Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Only in the Midlands and Wales do more people think Johnson’s “clean and honest” over those who thin

2456

Comments

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,461

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    Claims about how Boris paid for some wallpapering to be done ?

    Tens of millions have paid cash for that sort of work.

    It makes Boris look like the bloke down the pub. Again.

    Now if he'd been involved in serious sleaze like Cameron has it might be different.
    Other way round imo. If the name of whoever paid is revealed, then the matter becomes very straightforward. It is like Cash for Questions under Major. Ostensibly trivial in itself: Princess Diana's boyfriend's dad bunged a minor backbencher to ask questions. But easy to understand. The public could follow the money. So it will be with this, whereas inside tracks for PPE suppliers, and whatever Cameron was up to are quite abstruse.
    Today, I am not sure the public care much about the wallpaper business, as long as it isn't the taxpayer. Everybody knows business / unions give politicians all sorts of freebies, and they aren't all doing it out of the kindness of their hearts.

    I think the anger is much greater when it is seen we are paying for politicians to enrich themselves e.g. expenses scandal or that there was so dodgy business went on and public money resulted in nothing i.e. why I think the PPE stuff hasn't really landed massively, as again the government for the most part got lots of PPE in emergency situation, even if it appears to be friends of friends and it doesn't look good.
    But the billions wasted on track and trace didn't cut through either. I'm inclined to think the pandemic has upended normal rules. This will surely change though. Hence why I really am determined to stick to my mantra of let's see how things look in a year from now. In the meantime I'll be looking carefully at the Starmer Next PM price. If that goes north of 6 I'll be having some. Anything like 7 and I'll be gorging.
    I think track and trace did cut through to some extent, Tory lead went right down to where it was neck and neck at Christmas. There was a definitely a feeling of the Tories are spending all this money and we aren't getting anything for it, and to make it worse its mates getting hired, and now we are back in bloody lockdown.

    The Tories have pulled ahead, because of the vaccination roll out, where accusations of mates getting hired has been nullified by a very good person doing a very good job.

    I do think a certain amount of wastage is given more leeway during the pandemic e.g. when there are reports testing cost x, do we need to do quite so many per day, I think the public say I don't care how much it costs as long as everybody who gets a test can access one. Or that within billions of bits of PPE, there we some duff stuff, as long as there is enough of it.

    What will change though is as we emerge from the pandemic, there are going to be tough decisions and that is when there is the biggest danger for the sort of cronyism mixed with incompetence. Telling people there is no money, then been seen to spend a load with a friend for very little is when you get in real trouble.
    Yes perhaps it is mainly due to the vaccine success.
    Not just the vaccine success, but the opening of the economy, and slaying the ESL with widespread praise here and across Europe
    Well the opening of the economy flows from the vaccine success. And I doubt the government are getting much credit for the ESL flopping. That was people power.
    Sorry that is not quite the case

    Man Utd sighted government involvement and the papers across Europe named Boris as having defeated the proposals as well as EUFA officials
    So long as you don't think the magnificent man saved football - I'll settle for that.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,055
    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    Indeed. Compare it with the elysee palace which makes Windsor castle look dowdy.

    The British prime minister habitually lives in the most humble circs of any g20 leader. Discuss
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,118
    edited April 24
    I presume we did this yesterday?

    Covid vaccine rollout to 40-44s ‘expected’ next week, says NHSE

    https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/clinical-areas/immunology-and-vaccines/covid-vaccine-rollout-to-40-44s-expected-next-week-says-nhse/

    I would suggest if you are in that age bracket to give the NHS online booking system a cheeky ping tomorrow / Monday and see if it lets you book....as on previous occasions when the smoke signals go up for a new cohort the online system gets a backend update / allows booking before it is publicly greenlit.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    The real issue is surely that the apartment in No. 10 (and No. 11) is meant to be tiny and not very commodious. I think the PM should live in a grace and favour apartment in one of the Royal Palaces.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,055
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    Claims about how Boris paid for some wallpapering to be done ?

    Tens of millions have paid cash for that sort of work.

    It makes Boris look like the bloke down the pub. Again.

    Now if he'd been involved in serious sleaze like Cameron has it might be different.
    Other way round imo. If the name of whoever paid is revealed, then the matter becomes very straightforward. It is like Cash for Questions under Major. Ostensibly trivial in itself: Princess Diana's boyfriend's dad bunged a minor backbencher to ask questions. But easy to understand. The public could follow the money. So it will be with this, whereas inside tracks for PPE suppliers, and whatever Cameron was up to are quite abstruse.
    Today, I am not sure the public care much about the wallpaper business, as long as it isn't the taxpayer. Everybody knows business / unions give politicians all sorts of freebies, and they aren't all doing it out of the kindness of their hearts.

    I think the anger is much greater when it is seen we are paying for politicians to enrich themselves e.g. expenses scandal or that there was so dodgy business went on and public money resulted in nothing i.e. why I think the PPE stuff hasn't really landed massively, as again the government for the most part got lots of PPE in emergency situation, even if it appears to be friends of friends and it doesn't look good.
    But the billions wasted on track and trace didn't cut through either. I'm inclined to think the pandemic has upended normal rules. This will surely change though. Hence why I really am determined to stick to my mantra of let's see how things look in a year from now. In the meantime I'll be looking carefully at the Starmer Next PM price. If that goes north of 6 I'll be having some. Anything like 7 and I'll be gorging.
    I think track and trace did cut through to some extent, Tory lead went right down to where it was neck and neck at Christmas. There was a definitely a feeling of the Tories are spending all this money and we aren't getting anything for it, and to make it worse its mates getting hired, and now we are back in bloody lockdown.

    The Tories have pulled ahead, because of the vaccination roll out, where accusations of mates getting hired has been nullified by a very good person doing a very good job.

    I do think a certain amount of wastage is given more leeway during the pandemic e.g. when there are reports testing cost x, do we need to do quite so many per day, I think the public say I don't care how much it costs as long as everybody who gets a test can access one. Or that within billions of bits of PPE, there we some duff stuff, as long as there is enough of it.

    What will change though is as we emerge from the pandemic, there are going to be tough decisions and that is when there is the biggest danger for the sort of cronyism mixed with incompetence. Telling people there is no money, then been seen to spend a load with a friend for very little is when you get in real trouble.
    Yes perhaps it is mainly due to the vaccine success.
    Not just the vaccine success, but the opening of the economy, and slaying the ESL with widespread praise here and across Europe
    Well the opening of the economy flows from the vaccine success. And I doubt the government are getting much credit for the ESL flopping. That was people power.
    Sorry that is not quite the case

    Man Utd sighted government involvement and the papers across Europe named Boris as having defeated the proposals as well as EUFA officials
    So long as you don't think the magnificent man saved football - I'll settle for that.
    Trouble is, he did


    BORIS SAVED FOOTBALL

    Just shut up and be thankful
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    Leon said:

    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    Indeed. Compare it with the elysee palace which makes Windsor castle look dowdy.

    The British prime minister habitually lives in the most humble circs of any g20 leader. Discuss
    If proximity to that much gold leaf causes the sort of twathead behaviour we've seen from Macron I'm glad we keep the PM in such squalor.

    However, the apartment does seem to be too cramped, and something should be done.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,461
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    Claims about how Boris paid for some wallpapering to be done ?

    Tens of millions have paid cash for that sort of work.

    It makes Boris look like the bloke down the pub. Again.

    Now if he'd been involved in serious sleaze like Cameron has it might be different.
    Other way round imo. If the name of whoever paid is revealed, then the matter becomes very straightforward. It is like Cash for Questions under Major. Ostensibly trivial in itself: Princess Diana's boyfriend's dad bunged a minor backbencher to ask questions. But easy to understand. The public could follow the money. So it will be with this, whereas inside tracks for PPE suppliers, and whatever Cameron was up to are quite abstruse.
    Today, I am not sure the public care much about the wallpaper business, as long as it isn't the taxpayer. Everybody knows business / unions give politicians all sorts of freebies, and they aren't all doing it out of the kindness of their hearts.

