Cases in England up by about 25% today compared to same day last week, But, looking at the age breakdown:
5-9 rising (fast and from a reasonably high start) 10-14 rising (fast and form a high start)
0-4 falling (but very slowly)
All other age brackets falling.
If this continues, which I think it might in the short to medium term, we should still have falling hospitalisation and death.
Eventually enough kids will have antibodies after having caught it, but we don't know when that will be or how many still need to catch it. I do remember a week or so ago, somebody on hear saying that in the 10-14 age group that 50% had antibody's back in may and 70% at the start of September, which do seem credible. I cant fined verification of these numbers anywhere so if you know where they came form I would love a link?
I think it was me who mentioned the numbers for antibodies in kids. I'd seen a study (probably a pre-print) linked on twitter where they had got sterioprevalance numbers for I think 12-15s. The numbers looked fairly plausible, we know from the ONS that 53% of 16 year olds had antibodies in July (ie before we started jabbing them en-mass), so it's reasonably likely that the 12-15s were in a similar place. From memory 70% was the high estimate, with the bottom end being something like 55%.
Unfortunately, twitter being twitter, can I find it again now... (it was linked from somewhere else, possibly even here - I don't really do twitter except following links to interesting looking threads).
Raising the cost for the US to get Indian support.
India has been a big purchaser of French planes, historically. (Like a lot of countries, they aren't that keen on the strings that come attached to purchasing second tier US jets.)
Plus India won't get much credit for being the thirteenth person on the AUUKUS bus, but will get a lot for sticking by France (and French purchases of arms) when the chips are down.
The reality is that the French provide a very useful service to World: modern Western weapons, that probably aren't as good as US ones, but where the purchaser doesn't worry that the US government will stop the supply of parts and maintenance if the political winds change.
That's a really good insight. I guess from the UK (and now Australian) perspective the chances of any US government cutting us off is so remote that it doesn't enter our consciousness. From a not-UK perspective it probably does figure on contracts for defence equipment. Especially a nation like India which has previously and currently purchases Russian kit.
In all seriousness are there any reasonable forecasts on when we should expect wind levels to pick back up to normal? Or is it just a case of wait and see?
weird as this may sound Piears Corbin, the brother of the former leaser of the labour party and anti lockdown protester, started a company called 'weather action', which makes such predictions, which I understand have a track record of being very accurate.
I assume I’m missing the sarcasm. Piers is just another one of the long range guess crowd, happy to throw out predictions left right and centre and hope to get lucky. Predict a cold winter ahead everyNovember and one year in ten you hit the jackpot, and when you do make sure you tell everyone. Usually happy to ramp weather for the tabloids. See also Nathan Rao.
A tried & tested way of making a splash in the City. Keep predicting a crash until it happens.
5k up in England again week on week (~15-20%). Starting to look like a little bit of a hint of a pattern, 3 days on the bounce now.
What the heck is up with England's numbers. I practically declared victory over Covid last week and now the numbers are making me look a fool.
Tomorrow will be important given how Wednesday normally signals a step change in numbers.
Under 15s are all getting it because there's no bubbles. The rates for those age groups is massive something like 8% of them have got it over the last couple of weeks and we're almost up to 1% per day catching it. We need to watch out for leakage into older age groups but so far the vaccines seem to be holding back that particular tide.
At 1% a day from current levels of immunity, it should be pretty much over in that age range in about a month.
@stodge is enthusiastically partisan in attacking other parties and people that support them - often reflexively, a bit like @malcolmg, even when he knows the poster well and is aware of the complexity and nuance of their views - and also very defensive when it comes to the Liberal Democrats.
Common thread? He's hyper partisan.
I'm a supporter of the Liberal Democrats, I used to be a member, I'm not any more.
As for "enthusiastically attacking other parties" - well, why not? Should the Conservative Party get a free pass because it's the Party of Government? If anything, they should be more strongly held to scrutiny and account - I'd also point out I have occasionally supported some of the things the Johnson Government has done - the vaccination rollout has been a success, no question.
I do complexity and nuance - I'm not obsessed, like you, with "Woke" and whether anybody measures up to your ludicrous expectations of what it is not to be "Woke". In truth, it's of marginal relevance to 99% of the population set against all the other things but if that's the only measure that matters for you, so be it.
Am I defensive? I don't like the parties' view being misrepresented and I'm happy to challenge some of the lazier and more predictable comments. Did Davey get it wrong at the weekend? You clearly think gender identification is a big issue - for some it is, for me it's not. I think he was unwise to make such an issue of it - I'd have said the country has far more significant problems and challenges. The party ties itself in a knot trying to be all things to all people if I'm being honest.
Do I attack Labour? Back in the early days of this place, I often found common cause with the Conservatives of that time attacking the centralisation and authoritarianism of Blair/Brown and of Labour in general. I want to hear what Starmer has to offer before I pass judgement - I think that's reasonable.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Cases in England up by about 25% today compared to same day last week, But, looking at the age breakdown:
5-9 rising (fast and from a reasonably high start) 10-14 rising (fast and form a high start)
0-4 falling (but very slowly)
All other age brackets falling.
If this continues, which I think it might in the short to medium term, we should still have falling hospitalisation and death.
Eventually enough kids will have antibodies after having caught it, but we don't know when that will be or how many still need to catch it. I do remember a week or so ago, somebody on hear saying that in the 10-14 age group that 50% had antibody's back in may and 70% at the start of September, which do seem credible. I cant fined verification of these numbers anywhere so if you know where they came form I would love a link?
I think it was me who mentioned the numbers for antibodies in kids. I'd seen a study (probably a pre-print) linked on twitter where they had got sterioprevalance numbers for I think 12-15s. The numbers looked fairly plausible, we know from the ONS that 53% of 16 year olds had antibodies in July (ie before we started jabbing them en-mass), so it's reasonably likely that the 12-15s were in a similar place. From memory 70% was the high estimate, with the bottom end being something like 55%.
Unfortunately, twitter being twitter, can I find it again now... (it was linked from somewhere else, possibly even here - I don't really do twitter except following links to interesting looking threads).
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes, the Lib Dems need to realise that Woke is fundamentally illiberal - until they do I'm not interested in them at a national level.
Maybe Sir Keir is deliberately upsetting the Labour left wing (rule changes to how the leader is elected) in order to stop them banging on about whether men should be allowed in women's changing rooms?
Do you think we’ll ever see an EU that acts effectively as one? Lots of different priorities involved.. can’t see it myself
No. Because there are dramatically different priorities within the EU.
Remember the EU even struggled for unanimity in the depths of the GFC and Eurozone crises, where it was pretty clear what the end game was gong to be.
It depends what you mean by "act" and effectively" - the issue here is that on foreign policy, the Germans will always go for conciliation and commerce. Even with Putin and Xi.
The problem they have is that in Eastern Europe, the states there are now beginning to believe that Germany might not allow the EU to protect them. Then the Germans get upset by US influence there....
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
I see you have dickhead-mode switched on tonight.
Maybe shutdown and reboot your system?
I tried.
And your posts *still* don’t make sense. IT have had a look and informed me that when it comes to your offerings, it’s a GIGO issue.
Do you think we’ll ever see an EU that acts effectively as one? Lots of different priorities involved.. can’t see it myself
No. Because there are dramatically different priorities within the EU.
Remember the EU even struggled for unanimity in the depths of the GFC and body Eurozone crises, where it was pretty clear what the end game was gong to be.
Where on earth does it go from here then? Pretending it’s a global superstate whilst never fully being able to project it effectively enough..
I still cannot believe the EU president (and head of the council) are unelected. Presumably they are treated as such on an international stage.
Also - re. AUKUS - I guess ultimately this is what you get when essentially never give an inch on rigid organisational and legal structures
@stodge is enthusiastically partisan in attacking other parties and people that support them - often reflexively, a bit like @malcolmg, even when he knows the poster well and is aware of the complexity and nuance of their views - and also very defensive when it comes to the Liberal Democrats.
Common thread? He's hyper partisan.
I'm a supporter of the Liberal Democrats, I used to be a member, I'm not any more.
As for "enthusiastically attacking other parties" - well, why not? Should the Conservative Party get a free pass because it's the Party of Government? If anything, they should be more strongly held to scrutiny and account - I'd also point out I have occasionally supported some of the things the Johnson Government has done - the vaccination rollout has been a success, no question.
I do complexity and nuance - I'm not obsessed, like you, with "Woke" and whether anybody measures up to your ludicrous expectations of what it is not to be "Woke". In truth, it's of marginal relevance to 99% of the population set against all the other things but if that's the only measure that matters for you, so be it.
Am I defensive? I don't like the parties' view being misrepresented and I'm happy to challenge some of the lazier and more predictable comments. Did Davey get it wrong at the weekend? You clearly think gender identification is a big issue - for some it is, for me it's not. I think he was unwise to make such an issue of it - I'd have said the country has far more significant problems and challenges. The party ties itself in a knot trying to be all things to all people if I'm being honest.
Do I attack Labour? Back in the early days of this place, I often found common cause with the Conservatives of that time attacking the centralisation and authoritarianism of Blair/Brown and of Labour in general. I want to hear what Starmer has to offer before I pass judgement - I think that's reasonable.
If you liked complexity and nuance you wouldn't be as hyper-partisan as you are.
