logic, that for something to be true the majority just has to believe it.

    Much like his Meet the Press walk out. His evidence consisted of only what he believed, nothing more.

    I am old fashioned, I like evidence based argument and still believe in objective truth.

    Peter.
    That’s not Trumpoan logic. It’s politics.

    We’ve had governance by opinion poll for many years.
    It hasn't worked very well.
    So, you don't like democracy then?
    The problem is people having factually wrong opinions. On immigration for example you can legitimately want less of it, or be comfortable with a high level. But it's a problem if people think that immigration is currently very high when it isn't, or that most new housing goes to immigrants when it doesn't, and politicians devise policies based on those demonstrably wrong perceptions.
    I think your biggest problem (and that of your liberal ilk) is that you think you're always right - and any contrary opinion is therefore "wrong" - and are totally blind to the fact you have an ideology of your own; you genuinely think the facts support it.

    I'd anchor that ideology around the complete fungibility of all individuals, and championing things like choosing your own identity and free movement regardless of any evidence of the social problems this causes.
    We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal.
    We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't.
    We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't.
    We all do.

    The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.

    But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.

    So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
    Totally, my contention is that category of people think they're someone immune from it.

    A bit more humility wouldn't go amiss.
    My contention is that there should be a greater respect for demonstrable measurable facts. "Humility" in accepting incorrect facts because people believing them are somehow deemed more sincere than I am is not something I subscribe to. Guilty as charged I suppose.
    You are one of the ones who need it most. You confuse opinion with facts, and select the ones that confirm your opinions. It's extremely arrogant.

    The people this relates to are very quickly self-identifying themselves on this thread.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,854
    algarkirk said:

    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.

    Yes, but given that Farage created the Reform party and still largely owns it, they're kind of stuck with Nigel.

    Oh, you meant their candidate in Makerfield?

    (But seriously, folks... the question of why Reform keep picking terrible people as candidates isn't just down to bad luck or poor vetting. Something about the party systematically attracts a certain sort of worst person.

    No, not every Reformer is awful, and other parties have awful people as well. But there's a definite pattern in the data.)
    Not every Reformer is awful, true, but the last time I saw Kruger he was explaining Kenyon's interesting public stance towards Vorderman and looked like a hostage uncertain as to how exactly this mess had occurred to him and how on earth an upstanding Etonian evangelical finds himself temporising with a foot soldier of Geiseric.

    Lots of decent people support Reform. Most of them have the limited sense required to do so at a substantial distance with a wary eye on the the exit. Potential candidates they are not.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaiseric
  • By the time I sit down at the Oval we will know if Andy is returning to Parliament.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,452

    Nigelb said:

    I suspect the impact of the 1970 world cup on the General Election is a myth.

    Immigration and economics drove it. And the inaccurate opinion polls probably depressed Labour voter turnout a little bit.

    It's possible that the national euphoria of a win might have won a few more votes, but the height of hubris for a government to expect the win as their due, in any event.

    The anecdotes in the header suggest a naive (or in Jenkin's case, arrogant) belief about how interested the average person is in politics:
    ..On the Monday morning Howell and home secretary and aesthete Roy Jenkins, held a massed factory-gate meeting in Birmingham: “Roy was totally bemused that no question concerned either trade figures nor immigration, but solely the football..
    I don't think it's any shock the average person is more interested in football than politics.

    I've never met anyone who casts their vote on it.
    No individual casts their vote because of a football match occurring at a point close before the election. This is true. But only in the same sense that no one individual buys product X instead of Y because X is widely advertised. However all advertisers know that advertising works.

  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 5,548
    algarkirk said:

    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.

    Yes, but given that Farage created the Reform party and still largely owns it, they're kind of stuck with Nigel.

    Oh, you meant their candidate in Makerfield?

    (But seriously, folks... the question of why Reform keep picking terrible people as candidates isn't just down to bad luck or poor vetting. Something about the party systematically attracts a certain sort of worst person.

    No, not every Reformer is awful, and other parties have awful people as well. But there's a definite pattern in the data.)
    Not every Reformer is awful, true, but the last time I saw Kruger he was explaining Kenyon's interesting public stance towards Vorderman and looked like a hostage uncertain as to how exactly this mess had occurred to him and how on earth an upstanding Etonian evangelical finds himself temporising with a foot soldier of Geiseric.