    I think the anger is much greater when it is seen we are paying for politicians to enrich themselves e.g. expenses scandal or that there was so dodgy business went on and public money resulted in nothing i.e. why I think the PPE stuff hasn't really landed massively, as again the government for the most part got lots of PPE in emergency situation, even if it appears to be friends of friends and it doesn't look good.
    But the billions wasted on track and trace didn't cut through either. I'm inclined to think the pandemic has upended normal rules. This will surely change though. Hence why I really am determined to stick to my mantra of let's see how things look in a year from now. In the meantime I'll be looking carefully at the Starmer Next PM price. If that goes north of 6 I'll be having some. Anything like 7 and I'll be gorging.
    I think track and trace did cut through to some extent, Tory lead went right down to where it was neck and neck at Christmas. There was a definitely a feeling of the Tories are spending all this money and we aren't getting anything for it, and to make it worse its mates getting hired, and now we are back in bloody lockdown.

    The Tories have pulled ahead, because of the vaccination roll out, where accusations of mates getting hired has been nullified by a very good person doing a very good job.

    I do think a certain amount of wastage is given more leeway during the pandemic e.g. when there are reports testing cost x, do we need to do quite so many per day, I think the public say I don't care how much it costs as long as everybody who gets a test can access one. Or that within billions of bits of PPE, there we some duff stuff, as long as there is enough of it.

    What will change though is as we emerge from the pandemic, there are going to be tough decisions and that is when there is the biggest danger for the sort of cronyism mixed with incompetence. Telling people there is no money, then been seen to spend a load with a friend for very little is when you get in real trouble.
    Yes perhaps it is mainly due to the vaccine success.
    Not just the vaccine success, but the opening of the economy, and slaying the ESL with widespread praise here and across Europe
    Well the opening of the economy flows from the vaccine success. And I doubt the government are getting much credit for the ESL flopping. That was people power.
    Sorry that is not quite the case

    Man Utd sighted government involvement and the papers across Europe named Boris as having defeated the proposals as well as EUFA officials
    So long as you don't think the magnificent man saved football - I'll settle for that.
    Trouble is, he did


    BORIS SAVED FOOTBALL

    Just shut up and be thankful
    Goodnight.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    stodge said:

    FPT

    Charles said:

    stodge said:

    Just looking at the latest vaccination figures for Newham:

    Among those aged over 70, 14,215 out of an estimated (NIMS) population of 17,825 have received a first vaccination so that's just shy of 80%.

    Among those over 50, 61,801 out of an estimated (NIMS) population of 88,113 have received a first vaccination which is just over 70%.

    Essentially, there are 3,610 older people over 70 in my Borough with no protection from Covid-19. In addition, a further 22,200 people over 50 have no protection either at this time.

    That concerns me as there's plenty of fuel for the next virus wave.

    So are assuming they are real people not voters invented for electoral benefit
    I'm basing the numbers on the NIMS population estimates. I accept that may be inaccurate but I don't understand the "voters invented for electoral benefit" comment?

    Would you care to explain that to the rest of us?
    Your neighbouring borough has a track record of padding the electoral roll with voters who don’t exist. It might be that practice has spread.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 5,721
    Leon said:

    No one cares. The sun shines. The jabs work. Lockdown eases

    I’m down in Cornwall in warm breezy weather and the sense of hedonistic relief is palpable

    My own extended family had a large and illegal gathering indoors last night. We all thought ‘fuck it’ and did it. This morning we worked out 10 people got thru 20 bottles of wine. And it really wasn’t just me

    We could be looking at a genuinely roaring 20s. At least for a while....

    "the sense of hedonistic relief is palpable"

    Don't 99.46% of PBers reckon that "hedonistic relief" is your permanent condition? Know I do!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,118
    edited April 24
    Leon said:

    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    Indeed. Compare it with the elysee palace which makes Windsor castle look dowdy.

    The British prime minister habitually lives in the most humble circs of any g20 leader. Discuss
    Macron sitting behind his gold desk telling the yellow vest protestors to calm down was a terrible look.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,309
    edited April 24
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    Claims about how Boris paid for some wallpapering to be done ?

    Tens of millions have paid cash for that sort of work.

    It makes Boris look like the bloke down the pub. Again.

    Now if he'd been involved in serious sleaze like Cameron has it might be different.
    Other way round imo. If the name of whoever paid is revealed, then the matter becomes very straightforward. It is like Cash for Questions under Major. Ostensibly trivial in itself: Princess Diana's boyfriend's dad bunged a minor backbencher to ask questions. But easy to understand. The public could follow the money. So it will be with this, whereas inside tracks for PPE suppliers, and whatever Cameron was up to are quite abstruse.
    Today, I am not sure the public care much about the wallpaper business, as long as it isn't the taxpayer. Everybody knows business / unions give politicians all sorts of freebies, and they aren't all doing it out of the kindness of their hearts.

    I think the anger is much greater when it is seen we are paying for politicians to enrich themselves e.g. expenses scandal or that there was so dodgy business went on and public money resulted in nothing i.e. why I think the PPE stuff hasn't really landed massively, as again the government for the most part got lots of PPE in emergency situation, even if it appears to be friends of friends and it doesn't look good.
    But the billions wasted on track and trace didn't cut through either. I'm inclined to think the pandemic has upended normal rules. This will surely change though. Hence why I really am determined to stick to my mantra of let's see how things look in a year from now. In the meantime I'll be looking carefully at the Starmer Next PM price. If that goes north of 6 I'll be having some. Anything like 7 and I'll be gorging.
    I think track and trace did cut through to some extent, Tory lead went right down to where it was neck and neck at Christmas. There was a definitely a feeling of the Tories are spending all this money and we aren't getting anything for it, and to make it worse its mates getting hired, and now we are back in bloody lockdown.

    The Tories have pulled ahead, because of the vaccination roll out, where accusations of mates getting hired has been nullified by a very good person doing a very good job.

    I do think a certain amount of wastage is given more leeway during the pandemic e.g. when there are reports testing cost x, do we need to do quite so many per day, I think the public say I don't care how much it costs as long as everybody who gets a test can access one. Or that within billions of bits of PPE, there we some duff stuff, as long as there is enough of it.

    What will change though is as we emerge from the pandemic, there are going to be tough decisions and that is when there is the biggest danger for the sort of cronyism mixed with incompetence. Telling people there is no money, then been seen to spend a load with a friend for very little is when you get in real trouble.
    Yes perhaps it is mainly due to the vaccine success.
    Not just the vaccine success, but the opening of the economy, and slaying the ESL with widespread praise here and across Europe
    Well the opening of the economy flows from the vaccine success. And I doubt the government are getting much credit for the ESL flopping. That was people power.
    Sorry that is not quite the case

    Man Utd sighted government involvement and the papers across Europe named Boris as having defeated the proposals as well as EUFA officials
    So long as you don't think the magnificent man saved football - I'll settle for that.
    He played an important role and set up the fan based review by Tracey Crouch
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    edited April 24
    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,783

    stodge said:

    tlg86 said:



    Not a chance that we lockdown because of anti-vaxxers.

    I wish I shared your confidence though I accept it will be political suicide for Johnson to lead us into another lockdown unless there were a brand new vaccine-resistant virus at work.

    The concern is a spike in cases among the unvaccinated being used as an excuse for another lockdown in some areas - Newham being one.
    Well, when we fully unlock, my guesstimate is that COVID will go through the less vaccinated groups like a chainsaw.

    What should be done about that?
    Will there be enough contiguity of the unvaccinated to create a firestorm, or will COVID by that stage be more of a will-o-the-wisp?