Your problem is that all of that is washed away when someone posts something that you don't like.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Indeed the idea is ridiculous, ultimately my vote will be won and lost on the economy and if Labour have got an economic plan that bests the Tories I'll give it serious consideration. I also expect that if Labour ever get to that point they will have "got the barnacles off the boat" and all of the woke stuff will have been dumped as voter repellent.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
"During a recent trip to the US, I had lunch with a young man from New York, who told me glumly that many of his peers had spent the summer swanning around Europe while he stayed put in America. They were all flaunting it on Instagram, of course, but none as aggressively as a clutch of young women in their early 20s, who had spent time in the most expensive spots: the Amalfi Coast, Porto Cervo, Capri. I peered at his phone and saw images of the girls draped over each other in terrace restaurants, on the prows of boats, laid along tree branches in thong bikinis, glowing with the gold-dust of fine living.
They were either still in college or freshly out of it. But the reason they, rather than the young man, were able to go yachting off Sardinia while sipping Dom Pérignon was because rich older men had hired them to come on a luxury holiday with them. The job — look hot, be nice, and be ready to accommodate more without crying assault — is called sugaring. It is — though sugar daddies or babies might not admit it — sex work. My friend betrayed no sense of surprise at the arrangement; such things had, he explained, become totally normal in his age group."
Inevitable consequence of stark wealth inequality.
Yes. Wealth is power. The exploitation is both ways here, superficially, but it isn't really. This is the rich using money to corrupt and demean and trivialize those who aren't.
So long as they're all consenting adults - why should anyone care?
Unless there's coercion or worse involved, the world's oldest profession isn't exploitation.
Things don't require overt coercion to be exploitation. That's a general truth, not just about sex work or "sugar daddydom". I'm sure you don't need me to provide examples.
"During a recent trip to the US, I had lunch with a young man from New York, who told me glumly that many of his peers had spent the summer swanning around Europe while he stayed put in America. They were all flaunting it on Instagram, of course, but none as aggressively as a clutch of young women in their early 20s, who had spent time in the most expensive spots: the Amalfi Coast, Porto Cervo, Capri. I peered at his phone and saw images of the girls draped over each other in terrace restaurants, on the prows of boats, laid along tree branches in thong bikinis, glowing with the gold-dust of fine living.
They were either still in college or freshly out of it. But the reason they, rather than the young man, were able to go yachting off Sardinia while sipping Dom Pérignon was because rich older men had hired them to come on a luxury holiday with them. The job — look hot, be nice, and be ready to accommodate more without crying assault — is called sugaring. It is — though sugar daddies or babies might not admit it — sex work. My friend betrayed no sense of surprise at the arrangement; such things had, he explained, become totally normal in his age group."
Inevitable consequence of stark wealth inequality.
Yes. Wealth is power. The exploitation is both ways here, superficially, but it isn't really. This is the rich using money to corrupt and demean and trivialize those who aren't.
So long as they're all consenting adults - why should anyone care?
Unless there's coercion or worse involved, the world's oldest profession isn't exploitation.
Things don't require overt coercion to be exploitation. That's a general truth, not just about sex work or "sugar daddydom". I'm sure you don't need me to provide examples.
"During a recent trip to the US, I had lunch with a young man from New York, who told me glumly that many of his peers had spent the summer swanning around Europe while he stayed put in America. They were all flaunting it on Instagram, of course, but none as aggressively as a clutch of young women in their early 20s, who had spent time in the most expensive spots: the Amalfi Coast, Porto Cervo, Capri. I peered at his phone and saw images of the girls draped over each other in terrace restaurants, on the prows of boats, laid along tree branches in thong bikinis, glowing with the gold-dust of fine living.
They were either still in college or freshly out of it. But the reason they, rather than the young man, were able to go yachting off Sardinia while sipping Dom Pérignon was because rich older men had hired them to come on a luxury holiday with them. The job — look hot, be nice, and be ready to accommodate more without crying assault — is called sugaring. It is — though sugar daddies or babies might not admit it — sex work. My friend betrayed no sense of surprise at the arrangement; such things had, he explained, become totally normal in his age group."
Inevitable consequence of stark wealth inequality.
Yes. Wealth is power. The exploitation is both ways here, superficially, but it isn't really. This is the rich using money to corrupt and demean and trivialize those who aren't.
So long as they're all consenting adults - why should anyone care?
Unless there's coercion or worse involved, the world's oldest profession isn't exploitation.
Things don't require overt coercion to be exploitation. That's a general truth, not just about sex work or "sugar daddydom". I'm sure you don't need me to provide examples.
Cases in England up by about 25% today compared to same day last week, But, looking at the age breakdown:
5-9 rising (fast and from a reasonably high start) 10-14 rising (fast and form a high start)
0-4 falling (but very slowly)
All other age brackets falling.
If this continues, which I think it might in the short to medium term, we should still have falling hospitalisation and death.
Eventually enough kids will have antibodies after having caught it, but we don't know when that will be or how many still need to catch it. I do remember a week or so ago, somebody on hear saying that in the 10-14 age group that 50% had antibody's back in may and 70% at the start of September, which do seem credible. I cant fined verification of these numbers anywhere so if you know where they came form I would love a link?
I think it was me who mentioned the numbers for antibodies in kids. I'd seen a study (probably a pre-print) linked on twitter where they had got sterioprevalance numbers for I think 12-15s. The numbers looked fairly plausible, we know from the ONS that 53% of 16 year olds had antibodies in July (ie before we started jabbing them en-mass), so it's reasonably likely that the 12-15s were in a similar place. From memory 70% was the high estimate, with the bottom end being something like 55%.
Unfortunately, twitter being twitter, can I find it again now... (it was linked from somewhere else, possibly even here - I don't really do twitter except following links to interesting looking threads).
Are you sure? Could you not have misremembered?
Your assuming no one else cited the same paper on here - it's possible it wasn't my post BigRich was referring to!
Do you think we’ll ever see an EU that acts effectively as one? Lots of different priorities involved.. can’t see it myself
No. Because there are dramatically different priorities within the EU.
Remember the EU even struggled for unanimity in the depths of the GFC and Eurozone crises, where it was pretty clear what the end game was gong to be.
It depends what you mean by "act" and effectively" - the issue here is that on foreign policy, the Germans will always go for conciliation and commerce. Even with Putin and Xi.
The problem they have is that in Eastern Europe, the states there are now beginning to believe that Germany might not allow the EU to protect them. Then the Germans get upset by US influence there....
But Eastern Europe isn't one block: the political classes in Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and even Czechia are all enamoured with Putin. While the Baltics, hate him.
That's the other key thing, I want to see what Labour's plan on the economy is. I want to know what their plan on China. I want to know where they stand on the EU, will they make the best of the existing deal or stupidly try and reopen it?
I want to know what Labour is going to do, but I get no answers and I follow politics much more closely than the average punter. If Starmer is unable to answer these questions then the Tories will win by default because they have got answers, regardless of whether their answers are any good.
The Lib Dems had an opportunity to plant themselves in the liberal centre. Instead we got woke nonsense and delusions of grandeur from Davey reminiscent of Jo Swinson talking about being PM.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
Don't be so sure, I'd vote for Labour. I'd have voted for Blair in 1997 for sure. I'm waiting for answers from Labour and getting nothing but radio silence. It's very frustrating as someone who is looking for a new party to vote for.
That's the other key thing, I want to see what Labour's plan on the economy is. I want to know what their plan on China. I want to know where they stand on the EU, will they make the best of the existing deal or stupidly try and reopen it?
I want to know what Labour is going to do, but I get no answers and I follow politics much more closely than the average punter. If Starmer is unable to answer these questions then the Tories will win by default because they have got answers, regardless of whether their answers are any good.
The Lib Dems had an opportunity to plant themselves in the liberal centre. Instead we got woke nonsense and delusions of grandeur from Davey reminiscent of Jo Swinson talking about being PM.
On foreign policy, Nandy’s thread is a decent start.
I remain gravely underwhelmed by Labour’s economic positioning, though Rachael Reeves is more plausible than the other lady (whose name I have already forgotten).
That's the other key thing, I want to see what Labour's plan on the economy is. I want to know what their plan on China. I want to know where they stand on the EU, will they make the best of the existing deal or stupidly try and reopen it?
I want to know what Labour is going to do, but I get no answers and I follow politics much more closely than the average punter. If Starmer is unable to answer these questions then the Tories will win by default because they have got answers, regardless of whether their answers are any good.
The Lib Dems had an opportunity to plant themselves in the liberal centre. Instead we got woke nonsense and delusions of grandeur from Davey reminiscent of Jo Swinson talking about being PM.
On foreign policy, Nandy’s thread is a decent start.
If it's on Twitter then it's going into my ignore pile. Serious politicians don't use Twitter threads for policy pitches. If there's an op-ed or something like that more than happy to read it.
Do you think we’ll ever see an EU that acts effectively as one? Lots of different priorities involved.. can’t see it myself
No. Because there are dramatically different priorities within the EU.
Remember the EU even struggled for unanimity in the depths of the GFC and body Eurozone crises, where it was pretty clear what the end game was gong to be.
Where on earth does it go from here then? Pretending it’s a global superstate whilst never fully being able to project it effectively enough..
I still cannot believe the EU president (and head of the council) are unelected. Presumably they are treated as such on an international stage.
Also - re. AUKUS - I guess ultimately this is what you get when essentially never give an inch on rigid organisational and legal structures
The EU could not function without rigid organizational and legal structures . That’s the only way the single market etc can work.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
Don't be so sure, I'd vote for Labour. I'd have voted for Blair in 1997 for sure. I'm waiting for answers from Labour and getting nothing but radio silence. It's very frustrating as someone who is looking for a new party to vote for.
Given you are moving to Switzerland anyway I am sure you will find the FDP Liberals to your taste
If you liked complexity and nuance you wouldn't be as hyper-partisan as you are.
