Inept as he is, it's very unfair that Sunak is deemed 26% points less satisfactory than Johnson. It's a little bit unfair that he's deemed less satisfactory than Corbyn.
A disaster in terms of Labour communications where they’ve managed to make people think they’ve ditched their entire green plans even though they’re keeping most of them.
Whoever is advising them should be given their P45 .
They certainly can’t afford any more self inflicted disasters . I expect a big drop in their polling because of many more won’t vote or Green transfers .
One things for sure Starmer needs to get a grip and stop being pushed around by Reeves and her austerity team .
I’m totally underwhelmed by Labour and they need to stop being arrogant and think their voters will stick with them regardless of their Tory lite policies .
They’d better have a few manifesto surprises !
I agree with quite a lot of that except I don't expect 'a big drop in their polling' - maybe a point or two but the Tories are also doing their utmost to machine gun their own feet most days, so it will probably balance out.
I simply can’t understand why they’re so terrified of Tory attacks . And this dumping of the pledge makes them look weak and directionless . Even worse the messaging around that. The Tories don’t seem to care about Labour attacks.
Even more bizarre to announce this a week before two by-elections. This is all the doing of Reeves who is obsessed with ridiculous fiscal rules which will straitjacket the party into austerity .
The whole point was we’re the change after 14 years . I actually hope the Labour vote share gets hammered over the next week to wake up the party. They need to stop this obsession with avoiding Tory attacks .
'Labour's Tax Bombshell' wrecked them in 1992. Starmer does not intend to allow this again. He is right.
The public are in a different place after 14 years of the Tories. Most will laugh at the Tories attacks , stupidly Labour have deluded themselves into thinking they would resonate .
Maybe. It is not a chance Starmer is going to take. And, when tax is at record levels, debt ditto, and already borrowing £100 billion a year the difficulties on expenditure side are not illusory.
People are comparing the next GE to 1997 on the basis of the Tories being in power a long time and being tired, as well as the voters being tired of them, but I don’t think that line stands up to scrutiny
If you look at the size of the majority & % of vote win they had from 79 to 92
44, 144, 102, 21 7, 14.8, 11.4, 7.4
They were obviously getting gradually less popular
But this series of Tory GE wins has been
NOM, 10, NOM, 80 7.1, 6.4, 2.3, 11.5
So they’ve actually won by the biggest amount, on both measures, last time
I can see why Labour say ‘14 years of Tory govt’; it has been on paper, but in reality the Tories aren’t in for a hiding because the public have gradually had enough/are bored of them after 14 years.
Last time they won primarily because of Corbyn, secondly Brexit. As someone kept posting before the most relevant election is the one before last time this time.
Heathener was the 'someone,' but it wasn't a convincing argument. In 2017 just 56% of Labour voters voted for the party because they liked Labour's manifesto - an extremely low percentage. Meanwhile 2019 was much the result you would have expected one on from a 2017 result that had not seen the late Labour surge. It was, in fact, comparable to the result Major would have got in 1992 without tactical voting.
Exactly what that means I can't tell you, but it's just not smart to say '2019 must have been an outlier and there will be a reversion to type.' Certainly not a clever betting strategy.
Anything "must" is not what I do at all. I think 2019 was very unusual and do discount it, backed up by consistent current polling.
Sir Keir in Nov 23 on the £28bn “We’re doubling down”
and today “won’t now happen”
He is so Partridge in the first clip it hurts. The intonation is perfect. There’s a line in Knowing Me Knowing You where Alan says ‘Believe me, he’s had offers’ when talking about him being faithful to his wife, that is exactly like this
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
People are comparing the next GE to 1997 on the basis of the Tories being in power a long time and being tired, as well as the voters being tired of them, but I don’t think that line stands up to scrutiny
If you look at the size of the majority & % of vote win they had from 79 to 92
44, 144, 102, 21 7, 14.8, 11.4, 7.4
They were obviously getting gradually less popular
But this series of Tory GE wins has been
NOM, 10, NOM, 80 7.1, 6.4, 2.3, 11.5
So they’ve actually won by the biggest amount, on both measures, last time
I can see why Labour say ‘14 years of Tory govt’; it has been on paper, but in reality the Tories aren’t in for a hiding because the public have gradually had enough/are bored of them after 14 years.
Last time they won primarily because of Corbyn, secondly Brexit. As someone kept posting before the most relevant election is the one before last time this time.
Heathener was the 'someone,' but it wasn't a convincing argument. In 2017 just 56% of Labour voters voted for the party because they liked Labour's manifesto - an extremely low percentage. Meanwhile 2019 was much the result you would have expected one on from a 2017 result that had not seen the late Labour surge. It was, in fact, comparable to the result Major would have got in 1992 without tactical voting.
Exactly what that means I can't tell you, but it's just not smart to say '2019 must have been an outlier and there will be a reversion to type.' Certainly not a clever betting strategy.
Anything "must" is not what I do at all. I think 2019 was very unusual and do discount it, backed up by consistent current polling.
I’m reminded that today is the official Yi Bang Won falling from his horse day.
“In 1404, King Taejong fell from his horse during a hunting expedition. Embarrassed, looking to his left and right, he commanded, “Do not let the historian find out about this.” To his disappointment*, the historian accompanying the hunting party included these words in the annals, in addition to a description of the king’s fall.“ Taejong Sillok Book 7. 5th year of King Taejong’s Reign (1404), February 8.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
A disaster in terms of Labour communications where they’ve managed to make people think they’ve ditched their entire green plans even though they’re keeping most of them.
Whoever is advising them should be given their P45 .
They certainly can’t afford any more self inflicted disasters . I expect a big drop in their polling because of many more won’t vote or Green transfers .
One things for sure Starmer needs to get a grip and stop being pushed around by Reeves and her austerity team .
I’m totally underwhelmed by Labour and they need to stop being arrogant and think their voters will stick with them regardless of their Tory lite policies .
They’d better have a few manifesto surprises !
I agree with quite a lot of that except I don't expect 'a big drop in their polling' - maybe a point or two but the Tories are also doing their utmost to machine gun their own feet most days, so it will probably balance out.
I simply can’t understand why they’re so terrified of Tory attacks . And this dumping of the pledge makes them look weak and directionless . Even worse the messaging around that. The Tories don’t seem to care about Labour attacks.
Even more bizarre to announce this a week before two by-elections. This is all the doing of Reeves who is obsessed with ridiculous fiscal rules which will straitjacket the party into austerity .
The whole point was we’re the change after 14 years . I actually hope the Labour vote share gets hammered over the next week to wake up the party. They need to stop this obsession with avoiding Tory attacks .
The party has PTSD from a series of GE losses. It makes them ultra cautious. They won't believe they've won till it happens, despite the poll leads, and aren't minded to take any unnecessary risks. Just like 97 - with the same result hopefully.
If they continue in this manner then they will continue to have PTSD as they won’t be winning the election .
You are right that Labour can still lose it; and in fact I think NOM is quite likely. But the extra votes they need to win mostly come from habitual Tories. There are insufficient votes anywhere else to gain 123+ seats. To lose, all they have to do is get the loyal Labour support they got last time.
A disaster in terms of Labour communications where they’ve managed to make people think they’ve ditched their entire green plans even though they’re keeping most of them.
Whoever is advising them should be given their P45 .
They certainly can’t afford any more self inflicted disasters . I expect a big drop in their polling because of many more won’t vote or Green transfers .
One things for sure Starmer needs to get a grip and stop being pushed around by Reeves and her austerity team .
I’m totally underwhelmed by Labour and they need to stop being arrogant and think their voters will stick with them regardless of their Tory lite policies .
They’d better have a few manifesto surprises !
I agree with quite a lot of that except I don't expect 'a big drop in their polling' - maybe a point or two but the Tories are also doing their utmost to machine gun their own feet most days, so it will probably balance out.
I simply can’t understand why they’re so terrified of Tory attacks . And this dumping of the pledge makes them look weak and directionless . Even worse the messaging around that. The Tories don’t seem to care about Labour attacks.
Even more bizarre to announce this a week before two by-elections. This is all the doing of Reeves who is obsessed with ridiculous fiscal rules which will straitjacket the party into austerity .
The whole point was we’re the change after 14 years . I actually hope the Labour vote share gets hammered over the next week to wake up the party. They need to stop this obsession with avoiding Tory attacks .
'Labour's Tax Bombshell' wrecked them in 1992. Starmer does not intend to allow this again. He is right.
The public are in a different place after 14 years of the Tories. Most will laugh at the Tories attacks , stupidly Labour have deluded themselves into thinking they would resonate .
Maybe. It is not a chance Starmer is going to take. And, when tax is at record levels, debt ditto, and already borrowing £100 billion a year the difficulties on expenditure side are not illusory.
