Time is running out for Rishi to turn this round – politicalbetting.com

Mexicanpete said:

Carnyx said:

Mexicanpete said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Mexicanpete said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

I still think we're looking at a 2010 scenario and the question is, can Labour get over the line or will they have to govern with the consent of another party or parties?

I really don't think so.

What is the way back for a divided government, led by a wet behind the ears management consultant that is heading for 0/5 on its own chosen pledges?

On paper Sunak will be able to claim all five of his pledges. Most were vague platitudes anyway. Inflation is out of his hands but it is falling fast in the Eurozone, so it will here.

Will anyone feel any better from Sunak's "success"? No.

He will do better at the GE because his "it may be bad now, but it will be worse under Labour" will gain enough traction by election time. That is already the narrative promoted by anxious Conservatives on PB. Small Conservative majority.

Sunak will have dropped the pledges completely before we get to year end as they will have failed all 5 of them. Whats more, angry Tory MPs will claim that interviewers harping on about the 5 "people's priorities" are following a political bubble story rather than focusing on the people's priorities - which will be whatever guff they are trying to grift next time.

You can't campaign on "STOP THE BOATS" and claim success as record numbers pour across the channel. The others are well beyond even an attempt to claim achievement as well.

He can claim all five and the client journalists will back him up.

BigG. has this morning made the compelling case that Starmer is a worse PM than Sunak on the evidence he has to hand, so I can't see the Daily Mail deviating from that line.

TBF it is 100% nailed on that SKS can point to no record of achievement when it comes to redecorating no 10, or in populating it with commensal animals. Though a donkey in the garden, grazed in Green Park (?), would be nice.

Sir Keith Donkey?

No, not a direct reference to SKS but (just in case you don't know the allusion [edit] to the amiable equids in question) the rather different kind of chumocracy we might get:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/i-met-keir-starmers-donkeys-and-they-told-me-something-about-him/

'And there was the moment when Keir was due to meet a top QC who was leading him in an important trial. “Can we reschedule?” Keir asked. “Of course,” the QC replied. “Is everything OK?”. It turned out that one of the donkeys had died and Keir’s mum really wanted him to be there at the funeral.'

Foxy said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Grim pictures coming out.

Libraries burnt, animals released from zoos, Jewish memorials desecrated.

Even a video of someone with an AK-47.

It looks possibly a bit worse than 2005, although less long so far, so I think Macron will probably have to declare that state of emergency that he wanted not to.

BBC journalists being threatened is awful.

I think it effectively shows our cultural alignment to the USA.

This is essentially a French George Floyd. If it were mass American rioting over a police shooting the BBC would be all over it and there'd be copycat protests here inside 72 hours.

Because it's France we look, shrug and make jokes about the French, and carry on.

Were there riots here after the George Floyd murder?

AfaIcs the BBC are currently frotting themselves into a seizure over the French riots.

There were protests, notably one in Bristol as I recall.

Just a bit of art criticism that got out of hand.

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

I still think we're looking at a 2010 scenario and the question is, can Labour get over the line or will they have to govern with the consent of another party or parties?

Could be, but I'm in the 'landslide' camp myself. Not a 97 but still a big 2 digit Labour majority.

From the starting point of 2019 that isn't going to happen. I can predict with confidence anything from a 20 or so Tory majority to a Labour majority of around 2. In between may be most likely, but there isn't a Labour landslide in the offing.

In other words, 1964 result. Which led to a 1966 one.
Although history never repeats it self exactly, and there really doesn’t look to be the same big beasts on the Labour front bench that there were in either 1964 or 1997.

And a very good morning to one and all. I’m sorry for those with tickets for Lords, but I hope it rains!

Although just about everyone knows the current government is useless, there really is no enthusiasm for Keir or LAB at all. So something similar to 1964 is indeed a quite likely outcome.

Theuniondivvie said:

Foxy said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Grim pictures coming out.

Libraries burnt, animals released from zoos, Jewish memorials desecrated.

Even a video of someone with an AK-47.

It looks possibly a bit worse than 2005, although less long so far, so I think Macron will probably have to declare that state of emergency that he wanted not to.

BBC journalists being threatened is awful.

I think it effectively shows our cultural alignment to the USA.

This is essentially a French George Floyd. If it were mass American rioting over a police shooting the BBC would be all over it and there'd be copycat protests here inside 72 hours.

Because it's France we look, shrug and make jokes about the French, and carry on.

Were there riots here after the George Floyd murder?

AfaIcs the BBC are currently frotting themselves into a seizure over the French riots.

There were protests, notably one in Bristol as I recall.

Just a bit of art criticism that got out of hand.

Mind, we had lots of art criticism on here. Including how dare the National Trust explain to people why a statue, sculpted as a condemnation of slavery, bought as ditto, and displayed as ditto in a purpose-built location by the original builder of the house in question, was what and where it was.

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

squareroot2 said:

I am in France. The roads are well.maintained and flat without potholes inc the d and e roads. The roadsides are clean and well managed. It is a pleasure to drive on their roads. The road signs are clean and not obstructed by this years growth.
England by comparison is a shit hole notwithstanding the riots currenty in the big cities in France.. There are police are stopping people even in the countryside but I as a tourist was waved through.
Mind you ...gone are the Butcher the Baker and the Candlestick maker, all the little villages we drive through have nothing.

There aren't any potholes in my area in England, and when a couple developed last winter they were fixed pretty quickly.

Clearly an uneven situation since this is not the case in many places.

Sussex is still appalling.

Mexicanpete said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

I still think we're looking at a 2010 scenario and the question is, can Labour get over the line or will they have to govern with the consent of another party or parties?

Could be, but I'm in the 'landslide' camp myself. Not a 97 but still a big 2 digit Labour majority.

From the starting point of 2019 that isn't going to happen. I can predict with confidence anything from a 20 or so Tory majority to a Labour majority of around 2. In between may be most likely, but there isn't a Labour landslide in the offing.

I can never work out if you're being extremely dry or pessimistic

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Mexicanpete said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Mexicanpete said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

I still think we're looking at a 2010 scenario and the question is, can Labour get over the line or will they have to govern with the consent of another party or parties?

I really don't think so.

What is the way back for a divided government, led by a wet behind the ears management consultant that is heading for 0/5 on its own chosen pledges?

On paper Sunak will be able to claim all five of his pledges. Most were vague platitudes anyway. Inflation is out of his hands but it is falling fast in the Eurozone, so it will here.

Will anyone feel any better from Sunak's "success"? No.

He will do better at the GE because his "it may be bad now, but it will be worse under Labour" will gain enough traction by election time. That is already the narrative promoted by anxious Conservatives on PB. Small Conservative majority.

Sunak will have dropped the pledges completely before we get to year end as they will have failed all 5 of them. Whats more, angry Tory MPs will claim that interviewers harping on about the 5 "people's priorities" are following a political bubble story rather than focusing on the people's priorities - which will be whatever guff they are trying to grift next time.

You can't campaign on "STOP THE BOATS" and claim success as record numbers pour across the channel. The others are well beyond even an attempt to claim achievement as well.

He can claim all five and the client journalists will back him up.

BigG. has this morning made the compelling case that Starmer is a worse PM than Sunak on the evidence he has to hand, so I can't see the Daily Mail deviating from that line.