    Lots of decent people support Reform. Most of them have the limited sense required to do so at a substantial distance with a wary eye on the the exit. Potential candidates they are not.

    Can you be a decent person and support Reform? Similar question to can you be a decent person and support MAGA
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,989

    algarkirk said:

    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.

    Yes, but given that Farage created the Reform party and still largely owns it, they're kind of stuck with Nigel.

    Oh, you meant their candidate in Makerfield?

    (But seriously, folks... the question of why Reform keep picking terrible people as candidates isn't just down to bad luck or poor vetting. Something about the party systematically attracts a certain sort of worst person.

    No, not every Reformer is awful, and other parties have awful people as well. But there's a definite pattern in the data.)
    Not every Reformer is awful, true, but the last time I saw Kruger he was explaining Kenyon's interesting public stance towards Vorderman and looked like a hostage uncertain as to how exactly this mess had occurred to him and how on earth an upstanding Etonian evangelical finds himself temporising with a foot soldier of Geiseric.

    Lots of decent people support Reform. Most of them have the limited sense required to do so at a substantial distance with a wary eye on the the exit. Potential candidates they are not.

    Can you be a decent person and support Reform? Similar question to can you be a decent person and support MAGA
    Yes. Mostly if you don't follow politics closely, which is very common. Secondly if you are naive and have become addicted to social media. You can still be fundamentally decent, just manipulated.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,599

    Nigelb said:

    I suspect the impact of the 1970 world cup on the General Election is a myth.

    Immigration and economics drove it. And the inaccurate opinion polls probably depressed Labour voter turnout a little bit.

    It's possible that the national euphoria of a win might have won a few more votes, but the height of hubris for a government to expect the win as their due, in any event.

    The anecdotes in the header suggest a naive (or in Jenkin's case, arrogant) belief about how interested the average person is in politics:
    ..On the Monday morning Howell and home secretary and aesthete Roy Jenkins, held a massed factory-gate meeting in Birmingham: “Roy was totally bemused that no question concerned either trade figures nor immigration, but solely the football..
    I don't think it's any shock the average person is more interested in football than politics.

    I've never met anyone who casts their vote on it.
    That's correct - but the same goes for many particular questions.

    It is for many based on "how do I feel they are doing", which is heavily influenced by things in the background, and football feelings can be one of those. That is imo why Mr Starmer's absent communications is so important - there are good stories to tell, but particularly for a Labour Government very few will tell them if the Government do not make sure it happens; and they are entirely AWOL on that score.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,854
    AI data centres: large white tulip boxes that drink water, eat electricity, pee poisoned water, escalate your bills, provide no profit, aren't being finished, and the bubble bursting is going to be horrendous.

    "Why Building AI Data Centres Isn’t Working Anymore", ColdFusion, 27minutes, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXXwN_TDdLU
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,515
    dixiedean said:

    You might think that getting to Cambridge from your local comp might be perceived as a worthy representation of the "common people".

    Not in a country like Britain that suffers from tall poppy syndrome and hates anybody getting above themselves.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,681
    edited June 9

    FF43 said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    theProle said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    A case study in why resisting reasonable development entirely can come back to bite you (if the developer ploy here works)? Work in the system to resist where you can, don't just pretend the system doesn't exist because you don't like it.

    Council rejects 100 homes.

    Developer wins appeal for 75 homes.

    Developer then submits another 65 homes on the remaining land.

    End result? Residents could get 140 homes instead of the original 100. Now they claim they’re being “picked on”.


    https://nitter.poast.org/jakewg_/status/2063551764796752183#m

    No sympathy for NIMBYs
    What about local democracy?
    Sadly I seem to repeat the same issue

    we have the same population as France but 7 million fewer homes..
    We've arrived at this point almost entirely by virtually unrestricted immigration and given the birth rate we could very easily shrink our population back again by making further immigration almost impossible.

    That is a much better deal for almost everyone than continually concreting over the country to build horrible Barratt new builds without any accompanying infrastructure.