You are calling it absolutely right. Today has shown us the economic and political honesty and responsibility the country is crying out for. It’s been an absolute electoral masterstroke.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
As he would say hes beating Biden "by a lot". Putin smiles in the background.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Would you accept "Rambly and erratic" rather than "Senile"?
Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.
The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.
By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines: 1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and 2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.
The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.
However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.
Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.
One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.
We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.
Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.
I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.
He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.
Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.
The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.
The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.
And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?
I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.
If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.
This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.
This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.
Nothing to do with human rights, these are government choices. We do actually run similar visa schemes of various temporary durations in certain sectors already, so it happens and the liberal lefties aren't moaning about it as you fear. If the government wanted to offer them more widely it can.
Seasonal Worker visa (Temporary Work) Government Authorised Exchange visa (Temporary Work) Creative Worker visa (Temporary Work) Religious Worker visa (Temporary Work) Charity Worker visa (Temporary Work) International Agreement visa (Temporary Work)
With the posible exception of the first of these, which is aimed at farm workers, anyone who can claim evidence of a ‘right to a family life’ can get legal aid to sue the government, with almost unlimited appeals and almost unlimited NGOs wanting to assist them.
Where I live, if you’re ordered to be deported then you’re held in custody and put on the next available plane, and if you wish to appeal then it’s done at your own expense and from overseas.
Where you live the idea of a overriding human right is none existent. You are governed by the whims of an monarch drawn from dynastic families. Free expression and assembly is criminalised, you could be arbitrarily detained and same sex relationships are illegal.
Yet you support importing more people that think that way. Have fun when they become a majority of the uk
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is effectively that Biden is unfit to stand trial due to age and infirmity of mind.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Would you accept "Rambly and erratic" rather than "Senile"?
Yes, although so far he’s been able to navigate a path through some very difficult political waters, so he can’t have lost his touch quite yet.
A disaster in terms of Labour communications where they’ve managed to make people think they’ve ditched their entire green plans even though they’re keeping most of them.
Whoever is advising them should be given their P45 .
They certainly can’t afford any more self inflicted disasters . I expect a big drop in their polling because of many more won’t vote or Green transfers .
One things for sure Starmer needs to get a grip and stop being pushed around by Reeves and her austerity team .
I’m totally underwhelmed by Labour and they need to stop being arrogant and think their voters will stick with them regardless of their Tory lite policies .
They’d better have a few manifesto surprises !
I agree with quite a lot of that except I don't expect 'a big drop in their polling' - maybe a point or two but the Tories are also doing their utmost to machine gun their own feet most days, so it will probably balance out.
I simply can’t understand why they’re so terrified of Tory attacks . And this dumping of the pledge makes them look weak and directionless . Even worse the messaging around that. The Tories don’t seem to care about Labour attacks.
Even more bizarre to announce this a week before two by-elections. This is all the doing of Reeves who is obsessed with ridiculous fiscal rules which will straitjacket the party into austerity .
The whole point was we’re the change after 14 years . I actually hope the Labour vote share gets hammered over the next week to wake up the party. They need to stop this obsession with avoiding Tory attacks .
The party has PTSD from a series of GE losses. It makes them ultra cautious. They won't believe they've won till it happens, despite the poll leads, and aren't minded to take any unnecessary risks. Just like 97 - with the same result hopefully.
The election loss they are most obsessed about is the Australian Labour defeat in 2019. And you can see why: the Liberal party were extremely unpopular, Labour were way ahead in the polls, but the Liberals switched leader shortly before the election and Labour threw it away by over-promising on expensive green spending commitments.
So don’t think 1992 here, think Australia 2019.
Were Labour 'way ahead' in the polls, or were they in fact averaging 4% - 8% leads a year out?
Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.
The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.
By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines: 1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and 2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.
The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.
However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.
Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.
One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.
We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.
Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.
I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.
He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.
Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.
The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.
The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.
And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?
I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.
If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.
This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.
This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.
Nothing to do with human rights, these are government choices. We do actually run similar visa schemes of various temporary durations in certain sectors already, so it happens and the liberal lefties aren't moaning about it as you fear. If the government wanted to offer them more widely it can.
Seasonal Worker visa (Temporary Work) Government Authorised Exchange visa (Temporary Work) Creative Worker visa (Temporary Work) Religious Worker visa (Temporary Work) Charity Worker visa (Temporary Work) International Agreement visa (Temporary Work)
With the posible exception of the first of these, which is aimed at farm workers, anyone who can claim evidence of a ‘right to a family life’ can get legal aid to sue the government, with almost unlimited appeals and almost unlimited NGOs wanting to assist them.
Where I live, if you’re ordered to be deported then you’re held in custody and put on the next available plane, and if you wish to appeal then it’s done at your own expense and from overseas.
Where you live the idea of a overriding human right is none existent. You are governed by the whims of an monarch drawn from dynastic families. Free expression and assembly is criminalised, you could be arbitrarily detained and same sex relationships are illegal.
Yet you support importing more people that think that way. Have fun when they become a majority of the uk
Of course if same sex relationships were made illegal that would only take us back to the mid 1960s.
Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.
The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.
By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines: 1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and 2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.
The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.
However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.
Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.
One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.
We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.
Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.
I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.
He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.
Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.
The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.
The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.
And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?
I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.
If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.
This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.
This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.
Nothing to do with human rights, these are government choices. We do actually run similar visa schemes of various temporary durations in certain sectors already, so it happens and the liberal lefties aren't moaning about it as you fear. If the government wanted to offer them more widely it can.
Seasonal Worker visa (Temporary Work) Government Authorised Exchange visa (Temporary Work) Creative Worker visa (Temporary Work) Religious Worker visa (Temporary Work) Charity Worker visa (Temporary Work) International Agreement visa (Temporary Work)
With the posible exception of the first of these, which is aimed at farm workers, anyone who can claim evidence of a ‘right to a family life’ can get legal aid to sue the government, with almost unlimited appeals and almost unlimited NGOs wanting to assist them.
Where I live, if you’re ordered to be deported then you’re held in custody and put on the next available plane, and if you wish to appeal then it’s done at your own expense and from overseas.
Where you live the idea of a overriding human right is none existent. You are governed by the whims of an monarch drawn from dynastic families. Free expression and assembly is criminalised, you could be arbitrarily detained and same sex relationships are illegal.
Yet you support importing more people that think that way. Have fun when they become a majority of the uk
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
WTAF are you on?
He muddles the speaker of the house with his ambassador to the UN, claims he won all 50 states in an election he lost by a wide margin, doesn't know which state he's in, confuses Russia, Turkey and Hungary and doesn't grasp basic points of law which see him paying vast amounts in costs and damages.
And you think he's *not far more senile* than a man who occasionally stumbles over his words?
What would senile look like? Wearing his highly soiled underpants on his actual head?
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Not all polls
"1/31/24 - 2024 Matchups: Biden Opens Up Lead Over Trump In Head-To-Head, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Haley Leads Biden 1 On 1, But Trails When Third Party Candidates Are Added | Quinnipiac University Poll" https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3889
Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.
The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.
By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines: 1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and 2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.
The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.
However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.
Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.
One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.
We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.
Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.
I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.
He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.
Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.
The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.
The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.
And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?
I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.
If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.
This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.
This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.
Nothing to do with human rights, these are government choices. We do actually run similar visa schemes of various temporary durations in certain sectors already, so it happens and the liberal lefties aren't moaning about it as you fear. If the government wanted to offer them more widely it can.
Seasonal Worker visa (Temporary Work) Government Authorised Exchange visa (Temporary Work) Creative Worker visa (Temporary Work) Religious Worker visa (Temporary Work) Charity Worker visa (Temporary Work) International Agreement visa (Temporary Work)
With the posible exception of the first of these, which is aimed at farm workers, anyone who can claim evidence of a ‘right to a family life’ can get legal aid to sue the government, with almost unlimited appeals and almost unlimited NGOs wanting to assist them.
Where I live, if you’re ordered to be deported then you’re held in custody and put on the next available plane, and if you wish to appeal then it’s done at your own expense and from overseas.
Where you live the idea of a overriding human right is none existent. You are governed by the whims of an monarch drawn from dynastic families. Free expression and assembly is criminalised, you could be arbitrarily detained and same sex relationships are illegal.
Yet you support importing more people that think that way. Have fun when they become a majority of the uk
Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.
The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.
By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines: 1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and 2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.
The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.
However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.
Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.
One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.
We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.
Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.
I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.
He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.
Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.
The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.
The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.
And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?
I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.
If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.
This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.
This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.
Nothing to do with human rights, these are government choices. We do actually run similar visa schemes of various temporary durations in certain sectors already, so it happens and the liberal lefties aren't moaning about it as you fear. If the government wanted to offer them more widely it can.
