If there is now to be a by election in Shropshire North because of Paterson's resignation and standing down as an MP the Tories should still win it reasonably comfortably even with a reduced majority.
Shropshire was 56.9% Leave and the Tories got 62% of the vote in 2019 and had a majority of 40% over Labour.
Like Old Bexley and Sidcup the main question could be if ReformUK can beat the LDs for third place as UKIP took 3rd place in the seat in 2015 with 17%
Yeah, safe Con seat up for grabs there. I wonder who they will pick as their candidate?
If they are sensible a local councillor as they have done in Bexley
Lets review the last 24 hrs: Govt whips vote to gut standards oversight, barely wins Opposition refuses to participate in new kangeroo court Cabinet ministers make fools of themselves defending kangeroo court Govt abandons kangeroo court and MP it was created to save MP resigns https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1456271493881499654
If there is now to be a by election in Shropshire North because of Paterson's resignation and standing down as an MP the Tories should still win it reasonably comfortably even with a reduced majority.
Shropshire was 56.9% Leave and the Tories got 62% of the vote in 2019 and had a majority of 40% over Labour.
Like Old Bexley and Sidcup the main question could be if ReformUK can beat the LDs for third place as UKIP took 3rd place in the seat in 2015 with 17%
Yeah, safe Con seat up for grabs there. I wonder who they will pick as their candidate?
If they are sensible a local councillor as they have done in Bexley
No, no. Mr Goldsmith. He can resign from the HoL and stand to be a MP.
BigG just hates Boris, of course he ignores the fact Hunt, Boris' main rival in 2019, actually signed as well as voted for Leadsom's amendment.
Of course BigG also ignores the fact Boris is the only Tory leader since Thatcher to have won a big working majority of over 50 and we all know what happened to the Tories once Thatcher went, they lost 3 out of 4 of the next general elections
What a fiasco. In three days the government have made themselves look both sleazy and useless and have not even saved the by- election. Obviously the focus groups were screaming blue murder, but chucking Patterson to the wolves after having broken the consensus on Parliamentary discipline is spectacular and stunning incompetence. The political price of this screw up is absolutely going to cut through.
Rees Mogg will be feeling rather hot under the collar after Johnson simply walked away from the plan.
Shropshire North may be pretty inpregnable, but then so was Chesham & Amersham.
If there is now to be a by election in Shropshire North because of Paterson's resignation and standing down as an MP the Tories should still win it reasonably comfortably even with a reduced majority.
Shropshire was 56.9% Leave and the Tories got 62% of the vote in 2019 and had a majority of 40% over Labour.
Like Old Bexley and Sidcup the main question could be if ReformUK can beat the LDs for third place as UKIP took 3rd place in the seat in 2015 with 17%
This can be treated as wholly different to Old Bexley.
I have to admit that I am perplexed by this u-turn. Completely stunned. I am naive enough to think the tories collectively realised they were going on a path to the gutter, rather than it being some complex political calculation.
If people can praise Rayner for retracting her scum comments, then perhaps they might consider giving the tories some credit over this.
But people know that Rayner just blurted out her 'scum' comment and, whilst saying it at all reveals poor judgement (as she herself came to accept), who hasn't said or done something dumb in the heat of the moment?
Whereas this masterstroke from no. 10 took days of planning and choreographing, there must have been dozens of meetings going through the issues and arguments, ministers and others were briefed and sent out onto the airwaves to defend their plan; in the runup to yesterday all the weaknesses in their position and the political risks were spelled out by politicians and in the media. Everything they needed to know to decide whether to send the cavalry toward the guns was known before yesterday; nothing has changed overnight except that now there are dead horses all over the field.
And that she actually apologised.
Rather than pretended to discover (shock) that two things had been conflated - after spending the entire previous day arguing that it was right to conflate them - and somehow it was all just an unfortunate happenstance.
Didn't Rayner defend using the word 'scum' as being some form of jovial northern friendly greeting (presumably as in "Aye up, me scum!"), then apologise weeks later after Amess's murder?
JRM's posh voice and mannered manners heavily disguise his incompetence.