I'm not sure that the Heil and GBeebies insisting the sky actually is green actually, and then HYUFD etc producing a poll showing that 27.9% actually of the Tory core vote actually agrees the sky is green actually will make a difference.

The reason the Tory vote continues to collapse is that normal punters have seen that the spin is a lie. They know the economy is in a mess and their community is decaying because they are living and experiencing it.

Sunak can claim that he has slain inflation and fixed the NHS and stopped the boats. But he won't have done, people will see and feel and experience the truth, and Boris! has reinforced the truth that the Tories lie and lie and lie.

I know that @Heathener winds some of the PB snowflakes up, but she is right - the game is up.

Not snowflakes, just very boring. There are many more interesting left-wing posters (far more so than she is) who manage to be insightful must-reads, who are also great to debate with.

But, just dumping the same agreed 'lines to take' on here at 6am every morning demeans the site and insults our intelligence.

Don't encourage her just because she's on 'your side'.

I disagree with @Heathener 's forecast, way too optimistic, but she is perfectly entitled to post her view.

No one complains when you don the rah rah skirt and twirl the baton in anger for the Tories.

Foxy said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Grim pictures coming out.

Libraries burnt, animals released from zoos, Jewish memorials desecrated.

Even a video of someone with an AK-47.

It looks possibly a bit worse than 2005, although less long so far, so I think Macron will probably have to declare that state of emergency that he wanted not to.

BBC journalists being threatened is awful.

I think it effectively shows our cultural alignment to the USA.

This is essentially a French George Floyd. If it were mass American rioting over a police shooting the BBC would be all over it and there'd be copycat protests here inside 72 hours.

Because it's France we look, shrug and make jokes about the French, and carry on.

Were there riots here after the George Floyd murder?

AfaIcs the BBC are currently frotting themselves into a seizure over the French riots.

There were protests, notably one in Bristol as I recall.

Exactly. People exaggerate, of course, its the Internet, but protests and stories and connection with the Floyd stories was much more, wall to wall at times. The French stuff is 'merely' a news story. There's not going to be any lingering reflections on what it means for here, and far less direct equating of issues. The idea that is bit so is very misplaced.

It is indeed starting to look grim. The lead is enormous and time is running out. A very one sided result is looking increasingly inevitable and it is not obvious what can be done to stop it.

England and the Tories: both in the same mess.

SKS cancels next series of Broad Church

.

Mexicanpete said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Mexicanpete said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Mexicanpete said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

I still think we're looking at a 2010 scenario and the question is, can Labour get over the line or will they have to govern with the consent of another party or parties?

I really don't think so.

What is the way back for a divided government, led by a wet behind the ears management consultant that is heading for 0/5 on its own chosen pledges?

On paper Sunak will be able to claim all five of his pledges. Most were vague platitudes anyway. Inflation is out of his hands but it is falling fast in the Eurozone, so it will here.

Will anyone feel any better from Sunak's "success"? No.

He will do better at the GE because his "it may be bad now, but it will be worse under Labour" will gain enough traction by election time. That is already the narrative promoted by anxious Conservatives on PB. Small Conservative majority.

Sunak will have dropped the pledges completely before we get to year end as they will have failed all 5 of them. Whats more, angry Tory MPs will claim that interviewers harping on about the 5 "people's priorities" are following a political bubble story rather than focusing on the people's priorities - which will be whatever guff they are trying to grift next time.

You can't campaign on "STOP THE BOATS" and claim success as record numbers pour across the channel. The others are well beyond even an attempt to claim achievement as well.

He can claim all five and the client journalists will back him up.

BigG. has this morning made the compelling case that Starmer is a worse PM than Sunak on the evidence he has to hand, so I can't see the Daily Mail deviating from that line.

I'm not sure that the Heil and GBeebies insisting the sky actually is green actually, and then HYUFD etc producing a poll showing that 27.9% actually of the Tory core vote actually agrees the sky is green actually will make a difference.

The reason the Tory vote continues to collapse is that normal punters have seen that the spin is a lie. They know the economy is in a mess and their community is decaying because they are living and experiencing it.

Sunak can claim that he has slain inflation and fixed the NHS and stopped the boats. But he won't have done, people will see and feel and experience the truth, and Boris! has reinforced the truth that the Tories lie and lie and lie.

I know that @Heathener winds some of the PB snowflakes up, but she is right - the game is up.

Not snowflakes, just very boring. There are many more interesting left-wing posters (far more so than she is) who manage to be insightful must-reads, who are also great to debate with.

But, just dumping the same agreed 'lines to take' on here at 6am every morning demeans the site and insults our intelligence.

Don't encourage her just because she's on 'your side'.

I disagree with @Heathener 's forecast, way too optimistic, but she is perfectly entitled to post her view.

No one complains when you don the rah rah skirt and twirl the baton in anger for the Tories.

But, I never do that and I certainly don't do it like you can set your clock by it at 6am every day.

FWIW, I think we're currently on course for a result worse than 1997, followed by a quite left-wing radical government that will result in a large swingback to the Tories 4-5 years later, but without them regaining office.

Casino_Royale said:

.

Mexicanpete said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Mexicanpete said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Mexicanpete said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

I still think we're looking at a 2010 scenario and the question is, can Labour get over the line or will they have to govern with the consent of another party or parties?

I really don't think so.

What is the way back for a divided government, led by a wet behind the ears management consultant that is heading for 0/5 on its own chosen pledges?

On paper Sunak will be able to claim all five of his pledges. Most were vague platitudes anyway. Inflation is out of his hands but it is falling fast in the Eurozone, so it will here.

Will anyone feel any better from Sunak's "success"? No.

He will do better at the GE because his "it may be bad now, but it will be worse under Labour" will gain enough traction by election time. That is already the narrative promoted by anxious Conservatives on PB. Small Conservative majority.

Sunak will have dropped the pledges completely before we get to year end as they will have failed all 5 of them. Whats more, angry Tory MPs will claim that interviewers harping on about the 5 "people's priorities" are following a political bubble story rather than focusing on the people's priorities - which will be whatever guff they are trying to grift next time.

You can't campaign on "STOP THE BOATS" and claim success as record numbers pour across the channel. The others are well beyond even an attempt to claim achievement as well.

He can claim all five and the client journalists will back him up.

BigG. has this morning made the compelling case that Starmer is a worse PM than Sunak on the evidence he has to hand, so I can't see the Daily Mail deviating from that line.

I'm not sure that the Heil and GBeebies insisting the sky actually is green actually, and then HYUFD etc producing a poll showing that 27.9% actually of the Tory core vote actually agrees the sky is green actually will make a difference.

The reason the Tory vote continues to collapse is that normal punters have seen that the spin is a lie. They know the economy is in a mess and their community is decaying because they are living and experiencing it.

Sunak can claim that he has slain inflation and fixed the NHS and stopped the boats. But he won't have done, people will see and feel and experience the truth, and Boris! has reinforced the truth that the Tories lie and lie and lie.

I know that @Heathener winds some of the PB snowflakes up, but she is right - the game is up.

Not snowflakes, just very boring. There are many more interesting left-wing posters (far more so than she is) who manage to be insightful must-reads, who are also great to debate with.