Seasonal Worker visa (Temporary Work) Government Authorised Exchange visa (Temporary Work) Creative Worker visa (Temporary Work) Religious Worker visa (Temporary Work) Charity Worker visa (Temporary Work) International Agreement visa (Temporary Work)
With the posible exception of the first of these, which is aimed at farm workers, anyone who can claim evidence of a ‘right to a family life’ can get legal aid to sue the government, with almost unlimited appeals and almost unlimited NGOs wanting to assist them.
Where I live, if you’re ordered to be deported then you’re held in custody and put on the next available plane, and if you wish to appeal then it’s done at your own expense and from overseas.
Where you live the idea of a overriding human right is none existent. You are governed by the whims of an monarch drawn from dynastic families. Free expression and assembly is criminalised, you could be arbitrarily detained and same sex relationships are illegal.
Yet you support importing more people that think that way. Have fun when they become a majority of the uk
Of course if same sex relationships were made illegal that would only take us back to the mid 1960s.
No it wouldn't. Not in Scotland.
PS. The mid 60's is of course 60 years ago. A lifetime ago.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
WTAF are you on?
He muddles the speaker of the house with his ambassador to the UN, claims he won all 50 states, doesn't know which state he's in, confuses Russia, Turkey and Hungary and doesn't grasp basic points of law which see him paying vast amounts in costs and damages.
And you think he's *not far more senile* than a man who occasionally stumbles over his words?
What would senile look like? Wearing his highly soiled underpants on his actual head?
Yes but he sticks it to the Libs so according to many Americans that makes him worth voting for.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Confusing Haley and Pelosi? Constantly confusing Biden and Obama!
Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.
The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.
By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines: 1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and 2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.
The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.
However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.
Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.
One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.
We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.
Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.
I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.
He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.
Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.
The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.
The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.
And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?
I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.
If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.
This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.
This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.
Nothing to do with human rights, these are government choices. We do actually run similar visa schemes of various temporary durations in certain sectors already, so it happens and the liberal lefties aren't moaning about it as you fear. If the government wanted to offer them more widely it can.
Seasonal Worker visa (Temporary Work) Government Authorised Exchange visa (Temporary Work) Creative Worker visa (Temporary Work) Religious Worker visa (Temporary Work) Charity Worker visa (Temporary Work) International Agreement visa (Temporary Work)
With the posible exception of the first of these, which is aimed at farm workers, anyone who can claim evidence of a ‘right to a family life’ can get legal aid to sue the government, with almost unlimited appeals and almost unlimited NGOs wanting to assist them.
Where I live, if you’re ordered to be deported then you’re held in custody and put on the next available plane, and if you wish to appeal then it’s done at your own expense and from overseas.
Where you live the idea of a overriding human right is none existent. You are governed by the whims of an monarch drawn from dynastic families. Free expression and assembly is criminalised, you could be arbitrarily detained and same sex relationships are illegal.
Yet you support importing more people that think that way. Have fun when they become a majority of the uk
I heard you support fellating horses.
On a serious note though I lived in an area with a lot of people like that, had my girlfriend spat on and called a white whore because she wore a t shirt. Watched a friend abused in the street for daring to date someone not of the correct faith by her family.
Are most like it...no. However the attitudes surveys indicate a lot of third world immigrants sadly bring their third world prejudice with them
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
WTAF are you on?
He muddles the speaker of the house with his ambassador to the UN, claims he won all 50 states, doesn't know which state he's in, confuses Russia, Turkey and Hungary and doesn't grasp basic points of law which see him paying vast amounts in costs and damages.
And you think he's *not far more senile* than a man who occasionally stumbles over his words?
What would senile look like? Wearing his highly soiled underpants on his actual head?
I think it's bad to put a maximum age on a job, but I think both Trump and Biden are showing signs that the job is too much for them, let alone what they will be like in four years.
The problem is; I am not a great in-person communicator. I have a slight speech defect. I stumble over my words I often say before I think. If I had to speak in public as often as they did, I'd probably appear senile or worse.
But that's fine. My 'job' doesn't require me to be a great communicator, and I haven't had a lifetime of being a communicator. At least in Biden's case, he has a track record of misspeaking going back decades AIUI.
America has a poor choice. But given that poor choice, Biden is much, much better.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Confusing Haley and Pelosi? Constantly confusing Biden and Obama!
I don't think that misspeaking about contemporary political opponents is quite in the same category as having conversations with ghosts, but even if you disagree, you can't really argue that Trump is "far more" senile.
A disaster in terms of Labour communications where they’ve managed to make people think they’ve ditched their entire green plans even though they’re keeping most of them.
Whoever is advising them should be given their P45 .
They certainly can’t afford any more self inflicted disasters . I expect a big drop in their polling because of many more won’t vote or Green transfers .
One things for sure Starmer needs to get a grip and stop being pushed around by Reeves and her austerity team .
I’m totally underwhelmed by Labour and they need to stop being arrogant and think their voters will stick with them regardless of their Tory lite policies .
They’d better have a few manifesto surprises !
I agree with quite a lot of that except I don't expect 'a big drop in their polling' - maybe a point or two but the Tories are also doing their utmost to machine gun their own feet most days, so it will probably balance out.
I simply can’t understand why they’re so terrified of Tory attacks . And this dumping of the pledge makes them look weak and directionless . Even worse the messaging around that. The Tories don’t seem to care about Labour attacks.
Even more bizarre to announce this a week before two by-elections. This is all the doing of Reeves who is obsessed with ridiculous fiscal rules which will straitjacket the party into austerity .
The whole point was we’re the change after 14 years . I actually hope the Labour vote share gets hammered over the next week to wake up the party. They need to stop this obsession with avoiding Tory attacks .
The party has PTSD from a series of GE losses. It makes them ultra cautious. They won't believe they've won till it happens, despite the poll leads, and aren't minded to take any unnecessary risks. Just like 97 - with the same result hopefully.
The election loss they are most obsessed about is the Australian Labour defeat in 2019. And you can see why: the Liberal party were extremely unpopular, Labour were way ahead in the polls, but the Liberals switched leader shortly before the election and Labour threw it away by over-promising on expensive green spending commitments.
So don’t think 1992 here, think Australia 2019.
Were Labour 'way ahead' in the polls, or were they in fact averaging 4% - 8% leads a year out?
At the time it was considered an impregnable lead. The unlosable election. Bigger remember than the Labour leads ahead of the 1992 election here.
I agree absolutely that Labour are being paranoid and could end up shooting themselves in the foot, but that Australian election is where the psychology is coming from.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
WTAF are you on?
He muddles the speaker of the house with his ambassador to the UN, claims he won all 50 states in an election he lost by a wide margin, doesn't know which state he's in, confuses Russia, Turkey and Hungary and doesn't grasp basic points of law which see him paying vast amounts in costs and damages.
And you think he's *not far more senile* than a man who occasionally stumbles over his words?
What would senile look like? Wearing his highly soiled underpants on his actual head?
I believe it fair to say Biden is not an optimal candidate due to his age related issues, but he does have moments of cogency and demonstrates occasional statesmanship. Trump does neither.
I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone this side of the Atlantic considers Trump to be anything other than extremely dangerous, particularly for Europe and the UK.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Confusing Haley and Pelosi? Constantly confusing Biden and Obama!
I don't think that misspeaking about contemporary political opponents is quite in the same category as having conversations with ghosts, but even if you disagree, you can't really argue that Trump is "far more" senile.
You can, very easily.
All you need to do is actually look at what they've both been saying and doing and it becomes extremely easy.
Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.
The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.
By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines: 1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and 2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.
The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.
However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.
Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.
One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.
We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.
Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.
I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.
He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.
Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.
The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.
The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.
And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?
I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.
If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.
This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.
This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.
Nothing to do with human rights, these are government choices. We do actually run similar visa schemes of various temporary durations in certain sectors already, so it happens and the liberal lefties aren't moaning about it as you fear. If the government wanted to offer them more widely it can.
Seasonal Worker visa (Temporary Work) Government Authorised Exchange visa (Temporary Work) Creative Worker visa (Temporary Work) Religious Worker visa (Temporary Work) Charity Worker visa (Temporary Work) International Agreement visa (Temporary Work)
With the posible exception of the first of these, which is aimed at farm workers, anyone who can claim evidence of a ‘right to a family life’ can get legal aid to sue the government, with almost unlimited appeals and almost unlimited NGOs wanting to assist them.
Where I live, if you’re ordered to be deported then you’re held in custody and put on the next available plane, and if you wish to appeal then it’s done at your own expense and from overseas.
Where you live the idea of a overriding human right is none existent. You are governed by the whims of an monarch drawn from dynastic families. Free expression and assembly is criminalised, you could be arbitrarily detained and same sex relationships are illegal.