    No more immigration, almost no more new housing, and in 15 years time housing will be affordable again. As a bonus, we can fill in the various holes in our labour force by redeployment of the people who are building houses to cope with immigration.
    Here’s 170 you can redeploy already.

    https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/170-jobs-lost-historic-gateshead-34087173
    Where to start;

    No one is building homes to cope with immigration, we aren’t building enough homes because not enough people can afford new ones. Largely flatlining wages after inflation , higher prices and supply and demand mean there are too few buyers who can afford them.

    If we stop immigration the average age will be 45 in 2040 with far too few young people and a rapidly ageing population. Are the pensioners going to build their own houses.


    In this scenario under sixteens would drop from 18% to 14%, the working population from 62% to 55% and the over 67’s would grow from about 19% to 29%…

    So dependency would go from roughly 2:1 to close to 1:1.

    Hey Presto not only no need for new houses with a collapsed economy no money to build them either!

    Peter.
    We've spent 25 years trying the approach of allowing mass immigration to increase the working age population in the face of what would otherwise be a natural decline and it has led to poor productivity growth, stagnant wages, inflated asset values and political instability. It's about time the people who advocated it learned to have some humility.
    We have had 25 years of large scale immigration.
    We have increased the working age population.
    We have so far managed to avoid the economic cliff edge of a naturally declining population.
    We have had low productivity and low wage growth.

    And you have abjectly failed to establish a causal link between them.

    Other Countries with high immigration have had productivity growth; the US for one.

    Developed Countries like Japan have had slow wage growth and little immigration.

    Peter.

    The onus isn't on me to prove a causal link. I have democracy on my side.
    No you have Populism and what’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.

    Essential you are adopting the Trumpian logic, that for something to be true the majority just has to believe it.

    Much like his Meet the Press walk out. His evidence consisted of only what he believed, nothing more.

    I am old fashioned, I like evidence based argument and still believe in objective truth.

    Peter.
    That’s not Trumpoan logic. It’s politics.

    We’ve had governance by opinion poll for many years.
    It hasn't worked very well.
    So, you don't like democracy then?
    The problem is people having factually wrong opinions. On immigration for example you can legitimately want less of it, or be comfortable with a high level. But it's a problem if people think that immigration is currently very high when it isn't, or that most new housing goes to immigrants when it doesn't, and politicians devise policies based on those demonstrably wrong perceptions.
    I think your biggest problem (and that of your liberal ilk) is that you think you're always right - and any contrary opinion is therefore "wrong" - and are totally blind to the fact you have an ideology of your own; you genuinely think the facts support it.

    I'd anchor that ideology around the complete fungibility of all individuals, and championing things like choosing your own identity and free movement regardless of any evidence of the social problems this causes.
    We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal.
    We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't.
    We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't.
    We all do.

    The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.

    But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.

    So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
    Totally, my contention is that category of people think they're someone immune from it.

    A bit more humility wouldn't go amiss.
    My contention is that there should be a greater respect for demonstrable measurable facts. "Humility" in accepting incorrect facts because people believing them are somehow deemed more sincere than I am is not something I subscribe to. Guilty as charged I suppose.
    I agree with that, and yet it is insufficient.

    People generally do not make decisions or choices on the basis of a rational evaluation of well-attested facts. They make a judgement, based on part on facts, or perceptions of them, at least, but in a greater part on other factors. On feelings, values and belief.

    One of the corrosive impacts on political disorder has been the attempt but politicians to frame debate in terms of fact so that disagreement with them is impossible. But it's rare that the facts are such that a specific policy response is unavoidable. There are almost always choices based on values, or some degree of a guess about how the future might unfold.
    True.

    Slightly different point but political choices are essentially trade-offs. The public doesn't generally engage with the trade-offs and politicians are poor at explaining the trade-offs and why they make the choices they do. So governments have tended to favour high immigration because it's an easy way to get more money into the country but they're not going to admit that. There's a public backlash and they reduce immigration but this has consequences the public don't like, that they blame politicians for, and which they don't understand is actually part of a trade-off. Whereas good policy making would present the plusses and minuses of each option and people could choose what matters most to them
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,933

    ...