My working assumption is that all posh people are incompetent, until proven otherwise.
That seems a good starting requirement in dealing with all people nowadays, the difference is posh people are more likely to have been severely over promoted.
The biggest change in the few decades is that instead of promoting posh people despite their lack of skills, we now promote people who have a lack of skills from the "right backgrounds"
Hence Cressida Dick. On the upside, woman at the top etc. On the downside, no observable difference to what when before, in terms of policy, behaviour etc.
She is the child of an Oxford professor and an Oxford fellow, and went to Oxford herself. Almost as posh as Starmer.
Ah, like privately educated political outsider Laura Kussenberg who's family includes: chair/president of Royal College of General Practitioners; a high court judge (among other roles), Govenor General of Nigeria; high commisioner of Mozambique.
So outsider.
But But But... they got their jobs through Merit*. Merit is the New Nobility.
So they have a... Divine Right to Rule.
What is interesting is that people outside the new Upper 10,000 are so ungrateful. They even presume to suggest that some of them are not there on merit.....
*Getting degrees at Oxbridge etc.
I don't worship at the altar of Meritocracy either - it's just another 'ocracy' - but it's not at all clear to me what you are driving at with this Upper 10,000 business. What do you want? The top jobs going to a birth nobility instead? Decided by a random number generator? Going to the worst educated in a kind of Cultural Revolution? Or maybe what you want is for there not to be any top jobs? In which case, the latter, you're a kindred spirit. But I suspect you aren't. All I really pick up is a kind of enigmatic whinge at a type of person. A type who irritates you. So what gives?
The point I am making is an old one - the Revolution came and went and all we get is the New Managerial class.
Further, that the new incumbents are even more endowed with belief in their absolute right to rule than the Old Regime.
I think on the group of lawyers I discussed the problem of shoplifting with a while ago. To their minds, shoplifting shouldn't be prosecuted, since the criminals are such wretched victims themselves. When I pointed out that the shop keepers might not agree, the curling of lips was magnificent... It comes back to another theme, I think...
The modern world has sold Democracy to the masses. It has been made a Cornerstone* of the legitimacy of government. Yet, to those that rule, more and more of the structure of our society is supposed to be beyond the reach of the ballot - to be held safely among the lawyers and... experts.
Yet none dare say, outright, that Democracy has its limits. So we have a structure where democracy is preached by the state, but the state declares that we are bound to object it's dictat on various things *and* we are not allowed to have a say
I recall an interesting conversation I had with a young relative who was studying history. She was appalled when I said that some of those involve in Irish Nationalism had *rejected* democracy as the last argument. She thought I was saying that they were evil. I was trying to explain that they simply had a different belief in the sanctity of the ballot and it's power.
Right. The George Orwell / Pete Townsend principle. It's valid but I've never quite latched onto it as some sort of fundamental enlightening truth. Fact is, if the New Boss is a bit better than the Old Boss, that's progress.
As for Democracy, for me it's a means to a Good not a Good in and of itself. And the Good is - to deliver as much power and autonomy to people over their own lives, independent of birth circumstances, as is compatible with the need to create order and wealth. If there's a system other than Democracy that would do this, I'll vote for it. Or rather I wouldn't since I wouldn't have to.
I massively disagree with you on that last point @kinabalu - for me Democracy is a good in itself. I could write reams on this. If I believe in one thing, politically, it's this. Better we reflect what people want than give them what's good for them. Peaceful handover of power from one regime to another is vanishingly rare in the world and in history. Yet we do it every ten years or so (the 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' issue above notwithstanding.)
Easy for me to take this point of view having been on the winning side this last decade or so, I grant you. But I think I felt the same when I was losing. (My first vote was in the local elections in 1994. The first time I'd been on the winning side in any respect whatsoever was in, I think, the Greater Manchester referendum on the congestion charge in 2009.)
Amazing. How much internal political capital has Johnson burnt through with this whole thing? To go from three-line whip to protect him to whoops lets just give the dodgy MP the boot after all in less than 24 hours is quite impressive: the whips must be seething.
