I have clashed with all of the foaming-dog fever hard left nutters who infested Corbyn's Labour - but they were absolutely a small but loud majority. However, even the sane activists were a problem in that so many suffered from massive arrogance that they were the only Good politicians and the Tories and indies who were basically Tories were fundamentally Bad. Which means that Labour not really doing anything on places like Teesside was OK because people won't vote for the Bad Tories.
Of course, most Labour members were the silent never seen or heard from type who only ever existed on the membership database.
Finally, I note again HYUFD foaming on about Scotland. In a democracy, people being told that whatever they want or however they vote they will be ignored are not people who stay in that democracy for long. This is Labour's painful lesson in places like Scotland and now the red wall - ignore our opinions and we will get you out.
Not true, as 50% of Scots are still Unionists on the latest polling, far more than now vote Labour nationally or in Scotland.
The Tories are never going to win the 50% of Nationalists in Scotland so can ignore them, just as the Spanish PP conservative government successfully ignored the Catalan Nationalist government in 2017.
As long as we have a Tory majority government we will refuse the Scottish Nationalists a legal and recognised indyref2 for a generation, ironically the only way the SNP will ever get an indyref2 from the UK government is to get a UK Labour government again which relies on them for confidence and supply
I know that you keep posting the same thing. I know that you are blind to the problem.
The Tory government "refusing the Scottish Nationalists" is the Tories not voted for in Scotland refusing the people of Scotland the right to their opinion. The union becomes a prison with no legal right to exit. Democracy only works with the consent of the people. Deny that and you're in deep shit.
When I went off to reread the Aubrey-Maturin cycle (apart from a final partial book which I now find exists and is on order), HYUFD was saying that. Returning, I find it's like **** Groundhog Day, and we can't blame the covid for it. Right down to pretending that the SNP is the only pro-indy party in Scotland.
Even Chris Deerin - no "Scottish Nationalist" he - has been warning that that is a disastrous strategy in the [edit] Staggers. .
"Meanwhile, Ciaran Martin, a former constitution director at the Cabinet Office who was involved in agreeing terms for the first independence referendum, said blocking a second vote would “fundamentally” change the nature of the Union, from one based on consent to one “based on force of law”. It is hard to see Scots tolerating such an arrangement in the long term."
Exactly. A clear mandate for a vote which is ignored in Westminster only increases the resolve. What does HYUFD think will happen? People elect a majority SNP government pledged to hold a referendum, Johnson says no and the people who voted for a referendum say "ach ok, we'll forget it then"?
People, on the whole, don’t care. It fires up the partisans and the twitterati but that is not the real world. These aren’t the “wedge issues” that the activists (& their opponents) think they are.
Like - who actually cares about the correct-gendering of the handful of trans people in the prison population? I can’t get angry enough about it to form much of an opinion - and I’m a massive politics/current affairs geek.
Same thing with the statues.
People in the real world don’t care
'People in the real world don't care' - indeed, that must be why the, er, Tories are defying political gravity and hold thumping leads after 11 years in power, while woke Labour remain as popular as a snot-flavoured lollipop.
Hmm... people seem to care a little bit after all, don't they?
Sigh. Your posts are just so dull and partisan mate.
The Conservatives are winning elections, and winning them comprehensively. Nobody is disputing that.
But let's not forget that (1) they still *only* representing 45% of the population, and (2) one can vote Conservative and still not have massive opinions on various "culture war" issues.
Labour still commands support of a good 30-35% of the population. Far more popular than "snot-flavoured lollipops".
Our system makes it easy to forget that one can lose an election yet still have significant support. In fact @Leon constantly bangs on about Trump's support in the US DESPITE losing handsomely.
As long as Labour people remain in absolute denial about the immense harm their cultural disconnection from mainstream attitudes in this country does to their electoral prospects, I'll continue to try to knock some sense them into them.
On your other items, the electoral value of successive percentage points of electoral support does not scale in anything like a linear fashion. In our political system, there's a term for a a party that can maintain 40%+ support while their opponents are stuck in the 30s - we call them the Government. The fact that the Tories have normal cultural values while Labour does not locks in crucial percentage points of support that turn hung parliaments into majorities and landslides.
Right. Yet Labour remains far more popular than "snot-flavoured lollipops".
Your so called "cultural disconnect" from mainstream attitudes is clearly tolerated by a good 35-40% of voters. "Mainstream" is therefore dubious.
The fact is that @Leon (and you to an extent) constantly bang on about how despite Biden winning, Trump voters are a significant minority and should be ignored at peril.
And yet you don't seem to recognise the hypocrisy about the situation in the reverse in Britain.
The mainstream may not be obsessed with trans issues and statues but that applies equally to both the Conservatives and Labour. A small portion of the left are obsessed with trans issues and statues. A small portion of the right are also obsessed with trans issues and statues.
The Tories spend a lot of time thinking about these fringe issues and trying to convince the public that Labour spend a lot of time thinking about these fringe issues.
I just showed you Lisa Nandy and Emily Thornberry and Rebecca Long Bailey banging on about trans rights and signing up to an anti-terf agenda and going on TV to say babies have no biological sex.
That's three of your four leadership candidates. This is not a fringe issue for Labour, it is pivotal. They are obsessed with identity politics
I can well believe that provincial Labour people don't, generally, give a shit about all this, and it is a London thing. But it really is a London thing. And London basically IS Labour, now
Aliens using Velcro sounds a bit like cosmonauts using pencils when NASA was inventing the space pen.
The American officials (and ex officials) have been quite careful not to sound too outlandish. They’re basically saying “we are seeing things that are not ours, they interfere with our military operations, in a lot of cases they defy our understanding of materials science and physics itself, and we have a lot of multi point evidence backing it up. We need insight on what these things are”.
A multi decades campaign of public ridicule on the subject has meant people have been too scared to engage with it. At least in America, that’s now changing. We’ve yet to catch up here, somewhere between 2-3 years behind the process in America I’d say.
Looking at current Earth politics would be rather fascinating if it was the case that Russia, China, the EU were excluded from a US-Alien technology alliance....
Who says they’ve allied with the US? Maybe it’s the Chinese who are the favoured children and they are the ones who can now break the sound barrier without causing a sonic boom. Or have perfected trans medium transport (equally fast in air and water).
If I were a paranoid US military type figure, these intelligence reports would disturb me greatly. As it is, I just sit back and enjoy the ride, taking comfort from the human story so far being on balance a positive one. Despite them almost certainly being there from our start if they’re with us now (as looks increasingly likely).
The US seem rather more relaxed about it, is all.
If the aliens had allied with say Burundi or Micronesia, perhaps not so much.
It is going to be rather funny if Erich von Däniken ends up getting a huge apology from all those who have taken the piss out of him for decades...
If they have the power and technology to get here, they really don't need to be so elusive. Nor so obsessed with red state America.
That's a strong point. Strong enough to kill the idea in fact. Why on earth would aliens choose the US for their debut appearance? Such a cliche.
Well the answer is that they haven’t. If you look around the world, there are plenty of governments large and small less allergic to the idea, who have formally released some proper mad stuff and made statements that border on full disclosure but for reasons unknown, people haven’t noticed. Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Costa Rica, New Zealand, France etc...
The story about the School in South Africa was to me one of the most interesting UFO events that I can recall reading about
Labour most certainly is not full of left-wing nutters, the majority are not. It is just that those that shout loudest, are the nutters.
Keir Starmer however is however quite successfully allowing them to become irrelevant. He just needs more time.
And we are very generously prepared to give him all the time he needs. Would another 10 years suffice, or do you need 20?
The whole point of this site is to analyse evidence, statistical or anecdotal in order to determine likely election outcomes. Some because they bet on it and others because they have some partisan, historical or social interest. I think HYUFD is particularly interesting because he is partisan but analyses the evidence and offers situations which may not be optimal for his party. He uses that evidence to consider ways for his party to offset these sub- optimal outcomes, which seems to be sensible for a serious political operative.
I come on here with no particular axe to grind. I have fallen out of love with the Labour party, but I nonetheless detest Johnson for his morally questionable backstory and (my perception) his cynically using Brexit for personal self-aggrandisement. As such I do make quips about Johnson (although in the past, I have done so with Corbyn too) but I try to base my critique on some sort of empirical evidence. My comments might piss some people off, but that is not my intention. I suppose in order to get a particular point through, complaining about Johnson or Corbyn ( or Andrew RT Davies) supports my case.
We can all be partisan, and I think that is fair enough. But coming on here post after post and trolling one's opponents with no better analyse than 'your party is s***, your leader is a moron, and my leader and my party rock, just because they do', is a little tiresome.
The user in question clearly has very little in the way of social life, so they come on here to escape the real world.
I suspect they have so few friends is because they treat them like shit.
If you are referring to me, I have only posted recently and have barely been on site for months. To attack just because I started by correctly saying that Labour have had 4 duff leaders in a row and was ON THREAD and that SKS was wishy washy is not something that is untrue. Developing a meme on here is perfectly reasonable. Getting personal is water off a ducks back but means the point has hit the mark.
His use of the comparison kind of reveals the problem Labour and their supporters find themselves in. Boris is really hard to see as a nazi. To compare him to without any real basis for doing so is like pointing at a jack Russell and insisting they're Rottweiler.
I've seen a few comparisons of the Tories to Nazis in the recent past (mostly on twitter) and they always make me shudder. very few people alive in this country went through the Nazi regime and painfully few have properly studied it. Even the far right groups in europe are nothing like the Nazis.
