Why cutting interest rates will be no panacea for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

GIN1138 said:

Lab supporters seem somewhat rattled on here today.

Relax guys, it's still in the bag. 👌

Harry Cole is enjoying himself noting the anger in the Starmer fan club.
It is noticeable that some rattlage has occured.
Sit outside the tent and enjoy with 🍿 🍿

GIN1138 said:

Lab supporters seem somewhat rattled on here today.

Relax guys, it's still in the bag. 👌

Nigel Foreman is not a Labour supporter!

wooliedyed said:

GIN1138 said:

Lab supporters seem somewhat rattled on here today.

Relax guys, it's still in the bag. 👌

Harry Cole is enjoying himself noting the anger in the Starmer fan club.
It is noticeable that some rattlage has occured.
Sit outside the tent and enjoy with 🍿 🍿

That would be the Harry Cole who two weeks ago posted this -

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1786391851651522969

That Harry Cole?

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Well the warning signs have been there for a long time. Supporting Corbyn, then booting him out. The curry night in lockdown. Sue Gray's appointment.

SKS being an unprincipled chancer with no conviction and no policies isn't a new development. The only difference is that now the election is getting closer, he and Labour are (rightly) starting to get more scrutiny.

The Tories are so despised that the increased Lab scrutiny won't be enough to deny Labour from forming the next government, but as I keep saying, the warning lights are flashing in bright red for what that Labour government will be like...

OT. Perusing the Guardian over lunch (yes, I'm ancient), I was mildly amused by the following brief letter:

We very much enjoyed watching the Eurovision thong contest.

I know it’s pretty much at the stage where nobody cares what the daft wee prick is saying, but which waverers does Sunak think this is going to resonate with? JK Rowling and the Union Bears are already on board.

GIN1138 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Well the warning signs have been there for a long time. Supporting Corbyn, then booting him out. The curry night in lockdown. Sue Gray's appointment.

SKS being an unprincipled chancer with no conviction and no policies isn't a new development. The only difference is that now the election is getting closer, he and Labour are (rightly) starting to get more scrutiny.

The Tories are so despised that the increased Lab scrutiny won't be enough to deny Labour from forming the next government, but as I keep saying, the warning lights are flashing in bright red for what that Labour government will be like...

SKS an unprincipled chancer? Well, it worked at GE 2019 for the Tories, big time.

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Maybe Keir Starmer does lack principles. But I am not sure the argument about Natalie Elphicke’s defection is the banker for Rishi Sunak you think it is. An argument that says “she’s so awful it shows Labour will take anyone” doesn’t really work if up until last Tuesday you were happy to have her in your party.

eek said:

GIN1138 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Well the warning signs have been there for a long time. Supporting Corbyn, then booting him out. The curry night in lockdown. Sue Gray's appointment.

SKS being an unprincipled chancer with no conviction and no policies isn't a new development. The only difference is that now the election is getting closer, he and Labour are (rightly) starting to get more scrutiny.

The Tories are so despised that the increased Lab scrutiny won't be enough to deny Labour from forming the next government, but as I keep saying, the warning lights are flashing in bright red for what that Labour government will be like...

You can’t say that SKS has no policies and then claim you have any idea what the policies that will be implemented are going to be.

Actually I'm not really talking about the policies. By "warning signs" I'm talking more about a party that's not ready and is unprepared for government.

My guess is they'll lurch from one unforced error and crisis to another like a bunch of drunken sailors. My take has always been Election 2024 is Election 74 and the next parliament will be 74-79 (ie a very unhappy one)

Theuniondivvie said:

turbotubbs said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Benpointer said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Benpointer said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Benpointer said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Donkeys said:

Leon said:

Roger said:

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

Roger said:

Just read through the last thread. Incredible the number of fine posters on PB who have been banned yet the likes of Livermore who would probably be banned from most Nazi sites just sail on spreading their ignorant poison

Calling for other posters to be banned is not an engaging attribute imo.

As for Blanche, I disagree with their take on Gaza and on the benefits system but it hardly struck me as something that 'would probably be banned from most Nazi sites'.

Get a grip Roger.

What is this list of banned posters?

A number of people have left, but the list of banned is pretty small.

Stuart ....Ishmael....and several other Scottish posters.

And in their place we have posters like this;

"Do the Palestinians who want their kids to be martyrs have kids because they want dead Jews, or because they want the Hamas endowment? "

Even Braverman might think twice before posting this fascistic drivel. It's ugly and ill informed. My question was not to get Livermore banned but to wonder what these other posters could have written that was considered worse?

Er, that’s a totally fair question. Let’s go through it

1. Do some Palestinians WANT their sons to be martyrs? Yes, absolutely. We have tons of evidence of this. Young Gazans grow up in a theo-fascist statelet which inculcates the glory of martyrdom into them. Their parents go along with it, some embrace it (cf trans….)