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.

    Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)

    Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.

    The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.

    I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.

    The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
    Classic correlation not causation.
    Is that the Falklands, Labour’s manifesto, or the size of the bribe paid to the official in question by Moscow?
    Thank goodness with Labour jettisoning socialism we no longer have any politicians left who would trouser dirty Russian money.
    There's plenty of socialism that isn’t like the comic Suicide Note manifesto.

    It’s not a choice between unfettered capitalism and East Germany. As large numbers of social democratic parties have proved, around the world.

    If the Labour Party had been selling the politics of, say, the German SPD, in 1983, them there would have been no split. And they might well have won a majority at the election.

    Instead they chose East Germany.
    Whoooosh.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,933

    algarkirk said:

    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.

    Yes, but given that Farage created the Reform party and still largely owns it, they're kind of stuck with Nigel.

    Oh, you meant their candidate in Makerfield?

    (But seriously, folks... the question of why Reform keep picking terrible people as candidates isn't just down to bad luck or poor vetting. Something about the party systematically attracts a certain sort of worst person.

    No, not every Reformer is awful, and other parties have awful people as well. But there's a definite pattern in the data.)
    Not every Reformer is awful, true, but the last time I saw Kruger he was explaining Kenyon's interesting public stance towards Vorderman and looked like a hostage uncertain as to how exactly this mess had occurred to him and how on earth an upstanding Etonian evangelical finds himself temporising with a foot soldier of Geiseric.

    Lots of decent people support Reform. Most of them have the limited sense required to do so at a substantial distance with a wary eye on the the exit. Potential candidates they are not.

    Can you be a decent person and support Reform? Similar question to can you be a decent person and support MAGA
    Not if one has sat back, analysed the prospectus and said to oneself. "That ticks all my boxes, repatriation of brown people to the land of their fathers, a US insurance model for the NHS and a pro-Russian, and anti-Ukraine/Europe foreign policy..."
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,515
    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    theProle said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    A case study in why resisting reasonable development entirely can come back to bite you (if the developer ploy here works)? Work in the system to resist where you can, don't just pretend the system doesn't exist because you don't like it.

    Council rejects 100 homes.

    Developer wins appeal for 75 homes.

    Developer then submits another 65 homes on the remaining land.

    End result? Residents could get 140 homes instead of the original 100. Now they claim they’re being “picked on”.


    https://nitter.poast.org/jakewg_/status/2063551764796752183#m

    No sympathy for NIMBYs
    What about local democracy?
    Sadly I seem to repeat the same issue

    we have the same population as France but 7 million fewer homes..
    We've arrived at this point almost entirely by virtually unrestricted immigration and given the birth rate we could very easily shrink our population back again by making further immigration almost impossible.

    That is a much better deal for almost everyone than continually concreting over the country to build horrible Barratt new builds without any accompanying infrastructure.

    No more immigration, almost no more new housing, and in 15 years time housing will be affordable again. As a bonus, we can fill in the various holes in our labour force by redeployment of the people who are building houses to cope with immigration.
    Here’s 170 you can redeploy already.

    https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/170-jobs-lost-historic-gateshead-34087173
    Where to start;

    No one is building homes to cope with immigration, we aren’t building enough homes because not enough people can afford new ones. Largely flatlining wages after inflation , higher prices and supply and demand mean there are too few buyers who can afford them.

    If we stop immigration the average age will be 45 in 2040 with far too few young people and a rapidly ageing population. Are the pensioners going to build their own houses.


    In this scenario under sixteens would drop from 18% to 14%, the working population from 62% to 55% and the over 67’s would grow from about 19% to 29%…

    So dependency would go from roughly 2:1 to close to 1:1.

    Hey Presto not only no need for new houses with a collapsed economy no money to build them either!

    Peter.
    We've spent 25 years trying the approach of allowing mass immigration to increase the working age population in the face of what would otherwise be a natural decline and it has led to poor productivity growth, stagnant wages, inflated asset values and political instability. It's about time the people who advocated it learned to have some humility.
    We have had 25 years of large scale immigration.
    We have increased the working age population.
    We have so far managed to avoid the economic cliff edge of a naturally declining population.
    We have had low productivity and low wage growth.