Yet you support importing more people that think that way. Have fun when they become a majority of the uk
Of course if same sex relationships were made illegal that would only take us back to the mid 1960s.
No it wouldn't. Not in Scotland.
PS. The mid 60's is of course 60 years ago. A lifetime ago.
Yep, 1980 for us enlightened Scots. And for years after that gays were constantly harassed by police in their pubs, in public toilets, about the age of parties involved, etc with a really deep hostility.
A sheriff that I appeared in front of regularly, a generally decent man, was listening to a trial about an assault by a bouncer. During the evidence he intervened to clarify that the victim had been dancing with another man in the nightclub. Once this was confirmed he ostentatiously put his pen down and crossed his arms. The trial was over. This was in the mid 80s and not many people thought that there was anything unusual about his attitude at the time.
When I hear SNP leaders claiming moral superiority over the benighted English I remember incidents like that.
"Geert Wilders dealt ‘disappointing’ blow in talks over Dutch coalition New Social Contract party appears to rule out serving in a majority cabinet with the Nexit-backing nationalist"
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Confusing Haley and Pelosi? Constantly confusing Biden and Obama!
I don't think that misspeaking about contemporary political opponents is quite in the same category as having conversations with ghosts, but even if you disagree, you can't really argue that Trump is "far more" senile.
You can, very easily.
All you need to do is actually look at what they've both been saying and doing and it becomes extremely easy.
If you think Trump was nuts to begin with, how can you judge?
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
WTAF are you on?
He muddles the speaker of the house with his ambassador to the UN, claims he won all 50 states in an election he lost by a wide margin, doesn't know which state he's in, confuses Russia, Turkey and Hungary and doesn't grasp basic points of law which see him paying vast amounts in costs and damages.
And you think he's *not far more senile* than a man who occasionally stumbles over his words?
What would senile look like? Wearing his highly soiled underpants on his actual head?
I believe it fair to say Biden is not an optimal candidate due to his age related issues, but he does have moments of cogency and demonstrates occasional statesmanship. Trump does neither.
I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone this side of the Atlantic considers Trump to be anything other than extremely dangerous, particularly for Europe and the UK.
Perhaps because he's been President before and precisely shit all happened?
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
Not great for Biden.
But the story really ought to give equal prominence to this: … The report noted that Biden cooperated with the federal probe. And in its very first pages, it drew a sharp contrast between the president and former President Donald Trump, who faces criminal prosecution for deliberately retaining classified material.
Trump allegedly refused to return classified documents for months and directed other people “to destroy evidence and then to lie about it,” reads Hur’s report. “In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.”.. Which is actually why Trump is being prosecuted and Biden isn’t.
I’m inclined to think that Biden should call it a day, and retire with the gratitude of his nation - but it’s not easy to see how that is arranged.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Confusing Haley and Pelosi? Constantly confusing Biden and Obama!
I don't think that misspeaking about contemporary political opponents is quite in the same category as having conversations with ghosts, but even if you disagree, you can't really argue that Trump is "far more" senile.
You can, very easily.
All you need to do is actually look at what they've both been saying and doing and it becomes extremely easy.
If you think Trump was nuts to begin with, how can you judge?
I didn't think he was nuts to start with...just malign. I even thought he might not be much worse than Hilary Clinton, although I was wrong about that.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Confusing Haley and Pelosi? Constantly confusing Biden and Obama!
I don't think that misspeaking about contemporary political opponents is quite in the same category as having conversations with ghosts, but even if you disagree, you can't really argue that Trump is "far more" senile.
You can, very easily.
All you need to do is actually look at what they've both been saying and doing and it becomes extremely easy.
A lot of people will deny that, as his erratic behaviour has been normalised.
Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.
The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.
By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines: 1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and 2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.
The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.
However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.
Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.
One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.
We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.
Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.
I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.
He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.
Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.
The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.
The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.
And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?
I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.
If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.
This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.
This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.
Nothing to do with human rights, these are government choices. We do actually run similar visa schemes of various temporary durations in certain sectors already, so it happens and the liberal lefties aren't moaning about it as you fear. If the government wanted to offer them more widely it can.
Seasonal Worker visa (Temporary Work) Government Authorised Exchange visa (Temporary Work) Creative Worker visa (Temporary Work) Religious Worker visa (Temporary Work) Charity Worker visa (Temporary Work) International Agreement visa (Temporary Work)
With the posible exception of the first of these, which is aimed at farm workers, anyone who can claim evidence of a ‘right to a family life’ can get legal aid to sue the government, with almost unlimited appeals and almost unlimited NGOs wanting to assist them.
Where I live, if you’re ordered to be deported then you’re held in custody and put on the next available plane, and if you wish to appeal then it’s done at your own expense and from overseas.
Where you live the idea of a overriding human right is none existent. You are governed by the whims of an monarch drawn from dynastic families. Free expression and assembly is criminalised, you could be arbitrarily detained and same sex relationships are illegal.
Yet you support importing more people that think that way. Have fun when they become a majority of the uk
I heard you support fellating horses.
On a serious note though I lived in an area with a lot of people like that, had my girlfriend spat on and called a white whore because she wore a t shirt. Watched a friend abused in the street for daring to date someone not of the correct faith by her family.
Are most like it...no. However the attitudes surveys indicate a lot of third world immigrants sadly bring their third world prejudice with them
For sure cultural prejudices are hard to shift. In my limited experience of friends who are second generation migrants, they are unsurprisingly much more 'liberal' than their parents. Accepting that different cultures are stickier than others and I probably only get to know those who are the most assimilated.
Who knows what to do? But I find a tiered society ala the Emirates hugely distasteful. If we must be reliant on migrants to glue our economy together, the least we can do is treat them as any other citizen.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Confusing Haley and Pelosi? Constantly confusing Biden and Obama!
I don't think that misspeaking about contemporary political opponents is quite in the same category as having conversations with ghosts, but even if you disagree, you can't really argue that Trump is "far more" senile.
You can, very easily.
All you need to do is actually look at what they've both been saying and doing and it becomes extremely easy.
If you think Trump was nuts to begin with, how can you judge?
He did indeed have less distance to fall than Biden. As it stands, Biden remains far more coherent than Trump
The special counsel report says that Biden did not remember “even within several years” when his son beau biden died.
Maybe it's an event he would prefer not to dwell upon. I often have to count back to remind myself of the year my mother died and I am 20 years younger than Biden.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Confusing Haley and Pelosi? Constantly confusing Biden and Obama!
I don't think that misspeaking about contemporary political opponents is quite in the same category as having conversations with ghosts, but even if you disagree, you can't really argue that Trump is "far more" senile.
I think misspeaking, getting someone’s name wrong once, is less significant than a lengthy rant based on your confusion. I also think Macron/Mitterrand, two people in the same role with names beginning with ‘M’, is a smaller mistake than confusing Pelosi and Haley, who are in opposing parties and different roles. I think not knowing who you are running against (Biden/Obama) is massively more significant.
Trump is a shell of what he was. What he was was odious, but Trump now is a pale facade around this hollow myth his devotees have constructed.
First major misstep by Sir Keir. He's achieved the impossible and made Rishi look more stable and statesmanlike than him. No one knows what £28 billion looks like but they know a leader without courage when they see one.There's no such thing as a game changer after two years like the last two but I'd be surprised if this doesn;t register in the polls
It'll be interesting to see what cut-through this has with the public. The BBC's front page headline is positive spin; notice the 'defend':
"Keir Starmer defends Labour U-turn on £28bn green spending"
But these things are cumulative; single events rarely affect polling alone. Even Johnson required several stories to occur in quick succession, and he was PM, not LOTO.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
WTAF are you on?
He muddles the speaker of the house with his ambassador to the UN, claims he won all 50 states in an election he lost by a wide margin, doesn't know which state he's in, confuses Russia, Turkey and Hungary and doesn't grasp basic points of law which see him paying vast amounts in costs and damages.
And you think he's *not far more senile* than a man who occasionally stumbles over his words?
What would senile look like? Wearing his highly soiled underpants on his actual head?
I believe it fair to say Biden is not an optimal candidate due to his age related issues, but he does have moments of cogency and demonstrates occasional statesmanship. Trump does neither.
I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone this side of the Atlantic considers Trump to be anything other than extremely dangerous, particularly for Europe and the UK.
Perhaps because he's been President before and precisely shit all happened?
If one considers an attack on democracy as "shit all", maybe.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
WTAF are you on?
He muddles the speaker of the house with his ambassador to the UN, claims he won all 50 states in an election he lost by a wide margin, doesn't know which state he's in, confuses Russia, Turkey and Hungary and doesn't grasp basic points of law which see him paying vast amounts in costs and damages.