2. If they want their kids to be martyred, why is that? there are two obvious reasons

2a they think killing Jews in Israel is a noble and holy cause; they want Jews in Israel dead

2b (less likely but plausible, perhaps in combination with the above) they believe it will advance the family as a whole. Gain them social status. This is hardly unknown - families sacrifice sons in martial societies in exchange for esteem and position

There. Sorted for you. @BlancheLivermore was making an entirely rational if polemical point

"Gazans"? "Theo-fascist statelet"? Remind me how most Palestinian families in Gaza got there, and also which side has bombed the churches.

You're throwing shit at Palestinians for getting killed. Apparently even when they get killed it's because they're so sick and Jew-haty that they want to be killed.

Are you denying Gaza is a “theo-fascist statelet”? Because it really is. They throw gays off buildings dontchaknow

I’ve not said a word about Israel. But here’s a few words: Israel’s behaviour is barbaric, demonic even. I’ve discussed before that they seem so traumatised by the Holocaust they are intent on re-enacting one; like abused children who reiterate that abuse in later life

But radical Islam has not done a lot to win friends in the last 40 years so I have almost zero sympathy for anyone associated with it

Quite frankly I’m bored and sickened by the whole thing and I’m tired of it hijacking global politics taking attention away from more deserving communities and problems

Let them fight to the death and be done with it

It's all immensely boring. I might prefer Israel because they're industrious, developed, Westernised and more liberal - we all know Palestine would be like another Lebanon in the counterfactual - and they run it better but it's really fucking boring and has been since at least the 1930s.

What is not - or should not be - immensely boring is the level of abuse and hatred levelled at Jews in this country by fellow citizens in recent months. It should shame us.

We can do little or nothing about what happens in the Middle East. We can and should do something about how people are treated here. Instead we barely notice, for instance, that the Green Councillor elected in Oldham is one of those whose threats against the Jewish chaplain at Leeds University led to him and his family having to go into hiding.

It’s quite something - how the Greens have evolved into this hideous new creature: obsessed with trans rights and Palestinian activism. It’s like worrying about rivers and badgers is a gateway drug into every kooky nonsensical radicalism they can find

The Green Party is and always has been a greenwashed version of the Socialist Workers Party. Most of them do not have the first clue about ecology or earth science.

Someone should start a Green Conservative Party.

After all, 'conserve' ought to be in the Tories' DNA - but they have sold out to big money of course.

I think David Cameron sort of tried that, and yes there is no reason why to be green you have to be a corporatist lefty. Many people on the centre-right have not "sold out" to big money any more than all on the centre-left have "sold out" to the unions and the more corrupt money-grabbing low productivity end of the public sector.

Many people on the centre-right have not "sold out"

...but that's not today's Conservative Party is it?

Contrary to those who have a simplistic and tribal view of politics, there are still (despite Bozo's best efforts) plenty of decent people in the Conservative Party. Hopefully they will be able to restore the party to pre-Johnson respectability at some point in the future. An unchallenged Labour Party that has almost zero understanding of business and wealth creation is a very bad thing for the country.

Let's see how many decent people there are in the Conservative Party when the next leader is chosen, shall we? (A: not enough, I suspect.)

Depends on how many of them survive the decimation, assuming the huge landslide that @kinabalu believes is "baked in".

It is a sad aspect of our politics that so many tribalists want the other party to be annihilated. It is not good for anyone.

If the Tories are simply decimated, they would be delighted. As our latin learning friends would recall, decimation is the loss of 1/10th of something. Common usage has shifted it to be a much worse loss.

I think if the Tories are decimated they are still in power.

Let’s hope they’re crucified instead then, side effects ‘n’ all.

By Milo Pope?
Well, he should know.

eek said:

GIN1138 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Well the warning signs have been there for a long time. Supporting Corbyn, then booting him out. The curry night in lockdown. Sue Gray's appointment.

SKS being an unprincipled chancer with no conviction and no policies isn't a new development. The only difference is that now the election is getting closer, he and Labour are (rightly) starting to get more scrutiny.

The Tories are so despised that the increased Lab scrutiny won't be enough to deny Labour from forming the next government, but as I keep saying, the warning lights are flashing in bright red for what that Labour government will be like...

You can’t say that SKS has no policies and then claim you have any idea what the policies that will be implemented are going to be.

Prime Ministers and PB Tories really need lessons in how to apply nuance to Daily Mail editorials.

TOPPING said:

DougSeal said:

GIN1138 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Well the warning signs have been there for a long time. Supporting Corbyn, then booting him out. The curry night in lockdown. Sue Gray's appointment.

SKS being an unprincipled chancer with no conviction and no policies isn't a new development. The only difference is that now the election is getting closer, he and Labour are (rightly) starting to get more scrutiny.

The Tories are so despised that the increased Lab scrutiny won't be enough to deny Labour from forming the next government, but as I keep saying, the warning lights are flashing in bright red for what that Labour government will be like...

Oh, FFS.

He kicked out Corbyn because Corbyn refused to accept criticisms set out in an independent report into antisemitism the party had commissioned. That was principled. Keeping him because of party loyalty would have been unprincipled. Can you imagine the reaction on here if Starmer had allowed Corbyn to stay?