Your problem is that all of that is washed away when someone posts something that you don't like.
Objectivity is in pretty short supply in most of your posts too, if I'm being honest.
To be fair, there's very little objectivity in general on a forum like this and should we be surprised? This is a political forum for people who are passionate about politics so you can expect plenty of that passion in the posts.
What aspect of my "hyper-partisanship" do you dislike? The fact I seek to defend the Liberal Democrats (there are plenty on here who defend every aspect of Conservative, Labour and SNP policy and practice) or the fact I am a critic of this Government?
Or is that I find your obsession with "Woke" ridiculous - just as I find the LD obsession with it equally absurd?
Do you think we’ll ever see an EU that acts effectively as one? Lots of different priorities involved.. can’t see it myself
No. Because there are dramatically different priorities within the EU.
Remember the EU even struggled for unanimity in the depths of the GFC and body Eurozone crises, where it was pretty clear what the end game was gong to be.
Where on earth does it go from here then? Pretending it’s a global superstate whilst never fully being able to project it effectively enough..
I still cannot believe the EU president (and head of the council) are unelected. Presumably they are treated as such on an international stage.
Also - re. AUKUS - I guess ultimately this is what you get when essentially never give an inch on rigid organisational and legal structures
The EU could not function without rigid organizational and legal structures . That’s the only way the single market etc can work.
It’ll never be more than just the single market (with bells on) then?
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
Don't be so sure, I'd vote for Labour. I'd have voted for Blair in 1997 for sure. I'm waiting for answers from Labour and getting nothing but radio silence. It's very frustrating as someone who is looking for a new party to vote for.
Max, I think you are a liberal, like me.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
That's the other key thing, I want to see what Labour's plan on the economy is. I want to know what their plan on China. I want to know where they stand on the EU, will they make the best of the existing deal or stupidly try and reopen it?
I want to know what Labour is going to do, but I get no answers and I follow politics much more closely than the average punter. If Starmer is unable to answer these questions then the Tories will win by default because they have got answers, regardless of whether their answers are any good.
The Lib Dems had an opportunity to plant themselves in the liberal centre. Instead we got woke nonsense and delusions of grandeur from Davey reminiscent of Jo Swinson talking about being PM.
(whose name I have already forgotten).
Me too, was it Annabelle something? But that's also my friend's sister's name so maybe not.
Do you think we’ll ever see an EU that acts effectively as one? Lots of different priorities involved.. can’t see it myself
No. Because there are dramatically different priorities within the EU.
Remember the EU even struggled for unanimity in the depths of the GFC and Eurozone crises, where it was pretty clear what the end game was gong to be.
It depends what you mean by "act" and effectively" - the issue here is that on foreign policy, the Germans will always go for conciliation and commerce. Even with Putin and Xi.
The problem they have is that in Eastern Europe, the states there are now beginning to believe that Germany might not allow the EU to protect them. Then the Germans get upset by US influence there....
But Eastern Europe isn't one block: the political classes in Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and even Czechia are all enamoured with Putin. While the Baltics, hate him.
And then there is Poland....
And the politics classes aren't all there is - as is usual, there is a fair divide between them and their electorates.
Plus there is the usual factor of believing the crocodile will eat you last....
Raising the cost for the US to get Indian support.
India has been a big purchaser of French planes, historically. (Like a lot of countries, they aren't that keen on the strings that come attached to purchasing second tier US jets.)
Plus India won't get much credit for being the thirteenth person on the AUUKUS bus, but will get a lot for sticking by France (and French purchases of arms) when the chips are down.
The reality is that the French provide a very useful service to World: modern Western weapons, that probably aren't as good as US ones, but where the purchaser doesn't worry that the US government will stop the supply of parts and maintenance if the political winds change.
That's a really good insight. I guess from the UK (and now Australian) perspective the chances of any US government cutting us off is so remote that it doesn't enter our consciousness. From a not-UK perspective it probably does figure on contracts for defence equipment. Especially a nation like India which has previously and currently purchases Russian kit.
Do you think we’ll ever see an EU that acts effectively as one? Lots of different priorities involved.. can’t see it myself
No. Because there are dramatically different priorities within the EU.
Remember the EU even struggled for unanimity in the depths of the GFC and body Eurozone crises, where it was pretty clear what the end game was gong to be.
Where on earth does it go from here then? Pretending it’s a global superstate whilst never fully being able to project it effectively enough..
I still cannot believe the EU president (and head of the council) are unelected. Presumably they are treated as such on an international stage.
Also - re. AUKUS - I guess ultimately this is what you get when essentially never give an inch on rigid organisational and legal structures
The EU could not function without rigid organizational and legal structures . That’s the only way the single market etc can work.
The problem is overreach. For single markets, yes. For foreign policy etc etc, no.
Do you think we’ll ever see an EU that acts effectively as one? Lots of different priorities involved.. can’t see it myself
No. Because there are dramatically different priorities within the EU.
Remember the EU even struggled for unanimity in the depths of the GFC and Eurozone crises, where it was pretty clear what the end game was gong to be.
It depends what you mean by "act" and effectively" - the issue here is that on foreign policy, the Germans will always go for conciliation and commerce. Even with Putin and Xi.
The problem they have is that in Eastern Europe, the states there are now beginning to believe that Germany might not allow the EU to protect them. Then the Germans get upset by US influence there....
But Eastern Europe isn't one block: the political classes in Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and even Czechia are all enamoured with Putin. While the Baltics, hate him.
Depends on their ethnicity. Estonia is 24% Russian, Latvia 25%. (Lithuania by contrast is 5%)
Do you think we’ll ever see an EU that acts effectively as one? Lots of different priorities involved.. can’t see it myself
No. Because there are dramatically different priorities within the EU.
Remember the EU even struggled for unanimity in the depths of the GFC and body Eurozone crises, where it was pretty clear what the end game was gong to be.
Where on earth does it go from here then? Pretending it’s a global superstate whilst never fully being able to project it effectively enough..
I still cannot believe the EU president (and head of the council) are unelected. Presumably they are treated as such on an international stage.
Also - re. AUKUS - I guess ultimately this is what you get when essentially never give an inch on rigid organisational and legal structures
The EU could not function without rigid organizational and legal structures . That’s the only way the single market etc can work.
It’ll never be more than just the single market (with bells on) then?
True but with 27 countries who share often different views on a range of issues it’s quite an achievement that it works so well.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
Don't be so sure, I'd vote for Labour. I'd have voted for Blair in 1997 for sure. I'm waiting for answers from Labour and getting nothing but radio silence. It's very frustrating as someone who is looking for a new party to vote for.
Max, I think you are a liberal, like me.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
Ed Davey said the expulsion of a feminist activist for wearing a t-shirt that said "woman, female human" or something else as inoffensive was to be blamed on Boris for inflaming the culture war. It's ridiculous. The guy has got a screw loose. It's his fucking party and he can tell the idiots to get fucked if they think that's any kind of offence. The problem is that the Lib Dems have made the political calculation that being woke will get them loads of Twitter likes and they can be "down the the youth". It's another under 10% strategy.
Forgetting about the political aspect for a minute, the idea of a Lib Dem party member being expelled over free expression is absolutely illiberal. Ideas are there to be discussed, not shut down. The Lib Dems, in one stroke, have proved they aren't liberals.
The idea that CO2 used in food preparation and preservation is bad is completely ridiculous. The net saving from food not rotting on shelves or in transit must be massive.
I think Sam Coates isn't being entirely serious...
I respectively disagree
This is a Sky journalist
It is quite an extraordinarily stupid thing to say
They are both correct
What point are you trying to make with "this is a Sky journalist"?
I do think that people with high profile and influential jobs have some responsibility to ensure accuracy and appropriateness of their stories. Too often they rush to print without basic fact checking or they look for the angle or the snarky tweet without considering the impact that it has.
"During a recent trip to the US, I had lunch with a young man from New York, who told me glumly that many of his peers had spent the summer swanning around Europe while he stayed put in America. They were all flaunting it on Instagram, of course, but none as aggressively as a clutch of young women in their early 20s, who had spent time in the most expensive spots: the Amalfi Coast, Porto Cervo, Capri. I peered at his phone and saw images of the girls draped over each other in terrace restaurants, on the prows of boats, laid along tree branches in thong bikinis, glowing with the gold-dust of fine living.
They were either still in college or freshly out of it. But the reason they, rather than the young man, were able to go yachting off Sardinia while sipping Dom Pérignon was because rich older men had hired them to come on a luxury holiday with them. The job — look hot, be nice, and be ready to accommodate more without crying assault — is called sugaring. It is — though sugar daddies or babies might not admit it — sex work. My friend betrayed no sense of surprise at the arrangement; such things had, he explained, become totally normal in his age group."
Inevitable consequence of stark wealth inequality.
Yes. Wealth is power. The exploitation is both ways here, superficially, but it isn't really. This is the rich using money to corrupt and demean and trivialize those who aren't.
So long as they're all consenting adults - why should anyone care?
Unless there's coercion or worse involved, the world's oldest profession isn't exploitation.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
Don't be so sure, I'd vote for Labour. I'd have voted for Blair in 1997 for sure. I'm waiting for answers from Labour and getting nothing but radio silence. It's very frustrating as someone who is looking for a new party to vote for.