If the Tories were Nazis, these people wouldn't be free to publish their speech on twitter....
and they don't see the irony in that position
I am not suggesting that Tories are Nazis. There may be individual exceptions within their ranks who do not fall far short of the the term - just as there may be extreme Leftists in Maoist groups who have much in common with Pol Pot. Goering was not the worst of the Nazis - when compared with Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich etc. He was though utterly ruthless and established the Gestapo in 1933. He was also seen by the wider public as a funny , clownish character who connected with them in a different way to Hitler's other disciples. He did not wish to see war in 1939 and opposed the attack on the USSR in June 1941 - though he followed Hitler's orders with little hesitation.Beyond that , he was self obsessed and always prioritised his own gratification with no regard to others. That may well ring a few bells today.
The bar for being compared to, let alone considered, a Nazi is much higher than you think it is. I have seen Priti Patel compared to/called a Nazi and all she has done is come up with different conclusions when looking at the evidence than the left would have done.
People, on the whole, don’t care. It fires up the partisans and the twitterati but that is not the real world. These aren’t the “wedge issues” that the activists (& their opponents) think they are.
Like - who actually cares about the correct-gendering of the handful of trans people in the prison population? I can’t get angry enough about it to form much of an opinion - and I’m a massive politics/current affairs geek.
Same thing with the statues.
People in the real world don’t care
'People in the real world don't care' - indeed, that must be why the, er, Tories are defying political gravity and hold thumping leads after 11 years in power, while woke Labour remain as popular as a snot-flavoured lollipop.
Hmm... people seem to care a little bit after all, don't they?
Sigh. Your posts are just so dull and partisan mate.
The Conservatives are winning elections, and winning them comprehensively. Nobody is disputing that.
But let's not forget that (1) they still *only* representing 45% of the population, and (2) one can vote Conservative and still not have massive opinions on various "culture war" issues.
Labour still commands support of a good 30-35% of the population. Far more popular than "snot-flavoured lollipops".
Our system makes it easy to forget that one can lose an election yet still have significant support. In fact @Leon constantly bangs on about Trump's support in the US DESPITE losing handsomely.
As long as Labour people remain in absolute denial about the immense harm their cultural disconnection from mainstream attitudes in this country does to their electoral prospects, I'll continue to try to knock some sense them into them.
On your other items, the electoral value of successive percentage points of electoral support does not scale in anything like a linear fashion. In our political system, there's a term for a a party that can maintain 40%+ support while their opponents are stuck in the 30s - we call them the Government. The fact that the Tories have normal cultural values while Labour does not locks in crucial percentage points of support that turn hung parliaments into majorities and landslides.
Right. Yet Labour remains far more popular than "snot-flavoured lollipops".
Your so called "cultural disconnect" from mainstream attitudes is clearly tolerated by a good 35-40% of voters. "Mainstream" is therefore dubious.
The fact is that @Leon (and you to an extent) constantly bang on about how despite Biden winning, Trump voters are a significant minority and should be ignored at peril.
And yet you don't seem to recognise the hypocrisy about the situation in the reverse in Britain.
The mainstream may not be obsessed with trans issues and statues but that applies equally to both the Conservatives and Labour. A small portion of the left are obsessed with trans issues and statues. A small portion of the right are also obsessed with trans issues and statues.
Fortunately, Biden himself is really quite conservative on cultural issues, to the fury of US progressives - that's one of the reasons he won. In electoral terms, the USA and Britain, despite a number of similarities, still have vastly different demographics - the fact that Trump was able to eke out a win at all in 2016 and was only beaten narrowly in crucial states this time speaks to the ruthless efficiency of the Republican machine. If the Tories were as effective, we'd be in power until about 2050.
As for statues, nothing would please me more than never having to mention them again outside of an art-historical context - the moment the left stop trying to vandalize, remove, or conceal them, I'll never raise the subject again. Their move.
Well yeah. Just like Starmer is quite conservative on cultural issues, to the fury of Corbynistas.
The fact is you're incapable of objective analysis because you're always supporting your football team — the Conservative Party.
"The left" are not trying to vandalise statues. A few extremists and yobos are trying to vandalise statues.
"The left" are not trying to vandalise statues. A few extremists and yobos are trying to vandalise statues.
And there comes the reality denial again. There's an all-out assault on Western culture and Enlightenment values taking place right now on the left, amplified by their fellow-travellers in the academy and in the media, of which statues are but one visible manifestation. You either don't see it or approve of it, so it doesn't matter to you; but it matters a lot to a significant chunk of the population. As they will continue to make clear whenever they are asked at the ballot box.
But you're constantly conflating "the left" with the Labour party. The (far) left has always been there, even in Blair's times, inciting a culture war - Class War, the SWP, anarchists, and so on. The people you're talking about are their descendants, in a new guise. It's nothing new; though a minority of them did join the Labour Party under Corbyn, most have since disappeared. But I think you'd struggle to provide evidence that the Labour Party is behind, or in any way encouraging or approving of, the destruction of statues. Where's your evidence?
"But I think you'd struggle to provide evidence that the Labour Party is behind, or in any way encouraging or approving of, the destruction of statues. Where's your evidence?"
WTAF
"Sadiq Khan will review all monuments in London to ensure they reflect city’s diversity"
I have clashed with all of the foaming-dog fever hard left nutters who infested Corbyn's Labour - but they were absolutely a small but loud majority. However, even the sane activists were a problem in that so many suffered from massive arrogance that they were the only Good politicians and the Tories and indies who were basically Tories were fundamentally Bad. Which means that Labour not really doing anything on places like Teesside was OK because people won't vote for the Bad Tories.
Of course, most Labour members were the silent never seen or heard from type who only ever existed on the membership database.
Finally, I note again HYUFD foaming on about Scotland. In a democracy, people being told that whatever they want or however they vote they will be ignored are not people who stay in that democracy for long. This is Labour's painful lesson in places like Scotland and now the red wall - ignore our opinions and we will get you out.
Not true, as 50% of Scots are still Unionists on the latest polling, far more than now vote Labour nationally or in Scotland.
The Tories are never going to win the 50% of Nationalists in Scotland so can ignore them, just as the Spanish PP conservative government successfully ignored the Catalan Nationalist government in 2017.
As long as we have a Tory majority government we will refuse the Scottish Nationalists a legal and recognised indyref2 for a generation, ironically the only way the SNP will ever get an indyref2 from the UK government is to get a UK Labour government again which relies on them for confidence and supply
I know that you keep posting the same thing. I know that you are blind to the problem.
The Tory government "refusing the Scottish Nationalists" is the Tories not voted for in Scotland refusing the people of Scotland the right to their opinion. The union becomes a prison with no legal right to exit. Democracy only works with the consent of the people. Deny that and you're in deep shit.
When I went off to reread the Aubrey-Maturin cycle (apart from a final partial book which I now find exists and is on order), HYUFD was saying that. Returning, I find it's like **** Groundhog Day, and we can't blame the covid for it. Right down to pretending that the SNP is the only pro-indy party in Scotland.
Even Chris Deerin - no "Scottish Nationalist" he - has been warning that that is a disastrous strategy in the [edit] Staggers. .
"Meanwhile, Ciaran Martin, a former constitution director at the Cabinet Office who was involved in agreeing terms for the first independence referendum, said blocking a second vote would “fundamentally” change the nature of the Union, from one based on consent to one “based on force of law”. It is hard to see Scots tolerating such an arrangement in the long term."
50% of Scots are Unionists still on the latest polling and the vast majority of them want no indyref2.
We will ignore the Nationalists however for as long as we remain in power, the SNP have to got to learn 2014 was a once in a generation vote and we Tories will ensure they get a firm message 'No Means NO!!'
4 years after the Spanish government refused the Catalan nationalist government an independence referendum it remains part of Spain, that is the template we Tories will follow if necessary as set by our PP cousins in Madrid
Amongst all your Scotch idiocies, the idea that 50% of Scots are 'Nationalists' and 50% Unionists/British nationalists is the most cretinous. Luckily for the indy cause, a similar, tone deaf cluelessness infects your leader which bodes well for us. Still, bring on the flegs and torch lit parades, they're sure to work a treat.
The polling actually shows less than a third of Scots want indyref2 within a year, the majority don't want one for up to 5 years which takes us past the 2024 general election anyway.
So as I said for the rest of our term in power we Tories can and will ignore you
"Hello people of Scotland. We Tories can and will ignore you."
That was a party election broadcast on behalf of the Scottish Conservative Party.
Question - why would anyone want to vote for you when you tell them that their democratic rights count for nothing? There is an election in a few weeks up here and you lot want people to vote for a party that "can and will ignore you"
Labour most certainly is not full of left-wing nutters, the majority are not. It is just that those that shout loudest, are the nutters.
Keir Starmer however is however quite successfully allowing them to become irrelevant. He just needs more time.
And we are very generously prepared to give him all the time he needs. Would another 10 years suffice, or do you need 20?
The whole point of this site is to analyse evidence, statistical or anecdotal in order to determine likely election outcomes. Some because they bet on it and others because they have some partisan, historical or social interest. I think HYUFD is particularly interesting because he is partisan but analyses the evidence and offers situations which may not be optimal for his party. He uses that evidence to consider ways for his party to offset these sub- optimal outcomes, which seems to be sensible for a serious political operative.