There was no curry night in lockdown. Not even the most one-eyed Tory called it a "curry night". The event in question wasn't even at night.

I must have missed the problem with Sue Gray. How was here appointment different from, say, appointing Dominic Cummings?

He's dull, boring and not my first choice as leader but the shit he gets from all sides on here is deranged. I can't think of a more hated politician and I can't fathom why.

Having a curry after work with colleagues was as much a violation of Covid lockdown rules as (m)any other such violations.

Apparently it wasn't. Or certainly not according to Durham Constabulary.

However bad it gets PB Tories will always have Currygate. Bless.

Northern_Al said:

OT. Perusing the Guardian over lunch (yes, I'm ancient), I was mildly amused by the following brief letter:

We very much enjoyed watching the Eurovision thong contest.

Was it?

I carefully circumvented the potential exposure.

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Benpointer said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Benpointer said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Benpointer said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Donkeys said:

Leon said:

Roger said:

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

Roger said:

Just read through the last thread. Incredible the number of fine posters on PB who have been banned yet the likes of Livermore who would probably be banned from most Nazi sites just sail on spreading their ignorant poison

Calling for other posters to be banned is not an engaging attribute imo.

As for Blanche, I disagree with their take on Gaza and on the benefits system but it hardly struck me as something that 'would probably be banned from most Nazi sites'.

Get a grip Roger.

What is this list of banned posters?

A number of people have left, but the list of banned is pretty small.

Stuart ....Ishmael....and several other Scottish posters.

And in their place we have posters like this;

"Do the Palestinians who want their kids to be martyrs have kids because they want dead Jews, or because they want the Hamas endowment? "

Even Braverman might think twice before posting this fascistic drivel. It's ugly and ill informed. My question was not to get Livermore banned but to wonder what these other posters could have written that was considered worse?

Er, that’s a totally fair question. Let’s go through it

1. Do some Palestinians WANT their sons to be martyrs? Yes, absolutely. We have tons of evidence of this. Young Gazans grow up in a theo-fascist statelet which inculcates the glory of martyrdom into them. Their parents go along with it, some embrace it (cf trans….)

2. If they want their kids to be martyred, why is that? there are two obvious reasons

2a they think killing Jews in Israel is a noble and holy cause; they want Jews in Israel dead

2b (less likely but plausible, perhaps in combination with the above) they believe it will advance the family as a whole. Gain them social status. This is hardly unknown - families sacrifice sons in martial societies in exchange for esteem and position

There. Sorted for you. @BlancheLivermore was making an entirely rational if polemical point

"Gazans"? "Theo-fascist statelet"? Remind me how most Palestinian families in Gaza got there, and also which side has bombed the churches.

You're throwing shit at Palestinians for getting killed. Apparently even when they get killed it's because they're so sick and Jew-haty that they want to be killed.

Are you denying Gaza is a “theo-fascist statelet”? Because it really is. They throw gays off buildings dontchaknow

I’ve not said a word about Israel. But here’s a few words: Israel’s behaviour is barbaric, demonic even. I’ve discussed before that they seem so traumatised by the Holocaust they are intent on re-enacting one; like abused children who reiterate that abuse in later life

But radical Islam has not done a lot to win friends in the last 40 years so I have almost zero sympathy for anyone associated with it

Quite frankly I’m bored and sickened by the whole thing and I’m tired of it hijacking global politics taking attention away from more deserving communities and problems

Let them fight to the death and be done with it

It's all immensely boring. I might prefer Israel because they're industrious, developed, Westernised and more liberal - we all know Palestine would be like another Lebanon in the counterfactual - and they run it better but it's really fucking boring and has been since at least the 1930s.

What is not - or should not be - immensely boring is the level of abuse and hatred levelled at Jews in this country by fellow citizens in recent months. It should shame us.

We can do little or nothing about what happens in the Middle East. We can and should do something about how people are treated here. Instead we barely notice, for instance, that the Green Councillor elected in Oldham is one of those whose threats against the Jewish chaplain at Leeds University led to him and his family having to go into hiding.

It’s quite something - how the Greens have evolved into this hideous new creature: obsessed with trans rights and Palestinian activism. It’s like worrying about rivers and badgers is a gateway drug into every kooky nonsensical radicalism they can find

The Green Party is and always has been a greenwashed version of the Socialist Workers Party. Most of them do not have the first clue about ecology or earth science.

Someone should start a Green Conservative Party.

After all, 'conserve' ought to be in the Tories' DNA - but they have sold out to big money of course.

I think David Cameron sort of tried that, and yes there is no reason why to be green you have to be a corporatist lefty. Many people on the centre-right have not "sold out" to big money any more than all on the centre-left have "sold out" to the unions and the more corrupt money-grabbing low productivity end of the public sector.

Many people on the centre-right have not "sold out"

...but that's not today's Conservative Party is it?