Max, I think you are a liberal, like me.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
Ed Davey said the expulsion of a feminist activist for wearing a t-shirt that said "woman, female human" or something else as inoffensive was to be blamed on Boris for inflaming the culture war. It's ridiculous. The guy has got a screw loose. It's his fucking party and he can tell the idiots to get fucked if they think that's any kind of offence. The problem is that the Lib Dems have made the political calculation that being woke will get them loads of Twitter likes and they can be "down the the youth". It's another under 10% strategy.
Forgetting about the political aspect for a minute, the idea of a Lib Dem party member being expelled over free expression is absolutely illiberal. Ideas are there to be discussed, not shut down. The Lib Dems, in one stroke, have proved they aren't liberals.
I haven’t looked deeply into it, but I feel like this story has more to it than meets the eye.
Davey did a crap job responding (by the sounds of it) but I at least prefer not go straight to the firing squad.
There are woke elements in the LDs, but I don’t feel like Davey is one of them.
Oh, and whether it’s a reasonable rebuttal or not, Boris was trying to inflame a culture war. Although reports says he’s now trying to tone it down after the debacle over the European Champs.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
That's a fair point - the problem is the "classical liberal" tradition in the Party got trashed by the Orange Bookers and the Coalition. The all-too-brief philosophical convergence between Cameron's "liberal conservatism" and Clegg's Orange Book classical liberalism soon faded.
History tells us, however, a classical liberal party stuck between two tax and spend social democratic parties has a niche of 10-15% at most. The modern day Butskellism of the Conservative and Labour parties is predicated on buying votes by trying to promise more jam today and tomorrow.
The modern LDs have, in my view, regressed back to the comfortable niche of an inoffensive (to most) social liberalism without having the real courage to tackle the big fiscal questions around a State and country living within its means and the kind of society and State we want or are willing to pay for.
Traditionally, we are caught between the American model of a low tax low-welfare system and the Scandinavian model of a high-tax, high-welfare state. We of course want to have it both ways so we want low taxes AND high welfare.
Liberals shouldn't be averse to talking about raising taxes for example IF it is in the context of a broader debate around what kind of State and society we want. The economic model of low State provision and greater personal financial responsibility (insurance) is valid but the ramifications of that need to be spelt out in a society predicated on consumption.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
Don't be so sure, I'd vote for Labour. I'd have voted for Blair in 1997 for sure. I'm waiting for answers from Labour and getting nothing but radio silence. It's very frustrating as someone who is looking for a new party to vote for.
Max, I think you are a liberal, like me.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
One thing about the Lib Dems, they'll never come close to winning my seat (Bassetlaw) as long as I live I think. Labour probably won't win it for a long time either - but there is more of a base for them than the Lib Dems here (Being obviously a historic Labour seat). So whilst a vote for either won't unseat Clarke-Smith any time soon a Labour vote is probably a bit less wasted*. I'm not just talking about Con-Lab marginals the same calculation might be made for a natural Conservative in Edinburgh South that a Tory vote there is simply wasted. Do you vote for a party that can probably never win or go for one of the more realistic options ?
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
From the electoral strategy point of view it is a winner, and the one thing that Johnson is good at in politics is campaigning. The rest is hopeless incompetence.
So expect to hear a lot more about "chestfeeding" and "cultural marxism" etc.
Cases in England up by about 25% today compared to same day last week, But, looking at the age breakdown:
5-9 rising (fast and from a reasonably high start) 10-14 rising (fast and form a high start)
0-4 falling (but very slowly)
All other age brackets falling.
If this continues, which I think it might in the short to medium term, we should still have falling hospitalisation and death.
Eventually enough kids will have antibodies after having caught it, but we don't know when that will be or how many still need to catch it. I do remember a week or so ago, somebody on hear saying that in the 10-14 age group that 50% had antibody's back in may and 70% at the start of September, which do seem credible. I cant fined verification of these numbers anywhere so if you know where they came form I would love a link?
I think it was me who mentioned the numbers for antibodies in kids. I'd seen a study (probably a pre-print) linked on twitter where they had got sterioprevalance numbers for I think 12-15s. The numbers looked fairly plausible, we know from the ONS that 53% of 16 year olds had antibodies in July (ie before we started jabbing them en-mass), so it's reasonably likely that the 12-15s were in a similar place. From memory 70% was the high estimate, with the bottom end being something like 55%.
Unfortunately, twitter being twitter, can I find it again now... (it was linked from somewhere else, possibly even here - I don't really do twitter except following links to interesting looking threads).
Thanks for replying to that TheProle, I has almost forgotten I posited it.
I agree with you that the numbers seem credible but a pity there are not been made available. sorry for asking again but where do the ONS say that 53% of 16 year olds had antibody's in July? I had not seen that.
for what its worth my very much back of an envelop calculation:
for 10-14 Year olds, last week 651 to 768 is an incres of 117,
117 as a % of 651 is 18%
WoW increase is not the same as R but it is an approximation,
Therefor assume R is 1.18
therefor to get R down to 1, 18/118 of uninfected individuals need to be infected, i.e. 15 % of the uninfected.
if 55% have had it then 15% of 45% is 6.75% of the total age group,
However if 70% have had it then 15% of 30% then 4.5% of total age group need to get it,
As 0.11% of age group are getting it daily then between 41 and 61 days till heard immunity in 10-14 year olds,
Lots of caveats, too many to mention all, but include: R rising in winter, and some kids getting it more than ones, (both of which will extend this) and more kids are getting it than are testing positive, and obviously more getting it as cases rise, (both of which will shorten this)
hoping that the first 2 of these caveats is offset by the latter 2, and I think that there is a reasonable possibility that we will have reached Heard immunity even in kids before Christmas!
And for clarity I should add that's Christmas 2021.
The idea that CO2 used in food preparation and preservation is bad is completely ridiculous. The net saving from food not rotting on shelves or in transit must be massive.
I think Sam Coates isn't being entirely serious...
I respectively disagree
This is a Sky journalist
It is quite an extraordinarily stupid thing to say
They are both correct
What point are you trying to make with "this is a Sky journalist"?
I do think that people with high profile and influential jobs have some responsibility to ensure accuracy and appropriateness of their stories. Too often they rush to print without basic fact checking or they look for the angle or the snarky tweet without considering the impact that it has.
Well quite.
Who was that hack who was the Telegraph's man in Brussels? Kept filing exaggerated-to-made up piffle? Think he was sacked for making up a quote before that.
Hope he never became anything important. Just imagine someone who had been as dishonest as that with real power.
In all seriousness are there any reasonable forecasts on when we should expect wind levels to pick back up to normal? Or is it just a case of wait and see?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
That's a fair point - the problem is the "classical liberal" tradition in the Party got trashed by the Orange Bookers and the Coalition. The all-too-brief philosophical convergence between Cameron's "liberal conservatism" and Clegg's Orange Book classical liberalism soon faded.
History tells us, however, a classical liberal party stuck between two tax and spend social democratic parties has a niche of 10-15% at most. The modern day Butskellism of the Conservative and Labour parties is predicated on buying votes by trying to promise more jam today and tomorrow.
The modern LDs have, in my view, regressed back to the comfortable niche of an inoffensive (to most) social liberalism without having the real courage to tackle the big fiscal questions around a State and country living within its means and the kind of society and State we want or are willing to pay for.
Traditionally, we are caught between the American model of a low tax low-welfare system and the Scandinavian model of a high-tax, high-welfare state. We of course want to have it both ways so we want low taxes AND high welfare.
Liberals shouldn't be averse to talking about raising taxes for example IF it is in the context of a broader debate around what kind of State and society we want. The economic model of low State provision and greater personal financial responsibility (insurance) is valid but the ramifications of that need to be spelt out in a society predicated on consumption.
Davey is positioning the LDs tactically to give confidence and supply to Starmer Labour that is why, they will not prop up Boris as they did Cameron so Orange Book liberalism will get pushed on the back burner for now in favour of social liberalism and diluting Brexit to make a deal with Labour easier
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
That's a fair point - the problem is the "classical liberal" tradition in the Party got trashed by the Orange Bookers and the Coalition. The all-too-brief philosophical convergence between Cameron's "liberal conservatism" and Clegg's Orange Book classical liberalism soon faded.
History tells us, however, a classical liberal party stuck between two tax and spend social democratic parties has a niche of 10-15% at most. The modern day Butskellism of the Conservative and Labour parties is predicated on buying votes by trying to promise more jam today and tomorrow.
The modern LDs have, in my view, regressed back to the comfortable niche of an inoffensive (to most) social liberalism without having the real courage to tackle the big fiscal questions around a State and country living within its means and the kind of society and State we want or are willing to pay for.
Traditionally, we are caught between the American model of a low tax low-welfare system and the Scandinavian model of a high-tax, high-welfare state. We of course want to have it both ways so we want low taxes AND high welfare.
Liberals shouldn't be averse to talking about raising taxes for example IF it is in the context of a broader debate around what kind of State and society we want. The economic model of low State provision and greater personal financial responsibility (insurance) is valid but the ramifications of that need to be spelt out in a society predicated on consumption.
Davey is positioning the LDs tactically to give confidence and supply to Starmer Labour that is why, they will not prop up Boris as they did Cameron so Orange Book liberalism will get pushed on the back burner for now in favour of social liberalism and diluting Brexit to make a deal with Labour easier
< Ed Davey said the expulsion of a feminist activist for wearing a t-shirt that said "woman, female human" or something else as inoffensive was to be blamed on Boris for inflaming the culture war. It's ridiculous. The guy has got a screw loose. It's his fucking party and he can tell the idiots to get fucked if they think that's any kind of offence. The problem is that the Lib Dems have made the political calculation that being woke will get them loads of Twitter likes and they can be "down the the youth". It's another under 10% strategy.