And you think he's *not far more senile* than a man who occasionally stumbles over his words?
What would senile look like? Wearing his highly soiled underpants on his actual head?
I believe it fair to say Biden is not an optimal candidate due to his age related issues, but he does have moments of cogency and demonstrates occasional statesmanship. Trump does neither.
I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone this side of the Atlantic considers Trump to be anything other than extremely dangerous, particularly for Europe and the UK.
Perhaps because he's been President before and precisely shit all happened?
Why do you keep trotting out this nonsense? People have repeatedly listed the many terrible things that happened under Trump.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Confusing Haley and Pelosi? Constantly confusing Biden and Obama!
I don't think that misspeaking about contemporary political opponents is quite in the same category as having conversations with ghosts, but even if you disagree, you can't really argue that Trump is "far more" senile.
You can, very easily.
All you need to do is actually look at what they've both been saying and doing and it becomes extremely easy.
If you think Trump was nuts to begin with, how can you judge?
He did indeed have less distance to fall than Biden. As it stands, Biden remains far more coherent than Trump
The special counsel report says that Biden did not remember “even within several years” when his son beau biden died.
Maybe it's an event he would prefer not to dwell upon. I often have to count back to remind myself of the year my mother died and I am 20 years younger than Biden.
His speech a couple of nights ago about how the bipartisan bill which was going to release both money for the border and Ukraine fell apart of the instructions of Donald Trump was punchy, clear and extremely articulate. His performance is clearly variable though and, inevitably, deteriorating. It would be better if he stood aside but I still think he will and should beat Trump fairly comfortably.
We just have to rely on the team around him who have done a good job in the first 4 years.
I think not knowing who you are running against (Biden/Obama) is massively more significant.
Yes Trump has many times claimed to have beaten Obama or run against Obama, which of course never happened, but does show what prompted Trump to run in 2016, because a Black man (President Obama) poked fun at Trump at the White House Correspondents' dinner in 2011, Trump had repeatedly made false and racist allegations against Obama, and Trump has been mad as hell about being made fun of ever since. Round the twist due to his own racism? Quite possibly.
Is Biden too old? Yes. Is Trump completely unfit and mad as a ferret? Yes.
Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.
The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.
By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines: 1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and 2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.
The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.
However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.
Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.
One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.
We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.
Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.
I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.
He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.
Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.
The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.
The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.
And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?
I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.
If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.
This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.
This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.
Nothing to do with human rights, these are government choices. We do actually run similar visa schemes of various temporary durations in certain sectors already, so it happens and the liberal lefties aren't moaning about it as you fear. If the government wanted to offer them more widely it can.
Seasonal Worker visa (Temporary Work) Government Authorised Exchange visa (Temporary Work) Creative Worker visa (Temporary Work) Religious Worker visa (Temporary Work) Charity Worker visa (Temporary Work) International Agreement visa (Temporary Work)
With the posible exception of the first of these, which is aimed at farm workers, anyone who can claim evidence of a ‘right to a family life’ can get legal aid to sue the government, with almost unlimited appeals and almost unlimited NGOs wanting to assist them.
Where I live, if you’re ordered to be deported then you’re held in custody and put on the next available plane, and if you wish to appeal then it’s done at your own expense and from overseas.
Where you live the idea of a overriding human right is none existent. You are governed by the whims of an monarch drawn from dynastic families. Free expression and assembly is criminalised, you could be arbitrarily detained and same sex relationships are illegal.
Yet you support importing more people that think that way. Have fun when they become a majority of the uk
I heard you support fellating horses.
On a serious note though I lived in an area with a lot of people like that, had my girlfriend spat on and called a white whore because she wore a t shirt. Watched a friend abused in the street for daring to date someone not of the correct faith by her family.
Are most like it...no. However the attitudes surveys indicate a lot of third world immigrants sadly bring their third world prejudice with them
For sure cultural prejudices are hard to shift. In my limited experience of friends who are second generation migrants, they are unsurprisingly much more 'liberal' than their parents. Accepting that different cultures are stickier than others and I probably only get to know those who are the most assimilated.
Who knows what to do? But I find a tiered society ala the Emirates hugely distasteful. If we must be reliant on migrants to glue our economy together, the least we can do is treat them as any other citizen.
We aren't reliant on immigrants, we should be learning to cope with a declining population. Everywhere in the world birth rates are dropping won't be long before there are no immigrants to be had.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Confusing Haley and Pelosi? Constantly confusing Biden and Obama!
I don't think that misspeaking about contemporary political opponents is quite in the same category as having conversations with ghosts, but even if you disagree, you can't really argue that Trump is "far more" senile.
I think misspeaking, getting someone’s name wrong once, is less significant than a lengthy rant based on your confusion. I also think Macron/Mitterrand, two people in the same role with names beginning with ‘M’, is a smaller mistake than confusing Pelosi and Haley, who are in opposing parties and different roles. I think not knowing who you are running against (Biden/Obama) is massively more significant.
Trump is a shell of what he was. What he was was odious, but Trump now is a pale facade around this hollow myth his devotees have constructed.
Perhaps you haven't seen the news, but on a separate night, Biden described meeting Helmut Kohl at an event in 2021.
A disaster in terms of Labour communications where they’ve managed to make people think they’ve ditched their entire green plans even though they’re keeping most of them.
Whoever is advising them should be given their P45 .
They certainly can’t afford any more self inflicted disasters . I expect a big drop in their polling because of many more won’t vote or Green transfers .
One things for sure Starmer needs to get a grip and stop being pushed around by Reeves and her austerity team .
I’m totally underwhelmed by Labour and they need to stop being arrogant and think their voters will stick with them regardless of their Tory lite policies .
They’d better have a few manifesto surprises !
I agree with quite a lot of that except I don't expect 'a big drop in their polling' - maybe a point or two but the Tories are also doing their utmost to machine gun their own feet most days, so it will probably balance out.
I simply can’t understand why they’re so terrified of Tory attacks . And this dumping of the pledge makes them look weak and directionless . Even worse the messaging around that. The Tories don’t seem to care about Labour attacks.
Even more bizarre to announce this a week before two by-elections. This is all the doing of Reeves who is obsessed with ridiculous fiscal rules which will straitjacket the party into austerity .
The whole point was we’re the change after 14 years . I actually hope the Labour vote share gets hammered over the next week to wake up the party. They need to stop this obsession with avoiding Tory attacks .
The party has PTSD from a series of GE losses. It makes them ultra cautious. They won't believe they've won till it happens, despite the poll leads, and aren't minded to take any unnecessary risks. Just like 97 - with the same result hopefully.
The election loss they are most obsessed about is the Australian Labour defeat in 2019. And you can see why: the Liberal party were extremely unpopular, Labour were way ahead in the polls, but the Liberals switched leader shortly before the election and Labour threw it away by over-promising on expensive green spending commitments.
So don’t think 1992 here, think Australia 2019.
The most apt comparison is with here in 2010. Cameron limped into first place in a hung parliament trumpeting austerity and blaming it on the ineptitude of the government. Starmer is going to end up doing precisely the same thing.
The central theme of Labour's election campaign is going to be "Cuts, because there's no money. Not our fault. Blame the other lot." All that's needed is a stupid little note from the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a Starmer-Davey presser in the Downing Street rose garden and the whole sick joke will be complete.
"Geert Wilders dealt ‘disappointing’ blow in talks over Dutch coalition New Social Contract party appears to rule out serving in a majority cabinet with the Nexit-backing nationalist"
Wilders is discovering that under PR, "winning an election" isn't the automatic prerogative of the party with the most votes and seats and he either faces being shut out of Government or having towater down his core policies so much as to basically leave him neutered by the other parties.
The latest Peil polls suggest an election now would see Wilders and his PVV win 50 seats and while the BBB would take him to 57 that's a long way from a majority.
The problem seems to be Wilders wants a lot more spending while Omtzigt is a fiscal hawk and the VVD are staring oblivion in the face. With the NSC seemingly not interested, a centre-right Government headed by Wilders is looking a non-starter. Could the NSC and VVD try to form a minority and hope the left prop them up in order not to hand a fuerther advantage to Wilders?
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Confusing Haley and Pelosi? Constantly confusing Biden and Obama!
I don't think that misspeaking about contemporary political opponents is quite in the same category as having conversations with ghosts, but even if you disagree, you can't really argue that Trump is "far more" senile.
I think misspeaking, getting someone’s name wrong once, is less significant than a lengthy rant based on your confusion. I also think Macron/Mitterrand, two people in the same role with names beginning with ‘M’, is a smaller mistake than confusing Pelosi and Haley, who are in opposing parties and different roles. I think not knowing who you are running against (Biden/Obama) is massively more significant.