But, just dumping the same agreed 'lines to take' on here at 6am every morning demeans the site and insults our intelligence.

Don't encourage her just because she's on 'your side'.

I disagree with @Heathener 's forecast, way too optimistic, but she is perfectly entitled to post her view.

No one complains when you don the rah rah skirt and twirl the baton in anger for the Tories.

But, I never do that and I certainly don't do it like you can set your clock by it at 6am every day.

FWIW, I think we're currently on course for a result worse than 1997, followed by a quite left-wing radical government that will result in a large swingback to the Tories 4-5 years later, but without them regaining office.

Just ignore her posts. Some of us read them, are momentarily cheered, and then reality sets in.

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

I still think we're looking at a 2010 scenario and the question is, can Labour get over the line or will they have to govern with the consent of another party or parties?

Could be, but I'm in the 'landslide' camp myself. Not a 97 but still a big 2 digit Labour majority.

Why does it matter?

They both want to keep the poor in poverty, the disabled shamed, those seeking Asylum scapegoated, the Water Industry in private shit show land, the NHS privatised the UK a subsiduary of US World policeforce, protests banned, opponents expelled, fossil fuels extracted, strikers defeated and Billionaire Paymasters satisfied

I could go on

bigjohnowls said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

I still think we're looking at a 2010 scenario and the question is, can Labour get over the line or will they have to govern with the consent of another party or parties?

Could be, but I'm in the 'landslide' camp myself. Not a 97 but still a big 2 digit Labour majority.

Why does it matter?

They both want to keep the poor in poverty, the disabled shamed, those seeking Asylum scapegoated, the Water Industry in private shit show land, the NHS privatised the UK a subsiduary of US World policeforce, protests banned, opponents expelled, fossil fuels extracted, strikers defeated and Billionaire Paymasters satisfied

I could go on

You do!

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

carnforth said:

Leon said:

Ozempic is weird but effective

Did you just buy the starter pack, or are you all in?

All in. Started on 0.5. Insanely expensive*

I briefly felt a little nauseous yesterday - day 2 - but nowt else. Fine otherwise

Today I got the first "positive" effects. My appetite has simple dropped away. You stop thinking about food and you feel full very quickly when you do eat. Just has Coquille St Jacques and a green salad, first and only meal of the day. Feel sated

*will be worth it, alone, if it reduces my crazily spendy wine habit

I had to Google it. Do you need it or are you taking it recreationally? I picture you as some rakishly rake thin.

I'm a little chunky. Could easily lose 10-12 pounds I put on in lockdown and just won't sod off. But I'm not obese and I don't really need it - so it is vanity, but it is also curiosity

These drugs could be revolutionary if they work. The NHS could save tens of billions if we can abolish severe overwight and obesity with mere pills and jabs (which will come down in price sharply and shortly)

That's insane. You would save a fortune and lose weight just by cutting down on the booze and easing back on all the gourmet nosh. Most obese people are obese because the only food they can afford or can be bothered to cook is over processed dogshite, full of sweeteners and edible chemicals that don't sate you and make you want more. You're a fat knacker because you've got more money than sense and never say no.
For some reason, you're one of my favourite posters on here, but have a tendency towards being a bell end (as do we all!)

Casino_Royale said:

.

Mexicanpete said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Mexicanpete said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Mexicanpete said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

I still think we're looking at a 2010 scenario and the question is, can Labour get over the line or will they have to govern with the consent of another party or parties?

I really don't think so.

What is the way back for a divided government, led by a wet behind the ears management consultant that is heading for 0/5 on its own chosen pledges?

On paper Sunak will be able to claim all five of his pledges. Most were vague platitudes anyway. Inflation is out of his hands but it is falling fast in the Eurozone, so it will here.

Will anyone feel any better from Sunak's "success"? No.

He will do better at the GE because his "it may be bad now, but it will be worse under Labour" will gain enough traction by election time. That is already the narrative promoted by anxious Conservatives on PB. Small Conservative majority.

Sunak will have dropped the pledges completely before we get to year end as they will have failed all 5 of them. Whats more, angry Tory MPs will claim that interviewers harping on about the 5 "people's priorities" are following a political bubble story rather than focusing on the people's priorities - which will be whatever guff they are trying to grift next time.

You can't campaign on "STOP THE BOATS" and claim success as record numbers pour across the channel. The others are well beyond even an attempt to claim achievement as well.

He can claim all five and the client journalists will back him up.

BigG. has this morning made the compelling case that Starmer is a worse PM than Sunak on the evidence he has to hand, so I can't see the Daily Mail deviating from that line.

I'm not sure that the Heil and GBeebies insisting the sky actually is green actually, and then HYUFD etc producing a poll showing that 27.9% actually of the Tory core vote actually agrees the sky is green actually will make a difference.

The reason the Tory vote continues to collapse is that normal punters have seen that the spin is a lie. They know the economy is in a mess and their community is decaying because they are living and experiencing it.

Sunak can claim that he has slain inflation and fixed the NHS and stopped the boats. But he won't have done, people will see and feel and experience the truth, and Boris! has reinforced the truth that the Tories lie and lie and lie.

I know that @Heathener winds some of the PB snowflakes up, but she is right - the game is up.

Not snowflakes, just very boring. There are many more interesting left-wing posters (far more so than she is) who manage to be insightful must-reads, who are also great to debate with.

But, just dumping the same agreed 'lines to take' on here at 6am every morning demeans the site and insults our intelligence.

Don't encourage her just because she's on 'your side'.

I disagree with @Heathener 's forecast, way too optimistic, but she is perfectly entitled to post her view.

No one complains when you don the rah rah skirt and twirl the baton in anger for the Tories.

But, I never do that and I certainly don't do it like you can set your clock by it at 6am every day.

FWIW, I think we're currently on course for a result worse than 1997, followed by a quite left-wing radical government that will result in a large swingback to the Tories 4-5 years later, but without them regaining office.

Don’t see why Starmer would go that way.

He is, fairly obviously, wanting to do New Labour Part Deux, minus Iraq.

There are quite a few people in Labour who believe that, without Iraq, they would have had a much longer run.

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

carnforth said:

Leon said:

Ozempic is weird but effective

Did you just buy the starter pack, or are you all in?

All in. Started on 0.5. Insanely expensive*

I briefly felt a little nauseous yesterday - day 2 - but nowt else. Fine otherwise

Today I got the first "positive" effects. My appetite has simple dropped away. You stop thinking about food and you feel full very quickly when you do eat. Just has Coquille St Jacques and a green salad, first and only meal of the day. Feel sated

*will be worth it, alone, if it reduces my crazily spendy wine habit

I had to Google it. Do you need it or are you taking it recreationally? I picture you as some rakishly rake thin.

I'm a little chunky. Could easily lose 10-12 pounds I put on in lockdown and just won't sod off. But I'm not obese and I don't really need it - so it is vanity, but it is also curiosity

These drugs could be revolutionary if they work. The NHS could save tens of billions if we can abolish severe overwight and obesity with mere pills and jabs (which will come down in price sharply and shortly)

That's insane. You would save a fortune and lose weight just by cutting down on the booze and easing back on all the gourmet nosh. Most obese people are obese because the only food they can afford or can be bothered to cook is over processed dogshite, full of sweeteners and edible chemicals that don't sate you and make you want more. You're a fat knacker because you've got more money than sense and never say no.
For some reason, you're one of my favourite posters on here, but have a tendency towards being a bell end (as do we all!)