I'm starting to agree. However now isn't the time and I think the likely good candidates aren't ready. We might finish up with Gove, and I don't think that would be terribly positive.
BigG just hates Boris, of course he ignores the fact Hunt, Boris' main rival in 2019, actually signed as well as voted for Leadsom's amendment.
Of course BigG also ignores the fact Boris is the only Tory leader since Thatcher to have won a big working majority of over 50 and we all know what happened to the Tories once Thatcher went, they lost 3 out of 4 of the next general elections
I do not hate Boris
Indeed hate is not a word I use for anyone
You are blind to the disaster this has been and he is the one responsible and should follow Paterson
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
I don't know. I'm hardly paying attention to it.
I suppose you could make the argument of pre-emptive action in advance of winter, anticipating more social contact indoors, or the death numbers are still going up, as they catch-up with the latest peak in cases.
Would be much better if there was more attention paid to the vaccine. Immunising more people is the single most effective thing we can do.
Focusing on the vaccine is definitely right - regardless of how one reads the figures, there is plenty of Covid still around and plenty of people on ventilators. Not going all out to promote boosters (and IMO vaccination of children) is a collective own goals - and that's nothing to do with being pro- or anti-lockdown.
Personally I'm trying not to react too much to the daily figures. When the number dropped under 40K there were people saying "See? It's beaten!" and when it went back over 40K there were people shouting "Plan B now". Overall the picture looks fairly stable at a high plateau.
Yesterday on radio 5 I listened in shock as a scientist pointed out how much higher our testing regime is than other countries, and if you take that into account we are not so out of step with our community levels of Covid. Refreshing.
After an incredibly slow start, I think this is probably the most important thing to keep an eye on for the winter.
I don't understand why the USA is dragging its heels so much in the booster rollout considering they had a big head start on that. Its worth remembering that although the UK rolled out jabs first, we prioritised first jabs first, so other nations had a higher share of second jabs for a while that need boosting sooner.
America was for a very long time ahead of us on second jabs, so they should be well ahead on boosters and they're just not.
It's interesting isn't it. We are calling it a "booster" when in actual fact it is a "third jab".
What implications this has for a "fourth dose", and a "fifth dose" is an interesting question.
I couldn't care less if we have a fourth, fifth . . . 80th etc jab having a new one every six or twelve months if required.
The flu jab is annual, why can't the Covid jab be annual or biannual?
If that's what it takes to ensure people are protected and we don't need any other bullshit to live our lives normally, then that's what it takes.
Absolutely but it is the messaging that is important. If we are going to have to have jabs for the foreseeable future then that needs to be introduced. "Booster" implies some kind of finality. 2x jabs then a booster and you're done.
What are they going to call jab #4?
Booster doesn't imply finality it just implies it boosts your protection. If jab 4 is required then that can be called a booster too, or anything else, it doesn't matter.
Those who want finality to Covid are in denial. It's something we need to live with.
It is about the government messaging. Why wasn't the second jab called a booster. The govt is going to have to introduce the idea that we are going to have jabs for the foreseeable future. I see no evidence that they are doing this.
And it matters because as you appreciate it is all about vaccine take-up.
There is no need at all to introduce that idea yet. If that idea needs introducing in six or twelve months time it can be done then.
Getting this one rolled out is what matters, not how we deal with one for next winter.
So shall we have a bet about timing of the 4th jab? My market would be 3-5 months.
Edit: before it's mentioned.
5 months time is the other side of the annual winter flu crisis and we will be past the most risky part facing us.
If its getting mentioned then, why should we care now? Getting through the winter flu crisis is what matters.
Because people getting jabs is all about effective government communication. Effective government strategic communication. If it is necessary and they want take up. If people think it's all over now then they will 2x think it all over in the new year as spring springs.
It is the govt's shortsightedness that is worrying.
Its not shortsighted to be dealing with the winter, that is most important. It will be over in the Spring. Its winter that's the worry.
If further jabs are needed then that's next year's problem. Cross that bridge when we get there. Probably won't happen until autumn next year anyway, with the annual flu jab - and I don't think many people will be confused or surprised by annual Covid jabs to go with annual flu jabs.