I come on here with no particular axe to grind. I have fallen out of love with the Labour party, but I nonetheless detest Johnson for his morally questionable backstory and (my perception) his cynically using Brexit for personal self-aggrandisement. As such I do make quips about Johnson (although in the past, I have done so with Corbyn too) but I try to base my critique on some sort of empirical evidence. My comments might piss some people off, but that is not my intention. I suppose in order to get a particular point through, complaining about Johnson or Corbyn ( or Andrew RT Davies) supports my case.
We can all be partisan, and I think that is fair enough. But coming on here post after post and trolling one's opponents with no better analyse than 'your party is s***, your leader is a moron, and my leader and my party rock, just because they do', is a little tiresome.
The user in question clearly has very little in the way of social life, so they come on here to escape the real world.
I suspect they have so few friends is because they treat them like shit.
If you are referring to me, I have only posted recently and have barely been on site for months. To attack just because I started by correctly saying that Labour have had 4 duff leaders in a row and was ON THREAD and that SKS was wishy washy is not something that is untrue. Developing a meme on here is perfectly reasonable. Getting personal is water off a ducks back but means the point has hit the mark.
The piece that still resonates with me was in the Spectator last week. Labour are the AND party - to support them you have to support this AND this AND this AND this and any dissent on any of them makes you a traitor. The Tories are the OR party - to support them you can support this OR this OR this and if you don't like most policies but vote for them for this one, welcome to the party!
There is no way that a party as inept as the current Tories can maintain their current level of support. Punters generally want competent fair government and despite the pox and Brexit making many voters suspend this, it won't last. However I don't put it past the Tories to reinvent themselves with a new leader leading a "new" government.
Then we have Labour. Without significant seats won in Scotland there is no route to a majority. Without a wholesale rethink of how to speak to people they aren't going to win back seats in the former red wall. Starmer isn't really the problem, the party is. A Blair would lead from the front, inspire the centre and build an unstoppable coalition of voters. I just don't see that Labour have anyone of that calibre to choose from...
More than that, perhaps the most important underlying factor that has changed over the course of the century so far is that, back in 2000, it was Labour that was the party of optimism, which looked as if it felt at ease with the country as it was. The Conservatives were the 'nasty party' that didn't much like what Britain had become or many of the people in it.
Now the situation is reversed. Labour is the party you support if you think that the country is a cesspool of racism and all kinds of horrid phobias, and most of the voters are brain dead scum who are wholly complicit in its manifold evils. Its remaining support base is very heavily skewed towards pissed off youths, minority interests and various shades of hard leftists and, apart from the occasional act of ritual genuflection before the NHS, they give a strong impression of having nothing good to say about Britain at all.
Starmer himself was meant to be the next Kinnock, but you do wonder if he's more like Labour's IDS? I don't know - yes, a lot could change in the years ahead, but how is this iteration of Labour meant to win back large numbers of voters directly from the Tories (or the SNP, for that matter?) It doesn't look at all promising for them...
Your hyperbolic characterisation of Labour supporters doesn't match any that I know, and I know a lot. It just ain't true.
Most of us are decent people who want what is best for the country, but just happen to believe that what's best includes a reduction in gross inequalities and a more tolerant, forward-looking culture. It's an optimistic vision.
Unfortunately for Labour, the impression given by both its loudest supporters and many of its MPs is that it is militantly intolerant. Society, and most of the individuals within it, are to varying degrees racist, imperialist, colonialist and all kinds of phobic, and if you don't swallow the agenda wholesale and agree with it unquestioningly then you are persona non grata and to be immediately cancelled. As Rochdale said, you must be this and this and this and this and this and this and this or you can f*** off and join the Tories.
The centre of public opinion doesn't believe that Britain is saturated with racism from top to bottom, it doesn't think that Brexit was a massive act of self-destruction which we should aim to repudiate, and it doesn't want things such as open border immigration from the whole world, or radical medical interventions for nine-year-olds who think they're suffering from gender dysphoria, either. Labour looks like it is for angry sectional interests so it will only attract support from adherents of those interests, or from the remaining cohort of "never Tory" voters for whom Labour is the best means of removing or excluding a Conservative candidate in their area. In some ways it is surprising that Labour still polls as well as it does.
100% agree, really well articulated post and ultimately the reason I'll keep voting for the blue team. I disagree with the Tories on basically everything at the moment but they won't be sending kids into gender re-education because they picked up a digger toy instead of a Barbie.
An intelligent poster 100% agreeing with borderline unhinged drivel written by another intelligent poster. Such is the scale of Labour's problem if at all representative.
Max is convinced there is a culture war that has destroyed society, on most things he is extremely articulate and I would suggest educated but on this particular issue he's completely off the deep end.
The culture war is an invented fiction, it does not exist. It has never existed. Which is why it's more depressing that Labour engages in it.
Just don't, do what Blair did and ignore it. Simple.
You think Labour under Starmer are going big on 'culture war' issues? I don't see that myself.
Of course SKS isn't, as his flag campaign shows. There is a discordance with many of his own party though.
The problem is that he is so ineffectual at articulating his vision that the left wing nutters and Tories control the narrative. I suspect he is a decent sincere bloke but needs to master the three word soundbite, and ones that have resonance with the voters, and speak to policy.
Yes, he'll need to change gear when the pandemic is over. So very soon now. I hope he has the scope for that.
The piece that still resonates with me was in the Spectator last week. Labour are the AND party - to support them you have to support this AND this AND this AND this and any dissent on any of them makes you a traitor. The Tories are the OR party - to support them you can support this OR this OR this and if you don't like most policies but vote for them for this one, welcome to the party!
There is no way that a party as inept as the current Tories can maintain their current level of support. Punters generally want competent fair government and despite the pox and Brexit making many voters suspend this, it won't last. However I don't put it past the Tories to reinvent themselves with a new leader leading a "new" government.
Then we have Labour. Without significant seats won in Scotland there is no route to a majority. Without a wholesale rethink of how to speak to people they aren't going to win back seats in the former red wall. Starmer isn't really the problem, the party is. A Blair would lead from the front, inspire the centre and build an unstoppable coalition of voters. I just don't see that Labour have anyone of that calibre to choose from...
More than that, perhaps the most important underlying factor that has changed over the course of the century so far is that, back in 2000, it was Labour that was the party of optimism, which looked as if it felt at ease with the country as it was. The Conservatives were the 'nasty party' that didn't much like what Britain had become or many of the people in it.
Now the situation is reversed. Labour is the party you support if you think that the country is a cesspool of racism and all kinds of horrid phobias, and most of the voters are brain dead scum who are wholly complicit in its manifold evils. Its remaining support base is very heavily skewed towards pissed off youths, minority interests and various shades of hard leftists and, apart from the occasional act of ritual genuflection before the NHS, they give a strong impression of having nothing good to say about Britain at all.
Starmer himself was meant to be the next Kinnock, but you do wonder if he's more like Labour's IDS? I don't know - yes, a lot could change in the years ahead, but how is this iteration of Labour meant to win back large numbers of voters directly from the Tories (or the SNP, for that matter?) It doesn't look at all promising for them...
Your hyperbolic characterisation of Labour supporters doesn't match any that I know, and I know a lot. It just ain't true.
Most of us are decent people who want what is best for the country, but just happen to believe that what's best includes a reduction in gross inequalities and a more tolerant, forward-looking culture. It's an optimistic vision.
Unfortunately for Labour, the impression given by both its loudest supporters and many of its MPs is that it is militantly intolerant. Society, and most of the individuals within it, are to varying degrees racist, imperialist, colonialist and all kinds of phobic, and if you don't swallow the agenda wholesale and agree with it unquestioningly then you are persona non grata and to be immediately cancelled. As Rochdale said, you must be this and this and this and this and this and this and this or you can f*** off and join the Tories.
The centre of public opinion doesn't believe that Britain is saturated with racism from top to bottom, it doesn't think that Brexit was a massive act of self-destruction which we should aim to repudiate, and it doesn't want things such as open border immigration from the whole world, or radical medical interventions for nine-year-olds who think they're suffering from gender dysphoria, either. Labour looks like it is for angry sectional interests so it will only attract support from adherents of those interests, or from the remaining cohort of "never Tory" voters for whom Labour is the best means of removing or excluding a Conservative candidate in their area. In some ways it is surprising that Labour still polls as well as it does.
100% agree, really well articulated post and ultimately the reason I'll keep voting for the blue team. I disagree with the Tories on basically everything at the moment but they won't be sending kids into gender re-education because they picked up a digger toy instead of a Barbie.
An intelligent poster 100% agreeing with borderline unhinged drivel written by another intelligent poster. Such is the scale of Labour's problem if at all representative.
Max is convinced there is a culture war that has destroyed society, on most things he is extremely articulate and I would suggest educated but on this particular issue he's completely off the deep end.
The culture war is an invented fiction, it does not exist. It has never existed. Which is why it's more depressing that Labour engages in it.
Just don't, do what Blair did and ignore it. Simple.
You think Labour under Starmer are going big on 'culture war' issues? I don't see that myself.
Of course SKS isn't, as his flag campaign shows. There is a discordance with many of his own party though.
The problem is that he is so ineffectual at articulating his vision that the left wing nutters and Tories control the narrative. I suspect he is a decent sincere bloke but needs to master the three word soundbite, and ones that have resonance with the voters, and speak to policy.
Yes, he'll need to change gear when the pandemic is over. So very soon now. I hope he has the scope for that.
lol. He has one gear. This is it. Surely you have realised that?
He's a reliable VW Golf. He's not gonna suddenly turn into a Ferrari
His use of the comparison kind of reveals the problem Labour and their supporters find themselves in. Boris is really hard to see as a nazi. To compare him to without any real basis for doing so is like pointing at a jack Russell and insisting they're Rottweiler.