    And you have abjectly failed to establish a causal link between them.

    Other Countries with high immigration have had productivity growth; the US for one.

    Developed Countries like Japan have had slow wage growth and little immigration.

    Peter.

    The onus isn't on me to prove a causal link. I have democracy on my side.
    No you have Populism and what’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.

    Essential you are adopting the Trumpian logic, that for something to be true the majority just has to believe it.

    Much like his Meet the Press walk out. His evidence consisted of only what he believed, nothing more.

    I am old fashioned, I like evidence based argument and still believe in objective truth.

    Peter.
    That’s not Trumpoan logic. It’s politics.

    We’ve had governance by opinion poll for many years.
    It hasn't worked very well.
    So, you don't like democracy then?
    The problem is people having factually wrong opinions. On immigration for example you can legitimately want less of it, or be comfortable with a high level. But it's a problem if people think that immigration is currently very high when it isn't, or that most new housing goes to immigrants when it doesn't, and politicians devise policies based on those demonstrably wrong perceptions.
    I think your biggest problem (and that of your liberal ilk) is that you think you're always right - and any contrary opinion is therefore "wrong" - and are totally blind to the fact you have an ideology of your own; you genuinely think the facts support it.

    I'd anchor that ideology around the complete fungibility of all individuals, and championing things like choosing your own identity and free movement regardless of any evidence of the social problems this causes.
    We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal.
    We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't.
    We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't.
    We all do.

    The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.

    But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.

    So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
    My wife likes to say that I always think I am right, which she appears to find irritating. My response is always, of course I think I am right. Everybody thinks they are right. If I thought I was wrong I would have changed my mind. This is a criticism I really can't understand.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,933
    I got a troll flag last night for genuinely defending Badenoch.

    I won't be doing that again.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,452

    algarkirk said:

    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.

    Yes, but given that Farage created the Reform party and still largely owns it, they're kind of stuck with Nigel.

    Oh, you meant their candidate in Makerfield?

    (But seriously, folks... the question of why Reform keep picking terrible people as candidates isn't just down to bad luck or poor vetting. Something about the party systematically attracts a certain sort of worst person.

    No, not every Reformer is awful, and other parties have awful people as well. But there's a definite pattern in the data.)
    Not every Reformer is awful, true, but the last time I saw Kruger he was explaining Kenyon's interesting public stance towards Vorderman and looked like a hostage uncertain as to how exactly this mess had occurred to him and how on earth an upstanding Etonian evangelical finds himself temporising with a foot soldier of Geiseric.

    Lots of decent people support Reform. Most of them have the limited sense required to do so at a substantial distance with a wary eye on the the exit. Potential candidates they are not.

    Can you be a decent person and support Reform? Similar question to can you be a decent person and support MAGA
    Yes, WRT Reform. Political imagination and scope varies. Many decent people find it hard to look at a big picture and are attracted to something which claims to be able to resolve immediate and local difficulties and appeal to a degree of legitimate self interest.

    So, for example, a decent person might hear what Farage has said about ILR and be able to apply it to some notional group of benefits junkies and crooks, but not apply it to surgeons and engineers.

    Politics is not most people's career or hobby. It is the job of those who seek power to communicate brilliantly to the non-political so as to keep the fanatics and extremes at bay. Which is why those in Labour who prefer power to opposition are clutching at the straw which is Burnham.

    As to MAGA. No idea. Words fail me.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,835
    S. Korea, US align on nuclear submarines as Seoul takes lead on peninsula defense
    https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/defense/20260609/s-korea-us-align-on-nuclear-submarines-as-seoul-takes-lead-on-peninsula-defense

    S Korea seem to be slowly preparing to become a nuclear power, While this agreement includes their purchasing enriched uranium from the US, rather than allowing them to set up domestic production, the threshold is steadily being lowered.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,515
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.

    Yes, but given that Farage created the Reform party and still largely owns it, they're kind of stuck with Nigel.

    Oh, you meant their candidate in Makerfield?

    (But seriously, folks... the question of why Reform keep picking terrible people as candidates isn't just down to bad luck or poor vetting. Something about the party systematically attracts a certain sort of worst person.