Incidentally that's already been officially suggested.
Dealing with winter and not worrying about beyond is the definition of short-sightedness.
You are saying that's a good thing; I am not so sure.
Except that many people have already said they expect Covid vaccines could become annual. I heard an interview with Prof Van Tam yesterday on the radio while I was driving and he made that point.
So what more do you want? Behind the scenes, and in public if you want to pay attention, its already getting said. But the priority for the message to get out there is quite rightly get your jab now - not get next year's jab too.
Getting people to get their jabs now is the most important message to have now. Getting them to get their annual jab next year alongside their annual flu jab is a much simpler message that can be given next year.
If you think that it will be an annual jab then let's have our bet. You can buy 5 months for mention or happy to construct a market for them becoming available. 7-9 months you can buy 9 months.
Fiver a month?
Define mention? As I said it was mentioned yesterday by Prof Van Tam. So depending upon how you defined it that's already a pre-settled market.
Available 7-9 months you buy at 9 months fiver a month stop out for me at 9x5 = £45.
Are you talking about a line bet or a spread bet?
Well I'm assuming a spread bet with you buying the nine months. So if it's ten months you get a fiver, etc
Doesn't seem to be much value there. 9 months from now is August, so would need to be September to get a fiver and that's about when flu vaccines start anyway.
Happy to buy a fiver from 8 months if you're happy to go with the mid point instead of your spread?
Fair point. July = 8 months. Happy that my loss still stopped out at the nine months hence 9x5 = £45.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
People have gone a bit crazy. I think there's a big element of Boris/Brexit derangement syndrome too. The people agitating for it don't really care about the virus, they just want to oppose the government. There's so many other valid areas to do that on, picking COVID just seems a bit mad, especially as cases are falling.
On Tuesday when we had the delayed deaths number rolled in my colleague pointed out that the lockdown fascists would use it without context to agitate for restrictions, so it came to pass.
One thing that hasn't sunk in is that as good as the current covid vaccines are, relative to other vaccines, they aren't really much good at preventing transmission. Covid is simply too easily spread for the current vaccines to hold it in check. The vaccines are useful for suppressing serious illness but we will likely incur a lot of cases no matter what.
Further restrictions like NPIs would have to be open-ended, because until we get better vaccines or good treatments we will face a flare up of covid each time we relax restrictions. So anyone arguing for mandatory masks, social distancing, or closing certain bits of the economy is effectively asking for those things to be done for a very long time, not a few weeks or months.
Actually, they look pretty good at suppressing transmission. Within the fully vaccinated group, transmission lines die out quite quickly - just not instantly.
It's the unvaxxed that provide the engine room for ongoing transmission.
Leakage from teens to parents is main driver of cases rise in the older, more vaxxed population. Remove that engine room, and cases should drop considerably. The muffling effect of immunity on every virus generation as it tries to move through an unfriendly vaccinated population causes those chains to exponentially decay.
That graph has me wondering what the average age of the parent of a 12-13 year old would be?
For mothers, average age at first, second, and third child were 28.9, 31.3, 32.3 Fathers tend to be 3 years older.
So you'd have the average for first children at at age 12 being 41 (mother) 44 (father) and the average age for third children at age 13 being 45 (mother) to 48 (father), with a reasonable distribution on either side.
(Ages of parents for all births England and Wales, 2016 below):
JRM's posh voice and mannered manners heavily disguise his incompetence.
My working assumption is that all posh people are incompetent, until proven otherwise.
That seems a good starting requirement in dealing with all people nowadays, the difference is posh people are more likely to have been severely over promoted.
The biggest change in the few decades is that instead of promoting posh people despite their lack of skills, we now promote people who have a lack of skills from the "right backgrounds"
Hence Cressida Dick. On the upside, woman at the top etc. On the downside, no observable difference to what when before, in terms of policy, behaviour etc.
She is the child of an Oxford professor and an Oxford fellow, and went to Oxford herself. Almost as posh as Starmer.