Contrary to those who have a simplistic and tribal view of politics, there are still (despite Bozo's best efforts) plenty of decent people in the Conservative Party. Hopefully they will be able to restore the party to pre-Johnson respectability at some point in the future. An unchallenged Labour Party that has almost zero understanding of business and wealth creation is a very bad thing for the country.

Let's see how many decent people there are in the Conservative Party when the next leader is chosen, shall we? (A: not enough, I suspect.)

Depends on how many of them survive the decimation, assuming the huge landslide that @kinabalu believes is "baked in".

It is a sad aspect of our politics that so many tribalists want the other party to be annihilated. It is not good for anyone.

A design feature of FPTP, sadly.

I am struggling to adjust to being in an STV constituency that can elect Michael Collins and Holly Cairns. I want to vote against Michael Collins, but it isn't really possible with STV in the way that it is with FPTP.

The way to vote against some in STV is to list all their opponents before them. This is saying I prefer everybody else rather than this person. In practice you vote 1, 2, 3 .. until you don't care about the order.

TheScreamingEagles said:

LOLOLOL

A judge has ruled that provisions of the UK's Illegal Migration Act - which created powers to send asylum seekers to Rwanda - should be disapplied in Northern Ireland.

The High Court in Belfast on Monday morning ordered the "disapplication" of sections of the act as they undermine human rights protections guaranteed in the region under post-Brexit arrangements.

The Illegal Migration Act provides new powers for the government to detain and remove asylum seekers it deems to have arrived illegally in the UK. Central to the new laws is the scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Mr Justice Humphreys said the Rwanda policy was "incompatible" with the Human Rights Act, which was incorporated into British law from the European Convention on Human Rights.


https://news.sky.com/story/law-allowing-asylum-seekers-to-be-detained-and-sent-to-rwanda-disapplied-by-court-in-northern-ireland-13135151

Tbh that's not a terrible ruling for the Gov't as the Tories don't stand and have no seats in Northern Ireland. It'll surely make the DUP pop mind. Will we see tent cities in both Belfast and Dublin ?!

@RobDotHutton
How Rishi Sunak press conferences work. Reporters put their hands up, but this is what the prime minister has in front of him...

Scott_xP said:

@RobDotHutton
How Rishi Sunak press conferences work. Reporters put their hands up, but this is what the prime minister has in front of him...

So what?

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

GIN1138 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Well the warning signs have been there for a long time. Supporting Corbyn, then booting him out. The curry night in lockdown. Sue Gray's appointment.

SKS being an unprincipled chancer with no conviction and no policies isn't a new development. The only difference is that now the election is getting closer, he and Labour are (rightly) starting to get more scrutiny.

The Tories are so despised that the increased Lab scrutiny won't be enough to deny Labour from forming the next government, but as I keep saying, the warning lights are flashing in bright red for what that Labour government will be like...

You can’t say that SKS has no policies and then claim you have any idea what the policies that will be implemented are going to be.

Prime Ministers and PB Tories really need lessons in how to apply nuance to Daily Mail editorials.

TOPPING said:

DougSeal said:

GIN1138 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Well the warning signs have been there for a long time. Supporting Corbyn, then booting him out. The curry night in lockdown. Sue Gray's appointment.

SKS being an unprincipled chancer with no conviction and no policies isn't a new development. The only difference is that now the election is getting closer, he and Labour are (rightly) starting to get more scrutiny.

The Tories are so despised that the increased Lab scrutiny won't be enough to deny Labour from forming the next government, but as I keep saying, the warning lights are flashing in bright red for what that Labour government will be like...

Oh, FFS.

He kicked out Corbyn because Corbyn refused to accept criticisms set out in an independent report into antisemitism the party had commissioned. That was principled. Keeping him because of party loyalty would have been unprincipled. Can you imagine the reaction on here if Starmer had allowed Corbyn to stay?

There was no curry night in lockdown. Not even the most one-eyed Tory called it a "curry night". The event in question wasn't even at night.

I must have missed the problem with Sue Gray. How was here appointment different from, say, appointing Dominic Cummings?

He's dull, boring and not my first choice as leader but the shit he gets from all sides on here is deranged. I can't think of a more hated politician and I can't fathom why.

Having a curry after work with colleagues was as much a violation of Covid lockdown rules as (m)any other such violations.

Apparently it wasn't. Or certainly not according to Durham Constabulary.

However bad it gets PB Tories will always have Currygate. Bless.

What annoys me about "Currygate" is not that it was illegal or a violation of any rules.

It was more that Starmer was constantly calling for more lockdowns (remember the 'Johnson variant'?) but failed to take any of the precautions he was advocating for voluntarily.

I honestly think he is as bad as Boris for saying what is convenient at the time but as he does so in a much greyer manner he has got away with it so far.

DougSeal said:

GIN1138 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Well the warning signs have been there for a long time. Supporting Corbyn, then booting him out. The curry night in lockdown. Sue Gray's appointment.