    No, not every Reformer is awful, and other parties have awful people as well. But there's a definite pattern in the data.)
    Not every Reformer is awful, true, but the last time I saw Kruger he was explaining Kenyon's interesting public stance towards Vorderman and looked like a hostage uncertain as to how exactly this mess had occurred to him and how on earth an upstanding Etonian evangelical finds himself temporising with a foot soldier of Geiseric.

    Lots of decent people support Reform. Most of them have the limited sense required to do so at a substantial distance with a wary eye on the the exit. Potential candidates they are not.

    Can you be a decent person and support Reform? Similar question to can you be a decent person and support MAGA
    Yes, WRT Reform. Political imagination and scope varies. Many decent people find it hard to look at a big picture and are attracted to something which claims to be able to resolve immediate and local difficulties and appeal to a degree of legitimate self interest.

    So, for example, a decent person might hear what Farage has said about ILR and be able to apply it to some notional group of benefits junkies and crooks, but not apply it to surgeons and engineers.

    Politics is not most people's career or hobby. It is the job of those who seek power to communicate brilliantly to the non-political so as to keep the fanatics and extremes at bay. Which is why those in Labour who prefer power to opposition are clutching at the straw which is Burnham.

    As to MAGA. No idea. Words fail me.

    MAGA and Reform are the same thing. MAGA looks worse to our eyes here because its American context is alien to us. Both movements attract some people who are perfectly decent in their day to day behaviour and attitudes, just as other parties or movements that we might regard with horror now attracted support from decent enough people in the past.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,515
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.

    Yes, but given that Farage created the Reform party and still largely owns it, they're kind of stuck with Nigel.

    Oh, you meant their candidate in Makerfield?

    (But seriously, folks... the question of why Reform keep picking terrible people as candidates isn't just down to bad luck or poor vetting. Something about the party systematically attracts a certain sort of worst person.

    No, not every Reformer is awful, and other parties have awful people as well. But there's a definite pattern in the data.)
    Not every Reformer is awful, true, but the last time I saw Kruger he was explaining Kenyon's interesting public stance towards Vorderman and looked like a hostage uncertain as to how exactly this mess had occurred to him and how on earth an upstanding Etonian evangelical finds himself temporising with a foot soldier of Geiseric.

    Lots of decent people support Reform. Most of them have the limited sense required to do so at a substantial distance with a wary eye on the the exit. Potential candidates they are not.

    Can you be a decent person and support Reform? Similar question to can you be a decent person and support MAGA
    Yes, WRT Reform. Political imagination and scope varies. Many decent people find it hard to look at a big picture and are attracted to something which claims to be able to resolve immediate and local difficulties and appeal to a degree of legitimate self interest.

    So, for example, a decent person might hear what Farage has said about ILR and be able to apply it to some notional group of benefits junkies and crooks, but not apply it to surgeons and engineers.

    Politics is not most people's career or hobby. It is the job of those who seek power to communicate brilliantly to the non-political so as to keep the fanatics and extremes at bay. Which is why those in Labour who prefer power to opposition are clutching at the straw which is Burnham.

    As to MAGA. No idea. Words fail me.

    MAGA and Reform are the same thing. MAGA looks worse to our eyes here because its American context is alien to us. Both movements attract some people who are perfectly decent in their day to day behaviour and attitudes, just as other parties or movements that we might regard with horror now attracted support from decent enough people in the past.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,712
    Morning all :)

    It's easy to think of football as the only sport but next week has something far more important - Royal Ascot, the greatest five days of racing in the entire year.

    How does it influence politics, you might ask?

    Well if you've had a poor first two days at the Royal meeting, you might head to the Polling Station and muse on the Makerfield By-Election Handicap, open to 3-y-o of all ages. A big field and if you've backed a lot of losers already at Ascot, why not back another one here - and so many from which to choose.....the Labour loser, the Reform loser, the Restore loser etc, etc.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,933
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.

    Yes, but given that Farage created the Reform party and still largely owns it, they're kind of stuck with Nigel.

    Oh, you meant their candidate in Makerfield?