I've seen a few comparisons of the Tories to Nazis in the recent past (mostly on twitter) and they always make me shudder. very few people alive in this country went through the Nazi regime and painfully few have properly studied it. Even the far right groups in europe are nothing like the Nazis.
If the Tories were Nazis, these people wouldn't be free to publish their speech on twitter....
and they don't see the irony in that position
I am not suggesting that Tories are Nazis. There may be individual exceptions within their ranks who do not fall far short of the the term - just as there may be extreme Leftists in Maoist groups who have much in common with Pol Pot. Goering was not the worst of the Nazis - when compared with Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich etc. He was though utterly ruthless and established the Gestapo in 1933. He was also seen by the wider public as a funny , clownish character who connected with them in a different way to Hitler's other disciples. He did not wish to see war in 1939 and opposed the attack on the USSR in June 1941 - though he followed Hitler's orders with little hesitation.Beyond that , he was self obsessed and always prioritised his own gratification with no regard to others. That may well ring a few bells today.
The bar for being compared to, let alone considered, a Nazi is much higher than you think it is. I have seen Priti Patel compared to/called a Nazi and all she has done is come up with different conclusions when looking at the evidence than the left would have done.
A Tory MP - Archibald Ramsay - was locked up in World War 2 on account of his pro-Nazi sympathies. In more recent years, people such as Terry Dicks and John Stokes come to mind. Those who endorsed the wearing of 'Hang Nelson Mandela' T-shirts had quite a bit in common with them.
Labour most certainly is not full of left-wing nutters, the majority are not. It is just that those that shout loudest, are the nutters.
Keir Starmer however is however quite successfully allowing them to become irrelevant. He just needs more time.
And we are very generously prepared to give him all the time he needs. Would another 10 years suffice, or do you need 20?
The whole point of this site is to analyse evidence, statistical or anecdotal in order to determine likely election outcomes. Some because they bet on it and others because they have some partisan, historical or social interest. I think HYUFD is particularly interesting because he is partisan but analyses the evidence and offers situations which may not be optimal for his party. He uses that evidence to consider ways for his party to offset these sub- optimal outcomes, which seems to be sensible for a serious political operative.
I come on here with no particular axe to grind. I have fallen out of love with the Labour party, but I nonetheless detest Johnson for his morally questionable backstory and (my perception) his cynically using Brexit for personal self-aggrandisement. As such I do make quips about Johnson (although in the past, I have done so with Corbyn too) but I try to base my critique on some sort of empirical evidence. My comments might piss some people off, but that is not my intention. I suppose in order to get a particular point through, complaining about Johnson or Corbyn ( or Andrew RT Davies) supports my case.
We can all be partisan, and I think that is fair enough. But coming on here post after post and trolling one's opponents with no better analyse than 'your party is s***, your leader is a moron, and my leader and my party rock, just because they do', is a little tiresome.
I always appreciate criticism of my partisanship from someone whose own posts are mostly witless anti-Tory guff.
If you bother to read what I and others of my perspective have posted today, you'll see that we have a similar analysis and go into quite a bit of detail about why Labour is so far from power, and the government so entrenched. The views we represent are currently in a historical ascendancy in this country - you might be better served trying to work out why that is and adapting to it instead of tediously whining about the messenger.
Witless? How very dare you.
Have you not read my awesome Marianne Faithful pun from last night? A cut above my usual ****witerry, if I say so myself!
I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives banned rave music.
"The right hasn't engaged in a culture war" is exactly the kind of crock of shit a reactionary out of touch old fogey would say
Not to mention Section 28.
Indeed, I think Mrs Thatcher is the one who declared the current culture war. Her break from the postwar consensus was dramatic, and she focused on the "enemy within" in the Trade Unions, and the heavy industries that had previously been central to the postwar settlement, as well as the metropolitan intellectuals, whether for gay rights or banning the bomb. She was the original flag waver, trying to put Britain's postwar decline into reverse. Not least by pushing through the Single Market.
It is why she is still so divisive today, and also why the Tories can win votes in the old coalfields, by completely repudiation the free market economy and sound money. The Redwall going blue was a in many ways a revenge on the Southern financial sector, on "citizens of nowhere", on the Thatcher economy. The Tories only got there by dancing on Thatchers grave.
However my point is good. Those videos need an explanation. Either someone is conspiring at a very high level (where, how and why?), or they are real and the US Navy pilots have seen some proper mad shit
I was in military aviation from 1988-2005. I know and have flown with literally hundreds of military pilots. I never saw any "mad shit" and I never met anybody who had.
According to some of your accounts, that simply isn’t true.
His use of the comparison kind of reveals the problem Labour and their supporters find themselves in. Boris is really hard to see as a nazi. To compare him to without any real basis for doing so is like pointing at a jack Russell and insisting they're Rottweiler.
I've seen a few comparisons of the Tories to Nazis in the recent past (mostly on twitter) and they always make me shudder. very few people alive in this country went through the Nazi regime and painfully few have properly studied it. Even the far right groups in europe are nothing like the Nazis.
If the Tories were Nazis, these people wouldn't be free to publish their speech on twitter....
and they don't see the irony in that position
I am not suggesting that Tories are Nazis. There may be individual exceptions within their ranks who do not fall far short of the the term - just as there may be extreme Leftists in Maoist groups who have much in common with Pol Pot. Goering was not the worst of the Nazis - when compared with Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich etc. He was though utterly ruthless and established the Gestapo in 1933. He was also seen by the wider public as a funny , clownish character who connected with them in a different way to Hitler's other disciples. He did not wish to see war in 1939 and opposed the attack on the USSR in June 1941 - though he followed Hitler's orders with little hesitation.Beyond that , he was self obsessed and always prioritised his own gratification with no regard to others. That may well ring a few bells today.
The bar for being compared to, let alone considered, a Nazi is much higher than you think it is. I have seen Priti Patel compared to/called a Nazi and all she has done is come up with different conclusions when looking at the evidence than the left would have done.
I've seen several comparisons of Prince Philip to a Nazi.
As in "Good. One less Nazi left."
Against a man who spent his twenties fighting the real ones, that is quite some ignorance.
I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives banned rave music.
"The right hasn't engaged in a culture war" is exactly the kind of crock of shit a reactionary out of touch old fogey would say
The famous "music characterised by a series of repetitive beats", which, ironically, is probably now seen by some on the rightwing end of the identitarian politics debate as part of the western culture under threat. The Beatles were also considered a threat to both Christian and even broader Western values in the US.
The modern identity politics polarisation and issue is complex, but both sides are afflicted, and reducing it to idea of a last stand defence of western culture is an absurdity.
His use of the comparison kind of reveals the problem Labour and their supporters find themselves in. Boris is really hard to see as a nazi. To compare him to without any real basis for doing so is like pointing at a jack Russell and insisting they're Rottweiler.
I've seen a few comparisons of the Tories to Nazis in the recent past (mostly on twitter) and they always make me shudder. very few people alive in this country went through the Nazi regime and painfully few have properly studied it. Even the far right groups in europe are nothing like the Nazis.
If the Tories were Nazis, these people wouldn't be free to publish their speech on twitter....
and they don't see the irony in that position
I am not suggesting that Tories are Nazis. There may be individual exceptions within their ranks who do not fall far short of the the term - just as there may be extreme Leftists in Maoist groups who have much in common with Pol Pot. Goering was not the worst of the Nazis - when compared with Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich etc. He was though utterly ruthless and established the Gestapo in 1933. He was also seen by the wider public as a funny , clownish character who connected with them in a different way to Hitler's other disciples. He did not wish to see war in 1939 and opposed the attack on the USSR in June 1941 - though he followed Hitler's orders with little hesitation.Beyond that , he was self obsessed and always prioritised his own gratification with no regard to others. That may well ring a few bells today.
The bar for being compared to, let alone considered, a Nazi is much higher than you think it is. I have seen Priti Patel compared to/called a Nazi and all she has done is come up with different conclusions when looking at the evidence than the left would have done.
I've seen several comparisons of Prince Philip to a Nazi.
As in "Good. One less Nazi left."
Against a man who spent his twenties fighting the real ones, that is quite some ignorance.
And not just his war service, but his stance for the individual citizen over the authority of the state.
I have clashed with all of the foaming-dog fever hard left nutters who infested Corbyn's Labour - but they were absolutely a small but loud majority. However, even the sane activists were a problem in that so many suffered from massive arrogance that they were the only Good politicians and the Tories and indies who were basically Tories were fundamentally Bad. Which means that Labour not really doing anything on places like Teesside was OK because people won't vote for the Bad Tories.
Of course, most Labour members were the silent never seen or heard from type who only ever existed on the membership database.
Finally, I note again HYUFD foaming on about Scotland. In a democracy, people being told that whatever they want or however they vote they will be ignored are not people who stay in that democracy for long. This is Labour's painful lesson in places like Scotland and now the red wall - ignore our opinions and we will get you out.
Not true, as 50% of Scots are still Unionists on the latest polling, far more than now vote Labour nationally or in Scotland.
The Tories are never going to win the 50% of Nationalists in Scotland so can ignore them, just as the Spanish PP conservative government successfully ignored the Catalan Nationalist government in 2017.
As long as we have a Tory majority government we will refuse the Scottish Nationalists a legal and recognised indyref2 for a generation, ironically the only way the SNP will ever get an indyref2 from the UK government is to get a UK Labour government again which relies on them for confidence and supply
I know that you keep posting the same thing. I know that you are blind to the problem.