SKS being an unprincipled chancer with no conviction and no policies isn't a new development. The only difference is that now the election is getting closer, he and Labour are (rightly) starting to get more scrutiny.

The Tories are so despised that the increased Lab scrutiny won't be enough to deny Labour from forming the next government, but as I keep saying, the warning lights are flashing in bright red for what that Labour government will be like...

Oh, FFS.

He kicked out Corbyn because Corbyn refused to accept criticisms set out in an independent report into antisemitism the party had commissioned. That was principled. Keeping him because of party loyalty would have been unprincipled. Can you imagine the reaction on here if Starmer had allowed Corbyn to stay?

There was no curry night in lockdown. Not even the most one-eyed Tory called it a "curry night". The event in question wasn't even at night.

I must have missed the problem with Sue Gray. How was here appointment different from, say, appointing Dominic Cummings?

He's dull, boring and not my first choice as leader but the shit he gets from all sides on here is deranged. I can't think of a more hated politician and I can't fathom why.

Arguably Sue Grey/Gray was tapped up, in the style of football managers (you are not supposed to approach other club's mangers without asking permission, but of course to do so implies you may want to change your current one, which leaks out etc). The suggestion is that she lacked impartiality in her report on partygate. An alternative is that she is someone who knows how the civil service works and is an excellent appointment.

Re currygate, I have been pretty clear that I think Starmer probably did break the regulations, but in a trivial way. He also played a blinder with his pledge to to resign - no police force was ever going to force the leader of the opposition to resign over a covid 'parking ticket' My issue with Starmer is that he was always attacking from the I would be more cautious side - longer lockdowns etc. He failed to articulate or convince that he was aware of the other costs of that approach.

AIUI Corbyn did accept the criticisms of the report, but did so in a rather mealy mouthed way.

DougSeal said:

GIN1138 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Well the warning signs have been there for a long time. Supporting Corbyn, then booting him out. The curry night in lockdown. Sue Gray's appointment.

SKS being an unprincipled chancer with no conviction and no policies isn't a new development. The only difference is that now the election is getting closer, he and Labour are (rightly) starting to get more scrutiny.

The Tories are so despised that the increased Lab scrutiny won't be enough to deny Labour from forming the next government, but as I keep saying, the warning lights are flashing in bright red for what that Labour government will be like...

Oh, FFS.

He kicked out Corbyn because Corbyn refused to accept criticisms set out in an independent report into antisemitism the party had commissioned. That was principled. Keeping him because of party loyalty would have been unprincipled. Can you imagine the reaction on here if Starmer had allowed Corbyn to stay?

There was no curry night in lockdown. Not even the most one-eyed Tory called it a "curry night". The event in question wasn't even at night.

I must have missed the problem with Sue Gray. How was here appointment different from, say, appointing Dominic Cummings?

He's dull, boring and not my first choice as leader but the shit he gets from all sides on here is deranged. I can't think of a more hated politician and I can't fathom why.

I can.

He's going to win, and win big, despite being boring and few peoples' first choice.

What does it say about the Corbynite left and the populist right that he is leaving them both in a tangled heap by the roadside?

The secret is to win whilst going as slowly as possible, as Niki Lauda put it. Some people hate the fact that that's true.

wooliedyed said:

Jim_the_Lurker said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Maybe Keir Starmer does lack principles. But I am not sure the argument about Natalie Elphicke’s defection is the banker for Rishi Sunak you think it is. An argument that says “she’s so awful it shows Labour will take anyone” doesn’t really work if up until last Tuesday you were happy to have her in your party.

The angle isn't at Elphicke per se, it's that an ostensibly very right wing Tory has been welcomed. I.e. it's about fermenting resentment in the left of labour voters and in the PLP. Its not a game changer, but if it allows the Tories to work at peeling off 1 to 2% on the left to Green/WPB/indies/DK then it was indeed a misstep. No other defection I can recall has ever provoked reactions like this one so at the very least it was a mahoosive risk

Sir Keir seems determined to foment the notion that he is a politician of the Right. My theory is that he wants to ingratiate himself with Trump. Labour still have the Red Wall to worry about, so if they can wrangle that elusive US trade deal then that would do wonders to seal Sir Keir's credentials as Brexiteer. (Labour must have identified Sir Keir's reputation as treacherous Leaver as a potential vulnerability.)

Mexicanpete said:

...

wooliedyed said:

Jim_the_Lurker said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Maybe Keir Starmer does lack principles. But I am not sure the argument about Natalie Elphicke’s defection is the banker for Rishi Sunak you think it is. An argument that says “she’s so awful it shows Labour will take anyone” doesn’t really work if up until last Tuesday you were happy to have her in your party.