Forgetting about the political aspect for a minute, the idea of a Lib Dem party member being expelled over free expression is absolutely illiberal. Ideas are there to be discussed, not shut down. The Lib Dems, in one stroke, have proved they aren't liberals.
I don't know the background to this. It sounds a bit like a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question. Davey probably knew whatever he said was going to irritate someone.
Parties expel and discipline members all the time - I suspect there's far more to it than wearing a t-shirt. If it were only that, I would agree it seems profoundly illiberal but I'm not going to pass judgement without the full story.
It's not stopping others but it's their right in a free society - that's the liberal response by the way.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
The modern LDs have, in my view, regressed back to the comfortable niche of an inoffensive (to most) social liberalism without having the real courage to tackle the big fiscal questions around a State and country living within its means and the kind of society and State we want or are willing to pay for.
Traditionally, we are caught between the American model of a low tax low-welfare system and the Scandinavian model of a high-tax, high-welfare state. We of course want to have it both ways so we want low taxes AND high welfare.
I don't think that there is an option for a low tax party at the ballot box anymore. The Tories just put up taxes so they could pay welfare to a subset of the retired.
Difficult to give a fuck about politics and the self serving scom who lead and offer "opposition "
Right now I dont give a fuck about any of them. My mother is 93 and might not survive in Hospital or out of it They discharged her when it was clear she was really ill... who makes these ludicrous decisions.. now she has been readnitted seriously ill. .and yet we laud the NHS. Well something has gone seriously wrong..... .
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
Don't be so sure, I'd vote for Labour. I'd have voted for Blair in 1997 for sure. I'm waiting for answers from Labour and getting nothing but radio silence. It's very frustrating as someone who is looking for a new party to vote for.
Max, I think you are a liberal, like me.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
One thing about the Lib Dems, they'll never come close to winning my seat (Bassetlaw) as long as I live I think. Labour probably won't win it for a long time either - but there is more of a base for them than the Lib Dems here (Being obviously a historic Labour seat). So whilst a vote for either won't unseat Clarke-Smith any time soon a Labour vote is probably a bit less wasted*. I'm not just talking about Con-Lab marginals the same calculation might be made for a natural Conservative in Edinburgh South that a Tory vote there is simply wasted. Do you vote for a party that can probably never win or go for one of the more realistic options ?
* Even if it's incredibly unlikely
I think it is premature to make assumptions about seats such as Bassetlaw until we have seen results there over a series of elections. The fact of a big Tory win there in 2019 in the context of Corbyn, Brexit plus being egged on by the departing Labour MP did not make it a typical election. Corbyn is gone - Brexit probably matters much less to voters there now than was true two years ago. The net effect of these changes will not be clear for a while. I recall that many seats in the South of England which swung heavily to Labour in 1997 and 2001 are safely back in Tory hands now. We simply do not know.
https://twitter.com/NikkiMcR/status/1440107079205892097 Tucker Carlson says vaccine requirements for the military are a ploy to "identify the sincere Christians in the ranks, the free thinkers, the men with high testosterone levels, and anybody else who doesn't love Joe Biden and make them leave immediately."
Wind power should be back up to seasonal norms shortly. It’s already at nearly 6kw and should head towards 10 by the weekend. Peak winter generation gets up to touching 17gw during Atlantic storms. In summer anticyclones it can be 1gw or lower.
For good wind generation we need windy weather in the North West, North Sea and Scotland. We’ve had a few gales up the channel this summer that blew over a few tents but didn’t coincide with where the turbines are.
Temperatures still quite high though so peak demand remains suppressed. One issue is Nuclear has declined steadily from about 8gw to 5 over the last few years.
The current energy mini-crisis is an early warning of future disaster unless significant changes are made to UK plans.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
Don't be so sure, I'd vote for Labour. I'd have voted for Blair in 1997 for sure. I'm waiting for answers from Labour and getting nothing but radio silence. It's very frustrating as someone who is looking for a new party to vote for.
Max, I think you are a liberal, like me.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
One thing about the Lib Dems, they'll never come close to winning my seat (Bassetlaw) as long as I live I think. Labour probably won't win it for a long time either - but there is more of a base for them than the Lib Dems here (Being obviously a historic Labour seat). So whilst a vote for either won't unseat Clarke-Smith any time soon a Labour vote is probably a bit less wasted*. I'm not just talking about Con-Lab marginals the same calculation might be made for a natural Conservative in Edinburgh South that a Tory vote there is simply wasted. Do you vote for a party that can probably never win or go for one of the more realistic options ?
* Even if it's incredibly unlikely
I think it is premature to make assumptions about seats such as Bassetlaw until we have seen results there over a series of elections. The fact of a big Tory win there in 2019 in the context of Corbyn, Brexit plus being egged on by the departing Labour MP did not make it a typical election. Corbyn is gone - Brexit probably matters much less to voters there now than was true two years ago. The net effect of these changes will not be clear for a while. I recall that many seats in the South of England which swung heavily to Labour in 1997 and 2001 are safely back in Tory hands now. We simply do not know.
Even if you accept that Labour can get Bassetlaw back at some point - you can't begin to make a plausible case for the Lib Dems winning it in the next 50 years. That was the main thrust of my post.
The idea that CO2 used in food preparation and preservation is bad is completely ridiculous. The net saving from food not rotting on shelves or in transit must be massive.
I think Sam Coates isn't being entirely serious...
I respectively disagree
This is a Sky journalist
It is quite an extraordinarily stupid thing to say
They are both correct
What point are you trying to make with "this is a Sky journalist"?
I do think that people with high profile and influential jobs have some responsibility to ensure accuracy and appropriateness of their stories. Too often they rush to print without basic fact checking or they look for the angle or the snarky tweet without considering the impact that it has.
Yeah, it's terrible when folk write stuff on the internet without fact checking.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
The modern LDs have, in my view, regressed back to the comfortable niche of an inoffensive (to most) social liberalism without having the real courage to tackle the big fiscal questions around a State and country living within its means and the kind of society and State we want or are willing to pay for.
Traditionally, we are caught between the American model of a low tax low-welfare system and the Scandinavian model of a high-tax, high-welfare state. We of course want to have it both ways so we want low taxes AND high welfare.
I don't think that there is an option for a low tax party at the ballot box anymore. The Tories just put up taxes so they could pay welfare to a subset of the retired.
And to be honest, there's probably not much of an option for a low tax party at a governmental level either. Pension spending is what it is and is going to be what it is going to be. Ditto health. Pretty much everything else has been squeezed fairly hard for a decade. The last couple of twigs of EU subscriptions and generous foreign aid have already gone on the bonfire.
So as long as we have a Tory government there will be no indyref2 allowed, it would need a Starmer premiership after the next UK general election, probably with SNP confidence and supply, for it to be allowed
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
Don't be so sure, I'd vote for Labour. I'd have voted for Blair in 1997 for sure. I'm waiting for answers from Labour and getting nothing but radio silence. It's very frustrating as someone who is looking for a new party to vote for.
Max, I think you are a liberal, like me.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
One thing about the Lib Dems, they'll never come close to winning my seat (Bassetlaw) as long as I live I think. Labour probably won't win it for a long time either - but there is more of a base for them than the Lib Dems here (Being obviously a historic Labour seat). So whilst a vote for either won't unseat Clarke-Smith any time soon a Labour vote is probably a bit less wasted*. I'm not just talking about Con-Lab marginals the same calculation might be made for a natural Conservative in Edinburgh South that a Tory vote there is simply wasted. Do you vote for a party that can probably never win or go for one of the more realistic options ?
* Even if it's incredibly unlikely
I have that problem in South Pembrokeshire. Our MP is the airhead Simon Hart. His majority is about 18% over Labour. The libdem vote is 4%. There is absolutely no chance of making a difference here.
Difficult to give a fuck about politics and the self serving scom who lead and offer "opposition "
Right now I dont give a fuck about any of them. My mother is 93 and might not survive in Hospital or out of it They discharged her when it was clear she was really ill... who makes these ludicrous decisions.. now she has been readnitted seriously ill. .and yet we laud the NHS. Well something has gone seriously wrong..... .
Sorry to hear it. The system is breaking down.
The pressures on Emergency Depts are huge, (see @Cyclefree last week) and mostly it is because of the back door rather than the front. Hence patients cannot be admitted to wards that are full. Add in pressure from management to discharge, problems with hospital acquired covid, juniors who have hardly been trained for 18 months, and nursing shortages and you have a very bad situation to be ill in.
"During a recent trip to the US, I had lunch with a young man from New York, who told me glumly that many of his peers had spent the summer swanning around Europe while he stayed put in America. They were all flaunting it on Instagram, of course, but none as aggressively as a clutch of young women in their early 20s, who had spent time in the most expensive spots: the Amalfi Coast, Porto Cervo, Capri. I peered at his phone and saw images of the girls draped over each other in terrace restaurants, on the prows of boats, laid along tree branches in thong bikinis, glowing with the gold-dust of fine living.
They were either still in college or freshly out of it. But the reason they, rather than the young man, were able to go yachting off Sardinia while sipping Dom Pérignon was because rich older men had hired them to come on a luxury holiday with them. The job — look hot, be nice, and be ready to accommodate more without crying assault — is called sugaring. It is — though sugar daddies or babies might not admit it — sex work. My friend betrayed no sense of surprise at the arrangement; such things had, he explained, become totally normal in his age group."
Inevitable consequence of stark wealth inequality.
Yes. Wealth is power. The exploitation is both ways here, superficially, but it isn't really. This is the rich using money to corrupt and demean and trivialize those who aren't.