Trump is a shell of what he was. What he was was odious, but Trump now is a pale facade around this hollow myth his devotees have constructed.
Perhaps you haven't seen the news, but at a separate event, Biden described meeting Helmut Kohl at an event in 2021.
"It's great to be back in Sioux City!" "Mr President (Trump) we are in Sioux Falls".
So special counsel has decided not to charge President Biden for his mishandling of classified documents. But the reason given is devastating: basically he’s not fit to stand trial. He can’t even remember when he was VP. This from the special counsel — a remarkable read:
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Confusing Haley and Pelosi? Constantly confusing Biden and Obama!
I don't think that misspeaking about contemporary political opponents is quite in the same category as having conversations with ghosts, but even if you disagree, you can't really argue that Trump is "far more" senile.
I think misspeaking, getting someone’s name wrong once, is less significant than a lengthy rant based on your confusion. I also think Macron/Mitterrand, two people in the same role with names beginning with ‘M’, is a smaller mistake than confusing Pelosi and Haley, who are in opposing parties and different roles. I think not knowing who you are running against (Biden/Obama) is massively more significant.
Trump is a shell of what he was. What he was was odious, but Trump now is a pale facade around this hollow myth his devotees have constructed.
Perhaps you haven't seen the news, but on a separate night, Biden described meeting Helmut Kohl at an event in 2021.
And Blair talked about watching Jackie Milburn play for the Toon.
I don't think anyone accused him of having early onset dementia.
Labour's u-turn won't make the slightest difference to their chances of winning an election. Neither would have keeping the policy.
The optics are nonetheless horrible.
And the U- turn is bad policy.
Two very separate things.
The "optics" won't last long and better to do this now than in the heat of an election campaign - few outside the bubble will notice, fewer still will care.
As for the policy itself, IF we were to get a prolonged and dangerous summer heatwave, environmental concerns would move up the agenda - the Greens and LDs would run hard with this but apparently no one listens to them. The Conservatives played on anti-Green sentiments in Uxbridge with some success - I suspect there's a broad concern about climate change and its impact but rather like housing, no one wants to make any kind of substantive change to how they live and expect everyone else to do so.
The special counsel report says that Biden did not remember “even within several years” when his son beau biden died.
Just listening Sky reporting on this is scary and he is simply unfit for office
Not sure what thus will do to the US elections later this year but a gift to Trump's supporters unfortunately
Hope you are feeling better and on the mend, also visa versa.
PBers are making way toooooooo much out of the very special statement issued by the very special prosector - a former Trump appointee - re: non-indictment of Joe Biden.
This guy was picked to give DOJ some credibility in investigating POTUS.
Hur jazzed up his very special statement, to help his cause with the (he clearly hopes) 2nd Trump Administration.
The special counsel report says that Biden did not remember “even within several years” when his son beau biden died.
Just listening Sky reporting on this is scary and he is simply unfit for office
Not sure what this will do to the US elections later this year but a gift to Trump's supporters unfortunately
I keep waiting for America to wake up. Biden is deteriorating badly. Trump has already deteriorated badly and is psychotic with it. And yet that is their choice. Neither will back down, neither party will accept that their man is bonkers.
The special counsel report says that Biden did not remember “even within several years” when his son beau biden died.
Just listening Sky reporting on this is scary and he is simply unfit for office
Not sure what thus will do to the US elections later this year but a gift to Trump's supporters unfortunately
Hope you are feeling better and on the mend, also visa versa.
PBers are making way toooooooo much out of the very special statement issued by the very special prosector - a former Trump appointee - re: non-indictment of Joe Biden.
This guy was picked to give DOJ some credibility in investigating POTUS.
Hur jazzed up his very special statement, to help his cause with the (he clearly hopes) 2nd Trump Administration.
Thank you and the pacemaker responded immediately and is amazing
However, post operation recovery is slow and the doctors asked to be cautious for the next 6 weeks as the 2 leads grow muscle and become secure in the heart
Maybe Sky are making a meal of it but to the listener it was very damning
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
WTAF are you on?
He muddles the speaker of the house with his ambassador to the UN, claims he won all 50 states in an election he lost by a wide margin, doesn't know which state he's in, confuses Russia, Turkey and Hungary and doesn't grasp basic points of law which see him paying vast amounts in costs and damages.
And you think he's *not far more senile* than a man who occasionally stumbles over his words?
What would senile look like? Wearing his highly soiled underpants on his actual head?
I believe it fair to say Biden is not an optimal candidate due to his age related issues, but he does have moments of cogency and demonstrates occasional statesmanship. Trump does neither.
I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone this side of the Atlantic considers Trump to be anything other than extremely dangerous, particularly for Europe and the UK.
Perhaps because he's been President before and precisely shit all happened?
Why do you keep trotting out this nonsense? People have repeatedly listed the many terrible things that happened under Trump.
One person (perhaps it was you?) pulled a deeply uneventful and unimpressive list of supposed cataclysms out of their fundament. I consider it kinder to leave that in the past.
Like his American counterpart, Piers thinks the bigger opportunity is streaming platforms rather than proper media channels. And lets be honest, when the "proper" channel is ToryTV he's probably right.
The special counsel report says that Biden did not remember “even within several years” when his son beau biden died.
Just listening Sky reporting on this is scary and he is simply unfit for office
Not sure what thus will do to the US elections later this year but a gift to Trump's supporters unfortunately
Hope you are feeling better and on the mend, also visa versa.
PBers are making way toooooooo much out of the very special statement issued by the very special prosector - a former Trump appointee - re: non-indictment of Joe Biden.
This guy was picked to give DOJ some credibility in investigating POTUS.
Hur jazzed up his very special statement, to help his cause with the (he clearly hopes) 2nd Trump Administration.
So the case for Biden is that he did wilfully mishandle classified documents and the only reason they didn't throw the book at him is that the special counsel is in Trump's pocket?
Democrats are in denial and are like the band playing on the Titanic .
What do they think is going to happen in the debates between Trump and Biden .
I think Biden is a decent man who has suffered a lot of tragedy in his life but is now being utterly selfish and could be the handmaiden of a complete catastrophe.
What do Dems think might happen to all those downballot races . It’s not just about the Presidency .
Democrats are in denial and are like the band playing on the Titanic .
What do they think is going to happen in the debates between Trump and Biden .
I think Biden is a decent man who has suffered a lot of tragedy in his life but is now being utterly selfish and could be the handmaiden of a complete catastrophe.
What do Dems think might happen to all those downballot races . It’s not just about the Presidency .
Right now, Biden shouldn't even do a pre-recorded interview with Oprah Winfrey bowling him underarm balls. If his candidature goes forward, I don't see him debating - it just can't happen.
The special counsel report says that Biden did not remember “even within several years” when his son beau biden died.
Just listening Sky reporting on this is scary and he is simply unfit for office
Not sure what this will do to the US elections later this year but a gift to Trump's supporters unfortunately
I keep waiting for America to wake up. Biden is deteriorating badly. Trump has already deteriorated badly and is psychotic with it. And yet that is their choice. Neither will back down, neither party will accept that their man is bonkers.
People who point out that Biden is no longer up to the job of President but ignore the far greater evidence of Donald's total unsuitability to do the same are arguing in bad faith. I have no time for Trump defenders of any sort.
Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly told CNN he has not seen any signs Biden has a “poor memory." Robert Hur's report said Biden appeared to struggle to remember key details and dates.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, though admitting he has not read the report, dismissed some of the claims that question Biden’s memory, saying, "I've talked to him at hours on end as recently as a couple of months ago" and the president is "as sharp as ever."
The special counsel report says that Biden did not remember “even within several years” when his son beau biden died.
Just listening Sky reporting on this is scary and he is simply unfit for office
Not sure what this will do to the US elections later this year but a gift to Trump's supporters unfortunately
I keep waiting for America to wake up. Biden is deteriorating badly. Trump has already deteriorated badly and is psychotic with it. And yet that is their choice. Neither will back down, neither party will accept that their man is bonkers.
The best hope is that Biden gets the message (or is pushed) by the summer. A new emergency candidate is drafted in who gets a political honeymoon by being neither Biden or Trump
The special counsel report says that Biden did not remember “even within several years” when his son beau biden died.
Just listening Sky reporting on this is scary and he is simply unfit for office
Not sure what this will do to the US elections later this year but a gift to Trump's supporters unfortunately
I keep waiting for America to wake up. Biden is deteriorating badly. Trump has already deteriorated badly and is psychotic with it. And yet that is their choice. Neither will back down, neither party will accept that their man is bonkers.
People who point out that Biden is no longer up to the job of President but ignore the far greater evidence of Donald's total unsuitability to do the same are arguing in bad faith. I have no time for Trump defenders of any sort.