The angle isn't at Elphicke per se, it's that an ostensibly very right wing Tory has been welcomed. I.e. it's about fermenting resentment in the left of labour voters and in the PLP. Its not a game changer, but if it allows the Tories to work at peeling off 1 to 2% on the left to Green/WPB/indies/DK then it was indeed a misstep. No other defection I can recall has ever provoked reactions like this one so at the very least it was a mahoosive risk

I raised an eyebrow when Starmer introduced Elphicke. " Some mistake, surely" I thought. Now I can understand the animosity to Elphicke from the left of the Labour Party, but I also see the value in Starmer taking her on as an example of how Labour no longer scare right wing Tories. The Tories's claim regarding Buckland on the other hand is absurd. It reminds me of Vicki Pryce's retribution on Hune.

I don't disagree but the overall impact I think will be negative for him, it was a step too far, too randomly. The reaction versus reaction to other defections suggests to me something is indeed off.
Of course, as with all things, time will tell. Lot of ammo to give your opponents though if the big bazooka you got in return misfires.

Jim_the_Lurker said:

wooliedyed said:

Jim_the_Lurker said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Maybe Keir Starmer does lack principles. But I am not sure the argument about Natalie Elphicke’s defection is the banker for Rishi Sunak you think it is. An argument that says “she’s so awful it shows Labour will take anyone” doesn’t really work if up until last Tuesday you were happy to have her in your party.

The angle isn't at Elphicke per se, it's that an ostensibly very right wing Tory has been welcomed. I.e. it's about fermenting resentment in the left of labour voters and in the PLP. Its not a game changer, but if it allows the Tories to work at peeling off 1 to 2% on the left to Green/WPB/indies/DK then it was indeed a misstep. No other defection I can recall has ever provoked reactions like this one so at the very least it was a mahoosive risk

Maybe - but the Conservatives will need help from the useful idiots of the left to reduce those number. And again having the tankies against Labour may even help them pick up the votes where they need them and make them more efficient. Piling up votes in university cities isn’t going to win them the seats they need to form a Government.

Similarly I would argue that the price Labour have or will pay for the defection is worth it for the picture on the white cliffs with the disaffected former Tory MP. Every time the Conservatives say “you’ve no plan to ‘stop the boats” they can reply “well your plan is so poor the MP for Dover felt she had no option but to join us.”

The flights or not will determine that aspect. If flights take off and numbers of boats reduce by any level then its 'plan starting to work' vs 'Labour will scrap this'. The opposite and yes, he can capitalise.

TOPPING said:

Benpointer said:

TOPPING said:

Benpointer said:

TOPPING said:

Benpointer said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Donkeys said:

Leon said:

Roger said:

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

Roger said:

Just read through the last thread. Incredible the number of fine posters on PB who have been banned yet the likes of Livermore who would probably be banned from most Nazi sites just sail on spreading their ignorant poison

Calling for other posters to be banned is not an engaging attribute imo.

As for Blanche, I disagree with their take on Gaza and on the benefits system but it hardly struck me as something that 'would probably be banned from most Nazi sites'.

Get a grip Roger.

What is this list of banned posters?

A number of people have left, but the list of banned is pretty small.

Stuart ....Ishmael....and several other Scottish posters.

And in their place we have posters like this;

"Do the Palestinians who want their kids to be martyrs have kids because they want dead Jews, or because they want the Hamas endowment? "

Even Braverman might think twice before posting this fascistic drivel. It's ugly and ill informed. My question was not to get Livermore banned but to wonder what these other posters could have written that was considered worse?

Er, that’s a totally fair question. Let’s go through it

1. Do some Palestinians WANT their sons to be martyrs? Yes, absolutely. We have tons of evidence of this. Young Gazans grow up in a theo-fascist statelet which inculcates the glory of martyrdom into them. Their parents go along with it, some embrace it (cf trans….)

2. If they want their kids to be martyred, why is that? there are two obvious reasons

2a they think killing Jews in Israel is a noble and holy cause; they want Jews in Israel dead

2b (less likely but plausible, perhaps in combination with the above) they believe it will advance the family as a whole. Gain them social status. This is hardly unknown - families sacrifice sons in martial societies in exchange for esteem and position

There. Sorted for you. @BlancheLivermore was making an entirely rational if polemical point

"Gazans"? "Theo-fascist statelet"? Remind me how most Palestinian families in Gaza got there, and also which side has bombed the churches.

You're throwing shit at Palestinians for getting killed. Apparently even when they get killed it's because they're so sick and Jew-haty that they want to be killed.

Are you denying Gaza is a “theo-fascist statelet”? Because it really is. They throw gays off buildings dontchaknow

I’ve not said a word about Israel. But here’s a few words: Israel’s behaviour is barbaric, demonic even. I’ve discussed before that they seem so traumatised by the Holocaust they are intent on re-enacting one; like abused children who reiterate that abuse in later life

But radical Islam has not done a lot to win friends in the last 40 years so I have almost zero sympathy for anyone associated with it

Quite frankly I’m bored and sickened by the whole thing and I’m tired of it hijacking global politics taking attention away from more deserving communities and problems

Let them fight to the death and be done with it

It's all immensely boring. I might prefer Israel because they're industrious, developed, Westernised and more liberal - we all know Palestine would be like another Lebanon in the counterfactual - and they run it better but it's really fucking boring and has been since at least the 1930s.