The Tory government "refusing the Scottish Nationalists" is the Tories not voted for in Scotland refusing the people of Scotland the right to their opinion. The union becomes a prison with no legal right to exit. Democracy only works with the consent of the people. Deny that and you're in deep shit.
When I went off to reread the Aubrey-Maturin cycle (apart from a final partial book which I now find exists and is on order), HYUFD was saying that. Returning, I find it's like **** Groundhog Day, and we can't blame the covid for it. Right down to pretending that the SNP is the only pro-indy party in Scotland.
Even Chris Deerin - no "Scottish Nationalist" he - has been warning that that is a disastrous strategy in the [edit] Staggers. .
"Meanwhile, Ciaran Martin, a former constitution director at the Cabinet Office who was involved in agreeing terms for the first independence referendum, said blocking a second vote would “fundamentally” change the nature of the Union, from one based on consent to one “based on force of law”. It is hard to see Scots tolerating such an arrangement in the long term."
50% of Scots are Unionists still on the latest polling and the vast majority of them want no indyref2.
We will ignore the Nationalists however for as long as we remain in power, the SNP have to got to learn 2014 was a once in a generation vote and we Tories will ensure they get a firm message 'No Means NO!!'
4 years after the Spanish government refused the Catalan nationalist government an independence referendum it remains part of Spain, that is the template we Tories will follow if necessary as set by our PP cousins in Madrid
I'm not talking about what I think. I'm talking about what Unionists are thinking and saying.
The piece that still resonates with me was in the Spectator last week. Labour are the AND party - to support them you have to support this AND this AND this AND this and any dissent on any of them makes you a traitor. The Tories are the OR party - to support them you can support this OR this OR this and if you don't like most policies but vote for them for this one, welcome to the party!
There is no way that a party as inept as the current Tories can maintain their current level of support. Punters generally want competent fair government and despite the pox and Brexit making many voters suspend this, it won't last. However I don't put it past the Tories to reinvent themselves with a new leader leading a "new" government.
Then we have Labour. Without significant seats won in Scotland there is no route to a majority. Without a wholesale rethink of how to speak to people they aren't going to win back seats in the former red wall. Starmer isn't really the problem, the party is. A Blair would lead from the front, inspire the centre and build an unstoppable coalition of voters. I just don't see that Labour have anyone of that calibre to choose from...
More than that, perhaps the most important underlying factor that has changed over the course of the century so far is that, back in 2000, it was Labour that was the party of optimism, which looked as if it felt at ease with the country as it was. The Conservatives were the 'nasty party' that didn't much like what Britain had become or many of the people in it.
Now the situation is reversed. Labour is the party you support if you think that the country is a cesspool of racism and all kinds of horrid phobias, and most of the voters are brain dead scum who are wholly complicit in its manifold evils. Its remaining support base is very heavily skewed towards pissed off youths, minority interests and various shades of hard leftists and, apart from the occasional act of ritual genuflection before the NHS, they give a strong impression of having nothing good to say about Britain at all.
Starmer himself was meant to be the next Kinnock, but you do wonder if he's more like Labour's IDS? I don't know - yes, a lot could change in the years ahead, but how is this iteration of Labour meant to win back large numbers of voters directly from the Tories (or the SNP, for that matter?) It doesn't look at all promising for them...
Your hyperbolic characterisation of Labour supporters doesn't match any that I know, and I know a lot. It just ain't true.
Most of us are decent people who want what is best for the country, but just happen to believe that what's best includes a reduction in gross inequalities and a more tolerant, forward-looking culture. It's an optimistic vision.
Unfortunately for Labour, the impression given by both its loudest supporters and many of its MPs is that it is militantly intolerant. Society, and most of the individuals within it, are to varying degrees racist, imperialist, colonialist and all kinds of phobic, and if you don't swallow the agenda wholesale and agree with it unquestioningly then you are persona non grata and to be immediately cancelled. As Rochdale said, you must be this and this and this and this and this and this and this or you can f*** off and join the Tories.
The centre of public opinion doesn't believe that Britain is saturated with racism from top to bottom, it doesn't think that Brexit was a massive act of self-destruction which we should aim to repudiate, and it doesn't want things such as open border immigration from the whole world, or radical medical interventions for nine-year-olds who think they're suffering from gender dysphoria, either. Labour looks like it is for angry sectional interests so it will only attract support from adherents of those interests, or from the remaining cohort of "never Tory" voters for whom Labour is the best means of removing or excluding a Conservative candidate in their area. In some ways it is surprising that Labour still polls as well as it does.
100% agree, really well articulated post and ultimately the reason I'll keep voting for the blue team. I disagree with the Tories on basically everything at the moment but they won't be sending kids into gender re-education because they picked up a digger toy instead of a Barbie.
An intelligent poster 100% agreeing with borderline unhinged drivel written by another intelligent poster. Such is the scale of Labour's problem if at all representative.
Max is convinced there is a culture war that has destroyed society, on most things he is extremely articulate and I would suggest educated but on this particular issue he's completely off the deep end.
The culture war is an invented fiction, it does not exist. It has never existed. Which is why it's more depressing that Labour engages in it.
Just don't, do what Blair did and ignore it. Simple.
You think Labour under Starmer are going big on 'culture war' issues? I don't see that myself.
Of course SKS isn't, as his flag campaign shows. There is a discordance with many of his own party though.
The problem is that he is so ineffectual at articulating his vision that the left wing nutters and Tories control the narrative. I suspect he is a decent sincere bloke but needs to master the three word soundbite, and ones that have resonance with the voters, and speak to policy.
Yes, he'll need to change gear when the pandemic is over. So very soon now. I hope he has the scope for that.
lol. He has one gear. This is it. Surely you have realised that?
He's a reliable VW Golf. He's not gonna suddenly turn into a Ferrari
I'm not a big fan - I voted for Nandy - but these are exceptional circumstances and I'm waiting a while longer before deciding whether PM Starmer is a Not Happening Event.
Coren on fire again in the Times today btw. Having a pop at wokery and nanny state. He's in your way. Put a contract out.
I have clashed with all of the foaming-dog fever hard left nutters who infested Corbyn's Labour - but they were absolutely a small but loud majority. However, even the sane activists were a problem in that so many suffered from massive arrogance that they were the only Good politicians and the Tories and indies who were basically Tories were fundamentally Bad. Which means that Labour not really doing anything on places like Teesside was OK because people won't vote for the Bad Tories.
Of course, most Labour members were the silent never seen or heard from type who only ever existed on the membership database.
Finally, I note again HYUFD foaming on about Scotland. In a democracy, people being told that whatever they want or however they vote they will be ignored are not people who stay in that democracy for long. This is Labour's painful lesson in places like Scotland and now the red wall - ignore our opinions and we will get you out.
Not true, as 50% of Scots are still Unionists on the latest polling, far more than now vote Labour nationally or in Scotland.
The Tories are never going to win the 50% of Nationalists in Scotland so can ignore them, just as the Spanish PP conservative government successfully ignored the Catalan Nationalist government in 2017.
As long as we have a Tory majority government we will refuse the Scottish Nationalists a legal and recognised indyref2 for a generation, ironically the only way the SNP will ever get an indyref2 from the UK government is to get a UK Labour government again which relies on them for confidence and supply
I know that you keep posting the same thing. I know that you are blind to the problem.
The Tory government "refusing the Scottish Nationalists" is the Tories not voted for in Scotland refusing the people of Scotland the right to their opinion. The union becomes a prison with no legal right to exit. Democracy only works with the consent of the people. Deny that and you're in deep shit.
When I went off to reread the Aubrey-Maturin cycle (apart from a final partial book which I now find exists and is on order), HYUFD was saying that. Returning, I find it's like **** Groundhog Day, and we can't blame the covid for it. Right down to pretending that the SNP is the only pro-indy party in Scotland.
Even Chris Deerin - no "Scottish Nationalist" he - has been warning that that is a disastrous strategy in the [edit] Staggers. .
"Meanwhile, Ciaran Martin, a former constitution director at the Cabinet Office who was involved in agreeing terms for the first independence referendum, said blocking a second vote would “fundamentally” change the nature of the Union, from one based on consent to one “based on force of law”. It is hard to see Scots tolerating such an arrangement in the long term."
Exactly. A clear mandate for a vote which is ignored in Westminster only increases the resolve. What does HYUFD think will happen? People elect a majority SNP government pledged to hold a referendum, Johnson says no and the people who voted for a referendum say "ach ok, we'll forget it then"?
It also makes me wonder what else the Scvots might want that London will simply override. Brexit at the moment (we have the October changes to come yet), the child protection laws at the moment ...
Labour most certainly is not full of left-wing nutters, the majority are not. It is just that those that shout loudest, are the nutters.
Keir Starmer however is however quite successfully allowing them to become irrelevant. He just needs more time.
And we are very generously prepared to give him all the time he needs. Would another 10 years suffice, or do you need 20?
The whole point of this site is to analyse evidence, statistical or anecdotal in order to determine likely election outcomes. Some because they bet on it and others because they have some partisan, historical or social interest. I think HYUFD is particularly interesting because he is partisan but analyses the evidence and offers situations which may not be optimal for his party. He uses that evidence to consider ways for his party to offset these sub- optimal outcomes, which seems to be sensible for a serious political operative.