    Even based on lower uptakes in minority communities, the numbers amongst their older cohorts seem good enough to have a significant herd effect.

    Perhaps younger groups will have lower uptakes, given that they turn out less at elections. But here too there will still be a herd effect with the heavily vaccinated mass of parents and elders still a formidable firewall on transfer between different groups, a few ports left open, but many blocked.

    Perhaps undocumented (and recent) immigrants? There probably won't be many older people in those groups though.

    I'm hopeful we will have pretty specific outbreaks that mostly get contained before becoming wider conflagrations.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,945
    Good Lord! What are they on in the Midlands and Wales!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,309

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    This poll affirms the move away from independence with no leading 51/49

    But as important only18% think independence is an important issue
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    Claims about how Boris paid for some wallpapering to be done ?

    Tens of millions have paid cash for that sort of work.

    It makes Boris look like the bloke down the pub. Again.

    Now if he'd been involved in serious sleaze like Cameron has it might be different.
    Other way round imo. If the name of whoever paid is revealed, then the matter becomes very straightforward. It is like Cash for Questions under Major. Ostensibly trivial in itself: Princess Diana's boyfriend's dad bunged a minor backbencher to ask questions. But easy to understand. The public could follow the money. So it will be with this, whereas inside tracks for PPE suppliers, and whatever Cameron was up to are quite abstruse.
    Today, I am not sure the public care much about the wallpaper business, as long as it isn't the taxpayer. Everybody knows business / unions give politicians all sorts of freebies, and they aren't all doing it out of the kindness of their hearts.

    I think the anger is much greater when it is seen we are paying for politicians to enrich themselves e.g. expenses scandal or that there was so dodgy business went on and public money resulted in nothing i.e. why I think the PPE stuff hasn't really landed massively, as again the government for the most part got lots of PPE in emergency situation, even if it appears to be friends of friends and it doesn't look good.
    But the billions wasted on track and trace didn't cut through either. I'm inclined to think the pandemic has upended normal rules. This will surely change though. Hence why I really am determined to stick to my mantra of let's see how things look in a year from now. In the meantime I'll be looking carefully at the Starmer Next PM price. If that goes north of 6 I'll be having some. Anything like 7 and I'll be gorging.
    I think track and trace did cut through to some extent, Tory lead went right down to where it was neck and neck at Christmas. There was a definitely a feeling of the Tories are spending all this money and we aren't getting anything for it, and to make it worse its mates getting hired, and now we are back in bloody lockdown.

    The Tories have pulled ahead, because of the vaccination roll out, where accusations of mates getting hired has been nullified by a very good person doing a very good job.

    I do think a certain amount of wastage is given more leeway during the pandemic e.g. when there are reports testing cost x, do we need to do quite so many per day, I think the public say I don't care how much it costs as long as everybody who gets a test can access one. Or that within billions of bits of PPE, there we some duff stuff, as long as there is enough of it.

    What will change though is as we emerge from the pandemic, there are going to be tough decisions and that is when there is the biggest danger for the sort of cronyism mixed with incompetence. Telling people there is no money, then been seen to spend a load with a friend for very little is when you get in real trouble.
    Yes perhaps it is mainly due to the vaccine success.
    'Life is better with the corrupt Tory Sleazebags. Don't let Labour ruin it!'.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,055

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    Odd that you don’t mention the lead for NO
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,244

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    At the last Holyrood election the Tories were lead by Cameron at Westminster and Davidson at Holyrood. Johnson/Ross on track to lose nearly a third of their seats - which is a massive setback under a pseudo-PR system.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    Leon said:

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    Odd that you don’t mention the lead for NO
    Got to make you raddled old farts do some work.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,244
    Leon said:

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    Odd that you don’t mention the lead for NO
    The 50% for the SNP in the constituency vote is a more immediate source of joy for SNP supporters I would think.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    Claims about how Boris paid for some wallpapering to be done ?

    Tens of millions have paid cash for that sort of work.

    It makes Boris look like the bloke down the pub. Again.

    Now if he'd been involved in serious sleaze like Cameron has it might be different.
    Other way round imo. If the name of whoever paid is revealed, then the matter becomes very straightforward. It is like Cash for Questions under Major. Ostensibly trivial in itself: Princess Diana's boyfriend's dad bunged a minor backbencher to ask questions. But easy to understand. The public could follow the money. So it will be with this, whereas inside tracks for PPE suppliers, and whatever Cameron was up to are quite abstruse.
    Today, I am not sure the public care much about the wallpaper business, as long as it isn't the taxpayer. Everybody knows business / unions give politicians all sorts of freebies, and they aren't all doing it out of the kindness of their hearts.

    I think the anger is much greater when it is seen we are paying for politicians to enrich themselves e.g. expenses scandal or that there was so dodgy business went on and public money resulted in nothing i.e. why I think the PPE stuff hasn't really landed massively, as again the government for the most part got lots of PPE in emergency situation, even if it appears to be friends of friends and it doesn't look good.
    But the billions wasted on track and trace didn't cut through either. I'm inclined to think the pandemic has upended normal rules. This will surely change though. Hence why I really am determined to stick to my mantra of let's see how things look in a year from now. In the meantime I'll be looking carefully at the Starmer Next PM price. If that goes north of 6 I'll be having some. Anything like 7 and I'll be gorging.
    I think track and trace did cut through to some extent, Tory lead went right down to where it was neck and neck at Christmas. There was a definitely a feeling of the Tories are spending all this money and we aren't getting anything for it, and to make it worse its mates getting hired, and now we are back in bloody lockdown.

    The Tories have pulled ahead, because of the vaccination roll out, where accusations of mates getting hired has been nullified by a very good person doing a very good job.

    I do think a certain amount of wastage is given more leeway during the pandemic e.g. when there are reports testing cost x, do we need to do quite so many per day, I think the public say I don't care how much it costs as long as everybody who gets a test can access one. Or that within billions of bits of PPE, there we some duff stuff, as long as there is enough of it.

    What will change though is as we emerge from the pandemic, there are going to be tough decisions and that is when there is the biggest danger for the sort of cronyism mixed with incompetence. Telling people there is no money, then been seen to spend a load with a friend for very little is when you get in real trouble.
    Yes perhaps it is mainly due to the vaccine success.
    Not just the vaccine success, but the opening of the economy, and slaying the ESL with widespread praise here and across Europe
    Well the opening of the economy flows from the vaccine success. And I doubt the government are getting much credit for the ESL flopping. That was people power.
    Sorry that is not quite the case

    Man Utd sighted government involvement and the papers across Europe named Boris as having defeated the proposals as well as EUFA officials
    So long as you don't think the magnificent man saved football - I'll settle for that.
    Trouble is, he did


    BORIS SAVED FOOTBALL

    Just shut up and be thankful
    An upbeat song that sums it up:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79DijItQXMM
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,629
    Leon said:

    No one cares

    You don't care about the Indian variant possibly fucking up un-lockdown?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927

    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    The real issue is surely that the apartment in No. 10 (and No. 11) is meant to be tiny and not very commodious. I think the PM should live in a grace and favour apartment in one of the Royal Palaces.
    The palaces (except for Clarence House) are rather grim though.

    I’d look at Carlton Terrace.

    Kick the Privy Council Office out of number 2 and Ken Griffith out of number 3 and you are sorted.

    You might have concentration risk to scare the cops though (the foreign secretary is at number 1)
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,478
    Sad to see Super Real Madrid held on for a famous 0-0 draw at home to Real Betis.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,055

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    At the last Holyrood election the Tories were lead by Cameron at Westminster and Davidson at Holyrood. Johnson/Ross on track to lose nearly a third of their seats - which is a massive setback under a pseudo-PR system.
    I have a weird feeling - a change in me waters - that Scottish Labour are about to stage a significant revival

    Sturgeon is now fucking boring. She just is. Sorry. Salmond is a has-been sex-pest. I know the sort.