Democrats are in denial and are like the band playing on the Titanic .
What do they think is going to happen in the debates between Trump and Biden .
I think Biden is a decent man who has suffered a lot of tragedy in his life but is now being utterly selfish and could be the handmaiden of a complete catastrophe.
What do Dems think might happen to all those downballot races . It’s not just about the Presidency .
Right now, Biden shouldn't even do a pre-recorded interview with Oprah Winfrey bowling him underarm balls. If his candidature goes forward, I don't see him debating - it just can't happen.
Whilst that is true, the same is already true with Trump. He doesn't debate. he doesn't need to, but then you see him ramble off at rallies, doing all the same dementia things as Biden.
It is simply disingenuous when people attack Biden for being demented. Because so is Trump. With added narcissism and psychosis.
Partisans on both sides point out the failings of the opposing candidate. But BOTH need to be put out to pasture.
The special counsel report says that Biden did not remember “even within several years” when his son beau biden died.
Just listening Sky reporting on this is scary and he is simply unfit for office
Not sure what thus will do to the US elections later this year but a gift to Trump's supporters unfortunately
Hope you are feeling better and on the mend, also visa versa.
PBers are making way toooooooo much out of the very special statement issued by the very special prosector - a former Trump appointee - re: non-indictment of Joe Biden.
This guy was picked to give DOJ some credibility in investigating POTUS.
Hur jazzed up his very special statement, to help his cause with the (he clearly hopes) 2nd Trump Administration.
Thank you and the pacemaker responded immediately and is amazing
However, post operation recovery is slow and the doctors asked to be cautious for the next 6 weeks as the 2 leads grow muscle and become secure in the heart
Maybe Sky are making a meal of it but to the listener it was very damning
OT. Just watched '20 Days in Mariupol' on Netflix. Likely to win the Oscar for best documentary. A very difficult watch but hopefully it'll bring home the reality of what these conflicts look like and make people think twice before ever cheering them on.
Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly told CNN he has not seen any signs Biden has a “poor memory." Robert Hur's report said Biden appeared to struggle to remember key details and dates.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, though admitting he has not read the report, dismissed some of the claims that question Biden’s memory, saying, "I've talked to him at hours on end as recently as a couple of months ago" and the president is "as sharp as ever."
The special counsel report says that Biden did not remember “even within several years” when his son beau biden died.
Just listening Sky reporting on this is scary and he is simply unfit for office
Not sure what this will do to the US elections later this year but a gift to Trump's supporters unfortunately
I keep waiting for America to wake up. Biden is deteriorating badly. Trump has already deteriorated badly and is psychotic with it. And yet that is their choice. Neither will back down, neither party will accept that their man is bonkers.
The best hope is that Biden gets the message (or is pushed) by the summer. A new emergency candidate is drafted in who gets a political honeymoon by being neither Biden or Trump
Agreed. Who is the emergency candidate?
This election is basically a rerun of the last one. An awful lot of people will make a special effort to repel Jean Marie le Pen regardless of whether they like the democrat candidate.
But that candidate needs to be credible. Who? Genuine question, I think America is sinking fast so have stopped watching the details.
The special counsel report says that Biden did not remember “even within several years” when his son beau biden died.
Just listening Sky reporting on this is scary and he is simply unfit for office
Not sure what this will do to the US elections later this year but a gift to Trump's supporters unfortunately
I keep waiting for America to wake up. Biden is deteriorating badly. Trump has already deteriorated badly and is psychotic with it. And yet that is their choice. Neither will back down, neither party will accept that their man is bonkers.
The best hope is that Biden gets the message (or is pushed) by the summer. A new emergency candidate is drafted in who gets a political honeymoon by being neither Biden or Trump
The problem is the political system which inevitably puts the two huge parties in thrall to their Presidential candidate. In some respects, Biden's hold on the Democrats is analogous to Trump's on the Republicans.
The virtual impossibility of any third candidate and the historical experience of schism holds both parties together and yet apart. The notion there are no alternatives in either party is patent nonsense - there are any other of possibilities., candidates who would grow with experience.
The other side of this is a Presidential administration is only as good as the quality of the advisors and the quality of the advice given.
The special counsel report says that Biden did not remember “even within several years” when his son beau biden died.
Just listening Sky reporting on this is scary and he is simply unfit for office
Not sure what this will do to the US elections later this year but a gift to Trump's supporters unfortunately
I keep waiting for America to wake up. Biden is deteriorating badly. Trump has already deteriorated badly and is psychotic with it. And yet that is their choice. Neither will back down, neither party will accept that their man is bonkers.
The best hope is that Biden gets the message (or is pushed) by the summer. A new emergency candidate is drafted in who gets a political honeymoon by being neither Biden or Trump
Agreed. Who is the emergency candidate?
This election is basically a rerun of the last one. An awful lot of people will make a special effort to repel Jean Marie le Pen regardless of whether they like the democrat candidate.
But that candidate needs to be credible. Who? Genuine question, I think America is sinking fast so have stopped watching the details.
It's a good example of the superior flexibility of a parliamentary system. Harris is the elected VP so it's almost impossible for there to be an alternative incumbent.
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
That really holes Biden below the waterline in terms of re-election.
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Well, it would. If his opponent wasn't Trump. Who is manifestly far more senile.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
This is objectively wrong. Trump is not manifestly far more senile and he is ahead in the polls against Biden.
Confusing Haley and Pelosi? Constantly confusing Biden and Obama!
I don't think that misspeaking about contemporary political opponents is quite in the same category as having conversations with ghosts, but even if you disagree, you can't really argue that Trump is "far more" senile.
I think misspeaking, getting someone’s name wrong once, is less significant than a lengthy rant based on your confusion. I also think Macron/Mitterrand, two people in the same role with names beginning with ‘M’, is a smaller mistake than confusing Pelosi and Haley, who are in opposing parties and different roles. I think not knowing who you are running against (Biden/Obama) is massively more significant.
Trump is a shell of what he was. What he was was odious, but Trump now is a pale facade around this hollow myth his devotees have constructed.
People focus on verbal missteps but plenty of politicians make errors. Bush Jr made plenty of gaffes when he was much younger. For me the issues with Biden are:
- His walk is very stiff and he physically looks old - At times he looks lost as if he doesn't know where he is - His voice is weak and reedy - He has fallen over several times - he seems to have low energy (e.g. making a comment about going to bed).
By contrast, while Trump often talks nonsense, he is physically very energetic and travelling around the country a lot.
The president is traditionally offered a slot before the Superbowl where they are lobbed some softball questions. Biden has turned it down for the second year in a row (Trump has offered to step in). if Biden's minders don't even trust him to do a softball interview, then how can he get through an election campaign?
From the NY post:
Biden has done 14 solo press conferences in the entire three years of his presidency. Trump did more than three times as many solo pressers as Biden. President Barack Obama did almost five times more.
The last one Biden did was in November, but he took only four questions from preselected reporters, seemingly on prearranged topics.
So much for bringing “transparency and truth back to the government.”
His handlers’ solution is to turn his truancy into a joke, Dark Brandon-style.
“In a lot of ways, this dinner sums up my first two years in office,” Biden told the last White House Correspondents’ Dinner. “I’ll talk for 10 minutes, take zero questions and cheerfully walk away.”
The special counsel report says that Biden did not remember “even within several years” when his son beau biden died.
Just listening Sky reporting on this is scary and he is simply unfit for office
Not sure what this will do to the US elections later this year but a gift to Trump's supporters unfortunately
I keep waiting for America to wake up. Biden is deteriorating badly. Trump has already deteriorated badly and is psychotic with it. And yet that is their choice. Neither will back down, neither party will accept that their man is bonkers.
The best hope is that Biden gets the message (or is pushed) by the summer. A new emergency candidate is drafted in who gets a political honeymoon by being neither Biden or Trump
The problem is the political system which inevitably puts the two huge parties in thrall to their Presidential candidate. In some respects, Biden's hold on the Democrats is analogous to Trump's on the Republicans.
The virtual impossibility of any third candidate and the historical experience of schism holds both parties together and yet apart. The notion there are no alternatives in either party is patent nonsense - there are any other of possibilities., candidates who would grow with experience.
The other side of this is a Presidential administration is only as good as the quality of the advisors and the quality of the advice given.
Ironically it's the ideal scenario for a third-party candidature from someone like Trump.
Comments
Tesco thief stole 22 tubs of Lurpak worth £95 while on suspended sentence for cheese raid
chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-eas…
https://x.com/chroniclelive/status/1755531918668443914?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
It is a very polite way of calling him too senile to face trial.
Again, if the Republicans wanted to win they'd select Haley. But they're so far gone they won't even vote for her when the orangutan isn't on the ballot.