I come on here with no particular axe to grind. I have fallen out of love with the Labour party, but I nonetheless detest Johnson for his morally questionable backstory and (my perception) his cynically using Brexit for personal self-aggrandisement. As such I do make quips about Johnson (although in the past, I have done so with Corbyn too) but I try to base my critique on some sort of empirical evidence. My comments might piss some people off, but that is not my intention. I suppose in order to get a particular point through, complaining about Johnson or Corbyn ( or Andrew RT Davies) supports my case.
We can all be partisan, and I think that is fair enough. But coming on here post after post and trolling one's opponents with no better analyse than 'your party is s***, your leader is a moron, and my leader and my party rock, just because they do', is a little tiresome.
I always appreciate criticism of my partisanship from someone whose own posts are mostly witless anti-Tory guff.
If you bother to read what I and others of my perspective have posted today, you'll see that we have a similar analysis and go into quite a bit of detail about why Labour is so far from power, and the government so entrenched. The views we represent are currently in a historical ascendancy in this country - you might be better served trying to work out why that is and adapting to it instead of tediously whining about the messenger.
Witless? How very dare you.
Have you not read my awesome Marianne Faithful pun from last night? A cut above my usual ****witerry, if I say so myself!
Labour most certainly is not full of left-wing nutters, the majority are not. It is just that those that shout loudest, are the nutters.
Keir Starmer however is however quite successfully allowing them to become irrelevant. He just needs more time.
And we are very generously prepared to give him all the time he needs. Would another 10 years suffice, or do you need 20?
The whole point of this site is to analyse evidence, statistical or anecdotal in order to determine likely election outcomes. Some because they bet on it and others because they have some partisan, historical or social interest. I think HYUFD is particularly interesting because he is partisan but analyses the evidence and offers situations which may not be optimal for his party. He uses that evidence to consider ways for his party to offset these sub- optimal outcomes, which seems to be sensible for a serious political operative.
I come on here with no particular axe to grind. I have fallen out of love with the Labour party, but I nonetheless detest Johnson for his morally questionable backstory and (my perception) his cynically using Brexit for personal self-aggrandisement. As such I do make quips about Johnson (although in the past, I have done so with Corbyn too) but I try to base my critique on some sort of empirical evidence. My comments might piss some people off, but that is not my intention. I suppose in order to get a particular point through, complaining about Johnson or Corbyn ( or Andrew RT Davies) supports my case.
We can all be partisan, and I think that is fair enough. But coming on here post after post and trolling one's opponents with no better analyse than 'your party is s***, your leader is a moron, and my leader and my party rock, just because they do', is a little tiresome.
The user in question clearly has very little in the way of social life, so they come on here to escape the real world.
I suspect they have so few friends is because they treat them like shit.
If you are referring to me, I have only posted recently and have barely been on site for months. To attack just because I started by correctly saying that Labour have had 4 duff leaders in a row and was ON THREAD and that SKS was wishy washy is not something that is untrue. Developing a meme on here is perfectly reasonable. Getting personal is water off a ducks back but means the point has hit the mark.
Not you.
Ok not me but personal attacks are pointless. Stick to the detail.
I wonder what now happens to prince Philips staff.
Is this their last day at work?
The personal staff will be quite small, perhaps only 2-5 for him personally, as most will be linked to Philip & Elizabeth. Most aspects will not go down very much.
There will be different roles within the Royal Household. Professional type staff (eg public relations, office manager) will be able to move to other places. Others (maid, chef, personal butler and so on depending what he had) can move to similar type households - the sort of families that have family offices, popstars worth 1oos of millions etc. Or if sufficient service retire, and there may be a reduced rent / grace and favour dwelling.
The big challenge is for long term staff (say 30 years' service) who have to move.
No shortage of opportunities and Royal Household is good on a cv. Americans especially like it.
I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives banned rave music.
"The right hasn't engaged in a culture war" is exactly the kind of crock of shit a reactionary out of touch old fogey would say
Not to mention Section 28.
Indeed, I think Mrs Thatcher is the one who declared the current culture war. Her break from the postwar consensus was dramatic, and she focused on the "enemy within" in the Trade Unions, and the heavy industries that had previously been central to the postwar settlement, as well as the metropolitan intellectuals, whether for gay rights or banning the bomb. She was the original flag waver, trying to put Britain's postwar decline into reverse. Not least by pushing through the Single Market.
It is why she is still so divisive today, and also why the Tories can win votes in the old coalfields, by completely repudiation the free market economy and sound money. The Redwall going blue was a in many ways a revenge on the Southern financial sector, on "citizens of nowhere", on the Thatcher economy. The Tories only got there by dancing on Thatchers grave.
She absolutely loathed Student Unions as well. She saw them as a hotbed of communism and took various punitive actions against them.
I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives banned rave music.
"The right hasn't engaged in a culture war" is exactly the kind of crock of shit a reactionary out of touch old fogey would say
Not to mention Section 28.
Indeed, I think Mrs Thatcher is the one who declared the current culture war. Her break from the postwar consensus was dramatic, and she focused on the "enemy within" in the Trade Unions, and the heavy industries that had previously been central to the postwar settlement, as well as the metropolitan intellectuals, whether for gay rights or banning the bomb. She was the original flag waver, trying to put Britain's postwar decline into reverse. Not least by pushing through the Single Market.
It is why she is still so divisive today, and also why the Tories can win votes in the old coalfields, by completely repudiation the free market economy and sound money. The Redwall going blue was a in many ways a revenge on the Southern financial sector, on "citizens of nowhere", on the Thatcher economy. The Tories only got there by dancing on Thatchers grave.
She absolutely loathed Student Unions as well. She saw them as a hotbed of communism.
Certainly so. Her question "is he one of us?" shows her whole mentality. Viciously partisan against many of her countryfolk.
However my point is good. Those videos need an explanation. Either someone is conspiring at a very high level (where, how and why?), or they are real and the US Navy pilots have seen some proper mad shit
I was in military aviation from 1988-2005. I know and have flown with literally hundreds of military pilots. I never saw any "mad shit" and I never met anybody who had.
According to some of your accounts, that simply isn’t true.
I will clarify... I never saw or heard of any UFO related mad shit. Though mad shit of almost every other flavour was in plentiful supply.
One night, when there are fewer bourgeois prudes around, I will swing the lamps and tell the (in)famous "Hong Kong Story". It makes the Marianne Faithfull episode look like a particularly anodyne episode of Jackonory.
I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives banned rave music.
"The right hasn't engaged in a culture war" is exactly the kind of crock of shit a reactionary out of touch old fogey would say
Not to mention Section 28.
Indeed, I think Mrs Thatcher is the one who declared the current culture war. Her break from the postwar consensus was dramatic, and she focused on the "enemy within" in the Trade Unions, and the heavy industries that had previously been central to the postwar settlement, as well as the metropolitan intellectuals, whether for gay rights or banning the bomb. She was the original flag waver, trying to put Britain's postwar decline into reverse. Not least by pushing through the Single Market.
It is why she is still so divisive today, and also why the Tories can win votes in the old coalfields, by completely repudiation the free market economy and sound money. The Redwall going blue was a in many ways a revenge on the Southern financial sector, on "citizens of nowhere", on the Thatcher economy. The Tories only got there by dancing on Thatchers grave.
She absolutely loathed Student Unions as well. She saw them as a hotbed of communism and took various punitive actions against them.
Another of the worst parts of Thatcher's cultural assault was exactly *why* she hated the old BBC. It wasn't solely that she thought it was leftwing ; she juast had no understanding, interest or respect for any concept of artistic value, She cheered Murdoch on to change British public culture , because she shared his view for the need for a 'war' on old cultural elites. She in fact would have been delighted to see commercial logic gradually squashing cultural ambition over the 1990's in the way it did, contributing to the cultural landscape we have now.
I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives banned rave music.
"The right hasn't engaged in a culture war" is exactly the kind of crock of shit a reactionary out of touch old fogey would say
The famous "music characterised by a series of repetitive beats", which, ironically, is probably now seen by some on the rightwing end of the identitarian politics debate as part of the western culture under threat. The Beatles were also considered a threat to both Christian and even broader Western values in the US.
The modern identity politics polarisation and issue is complex, but both sides are afflicted, and reducing it to idea of a last stand defence of western culture is an absurdity.
Your memory is conveniently selective, or you have believed a myth. Rave music was not banned.
The legislation was aimed at overnight raves and similar in the countryside, without a license or landowner permission - which seems fair enough.
The "music characterised by a series of repetitive beats" was - judging by the Section of the Act linked below - to prevent Clever Dick lawyers arguing that rave music was not "music".
I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives banned rave music.
"The right hasn't engaged in a culture war" is exactly the kind of crock of shit a reactionary out of touch old fogey would say
The famous "music characterised by a series of repetitive beats", which, ironically, is probably now seen by some on the rightwing end of the identitarian politics debate as part of the western culture under threat. The Beatles were also considered a threat to both Christian and even broader Western values in the US.
The modern identity politics polarisation and issue is complex, but both sides are afflicted, and reducing it to idea of a last stand defence of western culture is an absurdity.
Your memory is conveniently selective, or you have believed a myth. Rave music was not banned.
The legislation was aimed at overnight raves and similar in the countryside, without a license or landowner permission - which seems fair enough.
The "music characterised by a series of repetitive beats" was - judging by the Section of the Act linked below - to prevent Clever Dick lawyers arguing that rave music was not "music".
MIchael Howard essentially wanted to ban a whole subculture because it was seen as a threat. In this he was largely successful - once the music moved from events organised on the hoof far and wide to urban club entertainment, the cultural potency was reduced.