    (But seriously, folks... the question of why Reform keep picking terrible people as candidates isn't just down to bad luck or poor vetting. Something about the party systematically attracts a certain sort of worst person.

    No, not every Reformer is awful, and other parties have awful people as well. But there's a definite pattern in the data.)
    Not every Reformer is awful, true, but the last time I saw Kruger he was explaining Kenyon's interesting public stance towards Vorderman and looked like a hostage uncertain as to how exactly this mess had occurred to him and how on earth an upstanding Etonian evangelical finds himself temporising with a foot soldier of Geiseric.

    Lots of decent people support Reform. Most of them have the limited sense required to do so at a substantial distance with a wary eye on the the exit. Potential candidates they are not.

    Can you be a decent person and support Reform? Similar question to can you be a decent person and support MAGA
    Yes, WRT Reform. Political imagination and scope varies. Many decent people find it hard to look at a big picture and are attracted to something which claims to be able to resolve immediate and local difficulties and appeal to a degree of legitimate self interest.

    So, for example, a decent person might hear what Farage has said about ILR and be able to apply it to some notional group of benefits junkies and crooks, but not apply it to surgeons and engineers.

    Politics is not most people's career or hobby. It is the job of those who seek power to communicate brilliantly to the non-political so as to keep the fanatics and extremes at bay. Which is why those in Labour who prefer power to opposition are clutching at the straw which is Burnham.

    As to MAGA. No idea. Words fail me.

    Farage "communicate(s) brilliantly to the non- political". Unfortunately the communication is laden with smoke, mirrors, subterfuge and downright lies.

    Contempt for the conman, compassion for the conned?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,599
    edited June 9
    algarkirk said:

    Interesting stuff in the FT about the gender divide in Makerfield polling. Notably that Survation have Burnham +3 with men and +17 with women. Which demonstrates the reason why this contest long ago stopped being competitive is because Reform picked a knobber and then tried to style it out.

    Yes, but given that Farage created the Reform party and still largely owns it, they're kind of stuck with Nigel.

    Oh, you meant their candidate in Makerfield?

    (But seriously, folks... the question of why Reform keep picking terrible people as candidates isn't just down to bad luck or poor vetting. Something about the party systematically attracts a certain sort of worst person.

    No, not every Reformer is awful, and other parties have awful people as well. But there's a definite pattern in the data.)
    Not every Reformer is awful, true, but the last time I saw Kruger he was explaining Kenyon's interesting public stance towards Vorderman and looked like a hostage uncertain as to how exactly this mess had occurred to him and how on earth an upstanding Etonian evangelical finds himself temporising with a foot soldier of Geiseric.

    Lots of decent people support Reform. Most of them have the limited sense required to do so at a substantial distance with a wary eye on the the exit. Potential candidates they are not.
    Kruger is quite interesting, and I like to watch where he draws his lines as he tries to synthesise the various influences around him.

    To put it in stark terms, the ideological divide between USA white evangelicals, and UK white evangelicals, is historical and still in place in attitudes to social action. That is a tension for him in a party where the leadership look to Trump, and have a similar "centre dominated by rich businessmen, with various other pieces attached" polity.

    In the USA they founded their largest protestant denomination - Southern Baptists - to protect the institution of slavery, in 1845.

    In the UK it was a group of campaigning evangelicals around Wilberforce and many others, many of whom lived around Clapham Common ("The Clapham Sect") who spent 50 years campaigning against slavery, and the church of Holy Trinity, Clapham.

    That is a basic tension - UK evangelicalism around the Evangelical Alliance has social action as a core feature. In the US it is less so. We saw it in equally stark terms when Hegseth was speaking at D-Day - in my view he was trying to shoehorn his essentially Axis position into an Allied memorial event.

    These days, Holy Trinity Clapham is known as HTC. It is a typical Georgian, relatively small for London, preaching box, currently gearing up for renovation.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,681

    FF43 said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    theProle said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    A case study in why resisting reasonable development entirely can come back to bite you (if the developer ploy here works)? Work in the system to resist where you can, don't just pretend the system doesn't exist because you don't like it.

    Council rejects 100 homes.

    Developer wins appeal for 75 homes.