"Tendency towards being a bell end" - yes - the inscription on Leon's headstone, surely.

Farooq said:

bigjohnowls said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

I still think we're looking at a 2010 scenario and the question is, can Labour get over the line or will they have to govern with the consent of another party or parties?

Could be, but I'm in the 'landslide' camp myself. Not a 97 but still a big 2 digit Labour majority.

Why does it matter?

They both want to keep the poor in poverty, the disabled shamed, those seeking Asylum scapegoated, the Water Industry in private shit show land, the NHS privatised the UK a subsiduary of US World policeforce, protests banned, opponents expelled, fossil fuels extracted, strikers defeated and Billionaire Paymasters satisfied

I could go on

Look, the reason why some of us can't take your contributions seriously is because, even though much of this is true, Starmer and Labour will still be a big improvement on Sunak and the Conservatives.

Why?

IMO they will be no better at all

Please show your workings

Mexicanpete said:

bigjohnowls said:

SKS cancels next series of Broad Church

Well, what's it got to do with you, a Green Party member?

As a result of SKS cancelling Broad Church

I dont think that response is the Gotcha you think it is

tlg86 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Polly resigns from the SKS Fans bunch

Polly Toynbee
@pollytoynbee
Of course Labour can't possibly eject Neal Lawson of Compass for a 2-year-old tweet of great good sense. Even to threaten risks stirring a mighty rebellion - and not by the usual suspects. The majority of the members voted for proportional representation! Sack the lot?

Seen this online. From what I can see, he was encouraging people to vote tactically for the Lib Dems or the Greens to unseat a Tory Labour councillor.

Open and shut case if that's correct. I'm against constant purges for minor offences but actually trying to unseat a Labour councillor is obviously incompatible with being a party member.

The i headline story is interesting - Government considering a referendum of scrapping the ECHR, as a way of creating a Brexit 2 coalition.

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

carnforth said:

Leon said:

Ozempic is weird but effective

Did you just buy the starter pack, or are you all in?

All in. Started on 0.5. Insanely expensive*

I briefly felt a little nauseous yesterday - day 2 - but nowt else. Fine otherwise

Today I got the first "positive" effects. My appetite has simple dropped away. You stop thinking about food and you feel full very quickly when you do eat. Just has Coquille St Jacques and a green salad, first and only meal of the day. Feel sated

*will be worth it, alone, if it reduces my crazily spendy wine habit

I had to Google it. Do you need it or are you taking it recreationally? I picture you as some rakishly rake thin.

I'm a little chunky. Could easily lose 10-12 pounds I put on in lockdown and just won't sod off. But I'm not obese and I don't really need it - so it is vanity, but it is also curiosity

These drugs could be revolutionary if they work. The NHS could save tens of billions if we can abolish severe overwight and obesity with mere pills and jabs (which will come down in price sharply and shortly)

That's insane. You would save a fortune and lose weight just by cutting down on the booze and easing back on all the gourmet nosh. Most obese people are obese because the only food they can afford or can be bothered to cook is over processed dogshite, full of sweeteners and edible chemicals that don't sate you and make you want more. You're a fat knacker because you've got more money than sense and never say no.
For some reason, you're one of my favourite posters on here, but have a tendency towards being a bell end (as do we all!)

I'm not referring to Leon but the number of overweight people I see who say they want to lose weight yet indulge in in-between crappy snacks is very noticeable. There are snacks (or meal replacements) which are healthy and fill you up. My weight hardly changes (because I never let it) but if I want to lose a bit I replace a meal with a banana and large tablespoon of quality peanut butter (e.g. Manilife). Fills you up for ages.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

No Tory poll leads since 6th December 2021.

BJO fans please explain!

I have no Fans

Just Green Comrades

Malmesbury said:

Farooq said:

bigjohnowls said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

I still think we're looking at a 2010 scenario and the question is, can Labour get over the line or will they have to govern with the consent of another party or parties?

Could be, but I'm in the 'landslide' camp myself. Not a 97 but still a big 2 digit Labour majority.

Why does it matter?

They both want to keep the poor in poverty, the disabled shamed, those seeking Asylum scapegoated, the Water Industry in private shit show land, the NHS privatised the UK a subsiduary of US World policeforce, protests banned, opponents expelled, fossil fuels extracted, strikers defeated and Billionaire Paymasters satisfied

I could go on

Look, the reason why some of us can't take your contributions seriously is because, even though much of this is true, Starmer and Labour will still be a big improvement on Sunak and the Conservatives. But you spend all your energy attacking the former.

It's like your main concern is who runs Labour rather than who runs the country. It's the worst kind of navel gazing.

Labour is nothing of it isn’t a pursuit of Socialist Purity, unsullied by government. Or excessive popularity.

Says literally nobody except Centrists

NickPalmer said:

tlg86 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Polly resigns from the SKS Fans bunch

Polly Toynbee
@pollytoynbee
Of course Labour can't possibly eject Neal Lawson of Compass for a 2-year-old tweet of great good sense. Even to threaten risks stirring a mighty rebellion - and not by the usual suspects. The majority of the members voted for proportional representation! Sack the lot?

Seen this online. From what I can see, he was encouraging people to vote tactically for the Lib Dems or the Greens to unseat a Tory Labour councillor.

Open and shut case if that's correct. I'm against constant purges for minor offences but actually trying to unseat a Labour councillor is obviously incompatible with being a party member.

The i headline story is interesting - Government considering a referendum of scrapping the ECHR, as a way of creating a Brexit 2 coalition.

Apart from Angela Smith Mike Gapes Luciana Berger and a whole gang of Centrist who went even further and stood against Labour and are welcomed back

If you cant see its a purely factional move by Luke Akehurst you are blind

bigjohnowls said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

No Tory poll leads since 6th December 2021.

BJO fans please explain!

I have no Fans

Just Green Comrades

Have no fear, your view of Starmer as a ruthless, cynical, sanctimonious, earnest, preachy, puritanical yet lying shape-shifter has some albeit niche support. He was the Tories' worst nightmare though.

Would the LP be where it is now with Long-Bailey? I doubt it.

Polly of course can retire to her villa in Tuscany

NickPalmer said:

tlg86 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Polly resigns from the SKS Fans bunch

Polly Toynbee
@pollytoynbee
Of course Labour can't possibly eject Neal Lawson of Compass for a 2-year-old tweet of great good sense. Even to threaten risks stirring a mighty rebellion - and not by the usual suspects. The majority of the members voted for proportional representation! Sack the lot?

Seen this online. From what I can see, he was encouraging people to vote tactically for the Lib Dems or the Greens to unseat a Tory Labour councillor.

Open and shut case if that's correct. I'm against constant purges for minor offences but actually trying to unseat a Labour councillor is obviously incompatible with being a party member.

The i headline story is interesting - Government considering a referendum of scrapping the ECHR, as a way of creating a Brexit 2 coalition.

That may bring some of the RedWall back on board but the BlueWall goes yellow. Unless it is just a pre-GE ruse to salt the earth for an inbound government.