Ah, like privately educated political outsider Laura Kussenberg who's family includes: chair/president of Royal College of General Practitioners; a high court judge (among other roles), Govenor General of Nigeria; high commisioner of Mozambique.
So outsider.
But But But... they got their jobs through Merit*. Merit is the New Nobility.
So they have a... Divine Right to Rule.
What is interesting is that people outside the new Upper 10,000 are so ungrateful. They even presume to suggest that some of them are not there on merit.....
*Getting degrees at Oxbridge etc.
I don't worship at the altar of Meritocracy either - it's just another 'ocracy' - but it's not at all clear to me what you are driving at with this Upper 10,000 business. What do you want? The top jobs going to a birth nobility instead? Decided by a random number generator? Going to the worst educated in a kind of Cultural Revolution? Or maybe what you want is for there not to be any top jobs? In which case, the latter, you're a kindred spirit. But I suspect you aren't. All I really pick up is a kind of enigmatic whinge at a type of person. A type who irritates you. So what gives?
The point I am making is an old one - the Revolution came and went and all we get is the New Managerial class.
Further, that the new incumbents are even more endowed with belief in their absolute right to rule than the Old Regime.
I think on the group of lawyers I discussed the problem of shoplifting with a while ago. To their minds, shoplifting shouldn't be prosecuted, since the criminals are such wretched victims themselves. When I pointed out that the shop keepers might not agree, the curling of lips was magnificent... It comes back to another theme, I think...
The modern world has sold Democracy to the masses. It has been made a Cornerstone* of the legitimacy of government. Yet, to those that rule, more and more of the structure of our society is supposed to be beyond the reach of the ballot - to be held safely among the lawyers and... experts.
Yet none dare say, outright, that Democracy has its limits. So we have a structure where democracy is preached by the state, but the state declares that we are bound to object it's dictat on various things *and* we are not allowed to have a say
I recall an interesting conversation I had with a young relative who was studying history. She was appalled when I said that some of those involve in Irish Nationalism had *rejected* democracy as the last argument. She thought I was saying that they were evil. I was trying to explain that they simply had a different belief in the sanctity of the ballot and it's power.
But do these shopkeeper-hating lawyers have any power? Last time I looked, shoplifting was still a crime and people still go to jail for it. We live in a liberal democracy, and there is an often unacknowledged tension between those two words. The liberal aspects are supposed to protect individuals and minority groups from the tyranny of the majority. To the extent that that creates some constraint on democracy, I am not sure that is something we should bemoan. I guess the question is where exactly we put those constraints on democracy. I'm comfortable with much of the day to day business of running the country being delegated to experts, aka people who know what they're doing. I don't see that as a conspiracy. It's the job of politicians to ensure that they do know what they are doing and aren't simply acting in their own interests, of course.
They were the kind of layers who work for the big firms that will end up writing our laws, and writing policy papers that the System will use. You will note that in many parts of the country, shop lifting is essentially ignore by the police and and prosecutorial system - they simply use discretion to prioritise it to... zero.
It is not about hating shop keepers. To their minds, they were Plato's Philosopher Kings, making the Right Choices. The shop keepers in that world are ignorant wretches, who need guidance from their benevolent superiors.
The issue, which needs to be addressed, is not the day to day running of the country, so much as the ultimate control and oversight of that running.
Some people want to take more and more out of the democratic political sphere and place it in the legal/human rights sphere. For example, some years ago, there was an attempt to place control of state pensions in the human rights sphere - rejected by the courts, it would have put a large section of state benefits outside democratic control and left the government in the interesting situation of having to provide money for whatever the courts decided. In fact that was the reason for the rejection by the High Court, IIRC.
The problem is that this situation is corrosive to social compact. My personal preference is for Swiss style referenda and democratic control on everything.
Ah ha to that last sentence. I didn't want to mind read - it annoys people when I do that - but that's what I kind of deduced you might be a fan of. "Direct" democracy. Ok, so your musings make more sense to me now. They have more of a theme and a shape and a point. So the challenge there imo is twofold. (i) How to make complex decisions, eg on economic policy. (ii) How to avoid things being enacted which are either objectively stupid or prejudicial, ie violate the "beyond democracy" principle of equality under the law. And I'm not taking "well it works in Switzerland" as an answer. Switzerland is Switzerland. It's a very unique sort of a place. Eg its benefits system which was discussed the other day.