    Prediction: labour are now at the depth of their nadir, all seems lost, no way back.

    Yet this is not the case. The party was born in scotland and it will revive, again, in Scotland, first.

    Boris will refuse Sindyref2 - to the quiet relief of the majority in Scotland who don’t fancy Brexit 2.0 times a zillion. But the Tories wont benefit, and neither will the Nats (who will split on UDI and all that). The quiet beneficiaries will be Labour, who will seem sane between these two extremes and will cultivate devomax and so forth

    Labour will rebound in Scotland enabling them to take a large chunk of Scottish seats off the Nats in 2024, and maybe win a hung parliament in Westminster. Even if they don’t manage that, they will be sufficiently vibrant in Scotland to win an overall majority in the UK in the next GE after 2024.

    I suddenly see that happening. Dunno why. Might be the excellent curry I just enjoyed

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,013
    New Scottish Parliament poll, Survation 16 - 20 Apr (changes vs 29 - 30 Mar):

    List:
    SNP ~ 35% (-3)
    Lab ~ 22% (+3)
    Con ~ 20% (+2)
    Grn ~ 10% (-1)
    LD ~ 7% (-1)
    Alba ~ 3% (nc)
    RUK ~ 1% (nc)
    UKIP ~ 1% (nc)

    Constituency:
    SNP ~ 50% (+1)
    Lab ~ 21% (+1)
    Con ~ 21% (nc)
    LD ~ 7% (-2)

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1386080528256970754?s=20
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,435
    Leon said:

    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    Indeed. Compare it with the elysee palace which makes Windsor castle look dowdy.

    The British prime minister habitually lives in the most humble circs of any g20 leader. Discuss
    Mostly, I think you're right. But 10 DS has 100 rooms, by comparison with which Trudeau's 22-room home looks quite modest:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rideau_Cottage

    That said, Trudeau has separate offices, this is just where he lives.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,484

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    At the last Holyrood election the Tories were lead by Cameron at Westminster and Davidson at Holyrood. Johnson/Ross on track to lose nearly a third of their seats - which is a massive setback under a pseudo-PR system.
    In 2016 the SCons got 22% on the constituency and list, this poll has them on 20% and 21% so barely any difference, tactical voting from other Unionists to keep the SNP out could still see them hold more constituencies than this poll suggests.

    Overall Survation also has No on 51% ahead of Yes on 49%
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,055

    Leon said:

    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    Indeed. Compare it with the elysee palace which makes Windsor castle look dowdy.

    The British prime minister habitually lives in the most humble circs of any g20 leader. Discuss
    Mostly, I think you're right. But 10 DS has 100 rooms, by comparison with which Trudeau's 22-room home looks quite modest:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rideau_Cottage

    That said, Trudeau has separate offices, this is just where he lives.
    You have to feel for anyone forced to live in..... Ottawa. Even the Canadian PM

    Canberra at least has warm weather

    Imagine if the White House was in NYC, Trudeau in Toronto, and the Oz PM in a lovely waterside villa near Sydney Harbour Bridge.

    These countries would all be very different in almost incalculable ways
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,435

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    At the last Holyrood election the Tories were lead by Cameron at Westminster and Davidson at Holyrood. Johnson/Ross on track to lose nearly a third of their seats - which is a massive setback under a pseudo-PR system.
    Sarwar's personal popularity does now seem to be pulling Labour up - supporting Mike's theory that leadership ratings are a leading indicator for party support.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    The real issue is surely that the apartment in No. 10 (and No. 11) is meant to be tiny and not very commodious. I think the PM should live in a grace and favour apartment in one of the Royal Palaces.
    The palaces (except for Clarence House) are rather grim though.

    I’d look at Carlton Terrace.

    Kick the Privy Council Office out of number 2 and Ken Griffith out of number 3 and you are sorted.

    You might have concentration risk to scare the cops though (the foreign secretary is at number 1)
    I don't really care about keeping the PM in luxury. What I do think they deserve however is more separation from work (living above the shop despite Mrs T's example is not healthy), easy access to outdoor space, room enough to swing a cat, and some privacy.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,478

    Leon said:

    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    Indeed. Compare it with the elysee palace which makes Windsor castle look dowdy.

    The British prime minister habitually lives in the most humble circs of any g20 leader. Discuss
    Mostly, I think you're right. But 10 DS has 100 rooms, by comparison with which Trudeau's 22-room home looks quite modest:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rideau_Cottage

    That said, Trudeau has separate offices, this is just where he lives.
    Downing Street has 100 rooms?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,549
    Tonights poll 11% lead for Tories.

    SKS 31% adrift of the 20 point we were told any other leader would have.

    Boris saved football bounce!
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Leon said:

    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    Indeed. Compare it with the elysee palace which makes Windsor castle look dowdy.

    The British prime minister habitually lives in the most humble circs of any g20 leader. Discuss
    Mostly, I think you're right. But 10 DS has 100 rooms, by comparison with which Trudeau's 22-room home looks quite modest:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rideau_Cottage

    That said, Trudeau has separate offices, this is just where he lives.
    I would assume that much of Nos 10 and 11 Downing Street consists of office accommodation to house the staff who work there. Until Neville Chamberlain's day in the late 1930s, the PM and Chancellor lived in some of the State Rooms of the building. Campbell - Bannerman died in his bedroom there in Spring 1908 in a room now used for business. The top floor which now provides accommodation for the PM and Chancellor formerly provided living quarters for the servants. I do wonder sometimes whether a PM might be inclined to revert to the precedents of Baldwin, Macdonald , Lloyd George , Asquith et al by opting to live in the main rooms of the house rather than use the flats upstairs.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,435

    I presume when this poll was taken the "sleaze" against Boris being raised at the time was the Dyson stuff, which I don't think it made him look bad, it made him look like he was doing everything possible to get ventilators.

    No - a large majority (70%) in the poll disapproved of Dyson seeking special treatment. I suppose you can argue that they blame Dyson rather than Johnson, but I doubt it. Only 31% say Johnson is honest - 69% either think not or simply don't know. There's also a marked difference to the honesty ratings for Starmer and Labour. But at present people reckon that the vaccination success trumps all this - if one forgets about the early chaos, which undoubtedly caused many death, a lot of people undoubtedly feel that the vaccinations have saved their lives, which is enough to forgive a lot.
    Hi Nick

    This is tonight's poll from Opinium on this subject

    https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1386034204446580738?s=19th

    37% think he is not compared to 19% Starmer
    Correction 16% Starmer
    Starmer's just less known - most people don't have a strong opinion, but those who have a view tend to think him much more honest. I'm not sure that Johnson would altogether disagree - as he puts it, he tries not to be fussily precise, and I suspect thinks a bit of deviousness is part of the rough and tumble and general merriment of politics. Starmer is definitely seen as a roundhead to Johnson's cavalier, with the advantages and drawbacks thereby associated.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,244
    HYUFD said:

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    At the last Holyrood election the Tories were lead by Cameron at Westminster and Davidson at Holyrood. Johnson/Ross on track to lose nearly a third of their seats - which is a massive setback under a pseudo-PR system.
    In 2016 the SCons got 22% on the constituency and list, this poll has them on 20% and 21% so barely any difference, tactical voting from other Unionists to keep the SNP out could still see them hold more constituencies than this poll suggests.

    Overall Survation also has No on 51% ahead of Yes on 49%
    The problem for the Tory constituency seats is that the SNP share of the constituency vote is up quite a bit on 2016 according to this poll - that implies a swing to the SNP, and is why their forecast to pick up constituency seats from the Tories.