I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives banned rave music.
"The right hasn't engaged in a culture war" is exactly the kind of crock of shit a reactionary out of touch old fogey would say
Not to mention Section 28.
Indeed, I think Mrs Thatcher is the one who declared the current culture war. Her break from the postwar consensus was dramatic, and she focused on the "enemy within" in the Trade Unions, and the heavy industries that had previously been central to the postwar settlement, as well as the metropolitan intellectuals, whether for gay rights or banning the bomb. She was the original flag waver, trying to put Britain's postwar decline into reverse. Not least by pushing through the Single Market.
It is why she is still so divisive today, and also why the Tories can win votes in the old coalfields, by completely repudiation the free market economy and sound money. The Redwall going blue was a in many ways a revenge on the Southern financial sector, on "citizens of nowhere", on the Thatcher economy. The Tories only got there by dancing on Thatchers grave.
She absolutely loathed Student Unions as well. She saw them as a hotbed of communism
I was also in a small group standing outside the crem. (no one allowed in) a year ago less a couple of weeks, on a rather cold day. But things are slowly opening up again.
I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives banned rave music.
"The right hasn't engaged in a culture war" is exactly the kind of crock of shit a reactionary out of touch old fogey would say
The famous "music characterised by a series of repetitive beats", which, ironically, is probably now seen by some on the rightwing end of the identitarian politics debate as part of the western culture under threat. The Beatles were also considered a threat to both Christian and even broader Western values in the US.
The modern identity politics polarisation and issue is complex, but both sides are afflicted, and reducing it to idea of a last stand defence of western culture is an absurdity.
Your memory is conveniently selective, or you have believed a myth. Rave music was not banned.
The legislation was aimed at overnight raves and similar in the countryside, without a license or landowner permission - which seems fair enough.
The "music characterised by a series of repetitive beats" was - judging by the Section of the Act linked below - to prevent Clever Dick lawyers arguing that rave music was not "music".
MIchael Howard essentially wanted to ban a whole subculture because it was seen as a threat. In this he was largely successful - once the music moved from events organised on the hoof far and wide to urban club entertainment, the cultural potency was reduced.
That may or may not be the case; however it was not how the legislation was framed.
A subculture of creating unlicensed days-long events drawing thousands on random bits of land with no regard for other people should be subject to law. And the drugs crime and sex crime, and accidents that go with it all. I see no problem with that at all.
I wonder what now happens to prince Philips staff.
Is this their last day at work?
They will be interred with him like the thralls in a Saxon ship burial.
Come on Dura don't tell me a curmudgeonly old veggie socialist such as yourself didn't become moist at the entire parade, heads bowed, at reverse arms.
OK, completely off topic, but I need help from you guys.
I have to decide who to vote for. In 2019 I spoiled my ballot paper, but I don’t want to do that again. People died for my right to vote and the very least I can do is use it.
But - I have in all elections a choice of three candidates. Con, Lab, Green.
The Cons are out. More out than a Hundred batter.
Labour will win easily, so in a sense this soul searching is irrelevant. But I’m dubious about them at the moment, particularly since both sets of local councillors have spent the last four years ignoring all local issues.
That leaves the Greens.
I’ve searched high, and low, and sideways. Can I find anything about their position on vaccine passports? Can I ecky thump.
Does anyone know whether they are opposed to ID cards by stealth vaccine passports?
About the only meaningful policy they have for Cannock is they want us to have much worse train services. Which for some obscure reason does not inspire me.
But if they are against vax passports, I will be willing to consider voting for them.
A pity there isn't more choice in your ward. I think there are at least 5 candidates in my area. I voted for the Greens once — at a Euro election IIRC because they were the least-worst option on that occasion.
The piece that still resonates with me was in the Spectator last week. Labour are the AND party - to support them you have to support this AND this AND this AND this and any dissent on any of them makes you a traitor. The Tories are the OR party - to support them you can support this OR this OR this and if you don't like most policies but vote for them for this one, welcome to the party!
There is no way that a party as inept as the current Tories can maintain their current level of support. Punters generally want competent fair government and despite the pox and Brexit making many voters suspend this, it won't last. However I don't put it past the Tories to reinvent themselves with a new leader leading a "new" government.
Then we have Labour. Without significant seats won in Scotland there is no route to a majority. Without a wholesale rethink of how to speak to people they aren't going to win back seats in the former red wall. Starmer isn't really the problem, the party is. A Blair would lead from the front, inspire the centre and build an unstoppable coalition of voters. I just don't see that Labour have anyone of that calibre to choose from...
More than that, perhaps the most important underlying factor that has changed over the course of the century so far is that, back in 2000, it was Labour that was the party of optimism, which looked as if it felt at ease with the country as it was. The Conservatives were the 'nasty party' that didn't much like what Britain had become or many of the people in it.
Now the situation is reversed. Labour is the party you support if you think that the country is a cesspool of racism and all kinds of horrid phobias, and most of the voters are brain dead scum who are wholly complicit in its manifold evils. Its remaining support base is very heavily skewed towards pissed off youths, minority interests and various shades of hard leftists and, apart from the occasional act of ritual genuflection before the NHS, they give a strong impression of having nothing good to say about Britain at all.
Starmer himself was meant to be the next Kinnock, but you do wonder if he's more like Labour's IDS? I don't know - yes, a lot could change in the years ahead, but how is this iteration of Labour meant to win back large numbers of voters directly from the Tories (or the SNP, for that matter?) It doesn't look at all promising for them...
Totally agree. I voted Labour twice when Blair was leader. Why? Because I liked his optimism. The Tories were the pessimists at that time.
It could of course be both, at the same time ; a system of hereditary privilege that may be amended in future further in line with what 18th century Whigs expected, and a more focused and pared-down royalty ; and also a national day that will help many other people reflect on their losses this year.
The piece that still resonates with me was in the Spectator last week. Labour are the AND party - to support them you have to support this AND this AND this AND this and any dissent on any of them makes you a traitor. The Tories are the OR party - to support them you can support this OR this OR this and if you don't like most policies but vote for them for this one, welcome to the party!
There is no way that a party as inept as the current Tories can maintain their current level of support. Punters generally want competent fair government and despite the pox and Brexit making many voters suspend this, it won't last. However I don't put it past the Tories to reinvent themselves with a new leader leading a "new" government.
Then we have Labour. Without significant seats won in Scotland there is no route to a majority. Without a wholesale rethink of how to speak to people they aren't going to win back seats in the former red wall. Starmer isn't really the problem, the party is. A Blair would lead from the front, inspire the centre and build an unstoppable coalition of voters. I just don't see that Labour have anyone of that calibre to choose from...
More than that, perhaps the most important underlying factor that has changed over the course of the century so far is that, back in 2000, it was Labour that was the party of optimism, which looked as if it felt at ease with the country as it was. The Conservatives were the 'nasty party' that didn't much like what Britain had become or many of the people in it.
Now the situation is reversed. Labour is the party you support if you think that the country is a cesspool of racism and all kinds of horrid phobias, and most of the voters are brain dead scum who are wholly complicit in its manifold evils. Its remaining support base is very heavily skewed towards pissed off youths, minority interests and various shades of hard leftists and, apart from the occasional act of ritual genuflection before the NHS, they give a strong impression of having nothing good to say about Britain at all.
Starmer himself was meant to be the next Kinnock, but you do wonder if he's more like Labour's IDS? I don't know - yes, a lot could change in the years ahead, but how is this iteration of Labour meant to win back large numbers of voters directly from the Tories (or the SNP, for that matter?) It doesn't look at all promising for them...
Totally agree. I voted Labour twice when Blair was leader. Why? Because I liked his optimism. The Tories were the pessimists at that time.
Absolutely agreed here, although I personally never voted for Blair. The British left have not found their new source of optimism. Biden in America looks to be relocating it in a neo-FDR appoach, mixed with old-world civility.
I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives banned rave music.
"The right hasn't engaged in a culture war" is exactly the kind of crock of shit a reactionary out of touch old fogey would say
The famous "music characterised by a series of repetitive beats", which, ironically, is probably now seen by some on the rightwing end of the identitarian politics debate as part of the western culture under threat. The Beatles were also considered a threat to both Christian and even broader Western values in the US.
The modern identity politics polarisation and issue is complex, but both sides are afflicted, and reducing it to idea of a last stand defence of western culture is an absurdity.
Your memory is conveniently selective, or you have believed a myth. Rave music was not banned.
The legislation was aimed at overnight raves and similar in the countryside, without a license or landowner permission - which seems fair enough.
The "music characterised by a series of repetitive beats" was - judging by the Section of the Act linked below - to prevent Clever Dick lawyers arguing that rave music was not "music".
MIchael Howard essentially wanted to ban a whole subculture because it was seen as a threat. In this he was largely successful - once the music moved from events organised on the hoof far and wide to urban club entertainment, the cultural potency was reduced.
That may or may not be the case; however it was not how the legislation was framed.
A subculture of creating unlicensed days-long events drawing thousands on random bits of land with no regard for other people should be subject to law. And the drugs crime and sex crime, and accidents that go with it all. I see no problem with that at all.
There was a truly great twitter joke on this subject - for Line of Duty fans - re the police recently raiding a rave near Maidstone that was breaking Covid rules.
"There's only one thing I care about son. Catching Kent boppers."
There's more than 30 people participating in this funeral.
Given how much it is said singing spreads Covid-19 this hymn singing is rather terrible on stopping the spread.
The choristers could spread it to each other I suppose*. But they're a way away from the royals.