MJW said:

bigjohnowls said:

Polly resigns from the SKS Fans bunch as NEC starts going after soft left. Burnham and Khan next?

Polly Toynbee
@pollytoynbee
Of course Labour can't possibly eject Neal Lawson of Compass for a 2-year-old tweet of great good sense. Even to threaten risks stirring a mighty rebellion - and not by the usual suspects. The majority of the members voted for proportional representation! Sack the lot?

Lawson's mates are being performatively stupid here because he's thrown a tantrum that rules apply to him. Firstly he's not been expelled - he's been asked to account for an allegation that could lead to expulsion. Secondly, said allegation is that he supported a Green and Lib Dem effort to oust Labour from a council. Which isn't breaking some obscure rule - it's one of the more well-known and explicit ones, that anyone who supports a rival candidate against a Labour one faces expulsion. Heck, it's a major reason lots of MPs and members who otherwise would have remained Labour members to 'stay and fight' in Labour - and supported local councillors and MPs while denouncing the leadership, left the party in the Corbyn era, as they realised they could not in all good conscience campaign to make someone they thought appalling and dangerous PM, so would have faced expulsion if that extended to supporting non-Labour candidates.

I think the rule has been changed it now reads "anyone who supports a rival candidate against a Labour one faces expulsion unless they are an SKS fan in which case they will be welcomed back even if they not only supported but stood against Labour"

kjh said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

carnforth said:

Leon said:

Ozempic is weird but effective

Did you just buy the starter pack, or are you all in?

All in. Started on 0.5. Insanely expensive*

I briefly felt a little nauseous yesterday - day 2 - but nowt else. Fine otherwise

Today I got the first "positive" effects. My appetite has simple dropped away. You stop thinking about food and you feel full very quickly when you do eat. Just has Coquille St Jacques and a green salad, first and only meal of the day. Feel sated

*will be worth it, alone, if it reduces my crazily spendy wine habit

I had to Google it. Do you need it or are you taking it recreationally? I picture you as some rakishly rake thin.

I'm a little chunky. Could easily lose 10-12 pounds I put on in lockdown and just won't sod off. But I'm not obese and I don't really need it - so it is vanity, but it is also curiosity

These drugs could be revolutionary if they work. The NHS could save tens of billions if we can abolish severe overwight and obesity with mere pills and jabs (which will come down in price sharply and shortly)

That's insane. You would save a fortune and lose weight just by cutting down on the booze and easing back on all the gourmet nosh. Most obese people are obese because the only food they can afford or can be bothered to cook is over processed dogshite, full of sweeteners and edible chemicals that don't sate you and make you want more. You're a fat knacker because you've got more money than sense and never say no.
For some reason, you're one of my favourite posters on here, but have a tendency towards being a bell end (as do we all!)

I've liked but reluctantly because I have exactly the same issue as @Leon . I don't eat junk food at all, but I eat and drink an awful lot and love it. It does mean when I cut back the weight drops off but I need motivation to do so which is usually events that require a lower weight.

I think we need to stop judging people on their body shape.

You say you eat and drink a lot and love it. That's great, you are doing what you want and it is obvious that that you value this more than you value a slimmer body shape. Good for you. If you valued a slimmer body more you would not indulge as much. People are the shape they want to be but won't accept this. Sure if they had a magic wand they would take a slimmer version but not at the expense of losing other things they indulge in life. Maximising utility and all that.

Stocky said:

bigjohnowls said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

No Tory poll leads since 6th December 2021.

BJO fans please explain!

I have no Fans

Just Green Comrades

Have no fear, your view of Starmer as a ruthless, cynical, sanctimonious, earnest, preachy, puritanical yet lying shape-shifter has some albeit niche support. He was the Tories' worst nightmare though.

Would the LP be where it is now with Long-Bailey? I doubt it.

No it would be a Broad Church opposing all the below thatSunak Starmer Parties support.

IE

They both want to keep the poor in poverty, the disabled shamed, those seeking Asylum scapegoated, the Water Industry in private shit show land, the NHS privatised the UK a subsiduary of US World policeforce, protests banned, opponents expelled, fossil fuels extracted, strikers defeated and Billionaire Paymasters satisfied

Whether that would put Lab in a better or worse position than now we will never know but given the Tory Shit Show would likely be similar


I didnt vote for RLB either I voted for LN who i think would not have been as factional despite wanting "to break Jeremy as a man"

BartholomewRoberts said:

Is BJO's distaste of SKS a bait and switch to lull disaffected ex Tories like myself into a false sense of security that Labour has truly changed and it's safe for us to vote for them?

Discuss.

Its safe 100% safe as is the fact your lot won;t improve under either Tory Party

So its an hour since I posted that Labour Tories and Tory Tories are identical in almost every respect.

About 20 replies (mostly namecalling)

Not a single one arguing the factual accuracy of any of the list of why they are basically 2 heads of the same rancid beast

Telling

Im off to footy Alsager vs Congleton

Stocky said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Is BJO's distaste of SKS a bait and switch to lull disaffected ex Tories like myself into a false sense of security that Labour has truly changed and it's safe for us to vote for them?

Discuss.

Out of interest, what specifically are you disaffected by? How much of your change of heart has come from the enduring and relentless attacks (basically a take-down campaign) on the CP rather than mistakes the government has actually made? With regard to the mistakes you identify why makes you think that the LP in government will satisfy you more?

I'm disaffected because the Conservative Party I believe in, the Conservative Party of Thatcher, Cameron and yes even Boris and Truss, is a party that aims for aspiration and for people who work hard to be able to keep more of their own efforts. A party where people who work hard ought to be able to own their own home.

Sunak and the Tories today seem to believe in none of that. The first red flag was of course the raising of National Insurance, a disgraceful tax purely on those who are working that is completely unpaid by those who are not working. That was at least reversed by Truss, but it seems to be completely representative of how Sunak thinks, working people are to be squeezed to fund transfers to others - that's not the Tories I believe in.

The complete lack of sufficient house building, the reversal of the very modest planning reforms and the complete abandonment of ensuring that house building targets is met is further salt in the wound.

To me its not just that the Government is making mistakes. I can live with mistakes, at least with a mistake you can attempt to put it right and change course.

The problem is deeper than that. Today's Tories don't even seem to believe in having a social mobility ladder that hard work can see people better off. Today's Tories seem to believe in extracting rent from those who are working, ensuring assets remain inflated, and ensuring inheritances are secured more than the value of hard work.

If they don't believe in what I believe in, why should I vote for them?

Farooq said:

bigjohnowls said:

So its an hour since I posted that Labour Tories and Tory Tories are identical in almost every respect.

About 20 replies (mostly namecalling)

Not a single one arguing the factual accuracy of any of the list of why they are basically 2 heads of the same rancid beast

Telling

Im off to footy Alsager vs Congleton

Grossly unfair considering my lengthy and thoughtful post at 9:45 which you completely ignored.

You carry on burying your head in the ideological dunes.

Don't worry, he will.

I'm just relieved in light of these comments he keeps making that the Corbynites didn't quite get to power. It would have been Truss on acid with added nastiness.

bigjohnowls said:

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Is BJO's distaste of SKS a bait and switch to lull disaffected ex Tories like myself into a false sense of security that Labour has truly changed and it's safe for us to vote for them?

Discuss.