The Dems need to act fast
He muddles the speaker of the house with his ambassador to the UN, claims he won all 50 states in an election he lost by a wide margin, doesn't know which state he's in, confuses Russia, Turkey and Hungary and doesn't grasp basic points of law which see him paying vast amounts in costs and damages.
And you think he's *not far more senile* than a man who occasionally stumbles over his words?
What would senile look like? Wearing his highly soiled underpants on his actual head?
"1/31/24 - 2024 Matchups: Biden Opens Up Lead Over Trump In Head-To-Head, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Haley Leads Biden 1 On 1, But Trails When Third Party Candidates Are Added | Quinnipiac University Poll" https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3889
PS. The mid 60's is of course 60 years ago.
A lifetime ago.
Are most like it...no. However the attitudes surveys indicate a lot of third world immigrants sadly bring their third world prejudice with them
The problem is; I am not a great in-person communicator. I have a slight speech defect. I stumble over my words I often say before I think. If I had to speak in public as often as they did, I'd probably appear senile or worse.
But that's fine. My 'job' doesn't require me to be a great communicator, and I haven't had a lifetime of being a communicator. At least in Biden's case, he has a track record of misspeaking going back decades AIUI.
America has a poor choice. But given that poor choice, Biden is much, much better.
I agree absolutely that Labour are being paranoid and could end up shooting themselves in the foot, but that Australian election is where the psychology is coming from.
I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone this side of the Atlantic considers Trump to be anything other than extremely dangerous, particularly for Europe and the UK.
All you need to do is actually look at what they've both been saying and doing and it becomes extremely easy.
A sheriff that I appeared in front of regularly, a generally decent man, was listening to a trial about an assault by a bouncer. During the evidence he intervened to clarify that the victim had been dancing with another man in the nightclub. Once this was confirmed he ostentatiously put his pen down and crossed his arms. The trial was over. This was in the mid 80s and not many people thought that there was anything unusual about his attitude at the time.
When I hear SNP leaders claiming moral superiority over the benighted English I remember incidents like that.
New Social Contract party appears to rule out serving in a majority cabinet with the Nexit-backing nationalist"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/02/07/geert-wilders-coalition-partner-withdraws-in-netherlands/
But the story really ought to give equal prominence to this:
… The report noted that Biden cooperated with the federal probe. And in its very first pages, it drew a sharp contrast between the president and former President Donald Trump, who faces criminal prosecution for deliberately retaining classified material.
Trump allegedly refused to return classified documents for months and directed other people “to destroy evidence and then to lie about it,” reads Hur’s report. “In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.”..
Which is actually why Trump is being prosecuted and Biden isn’t.
I’m inclined to think that Biden should call it a day, and retire with the gratitude of his nation - but it’s not easy to see how that is arranged.
The special counsel report says that Biden did not remember “even within several years” when his son beau biden died.
Who knows what to do? But I find a tiered society ala the Emirates hugely distasteful. If we must be reliant on migrants to glue our economy together, the least we can do is treat them as any other citizen.
Trump is a shell of what he was. What he was was odious, but Trump now is a pale facade around this hollow myth his devotees have constructed.
Should say "defunds Labour's E-turn"
We just have to rely on the team around him who have done a good job in the first 4 years.
Is Biden too old? Yes. Is Trump completely unfit and mad as a ferret? Yes.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
A lot of those will be second or third generation immigrants and muslims are not by any means the only communities like that
edits need to disappear to sort out my father so doubt I can reply
The central theme of Labour's election campaign is going to be "Cuts, because there's no money. Not our fault. Blame the other lot." All that's needed is a stupid little note from the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a Starmer-Davey presser in the Downing Street rose garden and the whole sick joke will be complete.
And thus, on we all go, circling the plughole.
The latest Peil polls suggest an election now would see Wilders and his PVV win 50 seats and while the BBB would take him to 57 that's a long way from a majority.
The problem seems to be Wilders wants a lot more spending while Omtzigt is a fiscal hawk and the VVD are staring oblivion in the face. With the NSC seemingly not interested, a centre-right Government headed by Wilders is looking a non-starter. Could the NSC and VVD try to form a minority and hope the left prop them up in order not to hand a fuerther advantage to Wilders?
Sam Freedman
@Samfr
Labour's u-turn won't make the slightest difference to their chances of winning an election. Neither would have keeping the policy.
And the U- turn is bad policy.
Not sure what this will do to the US elections later this year but a gift to Trump's supporters unfortunately
https://x.com/afneil/status/1755708533343990115
So special counsel has decided not to charge President Biden for his mishandling of classified documents. But the reason given is devastating: basically he’s not fit to stand trial. He can’t even remember when he was VP. This from the special counsel — a remarkable read:
I don't think anyone accused him of having early onset dementia.
The "optics" won't last long and better to do this now than in the heat of an election campaign - few outside the bubble will notice, fewer still will care.
As for the policy itself, IF we were to get a prolonged and dangerous summer heatwave, environmental concerns would move up the agenda - the Greens and LDs would run hard with this but apparently no one listens to them. The Conservatives played on anti-Green sentiments in Uxbridge with some success - I suspect there's a broad concern about climate change and its impact but rather like housing, no one wants to make any kind of substantive change to how they live and expect everyone else to do so.
PBers are making way toooooooo much out of the very special statement issued by the very special prosector - a former Trump appointee - re: non-indictment of Joe Biden.
This guy was picked to give DOJ some credibility in investigating POTUS.
Hur jazzed up his very special statement, to help his cause with the (he clearly hopes) 2nd Trump Administration.
More importantly Trump is infinitely more dangerous.
Both would struggle to name who was the British Prime Minister in 2022.
However, post operation recovery is slow and the doctors asked to be cautious for the next 6 weeks as the 2 leads grow muscle and become secure in the heart
Maybe Sky are making a meal of it but to the listener it was very damning
Like his American counterpart, Piers thinks the bigger opportunity is streaming platforms rather than proper media channels. And lets be honest, when the "proper" channel is ToryTV he's probably right.
What a mess the US is in
What do they think is going to happen in the debates between Trump and Biden .
I think Biden is a decent man who has suffered a lot of tragedy in his life but is now being utterly selfish and could be the handmaiden of a complete catastrophe.
What do Dems think might happen to all those downballot races . It’s not just about the Presidency .
Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly told CNN he has not seen any signs Biden has a “poor memory." Robert Hur's report said Biden appeared to struggle to remember key details and dates.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, though admitting he has not read the report, dismissed some of the claims that question Biden’s memory, saying, "I've talked to him at hours on end as recently as a couple of months ago" and the president is "as sharp as ever."
It is simply disingenuous when people attack Biden for being demented. Because so is Trump. With added narcissism and psychosis.
Partisans on both sides point out the failings of the opposing candidate. But BOTH need to be put out to pasture.
https://youtu.be/oO-oHWb-g7M?si=a4IgOslGp3GMboJB
This election is basically a rerun of the last one. An awful lot of people will make a special effort to repel Jean Marie le Pen regardless of whether they like the democrat candidate.
But that candidate needs to be credible. Who? Genuine question, I think America is sinking fast so have stopped watching the details.
I shall have to prepare a piece of profound political insight for that auspicious occasion.
And maybe a new avatar.
The virtual impossibility of any third candidate and the historical experience of schism holds both parties together and yet apart. The notion there are no alternatives in either party is patent nonsense - there are any other of possibilities., candidates who would grow with experience.
The other side of this is a Presidential administration is only as good as the quality of the advisors and the quality of the advice given.
- His walk is very stiff and he physically looks old
- At times he looks lost as if he doesn't know where he is
- His voice is weak and reedy
- He has fallen over several times
- he seems to have low energy (e.g. making a comment about going to bed).
By contrast, while Trump often talks nonsense, he is physically very energetic and travelling around the country a lot.
The president is traditionally offered a slot before the Superbowl where they are lobbed some softball questions. Biden has turned it down for the second year in a row (Trump has offered to step in). if Biden's minders don't even trust him to do a softball interview, then how can he get through an election campaign?
From the NY post:
Biden has done 14 solo press conferences in the entire three years of his presidency. Trump did more than three times as many solo pressers as Biden. President Barack Obama did almost five times more.
The last one Biden did was in November, but he took only four questions from preselected reporters, seemingly on prearranged topics.
So much for bringing “transparency and truth back to the government.”
His handlers’ solution is to turn his truancy into a joke, Dark Brandon-style.
“In a lot of ways, this dinner sums up my first two years in office,” Biden told the last White House Correspondents’ Dinner. “I’ll talk for 10 minutes, take zero questions and cheerfully walk away.”
Sunak making hay. Labour basically accepting that Sunak is right and they dont have a plan and this is not a change election.