What is not - or should not be - immensely boring is the level of abuse and hatred levelled at Jews in this country by fellow citizens in recent months. It should shame us.

We can do little or nothing about what happens in the Middle East. We can and should do something about how people are treated here. Instead we barely notice, for instance, that the Green Councillor elected in Oldham is one of those whose threats against the Jewish chaplain at Leeds University led to him and his family having to go into hiding.

It’s quite something - how the Greens have evolved into this hideous new creature: obsessed with trans rights and Palestinian activism. It’s like worrying about rivers and badgers is a gateway drug into every kooky nonsensical radicalism they can find

The Green Party is and always has been a greenwashed version of the Socialist Workers Party. Most of them do not have the first clue about ecology or earth science.

Someone should start a Green Conservative Party.

After all, 'conserve' ought to be in the Tories' DNA - but they have sold out to big money of course.

Given the strong rural connection with the Cons I would echo @Malmesbury's point that this is precisely what the party does. But then if, say, a Cons farmer decides to do something on his land, or a Cons council decides to do something in their area, quite often the Islingtonians get all up in arms about it.

Surely it depends on what said farmer decides to do his land?

If you've got a specific example of a farmer trying to improve the environment and being castigated by Islingtonians, do share.

Have hounds hunt over it.

Like I said, it depends on what the farmer wants to do to their land.

A lot of farmers don't want the hunt over their fields - it causes a mess and disruption. But it's hardly one to put down under 'conserving the environment' is it?

Of course it is. Hedgerows, coverts, general maintenance and husbandry of the land, sometimes even vermin control. Plenty of great conservation work there. But the Islingtonians didn't like it.

The farmers should wreak their revenge by parking their muck spreaders outside Islington wine bars.

@DeltapollUK

The gap between the two main leaders has widened by two points this week, and now stands at thirty-eight points.

wooliedyed said:

Was just thinking about by elections. I guess we are coming to the end of them being a thing for this parliament? Voluntary stand downs after the Whitsun recess probably won't be filled (GE 'soon', waste of money etc) and for recalls they have to open by 6 months before a GE is due (Jan 25th so July 25th) so Speaker would need to notify the RO by about 15th July. Meaning any sanction and vote by Parliament needs to happen in the next 6 weeks (with 2 of them off for Whitsun)?
Thus Blackpool South 'probably' the last such test this time round?

Wirral South by-election was on 27th February 1997. Only two months and a handful of days before the general election.

Deltapoll has Reform not regaining their lost ground and the big two up a fraction. It does seem to confirm Labour have had a short term bump as seen with YouGov and WeThink

🚨New Voting Intention🚨
Labour lead widens slightly to eighteen points in our latest results.
Con 27% (+1)
Lab 45% (+2)
Lib Dem 8% (-2)
Reform 10% (-)
SNP 2% (-1)
Green 6% (+1)
Other 2% (-)
Fieldwork: 10th-13th May 2024

‘Me, Liz Truss, and Matt Hancock, the three amigos!’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy7Dx_Mnm_4

Edward Timpson MP is latest in Times Radio's Exit Interviews series.

wooliedyed said:

Deltapoll has Reform not regaining their lost ground and the big two up a fraction. It does seem to confirm Labour have had a short term bump as seen with YouGov and WeThink

🚨New Voting Intention🚨
Labour lead widens slightly to eighteen points in our latest results.
Con 27% (+1)
Lab 45% (+2)
Lib Dem 8% (-2)
Reform 10% (-)
SNP 2% (-1)
Green 6% (+1)
Other 2% (-)
Fieldwork: 10th-13th May 2024

Maybe it's short term.

Maybe it's long term.

Maybe it's medium term.

Maybe its a term in prison imposed by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, If no one else can help and if you can find them. Maybe you can hire, The A-Team.

.

megasaur said:

Nigelb said:

megasaur said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

bondegezou said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

@bondegezou

Thanks for providing a selection of reading materials in the previous thread. None of the studies provided add a shred of weight to @SandyRentool's claim that 'climate change' caused the wildfires seen in Canada recently. None of them even alleges that climate change has ever caused a wildfire anywhere, though they do suggest that climate change (for which read a hotter, dryer climate) has increased the risk of more severe wildfires. Appropriately, that's bears shitting in the woods stuff.

The resource that goes into this in the most depth deals with Australia - that obviously doesn't help much with Canada, and the three papers that it references that refer to North America are all about the USA.

So, we’re agreed that climate change makes wildfires worse (and worse wildfires, in a vicious circle, dumps more CO2 into the atmosphere, increasing climate change). I think that’s the core point SandyRentool was making.

I agree that hotter, dryer conditions make wild fires likelier to spread. Blaming this on climate change is a double-edged sword - the Northern hemisphere has just had a hugely cold spring that people have also been blaming climate change for. Does that mean we should thank climate change for protecting our forests?