Lol, probably not. Without wanting to cast aspersions on anyone in particular, those who are driven by ideological purity are rarely seen showing such tactical dexterity.

Neo Liberalism is an ideology to which the UK has subscribed since 1979

And you want more of the same shit show count me out

It was great in 1978?

Stocky said:

kjh said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

carnforth said:

Leon said:

Ozempic is weird but effective

Did you just buy the starter pack, or are you all in?

All in. Started on 0.5. Insanely expensive*

I briefly felt a little nauseous yesterday - day 2 - but nowt else. Fine otherwise

Today I got the first "positive" effects. My appetite has simple dropped away. You stop thinking about food and you feel full very quickly when you do eat. Just has Coquille St Jacques and a green salad, first and only meal of the day. Feel sated

*will be worth it, alone, if it reduces my crazily spendy wine habit

I had to Google it. Do you need it or are you taking it recreationally? I picture you as some rakishly rake thin.

I'm a little chunky. Could easily lose 10-12 pounds I put on in lockdown and just won't sod off. But I'm not obese and I don't really need it - so it is vanity, but it is also curiosity

These drugs could be revolutionary if they work. The NHS could save tens of billions if we can abolish severe overwight and obesity with mere pills and jabs (which will come down in price sharply and shortly)

That's insane. You would save a fortune and lose weight just by cutting down on the booze and easing back on all the gourmet nosh. Most obese people are obese because the only food they can afford or can be bothered to cook is over processed dogshite, full of sweeteners and edible chemicals that don't sate you and make you want more. You're a fat knacker because you've got more money than sense and never say no.
For some reason, you're one of my favourite posters on here, but have a tendency towards being a bell end (as do we all!)

I've liked but reluctantly because I have exactly the same issue as @Leon . I don't eat junk food at all, but I eat and drink an awful lot and love it. It does mean when I cut back the weight drops off but I need motivation to do so which is usually events that require a lower weight.

I think we need to stop judging people on their body shape.

You say you eat and drink a lot and love it. That's great, you are doing what you want and it is obvious that that you value this more than you value a slimmer body shape. Good for you. If you valued a slimmer body more you would not indulge as much. People are the shape they want to be but won't accept this. Sure if they had a magic wand they would take a slimmer version but not at the expense of losing other things they indulge in life. Maximising utility and all that.

In mt experience, it's a really complex issue.

Many people want to have a different body shape (mostly thinner) because they think that equates to health and vitality: it's the idealised body shape we're subjected to all the time in the media and online. The one-size-fits-all worldview.

The problem is, that 'ideal' (*) is unachievable to many. Take a lady I know (not Mrs J) who is very fit (a runner), yet is technically obese. She is very unhappy because of this, and spends a lot of money on different diets and fads. But as I said, she is very fit.

Another friend of mine is incredibly slight and slender, as though a gust of wind might blow her away. She is, IMV, unfit. She has also had eating problems in the past.

I'm trying to lose weight, partly because of my running - less weight to carry around. According to Garmin, my fitness age is 21 - I'm 50. But despite this, I still feel like I'm a little podgy. Not enough to cause me mental anguish, but enough to curse the scales the day after a party.

I wonder if a change in definition of fitness could be made. Instead of looking at things like weight and BMI, which are vague tools at best, perhaps something akin to simple rules of thumb= like the following:

You are fit if you can do any of these:
*) Walk six miles in two hours on the flat without getting breathless
*) Go up three flights of stairs in a minute without getting breathless.
*) You can jog a kilometre in under ten minutes.
*) You can do twenty perfect push-ups in one go.

(*) IMO it's not ideal; often the models appear very underweight.

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

felix said:

carnforth said:

Leon said:

Quite striking

I feel an on-the-spot report from Roger is in order.

Apparently in Provence it's thought the rioters were led by a group from Hartlepool on a trip to convince them of just how wrong they were to vote for Brexit.

I'm just waiting for @Gardenwalker to pop up on here to tell us how this is all irrelevant and France is actually very successful, whilst Britain continues to be terminally doomed.

The Britain-is-a-sh*thole crowd amuse and annoy me. They're as bad as the Britain=is-always-brilliant crowd.

Neither are interested in the issues, or solutions.

Gardenwalker comes over as negative, but actually is quite constructive and into solutions.

I think that's fair on both counts.

bigjohnowls said:

MJW said:

bigjohnowls said:

Polly resigns from the SKS Fans bunch as NEC starts going after soft left. Burnham and Khan next?

Polly Toynbee
@pollytoynbee
Of course Labour can't possibly eject Neal Lawson of Compass for a 2-year-old tweet of great good sense. Even to threaten risks stirring a mighty rebellion - and not by the usual suspects. The majority of the members voted for proportional representation! Sack the lot?

Lawson's mates are being performatively stupid here because he's thrown a tantrum that rules apply to him. Firstly he's not been expelled - he's been asked to account for an allegation that could lead to expulsion. Secondly, said allegation is that he supported a Green and Lib Dem effort to oust Labour from a council. Which isn't breaking some obscure rule - it's one of the more well-known and explicit ones, that anyone who supports a rival candidate against a Labour one faces expulsion. Heck, it's a major reason lots of MPs and members who otherwise would have remained Labour members to 'stay and fight' in Labour - and supported local councillors and MPs while denouncing the leadership, left the party in the Corbyn era, as they realised they could not in all good conscience campaign to make someone they thought appalling and dangerous PM, so would have faced expulsion if that extended to supporting non-Labour candidates.

I think the rule has been changed it now reads "anyone who supports a rival candidate against a Labour one faces expulsion unless they are an SKS fan in which case they will be welcomed back even if they not only supported but stood against Labour"

Errr...no? The nature of it is that you face expulsion if you support a rival candidate to Labour while still a member - and even then can reapply after a certain period. What you can do is leave for your own reasons (or not have joined at all), support or join another party - even stand for them - and then if you decide to leave that party and want to join/rejoin Labour you can. As you weren't breaking any rules while a party member. If you couldn't join or rejoin after campaigning or standing for someone else while not a member, several prominent Corbynites would not have been allowed into the party. So, for example, Luciana Berger is fine to rejoin as she left the party - for reasons which should make Corbyn fans deeply ashamed (if they had an ounce of self-awareness)- and stood for another one, as importantly was not a Labour member when she did so.

ydoethur said:

EPG said:

bigjohnowls said:

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Is BJO's distaste of SKS a bait and switch to lull disaffected ex Tories like myself into a false sense of security that Labour has truly changed and it's safe for us to vote for them?

Discuss.

Lol, probably not. Without wanting to cast aspersions on anyone in particular, those who are driven by ideological purity are rarely seen showing such tactical dexterity.

Neo Liberalism is an ideology to which the UK has subscribed since 1979

And you want more of the same shit show count me out

It was great in 1978?

For Corbynites, they want to smash society and remake it to their advantage. Therefore, it's a win ter have discontent.

Laboured

Stocky said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

carnforth said:

Leon said:

Ozempic is weird but effective

Did you just buy the starter pack, or are you all in?