    You'd also expect that, all other things being equal, all the changes since 2016 - Brexit, Johnson, Ross - will mean that there is likely to be less Unionist tactical voting for the Tories this time.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,478
    edited April 24
    Leon said:

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    At the last Holyrood election the Tories were lead by Cameron at Westminster and Davidson at Holyrood. Johnson/Ross on track to lose nearly a third of their seats - which is a massive setback under a pseudo-PR system.
    I have a weird feeling - a change in me waters - that Scottish Labour are about to stage a significant revival

    Sturgeon is now fucking boring. She just is. Sorry. Salmond is a has-been sex-pest. I know the sort.

    Prediction: labour are now at the depth of their nadir, all seems lost, no way back.

    Yet this is not the case. The party was born in scotland and it will revive, again, in Scotland, first.

    Boris will refuse Sindyref2 - to the quiet relief of the majority in Scotland who don’t fancy Brexit 2.0 times a zillion. But the Tories wont benefit, and neither will the Nats (who will split on UDI and all that). The quiet beneficiaries will be Labour, who will seem sane between these two extremes and will cultivate devomax and so forth

    Labour will rebound in Scotland enabling them to take a large chunk of Scottish seats off the Nats in 2024, and maybe win a hung parliament in Westminster. Even if they don’t manage that, they will be sufficiently vibrant in Scotland to win an overall majority in the UK in the next GE after 2024.

    I suddenly see that happening. Dunno why. Might be the excellent curry I just enjoyed

    Labour as the true Party of the Union?
    The only rivals to Scottish, Welsh and English Nationalists all at once?
    It isn't as mad as it maybe seemed even a couple of years ago.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited April 24

    HYUFD said:

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    At the last Holyrood election the Tories were lead by Cameron at Westminster and Davidson at Holyrood. Johnson/Ross on track to lose nearly a third of their seats - which is a massive setback under a pseudo-PR system.
    In 2016 the SCons got 22% on the constituency and list, this poll has them on 20% and 21% so barely any difference, tactical voting from other Unionists to keep the SNP out could still see them hold more constituencies than this poll suggests.

    Overall Survation also has No on 51% ahead of Yes on 49%
    The problem for the Tory constituency seats is that the SNP share of the constituency vote is up quite a bit on 2016 according to this poll - that implies a swing to the SNP, and is why their forecast to pick up constituency seats from the Tories.

    You'd also expect that, all other things being equal, all the changes since 2016 - Brexit, Johnson, Ross - will mean that there is likely to be less Unionist tactical voting for the Tories this time.
    Polls significantly overestimated the SNP constituency vote in 2016. Apparently - according to reports from a source sympathetic to the SNP on Vote UK Forum - there is some concern in SNP circles regarding Sturgeon's own prospects v Sarwar in her own seat. Canvass returns are not brilliant.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    edited April 24

    He isn't clean and honest, and that shames Britain.

    He isn't clean and honest, he's a politician.
    There is a spectrum. It is not necessary that natural grubbiness of being a politician means they have to be egregiously compromised or flawed.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,055
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    At the last Holyrood election the Tories were lead by Cameron at Westminster and Davidson at Holyrood. Johnson/Ross on track to lose nearly a third of their seats - which is a massive setback under a pseudo-PR system.
    I have a weird feeling - a change in me waters - that Scottish Labour are about to stage a significant revival

    Sturgeon is now fucking boring. She just is. Sorry. Salmond is a has-been sex-pest. I know the sort.

    Prediction: labour are now at the depth of their nadir, all seems lost, no way back.

    Yet this is not the case. The party was born in scotland and it will revive, again, in Scotland, first.

    Boris will refuse Sindyref2 - to the quiet relief of the majority in Scotland who don’t fancy Brexit 2.0 times a zillion. But the Tories wont benefit, and neither will the Nats (who will split on UDI and all that). The quiet beneficiaries will be Labour, who will seem sane between these two extremes and will cultivate devomax and so forth

    Labour will rebound in Scotland enabling them to take a large chunk of Scottish seats off the Nats in 2024, and maybe win a hung parliament in Westminster. Even if they don’t manage that, they will be sufficiently vibrant in Scotland to win an overall majority in the UK in the next GE after 2024.

    I suddenly see that happening. Dunno why. Might be the excellent curry I just enjoyed

    Labour as the true Party of the Union?
    The only rivals to Scottish, Welsh and English Nationalists all at once?
    It isn't as mad as it maybe seemed even a couple of years ago.
    The SNP’s incredible hegemony must end eventually. I see it happening soon as they split between hardcore and civics.

    But the evil Tories won’t benefit. Labour might. And this is where their UK-wide fight back begins. The pendulum swings.

    Just a thought. Night night
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,244
    Leon said:

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    At the last Holyrood election the Tories were lead by Cameron at Westminster and Davidson at Holyrood. Johnson/Ross on track to lose nearly a third of their seats - which is a massive setback under a pseudo-PR system.
    I have a weird feeling - a change in me waters - that Scottish Labour are about to stage a significant revival

    Sturgeon is now fucking boring. She just is. Sorry. Salmond is a has-been sex-pest. I know the sort.

    Prediction: labour are now at the depth of their nadir, all seems lost, no way back.

    Yet this is not the case. The party was born in scotland and it will revive, again, in Scotland, first.

    Boris will refuse Sindyref2 - to the quiet relief of the majority in Scotland who don’t fancy Brexit 2.0 times a zillion. But the Tories wont benefit, and neither will the Nats (who will split on UDI and all that). The quiet beneficiaries will be Labour, who will seem sane between these two extremes and will cultivate devomax and so forth

    Labour will rebound in Scotland enabling them to take a large chunk of Scottish seats off the Nats in 2024, and maybe win a hung parliament in Westminster. Even if they don’t manage that, they will be sufficiently vibrant in Scotland to win an overall majority in the UK in the next GE after 2024.

    I suddenly see that happening. Dunno why. Might be the excellent curry I just enjoyed

    I have been positively surprised by Sarwar, but I don't particularly share your optimism.

    If the SNP win 50% of the constituency vote - enough to gain a majority at Holyrood even with zero list seats - and also trounce Alba to the extent that Salmond doesn't win a single seat at Holyrood, then doesn't that represent a triumph for Sturgeon?

    Also, I think that Labour's first step back in Scotland has to be taken at a Holyrood election. I think because otherwise the question of a coalition with the SNP would dominate the campaign for the Westminster election in a way that undermines Labour, in Scotland as well as in England. But Labour are still some way from winning any constituency seats back from the SNP.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    Leon said:

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    At the last Holyrood election the Tories were lead by Cameron at Westminster and Davidson at Holyrood. Johnson/Ross on track to lose nearly a third of their seats - which is a massive setback under a pseudo-PR system.
    I have a weird feeling - a change in me waters - that Scottish Labour are about to stage a significant revival

    Sturgeon is now fucking boring. She just is. Sorry. Salmond is a has-been sex-pest. I know the sort.

    Prediction: labour are now at the depth of their nadir, all seems lost, no way back.

    Yet this is not the case. The party was born in scotland and it will revive, again, in Scotland, first.

    Boris will refuse Sindyref2 - to the quiet relief of the majority in Scotland who don’t fancy Brexit 2.0 times a zillion. But the Tories wont benefit, and neither will the Nats (who will split on UDI and all that). The quiet beneficiaries will be Labour, who will seem sane between these two extremes and will cultivate devomax and so forth

    Labour will rebound in Scotland enabling them to take a large chunk of Scottish seats off the Nats in 2024, and maybe win a hung parliament in Westminster. Even if they don’t manage that, they will be sufficiently vibrant in Scotland to win an overall majority in the UK in the next GE after 2024.

    I suddenly see that happening. Dunno why. Might be the excellent curry I just enjoyed

    SLAB gaining votes from the SNP likely results in more SCON MPs.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,478
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    At the last Holyrood election the Tories were lead by Cameron at Westminster and Davidson at Holyrood. Johnson/Ross on track to lose nearly a third of their seats - which is a massive setback under a pseudo-PR system.
    I have a weird feeling - a change in me waters - that Scottish Labour are about to stage a significant revival

    Sturgeon is now fucking boring. She just is. Sorry. Salmond is a has-been sex-pest. I know the sort.