    Developer then submits another 65 homes on the remaining land.

    End result? Residents could get 140 homes instead of the original 100. Now they claim they’re being “picked on”.


    https://nitter.poast.org/jakewg_/status/2063551764796752183#m

    No sympathy for NIMBYs
    What about local democracy?
    Sadly I seem to repeat the same issue

    we have the same population as France but 7 million fewer homes..
    We've arrived at this point almost entirely by virtually unrestricted immigration and given the birth rate we could very easily shrink our population back again by making further immigration almost impossible.

    That is a much better deal for almost everyone than continually concreting over the country to build horrible Barratt new builds without any accompanying infrastructure.

    No more immigration, almost no more new housing, and in 15 years time housing will be affordable again. As a bonus, we can fill in the various holes in our labour force by redeployment of the people who are building houses to cope with immigration.
    Here’s 170 you can redeploy already.

    https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/170-jobs-lost-historic-gateshead-34087173
    Where to start;

    No one is building homes to cope with immigration, we aren’t building enough homes because not enough people can afford new ones. Largely flatlining wages after inflation , higher prices and supply and demand mean there are too few buyers who can afford them.

    If we stop immigration the average age will be 45 in 2040 with far too few young people and a rapidly ageing population. Are the pensioners going to build their own houses.


    In this scenario under sixteens would drop from 18% to 14%, the working population from 62% to 55% and the over 67’s would grow from about 19% to 29%…

    So dependency would go from roughly 2:1 to close to 1:1.

    Hey Presto not only no need for new houses with a collapsed economy no money to build them either!

    Peter.
    We've spent 25 years trying the approach of allowing mass immigration to increase the working age population in the face of what would otherwise be a natural decline and it has led to poor productivity growth, stagnant wages, inflated asset values and political instability. It's about time the people who advocated it learned to have some humility.
    We have had 25 years of large scale immigration.
    We have increased the working age population.
    We have so far managed to avoid the economic cliff edge of a naturally declining population.
    We have had low productivity and low wage growth.

    And you have abjectly failed to establish a causal link between them.

    Other Countries with high immigration have had productivity growth; the US for one.

    Developed Countries like Japan have had slow wage growth and little immigration.

    Peter.

    The onus isn't on me to prove a causal link. I have democracy on my side.
    No you have Populism and what’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.

    Essential you are adopting the Trumpian logic, that for something to be true the majority just has to believe it.

    Much like his Meet the Press walk out. His evidence consisted of only what he believed, nothing more.

    I am old fashioned, I like evidence based argument and still believe in objective truth.

    Peter.
    That’s not Trumpoan logic. It’s politics.

    We’ve had governance by opinion poll for many years.
    It hasn't worked very well.
    So, you don't like democracy then?
    The problem is people having factually wrong opinions. On immigration for example you can legitimately want less of it, or be comfortable with a high level. But it's a problem if people think that immigration is currently very high when it isn't, or that most new housing goes to immigrants when it doesn't, and politicians devise policies based on those demonstrably wrong perceptions.
    I think your biggest problem (and that of your liberal ilk) is that you think you're always right - and any contrary opinion is therefore "wrong" - and are totally blind to the fact you have an ideology of your own; you genuinely think the facts support it.

    I'd anchor that ideology around the complete fungibility of all individuals, and championing things like choosing your own identity and free movement regardless of any evidence of the social problems this causes.
    We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal.
    We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't.
    We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't.
    We all do.

    The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.

    But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.

    So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
    Totally, my contention is that category of people think they're someone immune from it.

    A bit more humility wouldn't go amiss.
    My contention is that there should be a greater respect for demonstrable measurable facts. "Humility" in accepting incorrect facts because people believing them are somehow deemed more sincere than I am is not something I subscribe to. Guilty as charged I suppose.
    You are one of the ones who need it most. You confuse opinion with facts, and select the ones that confirm your opinions. It's extremely arrogant.

    The people this relates to are very quickly self-identifying themselves on this thread.
    Obviously I think this accusation is a nonsense. But it's genuinely tricky to engage with misinformation sensitively and effectively, and I'm not particularly good at it
This discussion has been closed.