All in. Started on 0.5. Insanely expensive*

I briefly felt a little nauseous yesterday - day 2 - but nowt else. Fine otherwise

Today I got the first "positive" effects. My appetite has simple dropped away. You stop thinking about food and you feel full very quickly when you do eat. Just has Coquille St Jacques and a green salad, first and only meal of the day. Feel sated

*will be worth it, alone, if it reduces my crazily spendy wine habit

I had to Google it. Do you need it or are you taking it recreationally? I picture you as some rakishly rake thin.

I'm a little chunky. Could easily lose 10-12 pounds I put on in lockdown and just won't sod off. But I'm not obese and I don't really need it - so it is vanity, but it is also curiosity

These drugs could be revolutionary if they work. The NHS could save tens of billions if we can abolish severe overwight and obesity with mere pills and jabs (which will come down in price sharply and shortly)

That's insane. You would save a fortune and lose weight just by cutting down on the booze and easing back on all the gourmet nosh. Most obese people are obese because the only food they can afford or can be bothered to cook is over processed dogshite, full of sweeteners and edible chemicals that don't sate you and make you want more. You're a fat knacker because you've got more money than sense and never say no.
For some reason, you're one of my favourite posters on here, but have a tendency towards being a bell end (as do we all!)

I'm not referring to Leon but the number of overweight people I see who say they want to lose weight yet indulge in in-between crappy snacks is very noticeable. There are snacks (or meal replacements) which are healthy and fill you up. My weight hardly changes (because I never let it) but if I want to lose a bit I replace a meal with a banana and large tablespoon of quality peanut butter (e.g. Manilife). Fills you up for ages.

I cut out alcohol and meat and dairy and stuff myself with fruit (much of which I grow) and tasty salad (not the rabbit food stuff) and a lot of speciality bread or homemade bread. I eat huge amounts of it, but the weight drops off very quickly.

JosiasJessop said:

Stocky said:

kjh said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

carnforth said:

Leon said:

Ozempic is weird but effective

Did you just buy the starter pack, or are you all in?

All in. Started on 0.5. Insanely expensive*

I briefly felt a little nauseous yesterday - day 2 - but nowt else. Fine otherwise

Today I got the first "positive" effects. My appetite has simple dropped away. You stop thinking about food and you feel full very quickly when you do eat. Just has Coquille St Jacques and a green salad, first and only meal of the day. Feel sated

*will be worth it, alone, if it reduces my crazily spendy wine habit

I had to Google it. Do you need it or are you taking it recreationally? I picture you as some rakishly rake thin.

I'm a little chunky. Could easily lose 10-12 pounds I put on in lockdown and just won't sod off. But I'm not obese and I don't really need it - so it is vanity, but it is also curiosity

These drugs could be revolutionary if they work. The NHS could save tens of billions if we can abolish severe overwight and obesity with mere pills and jabs (which will come down in price sharply and shortly)

That's insane. You would save a fortune and lose weight just by cutting down on the booze and easing back on all the gourmet nosh. Most obese people are obese because the only food they can afford or can be bothered to cook is over processed dogshite, full of sweeteners and edible chemicals that don't sate you and make you want more. You're a fat knacker because you've got more money than sense and never say no.
For some reason, you're one of my favourite posters on here, but have a tendency towards being a bell end (as do we all!)

I've liked but reluctantly because I have exactly the same issue as @Leon . I don't eat junk food at all, but I eat and drink an awful lot and love it. It does mean when I cut back the weight drops off but I need motivation to do so which is usually events that require a lower weight.

I think we need to stop judging people on their body shape.

You say you eat and drink a lot and love it. That's great, you are doing what you want and it is obvious that that you value this more than you value a slimmer body shape. Good for you. If you valued a slimmer body more you would not indulge as much. People are the shape they want to be but won't accept this. Sure if they had a magic wand they would take a slimmer version but not at the expense of losing other things they indulge in life. Maximising utility and all that.

In mt experience, it's a really complex issue.

Many people want to have a different body shape (mostly thinner) because they think that equates to health and vitality: it's the idealised body shape we're subjected to all the time in the media and online. The one-size-fits-all worldview.

The problem is, that 'ideal' (*) is unachievable to many. Take a lady I know (not Mrs J) who is very fit (a runner), yet is technically obese. She is very unhappy because of this, and spends a lot of money on different diets and fads. But as I said, she is very fit.

Another friend of mine is incredibly slight and slender, as though a gust of wind might blow her away. She is, IMV, unfit. She has also had eating problems in the past.

I'm trying to lose weight, partly because of my running - less weight to carry around. According to Garmin, my fitness age is 21 - I'm 50. But despite this, I still feel like I'm a little podgy. Not enough to cause me mental anguish, but enough to curse the scales the day after a party.

I wonder if a change in definition of fitness could be made. Instead of looking at things like weight and BMI, which are vague tools at best, perhaps something akin to simple rules of thumb= like the following:

You are fit if you can do any of these:
*) Walk six miles in two hours on the flat without getting breathless
*) Go up three flights of stairs in a minute without getting breathless.
*) You can jog a kilometre in under ten minutes.
*) You can do twenty perfect push-ups in one go.

(*) IMO it's not ideal; often the models appear very underweight.

Hang on, most can fast walk a kilometre in under ten minutes - it is hardly a mark of fitness if someone can jog that. Whereas twenty perfect push ups is probably <10% maybe <5% of the population.

ydoethur said:

geoffw said:

ydoethur said:

EPG said:

bigjohnowls said:

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Is BJO's distaste of SKS a bait and switch to lull disaffected ex Tories like myself into a false sense of security that Labour has truly changed and it's safe for us to vote for them?

Discuss.

Lol, probably not. Without wanting to cast aspersions on anyone in particular, those who are driven by ideological purity are rarely seen showing such tactical dexterity.

Neo Liberalism is an ideology to which the UK has subscribed since 1979

And you want more of the same shit show count me out

It was great in 1978?

For Corbynites, they want to smash society and remake it to their advantage. Therefore, it's a win ter have discontent.

Laboured

You're welcome, Sunny.

I don't think other people in the world would share the view that there is a decline in pun quality.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stocky said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Is BJO's distaste of SKS a bait and switch to lull disaffected ex Tories like myself into a false sense of security that Labour has truly changed and it's safe for us to vote for them?

Discuss.

Out of interest, what specifically are you disaffected by? How much of your change of heart has come from the enduring and relentless attacks (basically a take-down campaign) on the CP rather than mistakes the government has actually made? With regard to the mistakes you identify why makes you think that the LP in government will satisfy you more?

I'm disaffected because the Conservative Party I believe in, the Conservative Party of Thatcher, Cameron and yes even Boris and Truss, is a party that aims for aspiration and for people who work hard to be able to keep more of their own efforts. A party where people who work hard ought to be able to own their own home.

Sunak and the Tories today seem to believe in none of that. The first red flag was of course the raising of National Insurance, a disgraceful tax purely on those who are working that is completely unpaid by those who are not working. That was at least reversed by Truss, but it seems to be completely representative of how Sunak thinks, working people are to be squeezed to fund transfers to others - that's not the Tories I believe in.

The complete lack of sufficient house building, the reversal of the very modest planning reforms and the complete abandonment of ensuring that house building targets is met is further salt in the wound.

To me its not just that the Government is making mistakes. I can live with mistakes, at least with a mistake you can attempt to put it right and change course.