    Prediction: labour are now at the depth of their nadir, all seems lost, no way back.

    Yet this is not the case. The party was born in scotland and it will revive, again, in Scotland, first.

    Boris will refuse Sindyref2 - to the quiet relief of the majority in Scotland who don’t fancy Brexit 2.0 times a zillion. But the Tories wont benefit, and neither will the Nats (who will split on UDI and all that). The quiet beneficiaries will be Labour, who will seem sane between these two extremes and will cultivate devomax and so forth

    Labour will rebound in Scotland enabling them to take a large chunk of Scottish seats off the Nats in 2024, and maybe win a hung parliament in Westminster. Even if they don’t manage that, they will be sufficiently vibrant in Scotland to win an overall majority in the UK in the next GE after 2024.

    I suddenly see that happening. Dunno why. Might be the excellent curry I just enjoyed

    Labour as the true Party of the Union?
    The only rivals to Scottish, Welsh and English Nationalists all at once?
    It isn't as mad as it maybe seemed even a couple of years ago.
    Incidentally. This is a role the Canadian Liberals accidentally fell into.
    It has been electorally rich for them.
    They control almost no provinces but continue to win Federally.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    kle4 said:

    He isn't clean and honest, and that shames Britain.

    He isn't clean and honest, he's a politician.
    There is a spectrum. It is not necessary that natural grubbiness of being a politician means they have to be egregiously compromised or flawed.
    No, but it does seem that the better the politician the more . . . political they are.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    kinabalu said:

    Another time when gross numbers matter more than net.

    Gross 37% say there's an issue - which is basically just opposition core. Not gone beyond that.

    As for anyone else, innocent until proven guilty applies. 63% do not say there is an issue.

    When does the trial start?
    Thursday 6 May.

    Verdict due within a few days.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,826
    edited April 25
    "Jonathan Haidt
    @JonHaidt
    I believe that Twitter is bad for civilization, many people’s mental health, and my sabbatical. So for the next few months, I’ll try using it rarely, mostly to publicize events and praise people, books, and essays.
    10:33 pm · 23 Apr 2021"

    https://twitter.com/JonHaidt/status/1385708351233925124

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/social-media-democracy/600763/
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,118
    India has recorded nearly a million infections in three days, with 346,786 new cases overnight into Saturday.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 5,721
    Leon said:

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    At the last Holyrood election the Tories were lead by Cameron at Westminster and Davidson at Holyrood. Johnson/Ross on track to lose nearly a third of their seats - which is a massive setback under a pseudo-PR system.
    I have a weird feeling - a change in me waters - that Scottish Labour are about to stage a significant revival

    Sturgeon is now fucking boring. She just is. Sorry. Salmond is a has-been sex-pest. I know the sort.

    Prediction: labour are now at the depth of their nadir, all seems lost, no way back.

    Yet this is not the case. The party was born in scotland and it will revive, again, in Scotland, first.

    Boris will refuse Sindyref2 - to the quiet relief of the majority in Scotland who don’t fancy Brexit 2.0 times a zillion. But the Tories wont benefit, and neither will the Nats (who will split on UDI and all that). The quiet beneficiaries will be Labour, who will seem sane between these two extremes and will cultivate devomax and so forth

    Labour will rebound in Scotland enabling them to take a large chunk of Scottish seats off the Nats in 2024, and maybe win a hung parliament in Westminster. Even if they don’t manage that, they will be sufficiently vibrant in Scotland to win an overall majority in the UK in the next GE after 2024.

    I suddenly see that happening. Dunno why. Might be the excellent curry I just enjoyed

    Strikes me that you MAY be on to something here.

    Potential for SLAB gains due to

    > Sturgeon v Salmond soap opera

    > Brexit + Boris

    > SLAB's new leader Sawar better than recent predecessors

    > AND better than new SCON leader Ross.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    edited April 25
    Presumably, everyone who’s spend the last couple of years describing Dominic Cummings as a liar who can’t be trusted, now think the sun shines out of his arse and everything he says is true?

    Happy Sunday folks! ;)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740
    Sandpit said:

    Presumably, everyone who’s spend the last couple of years describing Dominic Cummings as a liar who can’t be trusted, now think the sun shines out of his arse and everything he says is true?

    Happy Sunday folks! ;)

    Other way round. It is the pb Tories who have a problem with Cummings' transition to the dark side. Of course, if Boris is replaced by Gove and Cummings returns, they will have to reverse their reverse ferret.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality

    Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed
    Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread
    Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed
    In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9506983/Cummings-fires-broadside-Boris.html

    Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
    Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
    Public Health England were advising the government on whether to close the border? Why?
    That’s a question best aimed at them
    The question of whether closing the border would make a difference was asked.

    And it seems clear from what we have heard, that the various experts said that closing the borders wasn't medically effective.
    Exactly. The govt has made plenty of errors for sure but in this case they followed the advice, as they did with releasing people back into care homes (PHE) yet none of the bodies that gave the advice is held to account. Merely treated with deference,
    Last year, I posted here about the following - civil servants were appalled to discover that ministers would refuse to accept responsibility at an eventual COVID enquiry for actions by permanent officials that *went against* Ministerial decisions.

    That is, civil servants were appalled that in the case

    - Minster say "do A"
    - Civil servant does "B" - without informing the minister first
    - Minster says that he will name the civil servant who did "B" and deny responsibility for his/her actions.

    Apparently this is a shocking breach of responsibility.

    There is a long tradition of this kind of comedy. Before the Falklands war, an MI6 officer in Argentina tried to raise an alarm about certain preparations he saw. The mandarins in the Foreign Office demanded that his reports he suppressed and he be disciplined - for upsetting *their* policies....
    And Lord Carrington resigned because honourable ministers accepted responsibility for their departments. The point was also made in Yes Minister, iirc. Nowadays, ministers are responsible for nothing.
    Whatever the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, any civil servant who disobeys a direct ministerial instruction has to be sacked. It is a negation of parliamentary democracy and unacceptable.

    In the Carrington case, it was largely that he didn’t have an adequate answer when asked why he didn’t know what was going on, plus his very thin skin, that brought him down.
    If you started sacking all the civil servants who disobeyed or tried to work in the opposite direction to government policy, Whitehall would get rather empty.
    So it’s a win/win?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,498

    ...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    edited April 25
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    At the last Holyrood election the Tories were lead by Cameron at Westminster and Davidson at Holyrood. Johnson/Ross on track to lose nearly a third of their seats - which is a massive setback under a pseudo-PR system.
    In 2016 the SCons got 22% on the constituency and list, this poll has them on 20% and 21% so barely any difference, tactical voting from other Unionists to keep the SNP out could still see them hold more constituencies than this poll suggests.

    Overall Survation also has No on 51% ahead of Yes on 49%
    The problem for the Tory constituency seats is that the SNP share of the constituency vote is up quite a bit on 2016 according to this poll - that implies a swing to the SNP, and is why their forecast to pick up constituency seats from the Tories.

    You'd also expect that, all other things being equal, all the changes since 2016 - Brexit, Johnson, Ross - will mean that there is likely to be less Unionist tactical voting for the Tories this time.
    Polls significantly overestimated the SNP constituency vote in 2016. Apparently - according to reports from a source sympathetic to the SNP on Vote UK Forum - there is some concern in SNP circles regarding Sturgeon's own prospects v Sarwar in her own seat. Canvass returns are not brilliant.
    That would be the optimal result for the SNP. Majority, and the removal of a controversial, disgraced and exhausted leader so they can start afresh.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    At the last Holyrood election the Tories were lead by Cameron at Westminster and Davidson at Holyrood. Johnson/Ross on track to lose nearly a third of their seats - which is a massive setback under a pseudo-PR system.
    In 2016 the SCons got 22% on the constituency and list, this poll has them on 20% and 21% so barely any difference, tactical voting from other Unionists to keep the SNP out could still see them hold more constituencies than this poll suggests.