* Looks unlikely to me mind given their distance and the size of the church
But then they go home to friends and family, use public transport, the shops, singing in this climate is risking spreading Covid-19 to other people.
It should have been avoided.
Professional singers (which these all are) have been doing socially distanced performances like this for some time. It is not something new for this service.
We may well be in an era when instant "polling" determines the choice parties make. As the saying goes "you only have one chance to make a first impression" but sometimes the polls tell a clear story.
The choice of Boris Johnson to succeed Theresa May as Conservative leader and Prime Minister was secured by the ComRes polling of mid June 2019 which showed, of all the Conservative leadership candidates, only Johnson could win a majority and see off the challenge of Farage. For Conservative MPs, looking at insecure majorities let alone those wishing the continuation of the Party in power, there was only one choice.
In Germany, now, we see similar being played out. When asked how they would vote in the event of Laschet or Soder being the Spitzenkandidat for the CDU/CSU, the results are dramatic.
With Laschet, the Union is on 27%, the SPD surges to 23% with the Greens on 20% whereas with Soder, the Union surges to 38%, the SPD are on 19% and the Greens on 16%.
Take one look at that polling and you know who the Union will choose as their Chancellor candidate - now, will Soder be a good Chancellor? Is he the Franz Josef Strauss de nos jours? I don't know but Laschet will be dismissed simply because "the polls" say he can't win and Soder can.
Remember New Zealand in 2017 - the Labour leader, Andrew Little, looked to be leading the Party to a catastrophic defeat against Bill English's National Party. Two polls at the end of July 2017 put Labour on 24% with National on 45-47%. Little jumped (or was pushed) and his Deputy, Jacinda Ardern. took over and the rest, as they say, is history.
Now, NZ Labour had several advantages over UK Labour, not least the flexibility to suddenly change leader (a trait throughout Australian/NZ politics). In 1994, it took nine weeks from Smith's death to Blair's accession.
Were, for example, Starmer to stand down in October 2023, we'd endure weeks of internal navel gazing from the Labour candidates until one emerged by which time the Conservatives would have had plenty of time to create a strong negative narrative.
The other point Labour today need to consider (and I think they started this with Starmer) is the Party leader has to appeal not to the Party faithful but to those considering supporting the Party. It's a fair rule internal criticism of Party leaders is inversely proportional to the success the Party enjoys and a united-looking party will always appeal more than one which looks divided.
I'd also offer the question the extent to which the 2019 election was a victory for the "Boris Johnson" Party. Will some of those who voted Conservative so enthusiastically in 2019 be as enthused for local contests this year or for future elections without Johnson as leader? Will Sunak be able to retain the Johnson "gloss"? It started well for Major after Thatcher but ended catastrophically.
Comments
That's three of your four leadership candidates. This is not a fringe issue for Labour, it is pivotal. They are obsessed with identity politics
I can well believe that provincial Labour people don't, generally, give a shit about all this, and it is a London thing. But it really is a London thing. And London basically IS Labour, now
WTAF
"Sadiq Khan will review all monuments in London to ensure they reflect city’s diversity"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sadiq-khan-statues-london-diversity-edward-colston-black-lives-matter-a9555941.html
Just the Labour Mayor of London. Supposedly a moderate
That was a party election broadcast on behalf of the Scottish Conservative Party.
Question - why would anyone want to vote for you when you tell them that their democratic rights count for nothing? There is an election in a few weeks up here and you lot want people to vote for a party that "can and will ignore you"
Ass.
Best way, IMO is to hash all the porn and require active consent from the performers to unhash.
My guess is the vast vast majority of porn out there doesn’t have the real-time consent of those featured. Which is why I don’t partake.
That, and that watching porn should be seen as sleazy. I hate that it’s become so normalised.
Maybe Leon's aliens have switched it off...
Newcastle are dogsh*t.
I can’t see how there’s enough to inspire or switch a huge amount of seats.
He's a reliable VW Golf. He's not gonna suddenly turn into a Ferrari
Ah well, back to the F1 qualifying and the glorious weather.
https://twitter.com/AdamRamsay/status/1383309972763594759?s=20
https://twitter.com/AdamRamsay/status/1383311102780403716?s=20
Have you not read my awesome Marianne Faithful pun from last night? A cut above my usual ****witerry, if I say so myself!
It is why she is still so divisive today, and also why the Tories can win votes in the old coalfields, by completely repudiation the free market economy and sound money. The Redwall going blue was a in many ways a revenge on the Southern financial sector, on "citizens of nowhere", on the Thatcher economy. The Tories only got there by dancing on Thatchers grave.
So I changed my password to something totally difficult to type in
F1: intriguing qualifying. As usual, pre-race tosh will be up tomorrow morning.
As in "Good. One less Nazi left."
Against a man who spent his twenties fighting the real ones, that is quite some ignorance.
The modern identity politics polarisation and issue is complex, but both sides are afflicted, and reducing it to idea of a last stand defence of western culture is an absurdity.
There is a difference.
Is this their last day at work?
Coren on fire again in the Times today btw. Having a pop at wokery and nanny state. He's in your way. Put a contract out.
Respec’ to the queen.
Init
Interesting flag on the coffin.
There will be different roles within the Royal Household. Professional type staff (eg public relations, office manager) will be able to move to other places. Others (maid, chef, personal butler and so on depending what he had) can move to similar type households - the sort of families that have family offices, popstars worth 1oos of millions etc. Or if sufficient service retire, and there may be a reduced rent / grace and favour dwelling.
The big challenge is for long term staff (say 30 years' service) who have to move.
No shortage of opportunities and Royal Household is good on a cv. Americans especially like it.
Tonight's game more or less for the Championship title too.
One night, when there are fewer bourgeois prudes around, I will swing the lamps and tell the (in)famous "Hong Kong Story". It makes the Marianne Faithfull episode look like a particularly anodyne episode of Jackonory.
Why the fuck is this allowed?
The legislation was aimed at overnight raves and similar in the countryside, without a license or landowner permission - which seems fair enough.
The "music characterised by a series of repetitive beats" was - judging by the Section of the Act linked below - to prevent Clever Dick lawyers arguing that rave music was not "music".
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/63
Limit was increased to 30 early in the year.
Given how much it is said singing spreads Covid-19 this hymn singing is rather terrible on stopping the spread.
But things are slowly opening up again.
A subculture of creating unlicensed days-long events drawing thousands on random bits of land with no regard for other people should be subject to law. And the drugs crime and sex crime, and accidents that go with it all. I see no problem with that at all.
May his memory be a blessing - for the Queen, his family and all those who loved him and miss him.
May all those who have lost someone they loved, especially in the last year, find consolation and blessing.
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2021/02/22/restrictions-on-weddings-and-funerals-to-be-lifted-in-summer/
* Looks unlikely to me mind given their distance and the size of the church
Thank you
It should have been avoided.
It appears she is not a member of the choir
A nice lift to my spirits.
"There's only one thing I care about son. Catching Kent boppers."
We may well be in an era when instant "polling" determines the choice parties make. As the saying goes "you only have one chance to make a first impression" but sometimes the polls tell a clear story.
The choice of Boris Johnson to succeed Theresa May as Conservative leader and Prime Minister was secured by the ComRes polling of mid June 2019 which showed, of all the Conservative leadership candidates, only Johnson could win a majority and see off the challenge of Farage. For Conservative MPs, looking at insecure majorities let alone those wishing the continuation of the Party in power, there was only one choice.
In Germany, now, we see similar being played out. When asked how they would vote in the event of Laschet or Soder being the Spitzenkandidat for the CDU/CSU, the results are dramatic.
With Laschet, the Union is on 27%, the SPD surges to 23% with the Greens on 20% whereas with Soder, the Union surges to 38%, the SPD are on 19% and the Greens on 16%.
Take one look at that polling and you know who the Union will choose as their Chancellor candidate - now, will Soder be a good Chancellor? Is he the Franz Josef Strauss de nos jours? I don't know but Laschet will be dismissed simply because "the polls" say he can't win and Soder can.
Remember New Zealand in 2017 - the Labour leader, Andrew Little, looked to be leading the Party to a catastrophic defeat against Bill English's National Party. Two polls at the end of July 2017 put Labour on 24% with National on 45-47%. Little jumped (or was pushed) and his Deputy, Jacinda Ardern. took over and the rest, as they say, is history.
Now, NZ Labour had several advantages over UK Labour, not least the flexibility to suddenly change leader (a trait throughout Australian/NZ politics). In 1994, it took nine weeks from Smith's death to Blair's accession.
Were, for example, Starmer to stand down in October 2023, we'd endure weeks of internal navel gazing from the Labour candidates until one emerged by which time the Conservatives would have had plenty of time to create a strong negative narrative.
The other point Labour today need to consider (and I think they started this with Starmer) is the Party leader has to appeal not to the Party faithful but to those considering supporting the Party. It's a fair rule internal criticism of Party leaders is inversely proportional to the success the Party enjoys and a united-looking party will always appeal more than one which looks divided.
I'd also offer the question the extent to which the 2019 election was a victory for the "Boris Johnson" Party. Will some of those who voted Conservative so enthusiastically in 2019 be as enthused for local contests this year or for future elections without Johnson as leader? Will Sunak be able to retain the Johnson "gloss"? It started well for Major after Thatcher but ended catastrophically.
This is an occasion where wearing the right uniform is taken very seriously.
The other 3 are probably Lay Clerks who normally sing in the choir of St George's Chapel. That is the normal dress for them.
Nice day today!