So long as they're all consenting adults - why should anyone care?
Unless there's coercion or worse involved, the world's oldest profession isn't exploitation.
On this article: If you go looking for something, as the author did, then you will probably find it. I was at a redbrick uni 2 decades ago and there was a lap dancer living in my halls of residence. A guy in my year claimed his dad ran a brothel in Thailand. I don't think any of this was evidence of a social phenomenon, they were all just slightly eccentric things. But the author is otherwise probably correct that the normalisation of porn, online dating, the attempts to codify consent etc have all radically changed intimacy for young people in ways that we cannot comprehend.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
Davey is positioning the LDs tactically to give confidence and supply to Starmer Labour that is why, they will not prop up Boris as they did Cameron so Orange Book liberalism will get pushed on the back burner for now in favour of social liberalism and diluting Brexit to make a deal with Labour easier
As usual, you're probably right. I think trying to prop up a weakened Conservative Government in 2024 would be as helpful as would propping up a weakened Labour Government in 2010.
That said, I can't see anything beyond C&S and that may not be straightforward.
On an unrelated, what was your take on the Canadian election? I thought O'Toole could and arguably should have done better especially after the strong start to the campaign but it all went a bit wrong for him and I'm not quite sure why.
I suspect Trudeau won't play the "snap" election card again so the CPC may have to wait until 2025 for another go. The truth is they made very little headway in the key battleground of Ontario.
Davey is positioning the LDs tactically to give confidence and supply to Starmer Labour that is why, they will not prop up Boris as they did Cameron so Orange Book liberalism will get pushed on the back burner for now in favour of social liberalism and diluting Brexit to make a deal with Labour easier
As usual, you're probably right. I think trying to prop up a weakened Conservative Government in 2024 would be as helpful as would propping up a weakened Labour Government in 2010.
That said, I can't see anything beyond C&S and that may not be straightforward.
On an unrelated, what was your take on the Canadian election? I thought O'Toole could and arguably should have done better especially after the strong start to the campaign but it all went a bit wrong for him and I'm not quite sure why.
I suspect Trudeau won't play the "snap" election card again so the CPC may have to wait until 2025 for another go. The truth is they made very little headway in the key battleground of Ontario.
Trudeau has gained himself a couple more years, so a draw in the GE has been enough.
It's quite funny how Michel wants to treat Australia as a renegade member state even though it's never been a member.
There must be a fair old number of Australians thinking "I now see why they left."
I can't agree. I'm sure he meant transparency in negotiations and loyalty to keeping agreements. Though having said that those ideals are quite alien to Aussies/Tories/US. (cf Afghan translators/NI political agreements/Protocol)
Difficult to give a fuck about politics and the self serving scom who lead and offer "opposition "
Right now I dont give a fuck about any of them. My mother is 93 and might not survive in Hospital or out of it They discharged her when it was clear she was really ill... who makes these ludicrous decisions.. now she has been readnitted seriously ill. .and yet we laud the NHS. Well something has gone seriously wrong..... .
Squareroot2 I'm so sorry to hear about your mother, I really hope she recovers soon.
If Labour were to embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
Brave voter that believes them on that!
Since old voters and property magnates don't vote Labour anyway they could make a virtue out of that and propose to merge NI and Income Tax and charge earned and unearned income the same. Increase taxes on unearned income, lower it on earned income. I'd vote for that.
But I'm expecting more divisive crap, arguments about Palestine and pledges for spending, spending and spending without any thoughts on taxes let alone lowering them.
I get the strong impression that some of our frequent Conservative posters who are totally disillusioned with the current government would indeed be willing to vote either Labour or Lib Dem.
But only if Labour and Lib Dems change all their policies and adopt policies that are associated with the Conservatives (such as anti-wokeness, low tax, anti-EU, pro-rampant capitalism etc. etc.).
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
Don't be so sure, I'd vote for Labour. I'd have voted for Blair in 1997 for sure. I'm waiting for answers from Labour and getting nothing but radio silence. It's very frustrating as someone who is looking for a new party to vote for.
Max, I think you are a liberal, like me.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
One thing about the Lib Dems, they'll never come close to winning my seat (Bassetlaw) as long as I live I think. Labour probably won't win it for a long time either - but there is more of a base for them than the Lib Dems here (Being obviously a historic Labour seat). So whilst a vote for either won't unseat Clarke-Smith any time soon a Labour vote is probably a bit less wasted*. I'm not just talking about Con-Lab marginals the same calculation might be made for a natural Conservative in Edinburgh South that a Tory vote there is simply wasted. Do you vote for a party that can probably never win or go for one of the more realistic options ?
* Even if it's incredibly unlikely
I have that problem in South Pembrokeshire. Our MP is the airhead Simon Hart. His majority is about 18% over Labour. The libdem vote is 4%. There is absolutely no chance of making a difference here.
Only in a few seats does a floating voter need to think about tactical voting. In 80% of seats the winner is known before the election starts, though those 80% do drift over time.
So in those seats, vote for whoever you like. LD, Green, PC, REFUK, Bus Pass Elvis etc. It may put a bit of pressure over specific issues, and it teaches the main parties that they have to earn your vote. It is quite liberating in a way.
Davey is positioning the LDs tactically to give confidence and supply to Starmer Labour that is why, they will not prop up Boris as they did Cameron so Orange Book liberalism will get pushed on the back burner for now in favour of social liberalism and diluting Brexit to make a deal with Labour easier
As usual, you're probably right. I think trying to prop up a weakened Conservative Government in 2024 would be as helpful as would propping up a weakened Labour Government in 2010.
That said, I can't see anything beyond C&S and that may not be straightforward.
On an unrelated, what was your take on the Canadian election? I thought O'Toole could and arguably should have done better especially after the strong start to the campaign but it all went a bit wrong for him and I'm not quite sure why.
I suspect Trudeau won't play the "snap" election card again so the CPC may have to wait until 2025 for another go. The truth is they made very little headway in the key battleground of Ontario.
C & S is most likely. Trudeau failed to get his majority yes but I agree O'Toole would also have hoped to pick up some seats, instead the Conservatives lost two.
Had they picked the moderate former Foreign Minister under Harper, Peter Mackay, as their leader in 2020 they might well have won. Mackay was the last leader of the Progressive Conservative party before it merged with the Canadian Alliance to form the CPC so likely to have had more appeal in the Atlantic states and Quebec and indeed Ontario which was where the election was lost. O'Toole, like Scheer in 2019 was only able to beat Trudeau in the old Reform/Canadian Alliance heartlands in the west.
As it is Trudeau may well step down in 2025, having done 10 years as PM at that point he would overtake Harper and Mulroney and St Laurent and be the 3rd longest serving Canadian PM postwar after his father, Pierre and Chretien. He could then hand over to his deputy
I get the strong impression that some of our frequent Conservative posters who are totally disillusioned with the current government would indeed be willing to vote either Labour or Lib Dem.
As long as Labour and Lib Dem change all their policies and adopt policies that are associated with the Conservatives (such as anti-wokeness, low tax, anti-EU, pro-rampant capitalism etc. etc.).
I see a problem with that.
Why?
I don't care about wokeness but yes I believe in low taxes, capitalism etc
When the Tory Party reflected my views I joined it, campaigned for it and voted for it. Since the Tories have moved away from that if the Labour Party claimed to start to reflect my views I'd hold my nose and vote for it and see if they really do or not.
If the Labour Party continues to reflect what it has in previous years then of course I won't vote for it. My aim is to get my views in power, that's what I exercise my vote for. Whichever party reflects that best gets my vote.
In all seriousness are there any reasonable forecasts on when we should expect wind levels to pick back up to normal? Or is it just a case of wait and see?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind.
Are you suggesting you DO need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows?
I get the strong impression that some of our frequent Conservative posters who are totally disillusioned with the current government would indeed be willing to vote either Labour or Lib Dem.
But only if Labour and Lib Dems change all their policies and adopt policies that are associated with the Conservatives (such as anti-wokeness, low tax, anti-EU, pro-rampant capitalism etc. etc.).
I see a problem with that.
Dream on. Most Tories like me would not vote Labour as long as they had an aperture in their behind.. As for the LD's , I voted LD knowing it would make no difference but wanted to protest re Brexit./ Ed Davey has a charisma bypass.
Now we are out, if it came to it, there is only one vote, but right now my darling mother is far more important. Fuck they lying self serving politicians.. all of them , from all parties.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
One thing about the Lib Dems, they'll never come close to winning my seat (Bassetlaw) as long as I live I think. Labour probably won't win it for a long time either - but there is more of a base for them than the Lib Dems here (Being obviously a historic Labour seat). So whilst a vote for either won't unseat Clarke-Smith any time soon a Labour vote is probably a bit less wasted*. I'm not just talking about Con-Lab marginals the same calculation might be made for a natural Conservative in Edinburgh South that a Tory vote there is simply wasted. Do you vote for a party that can probably never win or go for one of the more realistic options ?
* Even if it's incredibly unlikely
Daveyboy1961 said: 'I have that problem in South Pembrokeshire. Our MP is the airhead Simon Hart. His majority is about 18% over Labour. The libdem vote is 4%. There is absolutely no chance of making a difference here.'
The seat was Labour- held until 2010 with the Preseli seat having fallen narrowly in 2005. Labour came surprisingly close to winning both seats in this year's Assembly elections.. '
https://twitter.com/NikkiMcR/status/1440107079205892097 Tucker Carlson says vaccine requirements for the military are a ploy to "identify the sincere Christians in the ranks, the free thinkers, the men with high testosterone levels, and anybody else who doesn't love Joe Biden and make them leave immediately."