    Overall Survation also has No on 51% ahead of Yes on 49%
    The problem for the Tory constituency seats is that the SNP share of the constituency vote is up quite a bit on 2016 according to this poll - that implies a swing to the SNP, and is why their forecast to pick up constituency seats from the Tories.

    You'd also expect that, all other things being equal, all the changes since 2016 - Brexit, Johnson, Ross - will mean that there is likely to be less Unionist tactical voting for the Tories this time.
    Polls significantly overestimated the SNP constituency vote in 2016. Apparently - according to reports from a source sympathetic to the SNP on Vote UK Forum - there is some concern in SNP circles regarding Sturgeon's own prospects v Sarwar in her own seat. Canvass returns are not brilliant.
    That would be the optimal result for the SNP. Majority, and the removal of a controversial, disgraced and exhausted leader so they can start afresh.
    Isn't she on the list too, so she'd still be in the Parliament.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740
    It's the Oscars tonight. Whether because of the lockdown closing cinemas or the increased prominence of streaming services, I really don't care enough to have formed an opinion, or even to look up who has been nominated.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740
    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Good morning, everyone.

    I'm inclined to agree, Mr. Alex. Doubt it'll happen, though.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    At the last Holyrood election the Tories were lead by Cameron at Westminster and Davidson at Holyrood. Johnson/Ross on track to lose nearly a third of their seats - which is a massive setback under a pseudo-PR system.
    In 2016 the SCons got 22% on the constituency and list, this poll has them on 20% and 21% so barely any difference, tactical voting from other Unionists to keep the SNP out could still see them hold more constituencies than this poll suggests.

    Overall Survation also has No on 51% ahead of Yes on 49%
    The problem for the Tory constituency seats is that the SNP share of the constituency vote is up quite a bit on 2016 according to this poll - that implies a swing to the SNP, and is why their forecast to pick up constituency seats from the Tories.

    You'd also expect that, all other things being equal, all the changes since 2016 - Brexit, Johnson, Ross - will mean that there is likely to be less Unionist tactical voting for the Tories this time.
    Polls significantly overestimated the SNP constituency vote in 2016. Apparently - according to reports from a source sympathetic to the SNP on Vote UK Forum - there is some concern in SNP circles regarding Sturgeon's own prospects v Sarwar in her own seat. Canvass returns are not brilliant.
    That would be the optimal result for the SNP. Majority, and the removal of a controversial, disgraced and exhausted leader so they can start afresh.
    Isn't she on the list too, so she'd still be in the Parliament.
    She’s second on the list, and it’s very unlikely that the SNP would get more than one list seat in that area unless they had an awful night on the constituencies.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Well, of course he was. Everyone in Britain was.

    If they think that somehow invalidates his mathematical and physical work, then they’re even stupider than I thought.

    Such an attitude would make it impossible to teach, say, architecture. Or finance. Or law.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,309

    Good morning.

    The U.K.‘s request to become an official “Observer” at ASEAN has been agreed overnight.

    ASEAN, the South East Asian economic bloc, has a larger population than the EU, but only about 1/5 the GDP.

    The only other Observers are Papua New Guinea and Timor Leste.

    The U.K. also officially applied for membership of the CPTPP at the end of February.

    Very pleased and of course if the US joins CPTPP then that would be very good news for the whole trading block
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    Indeed; and my wife's ancestors were working in the cotton mills on Lancashire in the 1840's. Whiat they did in the "Cotton Famine' I don't know, and probably never will..
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740

    Good morning.

    The U.K.‘s request to become an official “Observer” at ASEAN has been agreed overnight.

    ASEAN, the South East Asian economic bloc, has a larger population than the EU, but only about 1/5 the GDP.

    The only other Observers are Papua New Guinea and Timor Leste.

    The U.K. also officially applied for membership of the CPTPP at the end of February.

    Huzzah for Liz Truss. It shows Boris was right to sack Dominic Cummings if he did not even put Parity With Papua New Guinea on the side of the bus.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,309

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    Indeed; and my wife's ancestors were working in the cotton mills on Lancashire in the 1840's. Whiat they did in the "Cotton Famine' I don't know, and probably never will..
    My father and his brother and sister all worked in the Lancashire cotton mills
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740
    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    That is the irony. We are in danger of airbrushing slavery out of history.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    edited April 25
    On the new Scottish poll, if Scotland was running NZ’s electoral system instead of their own pernicious gerrymander, the results would be:

    SNP 48
    Lab 30
    Con 27
    Grn 14
    LDm 10

    Difficult to see whether a government could be formed...
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609

    Good morning.

    The U.K.‘s request to become an official “Observer” at ASEAN has been agreed overnight.

    ASEAN, the South East Asian economic bloc, has a larger population than the EU, but only about 1/5 the GDP.

    The only other Observers are Papua New Guinea and Timor Leste.

    The U.K. also officially applied for membership of the CPTPP at the end of February.

    Huzzah for Liz Truss. It shows Boris was right to sack Dominic Cummings if he did not even put Parity With Papua New Guinea on the side of the bus.
    Papua New Guinea is one of the most anthropologically interesting countries on Earth.

    And, a Commonwealth realm to boot.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    On the new Scottish poll, if Scotland was running NZ’s electoral system instead of their own pernicious gerrymander, the results would be:

    SNP 48
    Lab 30
    Con 27
    Grn 14
    LDm 10

    Difficult to see whether a government could be formed...

    Green/Lab/LD coalition with Tories abstaining on C+S would work, for a time at least.

    Whether the Greens would work in a rainbow coalition is another question.

    I wish we did have the New Zealand system. I could live with that, but the systems we have for Scotland and Wales are a sick joke. Another example of politicians introducing political reform to further their own interests (admittedly not very successfully in the case of Scotland)!
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,980
    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    edited April 25

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.

    ETA - ditto with sugar.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    Indeed; and my wife's ancestors were working in the cotton mills on Lancashire in the 1840's. Whiat they did in the "Cotton Famine' I don't know, and probably never will..
    My father and his brother and sister all worked in the Lancashire cotton mills
    And, if they were working prior to about 1860 worked with cotton picked by slaves. As ydoethur notes, Lancashire's prosperity, so far as it existed for those low down in 'the heap' was largely built on 'slave products'.

    On a wider point I was struck, while musing the other day, what diverse connections my family has; from Cambodia via Sweden and Switzerland to Ireland. And that's without taking into account those who have emigrated.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,980
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.
    Do people get pleasure from smoking? Or does their body feel bad when they are not getting their next hit?

    The two are not the same, at least in my opinion. My lifetime smoking experience is probably in the hundreds of cigarettes but never really got any pleasure from it, not sure if others do, and if so how they distinguish it from their addiction being fed?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    dixiedean said:

    All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.

    When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
    They must be full of uneducated people who cannot hear or read or are just stupid obviously.
    No-one of any intelligence above that of a 7 year old could imagine the buffoon is anything other than a lying cheating grifter surrounded by similar types.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.
    Do people get pleasure from smoking? Or does their body feel bad when they are not getting their next hit?

    The two are not the same, at least in my opinion. My lifetime smoking experience is probably in the hundreds of cigarettes but never really got any pleasure from it, not sure if others do, and if so how they distinguish it from their addiction being fed?
    One of the things I enjoyed about smoking, when I did, was the sociability. "Have a cigarette' was a common opening phrase in a conversation.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    Only a supercilious rich Tory arse could come out with crap like that.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927

    Good morning.

    The U.K.‘s request to become an official “Observer” at ASEAN has been agreed overnight.

    ASEAN, the South East Asian economic bloc, has a larger population than the EU, but only about 1/5 the GDP.