The problem is deeper than that. Today's Tories don't even seem to believe in having a social mobility ladder that hard work can see people better off. Today's Tories seem to believe in extracting rent from those who are working, ensuring assets remain inflated, and ensuring inheritances are secured more than the value of hard work.

If they don't believe in what I believe in, why should I vote for them?

I don't agree with all of that and think part of your disaffection is due to not sharing Sunak's priority to pay back at least part of the pandemic debt.

(I'm sure you know of the economist Liam Halligan; what you have written could have been written by him, word for word.)

boulay said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Grim pictures coming out.

Libraries burnt, animals released from zoos, Jewish memorials desecrated.

Even a video of someone with an AK-47.

It looks possibly a bit worse than 2005, although less long so far, so I think Macron will probably have to declare that state of emergency that he wanted not to.

BBC journalists being threatened is awful.

I think it effectively shows our cultural alignment to the USA.

This is essentially a French George Floyd. If it were mass American rioting over a police shooting the BBC would be all over it and there'd be copycat protests here inside 72 hours.

Because it's France we look, shrug and make jokes about the French, and carry on.

There was a review of a book in the Guardian the other day which looks interesting and frankly about time it was written about. The funny thing was that the greatest beneficiaries of reading the book would be the Guardian (and the BBC) and realising that the US race issues and “solutions” are vastly different to the UK and we need to stop conflating and importing.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jun/26/this-is-not-america-by-tomiwa-owolade-review-why-black-lives-in-britain-matter

I have been saying this for years in the wider sense, not just race. Britain and America are different countries and we can't just read across from there to here: Conservatives aren't Republicans, Democrats aren't Labour, and US slogans such as "defund the police" would be comical if it wasn't serious. We import US shenanigans and then wonder why we look stupid, and when it turns into things like throwing statues in harbours it's just silly for us and bad for the owners and cleaners who have to fix things. We have so many of our own problems without importing ill-understood others.

MJW said:

bigjohnowls said:

Polly resigns from the SKS Fans bunch as NEC starts going after soft left. Burnham and Khan next?

Polly Toynbee
@pollytoynbee
Of course Labour can't possibly eject Neal Lawson of Compass for a 2-year-old tweet of great good sense. Even to threaten risks stirring a mighty rebellion - and not by the usual suspects. The majority of the members voted for proportional representation! Sack the lot?

Lawson's mates are being performatively stupid here because he's thrown a tantrum that rules apply to him. Firstly he's not been expelled - he's been asked to account for an allegation that could lead to expulsion. Secondly, said allegation is that he supported a Green and Lib Dem effort to oust Labour from a council. Which isn't breaking some obscure rule - it's one of the more well-known and explicit ones, that anyone who supports a rival candidate against a Labour one faces expulsion. Heck, it's a major reason lots of MPs and members who otherwise would have remained Labour members to 'stay and fight' in Labour - and supported local councillors and MPs while denouncing the leadership, left the party in the Corbyn era, as they realised they could not in all good conscience campaign to make someone they thought appalling and dangerous PM, so would have faced expulsion if that extended to supporting non-Labour candidates.

Genuine question - is there any political party, in the U.K., that doesn’t make campaigning for any opposing party a binning offence?

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stocky, I missed the second half of your question, sorry just re-read it. What makes me think a LP Government would satisfy me more?

Pretty much nothing to be honest. I do not trust Labour as far as I could throw them, and as far as extracting the efforts of those who are working and transferring it to those who are preferred interests then I think Labour could be every bit as bad as the Tories are. So I'm not exactly keen on Labour winning.

Though if my efforts are to be taxed and redistributed to others anyway, then I'd rather that redistribution goes to fund the less fortunate than fund those who want to ensure their inheritance is as big as possible. So Labour becomes the lesser of two evils.

And at least on housing, SKS is making the right noises. He's at least pretending he gets it. Whether he does or not, I don't know.

But I've always been an advocate of better the devil you don't know. If we know the Tories are going to be bad, then its time for a change.

Labour haven't yet won my vote though, but it is certainly open to them for the first time in decades.

IMO, and I feel I know you reasonably well and are not too far away from you ideologically on most things, it would be a big mistake to vote Labour. Disaffected Tories like you should surely stop off at at the LibDems??

bigjohnowls said:

Malmesbury said:

Farooq said:

bigjohnowls said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

I still think we're looking at a 2010 scenario and the question is, can Labour get over the line or will they have to govern with the consent of another party or parties?

Could be, but I'm in the 'landslide' camp myself. Not a 97 but still a big 2 digit Labour majority.

Why does it matter?

They both want to keep the poor in poverty, the disabled shamed, those seeking Asylum scapegoated, the Water Industry in private shit show land, the NHS privatised the UK a subsiduary of US World policeforce, protests banned, opponents expelled, fossil fuels extracted, strikers defeated and Billionaire Paymasters satisfied

I could go on

Look, the reason why some of us can't take your contributions seriously is because, even though much of this is true, Starmer and Labour will still be a big improvement on Sunak and the Conservatives. But you spend all your energy attacking the former.

It's like your main concern is who runs Labour rather than who runs the country. It's the worst kind of navel gazing.

Labour is nothing of it isn’t a pursuit of Socialist Purity, unsullied by government. Or excessive popularity.

Says literally nobody except Centrists

Do you mean the people with more moderate opinions that tend to be the people that might change the way they vote? The swing voters? The people that essentially decide which colour of government we have?

Oh those people. The bastards. Come the revolution when Jezza is elected by the People's Committee as Supreme Ruler all centrists will be shot.

.

Stocky said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stocky, I missed the second half of your question, sorry just re-read it. What makes me think a LP Government would satisfy me more?

Pretty much nothing to be honest. I do not trust Labour as far as I could throw them, and as far as extracting the efforts of those who are working and transferring it to those who are preferred interests then I think Labour could be every bit as bad as the Tories are. So I'm not exactly keen on Labour winning.

Though if my efforts are to be taxed and redistributed to others anyway, then I'd rather that redistribution goes to fund the less fortunate than fund those who want to ensure their inheritance is as big as possible. So Labour becomes the lesser of two evils.

And at least on housing, SKS is making the right noises. He's at least pretending he gets it. Whether he does or not, I don't know.

But I've always been an advocate of better the devil you don't know. If we know the Tories are going to be bad, then its time for a change.

Labour haven't yet won my vote though, but it is certainly open to them for the first time in decades.

IMO, and I feel I know you reasonably well and are not too far away from you ideologically on most things, it would be a big mistake to vote Labour. Disaffected Tories like you should surely stop off at at the LibDems??

I did go Lib Dem at the Local Election, in part because my local Lib Dem candidate was not remotely NIMBY and appealed based on campaigning on roads and schools instead.

However on a national level, while I respect the Lib Dems on many issues I am appalled at their cynical NIMBYism. And SKS at least is attempting to tackle the Housing issue, what has Davey had to say about it apart from appealing to NIMBYs to win by-elections?

I've not made my mind up yet. But SKS is currently winning my respect more than Davey or Sunak, and I never thought I'd say that.

Theuniondivvie said:

Just a couple of bros hanging out with a ceramic gorilla.

As an aside, no one should go for the skinny chino, no socks, loafers thing, but DEFINITELY not the overweight and/or middle aged. Leon, I’m looking at you.

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."