BigG just hates Boris, of course he ignores the fact Hunt, Boris' main rival in 2019, actually signed as well as voted for Leadsom's amendment.
Of course BigG also ignores the fact Boris is the only Tory leader since Thatcher to have won a big working majority of over 50 and we all know what happened to the Tories once Thatcher went, they lost 3 out of 4 of the next general elections
Yep, parties that ditch their winners become losers. Con did it. Then Lab did it.
Of course Boris will go eventually and a long period of political oblivion will await the Tories when he does I suspect.
The way I see it, Boris wins in 2023 with a reduced (but still healthy) majority, He goes sometime around 2026. Labour win in 2028 and the 2030's are a "Labour decade"
I am glad that Paterson has done the dishonourable thing and been dragged to see Dishi to apply to lobby for Her Majesty as her Steward of the Manor of Northsted / Chiltern Hundreds.
So, the corrupt Tory Party needs to be shown that it behaviour is not acceptable. An anti-corruption independent is needed, someone who has displayed impeccable honour and standards. With all other major parties standing aside.
JRM's posh voice and mannered manners heavily disguise his incompetence.
My working assumption is that all posh people are incompetent, until proven otherwise.
That seems a good starting requirement in dealing with all people nowadays, the difference is posh people are more likely to have been severely over promoted.
The biggest change in the few decades is that instead of promoting posh people despite their lack of skills, we now promote people who have a lack of skills from the "right backgrounds"
Hence Cressida Dick. On the upside, woman at the top etc. On the downside, no observable difference to what when before, in terms of policy, behaviour etc.
She is the child of an Oxford professor and an Oxford fellow, and went to Oxford herself. Almost as posh as Starmer.
Ah, like privately educated political outsider Laura Kussenberg who's family includes: chair/president of Royal College of General Practitioners; a high court judge (among other roles), Govenor General of Nigeria; high commisioner of Mozambique.
So outsider.
But But But... they got their jobs through Merit*. Merit is the New Nobility.
So they have a... Divine Right to Rule.
What is interesting is that people outside the new Upper 10,000 are so ungrateful. They even presume to suggest that some of them are not there on merit.....
*Getting degrees at Oxbridge etc.
I don't worship at the altar of Meritocracy either - it's just another 'ocracy' - but it's not at all clear to me what you are driving at with this Upper 10,000 business. What do you want? The top jobs going to a birth nobility instead? Decided by a random number generator? Going to the worst educated in a kind of Cultural Revolution? Or maybe what you want is for there not to be any top jobs? In which case, the latter, you're a kindred spirit. But I suspect you aren't. All I really pick up is a kind of enigmatic whinge at a type of person. A type who irritates you. So what gives?
The point I am making is an old one - the Revolution came and went and all we get is the New Managerial class.
Further, that the new incumbents are even more endowed with belief in their absolute right to rule than the Old Regime.
I think on the group of lawyers I discussed the problem of shoplifting with a while ago. To their minds, shoplifting shouldn't be prosecuted, since the criminals are such wretched victims themselves. When I pointed out that the shop keepers might not agree, the curling of lips was magnificent... It comes back to another theme, I think...
The modern world has sold Democracy to the masses. It has been made a Cornerstone* of the legitimacy of government. Yet, to those that rule, more and more of the structure of our society is supposed to be beyond the reach of the ballot - to be held safely among the lawyers and... experts.
Yet none dare say, outright, that Democracy has its limits. So we have a structure where democracy is preached by the state, but the state declares that we are bound to object it's dictat on various things *and* we are not allowed to have a say
I recall an interesting conversation I had with a young relative who was studying history. She was appalled when I said that some of those involve in Irish Nationalism had *rejected* democracy as the last argument. She thought I was saying that they were evil. I was trying to explain that they simply had a different belief in the sanctity of the ballot and it's power.