    The only other Observers are Papua New Guinea and Timor Leste.

    The U.K. also officially applied for membership of the CPTPP at the end of February.

    So more potential for growth then?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    edited April 25
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    Only a supercilious rich Tory arse could come out with crap like that.
    Yes; even round here one could BUY quite a nice one for that! In a 'desirable' conversion.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.
    Do people get pleasure from smoking? Or does their body feel bad when they are not getting their next hit?

    The two are not the same, at least in my opinion. My lifetime smoking experience is probably in the hundreds of cigarettes but never really got any pleasure from it, not sure if others do, and if so how they distinguish it from their addiction being fed?
    I’ve never smoked in my life, so I’ve no personal experience to call on. But those of my friends who do, or have, smoked said they did because they liked it. Their experience may be different from yours.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    Only a supercilious rich Tory arse could come out with crap like that.
    Yes; even round here one could BUY quite a nice one for that! In a 'desirable' conversion.
    Round here you could buy rather a nice house for that.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.
    Do people get pleasure from smoking? Or does their body feel bad when they are not getting their next hit?

    The two are not the same, at least in my opinion. My lifetime smoking experience is probably in the hundreds of cigarettes but never really got any pleasure from it, not sure if others do, and if so how they distinguish it from their addiction being fed?
    I’ve been told that there are 2-3 cigarettes a day that are pleasurable, with the rest being just habit and barely noticed
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Poor old SCons, what a shame.

    'Projections based on the survey, carried out for The Sunday Post by polling company Survation, suggests the SNP will win 67 seats, giving Nicola Sturgeon a majority of five at Holyrood.
    Scottish Labour is projected to win 24 seats, the same number the party won in the last Holyrood election, with the Scottish Tories coming third with 22 seats, nine fewer than they won in 2016. Meanwhile, the survey of more than 1,000 Scots last week, suggests the Scottish Greens could almost double their seats from six to 11.'

    https://twitter.com/sunday_post/status/1386073051645812736?s=21

    At the last Holyrood election the Tories were lead by Cameron at Westminster and Davidson at Holyrood. Johnson/Ross on track to lose nearly a third of their seats - which is a massive setback under a pseudo-PR system.
    I have a weird feeling - a change in me waters - that Scottish Labour are about to stage a significant revival

    Sturgeon is now fucking boring. She just is. Sorry. Salmond is a has-been sex-pest. I know the sort.

    Prediction: labour are now at the depth of their nadir, all seems lost, no way back.

    Yet this is not the case. The party was born in scotland and it will revive, again, in Scotland, first.

    Boris will refuse Sindyref2 - to the quiet relief of the majority in Scotland who don’t fancy Brexit 2.0 times a zillion. But the Tories wont benefit, and neither will the Nats (who will split on UDI and all that). The quiet beneficiaries will be Labour, who will seem sane between these two extremes and will cultivate devomax and so forth

    Labour will rebound in Scotland enabling them to take a large chunk of Scottish seats off the Nats in 2024, and maybe win a hung parliament in Westminster. Even if they don’t manage that, they will be sufficiently vibrant in Scotland to win an overall majority in the UK in the next GE after 2024.

    I suddenly see that happening. Dunno why. Might be the excellent curry I just enjoyed

    Labour as the true Party of the Union?
    The only rivals to Scottish, Welsh and English Nationalists all at once?
    It isn't as mad as it maybe seemed even a couple of years ago.
    I wrote an a thread header on that very angle back in February.

    It's a perfectly credible path for Labour to take, but they still have a lot of reforming to do first.
  • I would love to have £250K to blow on a new flat
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,008
    My addiction is oxytocin. That really does give pleasure.
    I get it any way I can. It has been in short supply during lockdown.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    Only a supercilious rich Tory arse could come out with crap like that.
    Top of the morning to you as well Malcolm

    My point is that the PM does a high stress job. It is not unreasonable to expect the state to provide reasonable accommodation where they can relax. Penny pinching doesn’t really achieve much.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    Claims about how Boris paid for some wallpapering to be done ?

    Tens of millions have paid cash for that sort of work.

    It makes Boris look like the bloke down the pub. Again.

    Now if he'd been involved in serious sleaze like Cameron has it might be different.
    Yes we all get our friends to fund our £200K paint job right enough , what a lark.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Did I miss the coverage of the large lockdown protests in London yesterday?

    I couldn't see a snip on the Beeb, but it might be buried.

    If that is the case then it's just the sort of thing that fuels establishment suppression theories (which I don't believe, by the way).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    Only a supercilious rich Tory arse could come out with crap like that.
    Top of the morning to you as well Malcolm

    My point is that the PM does a high stress job. It is not unreasonable to expect the state to provide reasonable accommodation where they can relax. Penny pinching doesn’t really achieve much.
    apart from saving pennies?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    edited April 25
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    Only a supercilious rich Tory arse could come out with crap like that.
    Yes; even round here one could BUY quite a nice one for that! In a 'desirable' conversion.
    Round here you could buy rather a nice house for that.
    We were talking flats. But one could certainly buy a house here, too. And Eldest Granddaughter and Grandson-in-Law (acting) are not planning on spending anywhere near that on the house they hope to complete on shortly.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.

    When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
    I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation.
    And the PM polls well there too.
    I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
    Housing.

    New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.

    Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    edited April 25
    malcolmg said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    Claims about how Boris paid for some wallpapering to be done ?

    Tens of millions have paid cash for that sort of work.

    It makes Boris look like the bloke down the pub. Again.

    Now if he'd been involved in serious sleaze like Cameron has it might be different.
    Yes we all get our friends to fund our £200K paint job right enough , what a lark.
    If anyone wants to give me a mere £20k towards a new kitchen, driveway and garden, I can start a GoFundMe.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    Leon said:

    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    Indeed. Compare it with the elysee palace which makes Windsor castle look dowdy.

    The British prime minister habitually lives in the most humble circs of any g20 leader. Discuss
    If proximity to that much gold leaf causes the sort of twathead behaviour we've seen from Macron I'm glad we keep the PM in such squalor.

    However, the apartment does seem to be too cramped, and something should be done.
    Yes a struggle for a couple to survive with only 4 or 5 bedrooms and 3 or 4 public rooms right enough.
    Sure there will be plenty of council tenants happy to do a swap.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    Charles said:

    Good morning.

    The U.K.‘s request to become an official “Observer” at ASEAN has been agreed overnight.

    ASEAN, the South East Asian economic bloc, has a larger population than the EU, but only about 1/5 the GDP.

    The only other Observers are Papua New Guinea and Timor Leste.

    The U.K. also officially applied for membership of the CPTPP at the end of February.

    So more potential for growth then?
    ASEAN?
    Not really, and Observer Status confers no trading privileges.

    But, doesn’t hurt and helps re-orient our diplomatic activity another notch.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,769
    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    I know that for politics geeks like us, the Cummings stuff is explosive. But is it for Joe Normal?

    No, or not yet. I am trying to remember the course of the Tory sleaze surrounding the Major government. My suspicion is decorating the flat might have more cut-through, if and when we ever get the details, which is probably why we will not get the details.
    Except it’s not his flat. It’s a government flat. I know that’s not a justification but it will put enough people off the scent.

    Separately why are we so cheap with government property? Spending £250k on doing up a flat is not that much for a PM.
    Only a supercilious rich Tory arse could come out with crap like that.
    Top of the morning to you as well Malcolm

    My point is that the PM does a high stress job. It is not unreasonable to expect the state to provide reasonable accommodation where they can relax. Penny pinching doesn’t really achieve much.
    Does that apply to all high stress public sector jobs? Including those getting 1%? Surely those making daily life and death decisions deserve at least the same.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.

    When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
    I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation.
    And the PM polls well there too.
    I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
    Housing.

    New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.

    Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
    NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
This discussion has been closed.