Boy is that Overton window in US politics panoramic. Utter lunacy now comfortably in frame.
It's quite funny how Michel wants to treat Australia as a renegade member state even though it's never been a member.
There must be a fair old number of Australians thinking "I now see why they left."
I can't agree. I'm sure he meant transparency in negotiations and loyalty to keeping agreements. Though having said that those ideals are quite alien to Aussies/Tories/US. (cf Afghan translators/NI political agreements/Protocol)
I've seen no suggestion even by the French that the Australians broke any contract. So unless the French expected the Australians to tell them first that they were looking elsewhere, before terminating their deal, I can't see how they can be accused of having done anything underhand. France knew that the Australians were very unhappy with progress, they had been told so repeatedly. If France couldn't anticipate Australia cancelling the deal that's their problem.
And hypothetically if Australia had said "we're talking to the Brits" you can be absolutely certain that France would have done everything in their power to block such a deal.
Yes it's a big blow to French pride (which we all know is easily wounded), but Australia acted in accordance with the contract, and did so in their own national interest.
I think if France has any real complaint it really lies with the UK and US forming a new alliance without telling them, rather than any failing on the part of Australia.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
Don't be so sure, I'd vote for Labour. I'd have voted for Blair in 1997 for sure. I'm waiting for answers from Labour and getting nothing but radio silence. It's very frustrating as someone who is looking for a new party to vote for.
Max, I think you are a liberal, like me.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
One thing about the Lib Dems, they'll never come close to winning my seat (Bassetlaw) as long as I live I think. Labour probably won't win it for a long time either - but there is more of a base for them than the Lib Dems here (Being obviously a historic Labour seat). So whilst a vote for either won't unseat Clarke-Smith any time soon a Labour vote is probably a bit less wasted*. I'm not just talking about Con-Lab marginals the same calculation might be made for a natural Conservative in Edinburgh South that a Tory vote there is simply wasted. Do you vote for a party that can probably never win or go for one of the more realistic options ?
* Even if it's incredibly unlikely
I have that problem in South Pembrokeshire. Our MP is the airhead Simon Hart. His majority is about 18% over Labour. The libdem vote is 4%. There is absolutely no chance of making a difference here.
Ditto Hexham. Guy Opperman has agreed with every word of every different incarnation of Tory doctrine since 2010. 22% majority, with the LD's on 10%. Despite this being an area they are demographically suited too. Net swing TO Labour since 2010 unlike the rest of the NE.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
I can sympathise with peoples difficulties in deciding who they might vote for, following the reinvention of the tories as the pensioners party. After severing my ties with the labour party several years ago I have become so disillusioned with politics, that I find it impossible to decide who to vote for. The choices are all terrible. The agony always lasts until the final possible moment. And I always feel terribly guilty about my decision.
So as long as we have a Tory government there will be no indyref2 allowed, it would need a Starmer premiership after the next UK general election, probably with SNP confidence and supply, for it to be allowed
SCUP voters are against independence referenda, democracy, etc.? Who knew?
Incidentally that shows how it is futile to assume that all Labour voters are pro-union.
It's quite funny how Michel wants to treat Australia as a renegade member state even though it's never been a member.
There must be a fair old number of Australians thinking "I now see why they left."
I can't agree. I'm sure he meant transparency in negotiations and loyalty to keeping agreements. Though having said that those ideals are quite alien to Aussies/Tories/US. (cf Afghan translators/NI political agreements/Protocol)
I've seen no suggestion even by the French that the Australians broke any contract. So unless the French expected the Australians to tell them first that they were looking elsewhere, before terminating their deal, I can't see how they can be accused of having done anything underhand. France knew that the Australians were very unhappy with progress, they had been told so repeatedly. If France couldn't anticipate Australia cancelling the deal that's their problem.
And hypothetically if Australia had said "we're talking to the Brits" you can be absolutely certain that France would have done everything in their power to block such a deal.
Yes it's a big blow to French pride (which we all know is easily wounded), but Australia acted in accordance with the contract, and did so in their own national interest.
I think if France has any real complaint it really lies with the UK and US forming a new alliance without telling them, rather than any failing on the part of Australia.
And the French can fuck right off, UK-wise
They have spent the last 4 years OPENLY saying they wanted to make Brexit hurt as much as possible (even beyond the logical benefit to the EU), they have tried to wreak damage on the City of London, they have conspired to isolate the UK vis-a-vis the world, their idiots in the EUCO unilaterally imposed a new UK land border across Ireland, without telling the UK - or Ireland. And then their wanky little martinet of a president dissed the AZ vaccine as useless, with no scientific evidence, just because of spite against Brexit Britain - thus probably condemning 1000s of humans to death via vax hesitance.
Quite frankly, they are lucky we are just humiliating them, rather than raining down nuclear warheads on Lyon and Narbonne
They have a better case against America, but I doubt the Americans care
I get the strong impression that some of our frequent Conservative posters who are totally disillusioned with the current government would indeed be willing to vote either Labour or Lib Dem.
As long as Labour and Lib Dem change all their policies and adopt policies that are associated with the Conservatives (such as anti-wokeness, low tax, anti-EU, pro-rampant capitalism etc. etc.).
I see a problem with that.
Why?
I don't care about wokeness but yes I believe in low taxes, capitalism etc
When the Tory Party reflected my views I joined it, campaigned for it and voted for it. Since the Tories have moved away from that if the Labour Party claimed to start to reflect my views I'd hold my nose and vote for it and see if they really do or not.
If the Labour Party continues to reflect what it has in previous years then of course I won't vote for it. My aim is to get my views in power, that's what I exercise my vote for. Whichever party reflects that best gets my vote.
Well of course it would be great if you could be persuaded to vote Labour. But I suspect Labour's principles/policies might get in the way. For example, redistribution of wealth and power; reducing income inequality; making the rich pay a higher share of their income and wealth to benefit those less fortunate; using the power of the state to mitigate against the more divisive effects of untrammeled capitalism, including nationalisation of key industries where this is in the national interest; increasing foreign aid back to 0.7%; closer ties with the EU.... I could go on, but I hope you find these principles/policies attractive.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
https://twitter.com/NikkiMcR/status/1440107079205892097 Tucker Carlson says vaccine requirements for the military are a ploy to "identify the sincere Christians in the ranks, the free thinkers, the men with high testosterone levels, and anybody else who doesn't love Joe Biden and make them leave immediately."
Does he understand that the nature of the military is that you cannot leave immediately? Not without a dishonorable discharge or a spell in the Brig anyway.
Comments
Unfortunately, twitter being twitter, can I find it again now... (it was linked from somewhere else, possibly even here - I don't really do twitter except following links to interesting looking threads).
Remember the EU even struggled for unanimity in the depths of the GFC and Eurozone crises, where it was pretty clear what the end game was gong to be.
As for "enthusiastically attacking other parties" - well, why not? Should the Conservative Party get a free pass because it's the Party of Government? If anything, they should be more strongly held to scrutiny and account - I'd also point out I have occasionally supported some of the things the Johnson Government has done - the vaccination rollout has been a success, no question.
I do complexity and nuance - I'm not obsessed, like you, with "Woke" and whether anybody measures up to your ludicrous expectations of what it is not to be "Woke". In truth, it's of marginal relevance to 99% of the population set against all the other things but if that's the only measure that matters for you, so be it.
Am I defensive? I don't like the parties' view being misrepresented and I'm happy to challenge some of the lazier and more predictable comments. Did Davey get it wrong at the weekend? You clearly think gender identification is a big issue - for some it is, for me it's not. I think he was unwise to make such an issue of it - I'd have said the country has far more significant problems and challenges. The party ties itself in a knot trying to be all things to all people if I'm being honest.
Do I attack Labour? Back in the early days of this place, I often found common cause with the Conservatives of that time attacking the centralisation and authoritarianism of Blair/Brown and of Labour in general. I want to hear what Starmer has to offer before I pass judgement - I think that's reasonable.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
The problem they have is that in Eastern Europe, the states there are now beginning to believe that Germany might not allow the EU to protect them. Then the Germans get upset by US influence there....
And your posts *still* don’t make sense.
IT have had a look and informed me that when it comes to your offerings, it’s a GIGO issue.
I still cannot believe the EU president (and head of the council) are unelected. Presumably they are treated as such on an international stage.
Also - re. AUKUS - I guess ultimately this is what you get when essentially never give an inch on rigid organisational and legal structures
Your problem is that all of that is washed away when someone posts something that you don't like.
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I want to know what Labour is going to do, but I get no answers and I follow politics much more closely than the average punter. If Starmer is unable to answer these questions then the Tories will win by default because they have got answers, regardless of whether their answers are any good.
The Lib Dems had an opportunity to plant themselves in the liberal centre. Instead we got woke nonsense and delusions of grandeur from Davey reminiscent of Jo Swinson talking about being PM.
I remain gravely underwhelmed by Labour’s economic positioning, though Rachael Reeves is more plausible than the other lady (whose name I have already forgotten).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDP.The_Liberals
To be fair, there's very little objectivity in general on a forum like this and should we be surprised? This is a political forum for people who are passionate about politics so you can expect plenty of that passion in the posts.
What aspect of my "hyper-partisanship" do you dislike? The fact I seek to defend the Liberal Democrats (there are plenty on here who defend every aspect of Conservative, Labour and SNP policy and practice) or the fact I am a critic of this Government?
Or is that I find your obsession with "Woke" ridiculous - just as I find the LD obsession with it equally absurd?