Right. The George Orwell / Pete Townsend principle. It's valid but I've never quite latched onto it as some sort of fundamental enlightening truth. Fact is, if the New Boss is a bit better than the Old Boss, that's progress.
As for Democracy, for me it's a means to a Good not a Good in and of itself. And the Good is - to deliver as much power and autonomy to people over their own lives, independent of birth circumstances, as is compatible with the need to create order and wealth. If there's a system other than Democracy that would do this, I'll vote for it. Or rather I wouldn't since I wouldn't have to.
I massively disagree with you on that last point @kinabalu - for me Democracy is a good in itself. I could write reams on this. If I believe in one thing, politically, it's this. Better we reflect what people want than give them what's good for them. Peaceful handover of power from one regime to another is vanishingly rare in the world and in history. Yet we do it every ten years or so (the 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' issue above notwithstanding.)
Easy for me to take this point of view having been on the winning side this last decade or so, I grant you. But I think I felt the same when I was losing. (My first vote was in the local elections in 1994. The first time I'd been on the winning side in any respect whatsoever was in, I think, the Greater Manchester referendum on the congestion charge in 2009.)
If there were a political system that delivered a more prosperous, freer, more equal society than democracy you wouldn't go for it? That seems odd to me.
Of course there isn't - so it's rather hypothetical.
British people should consider themselves very lucky with what they have.
You don't get likes on social media by considering yourself lucky with what you have: you get them by writing emotive spiels about fascism coming to the UK. And unlike betting, when it turns out fascism wasn't coming to the UK after all you don't lose your likes because you were wrong. Instead, you just wait for the next opportunity to say fascism is coming to the UK and collect more likes.
Is this the acid test you set for a Tory government then? They must jump that 'not fascist' bar?
Please note that the person who responded to my post about social media addiction by accusing me of being insufficiently neurotic about incipient fascism in the UK has made an average of 15.59 messages per day since joining the site.
Watch the Lib Dems at both Bexley and North Shropshire, now there is going to be a by election in Southend West expect Labour and the Lib Dems to stand, again the latter have a base there and could do well..
Comments
Govt whips vote to gut standards oversight, barely wins
Opposition refuses to participate in new kangeroo court
Cabinet ministers make fools of themselves defending kangeroo court
Govt abandons kangeroo court and MP it was created to save
MP resigns
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1456271493881499654
Of course BigG also ignores the fact Boris is the only Tory leader since Thatcher to have won a big working majority of over 50 and we all know what happened to the Tories once Thatcher went, they lost 3 out of 4 of the next general elections
Rees Mogg will be feeling rather hot under the collar after Johnson simply walked away from the plan.
Shropshire North may be pretty inpregnable, but then so was Chesham & Amersham.
We need a change at the top
Peaceful handover of power from one regime to another is vanishingly rare in the world and in history. Yet we do it every ten years or so (the 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' issue above notwithstanding.)
Easy for me to take this point of view having been on the winning side this last decade or so, I grant you. But I think I felt the same when I was losing. (My first vote was in the local elections in 1994. The first time I'd been on the winning side in any respect whatsoever was in, I think, the Greater Manchester referendum on the congestion charge in 2009.)
NEW THREAD
Indeed hate is not a word I use for anyone
You are blind to the disaster this has been and he is the one responsible and should follow Paterson
Fathers tend to be 3 years older.
So you'd have the average for first children at at age 12 being 41 (mother) 44 (father) and the average age for third children at age 13 being 45 (mother) to 48 (father), with a reasonable distribution on either side.
(Ages of parents for all births England and Wales, 2016 below):
So if the keyboard goes, the laptop is useless
Of course Boris will go eventually and a long period of political oblivion will await the Tories when he does I suspect.
The way I see it, Boris wins in 2023 with a reduced (but still healthy) majority, He goes sometime around 2026. Labour win in 2028 and the 2030's are a "Labour decade"
So, the corrupt Tory Party needs to be shown that it behaviour is not acceptable. An anti-corruption independent is needed, someone who has displayed impeccable honour and standards. With all other major parties standing aside.
Calling Rory Stewart...
Of course there isn't - so it's rather hypothetical.