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
And the politics classes aren't all there is - as is usual, there is a fair divide between them and their electorates.
Plus there is the usual factor of believing the crocodile will eat you last....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Research_and_Development_Organisation
For single markets, yes. For foreign policy etc etc, no.
Forgetting about the political aspect for a minute, the idea of a Lib Dem party member being expelled over free expression is absolutely illiberal. Ideas are there to be discussed, not shut down. The Lib Dems, in one stroke, have proved they aren't liberals.
In the next year?
Oppose: 50% (+3)
Support: 34% (-6)
Later than a year from now, but within the next 5 years?
Oppose: 42% (+2)
Support: 41% (-1)
Changes +/- 4-5 Aug
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1440345781009928199?s=20
Davey did a crap job responding (by the sounds of it) but I at least prefer not go straight to the firing squad.
There are woke elements in the LDs, but I don’t feel like Davey is one of them.
Oh, and whether it’s a reasonable rebuttal or not, Boris was trying to inflame a culture war. Although reports says he’s now trying to tone it down after the debacle over the European Champs.
History tells us, however, a classical liberal party stuck between two tax and spend social democratic parties has a niche of 10-15% at most. The modern day Butskellism of the Conservative and Labour parties is predicated on buying votes by trying to promise more jam today and tomorrow.
The modern LDs have, in my view, regressed back to the comfortable niche of an inoffensive (to most) social liberalism without having the real courage to tackle the big fiscal questions around a State and country living within its means and the kind of society and State we want or are willing to pay for.
Traditionally, we are caught between the American model of a low tax low-welfare system and the Scandinavian model of a high-tax, high-welfare state. We of course want to have it both ways so we want low taxes AND high welfare.
Liberals shouldn't be averse to talking about raising taxes for example IF it is in the context of a broader debate around what kind of State and society we want. The economic model of low State provision and greater personal financial responsibility (insurance) is valid but the ramifications of that need to be spelt out in a society predicated on consumption.
So whilst a vote for either won't unseat Clarke-Smith any time soon a Labour vote is probably a bit less wasted*.
I'm not just talking about Con-Lab marginals the same calculation might be made for a natural Conservative in Edinburgh South that a Tory vote there is simply wasted.
Do you vote for a party that can probably never win or go for one of the more realistic options ?
* Even if it's incredibly unlikely
So expect to hear a lot more about "chestfeeding" and "cultural marxism" etc.
I agree with you that the numbers seem credible but a pity there are not been made available. sorry for asking again but where do the ONS say that 53% of 16 year olds had antibody's in July? I had not seen that.
for what its worth my very much back of an envelop calculation:
for 10-14 Year olds, last week 651 to 768 is an incres of 117,
117 as a % of 651 is 18%
WoW increase is not the same as R but it is an approximation,
Therefor assume R is 1.18
therefor to get R down to 1, 18/118 of uninfected individuals need to be infected, i.e. 15 % of the uninfected.
if 55% have had it then 15% of 45% is 6.75% of the total age group,
However if 70% have had it then 15% of 30% then 4.5% of total age group need to get it,
As 0.11% of age group are getting it daily then between 41 and 61 days till heard immunity in 10-14 year olds,
Lots of caveats, too many to mention all, but include: R rising in winter, and some kids getting it more than ones, (both of which will extend this) and more kids are getting it than are testing positive, and obviously more getting it as cases rise, (both of which will shorten this)
hoping that the first 2 of these caveats is offset by the latter 2, and I think that there is a reasonable possibility that we will have reached Heard immunity even in kids before Christmas!
And for clarity I should add that's Christmas 2021.
Who was that hack who was the Telegraph's man in Brussels? Kept filing exaggerated-to-made up piffle? Think he was sacked for making up a quote before that.
Hope he never became anything important. Just imagine someone who had been as dishonest as that with real power.
Parties expel and discipline members all the time - I suspect there's far more to it than wearing a t-shirt. If it were only that, I would agree it seems profoundly illiberal but I'm not going to pass judgement without the full story.
It's not stopping others but it's their right in a free society - that's the liberal response by the way.
Right now I dont give a fuck about any of them. My mother is 93 and might not survive in Hospital or out of it They discharged her when it was clear she was really ill... who makes these ludicrous decisions.. now she has been readnitted seriously ill. .and yet we laud the NHS. Well something has gone seriously wrong.....
.
https://twitter.com/NikkiMcR/status/1440107079205892097
Tucker Carlson says vaccine requirements for the military are a ploy to "identify the sincere Christians in the ranks, the free thinkers, the men with high testosterone levels, and anybody else who doesn't love Joe Biden and make them leave immediately."
It's tax rises or big tax rises from here.
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-voting-intention-18-september/
So as long as we have a Tory government there will be no indyref2 allowed, it would need a Starmer premiership after the next UK general election, probably with SNP confidence and supply, for it to be allowed
The pressures on Emergency Depts are huge, (see @Cyclefree last week) and mostly it is because of the back door rather than the front. Hence patients cannot be admitted to wards that are full. Add in pressure from management to discharge, problems with hospital acquired covid, juniors who have hardly been trained for 18 months, and nursing shortages and you have a very bad situation to be ill in.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
That said, I can't see anything beyond C&S and that may not be straightforward.
On an unrelated, what was your take on the Canadian election? I thought O'Toole could and arguably should have done better especially after the strong start to the campaign but it all went a bit wrong for him and I'm not quite sure why.
I suspect Trudeau won't play the "snap" election card again so the CPC may have to wait until 2025 for another go. The truth is they made very little headway in the key battleground of Ontario.
But I'm expecting more divisive crap, arguments about Palestine and pledges for spending, spending and spending without any thoughts on taxes let alone lowering them.
But only if Labour and Lib Dems change all their policies and adopt policies that are associated with the Conservatives (such as anti-wokeness, low tax, anti-EU, pro-rampant capitalism etc. etc.).
I see a problem with that.
So in those seats, vote for whoever you like. LD, Green, PC, REFUK, Bus Pass Elvis etc. It may put a bit of pressure over specific issues, and it teaches the main parties that they have to earn your vote. It is quite liberating in a way.
Had they picked the moderate former Foreign Minister under Harper, Peter Mackay, as their leader in 2020 they might well have won. Mackay was the last leader of the Progressive Conservative party before it merged with the Canadian Alliance to form the CPC so likely to have had more appeal in the Atlantic states and Quebec and indeed Ontario which was where the election was lost. O'Toole, like Scheer in 2019 was only able to beat Trudeau in the old Reform/Canadian Alliance heartlands in the west.
As it is Trudeau may well step down in 2025, having done 10 years as PM at that point he would overtake Harper and Mulroney and St Laurent and be the 3rd longest serving Canadian PM postwar after his father, Pierre and Chretien. He could then hand over to his deputy
I don't care about wokeness but yes I believe in low taxes, capitalism etc
When the Tory Party reflected my views I joined it, campaigned for it and voted for it. Since the Tories have moved away from that if the Labour Party claimed to start to reflect my views I'd hold my nose and vote for it and see if they really do or not.
If the Labour Party continues to reflect what it has in previous years then of course I won't vote for it. My aim is to get my views in power, that's what I exercise my vote for. Whichever party reflects that best gets my vote.
Now we are out, if it came to it, there is only one vote, but right now my darling mother is far more important. Fuck they lying self serving politicians.. all of them , from all parties.
Max, I think you are a liberal, like me.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
One thing about the Lib Dems, they'll never come close to winning my seat (Bassetlaw) as long as I live I think. Labour probably won't win it for a long time either - but there is more of a base for them than the Lib Dems here (Being obviously a historic Labour seat).
So whilst a vote for either won't unseat Clarke-Smith any time soon a Labour vote is probably a bit less wasted*.
I'm not just talking about Con-Lab marginals the same calculation might be made for a natural Conservative in Edinburgh South that a Tory vote there is simply wasted.
Do you vote for a party that can probably never win or go for one of the more realistic options ?
* Even if it's incredibly unlikely
Daveyboy1961 said:
'I have that problem in South Pembrokeshire. Our MP is the airhead Simon Hart. His majority is about 18% over Labour. The libdem vote is 4%. There is absolutely no chance of making a difference here.'
The seat was Labour- held until 2010 with the Preseli seat having fallen narrowly in 2005. Labour came surprisingly close to winning both seats in this year's Assembly elections..
'
Maybe never. Maybe the SNP are uniquely immune to political gravity. They have avoided it so far, quite impressively
And hypothetically if Australia had said "we're talking to the Brits" you can be absolutely certain that France would have done everything in their power to block such a deal.
Yes it's a big blow to French pride (which we all know is easily wounded), but Australia acted in accordance with the contract, and did so in their own national interest.
I think if France has any real complaint it really lies with the UK and US forming a new alliance without telling them, rather than any failing on the part of Australia.
Tempting?
Incidentally that shows how it is futile to assume that all Labour voters are pro-union.
They have spent the last 4 years OPENLY saying they wanted to make Brexit hurt as much as possible (even beyond the logical benefit to the EU), they have tried to wreak damage on the City of London, they have conspired to isolate the UK vis-a-vis the world, their idiots in the EUCO unilaterally imposed a new UK land border across Ireland, without telling the UK - or Ireland. And then their wanky little martinet of a president dissed the AZ vaccine as useless, with no scientific evidence, just because of spite against Brexit Britain - thus probably condemning 1000s of humans to death via vax hesitance.
Quite frankly, they are lucky we are just humiliating them, rather than raining down nuclear warheads on Lyon and Narbonne
They have a better case against America, but I doubt the Americans care
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.