The real issue with these fires is afaics the people causing them. The penalties for doing so, even accidentally through lack of attention, should be huge, and the perpetrators' families should be liable for the financial cost. Secondly, there should be earlier detection of fires using all the technology at the at risk countries' disposal. News agencies reporting forest fires using lazy angles about climate change (leading to ridiculous comments like Sandy's) are missing the point.

I think if something is flammable it's going to burn at some stage whether it's human error or arson or lightning or spontaneous combustion. Lots of plants evolved to take advantage of forest fires before humans were a thing. The point is not why fires happen, it's that they do happen and planting more trees is therefore not always a good thing.

"At some stage" is ignoring the inconvenient point that humanity exists on a historical, not geological timescale - whereas our impact in terms of atmospheric CO2 (amongst other things) is a change, and likely to bring about further changes, expected only on a geological timescale.

There's a dispute about the longevity of eucalyptus but fires have to happen on historical timescales for trees to evolve in reaction to them. And even if trees don't burn they die and decay and release carbon over sub 1000 year timescales unless you can magically bury them as coal. So they are a medium term fix in places where they don't burn (and the expression "rain forest" probably gives some guidance) but a potential disaster in places like California and Canada

You're missing the larger part of the carbon
cycle. The point about today's historically unprecedented forest fires is that they threaten that in a way that the previously normal burn/growth cycles didn't.
(SOM = soil organic matter)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/forest-soil
..While the carbon released to the atmosphere through deforestation includes carbon emitted from the decomposition of aboveground plant biomass, carbon levels in the soil are also rapidly depleted from the decomposition of SOM. The decomposition of SOM is due to the activity of the microbial decomposer community in the absence of continual rates of carbon input from the growth of forest vegetation, as well as increased soil temperatures that result from warming of the ground once the forest canopy has been removed. Although this soil carbon loss has contributed to increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, it also is an opportunity to store some of this carbon in soil from reforestation.

Despite the much larger size of the oceanic carbon pool relative to the soil carbon pool, the rate of exchange between the atmosphere and the soil is estimated to be higher than that between the atmosphere and the ocean. Current estimates are that carbon inputs from photosynthesis by terrestrial vegetation fixes more carbon than carbon loss through soil respiration, resulting in a soil storage rate of about 3 GT C/yr...

DougSeal said:

wooliedyed said:

Deltapoll has Reform not regaining their lost ground and the big two up a fraction. It does seem to confirm Labour have had a short term bump as seen with YouGov and WeThink

🚨New Voting Intention🚨
Labour lead widens slightly to eighteen points in our latest results.
Con 27% (+1)
Lab 45% (+2)
Lib Dem 8% (-2)
Reform 10% (-)
SNP 2% (-1)
Green 6% (+1)
Other 2% (-)
Fieldwork: 10th-13th May 2024

Maybe it's short term.

Maybe it's long term.

Maybe it's medium term.

Maybe its a term in prison imposed by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, If no one else can help and if you can find them. Maybe you can hire, The A-Team.

Short term either turns into medium or long term or it doesn't, that's a truism.

X

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

DougSeal said:

GIN1138 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Well the warning signs have been there for a long time. Supporting Corbyn, then booting him out. The curry night in lockdown. Sue Gray's appointment.

SKS being an unprincipled chancer with no conviction and no policies isn't a new development. The only difference is that now the election is getting closer, he and Labour are (rightly) starting to get more scrutiny.

The Tories are so despised that the increased Lab scrutiny won't be enough to deny Labour from forming the next government, but as I keep saying, the warning lights are flashing in bright red for what that Labour government will be like...

Oh, FFS.

He kicked out Corbyn because Corbyn refused to accept criticisms set out in an independent report into antisemitism the party had commissioned. That was principled. Keeping him because of party loyalty would have been unprincipled. Can you imagine the reaction on here if Starmer had allowed Corbyn to stay?

There was no curry night in lockdown. Not even the most one-eyed Tory called it a "curry night". The event in question wasn't even at night.

I must have missed the problem with Sue Gray. How was here appointment different from, say, appointing Dominic Cummings?

He's dull, boring and not my first choice as leader but the shit he gets from all sides on here is deranged. I can't think of a more hated politician and I can't fathom why.

Having a curry after work with colleagues was as much a violation of Covid lockdown rules as (m)any other such violations.

No it wasn’t. The rules were different in 2021.

Please tell me you are more intelligent than that ?

Were they now. The rules weren't of course the law and both the rules and the law and the regulations were designed to prevent cross-infection. Something that didn't appear to trouble SKS in the slightest.

It was a campaign curry, which made it perfectly safe

Scott_xP said:

@RobDotHutton
How Rishi Sunak press conferences work. Reporters put their hands up, but this is what the prime minister has in front of him...

The BBC won’t be pleased at not getting the first question.

Fairliered said:

wooliedyed said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

wooliedyed said:

Jim_the_Lurker said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Maybe Keir Starmer does lack principles. But I am not sure the argument about Natalie Elphicke’s defection is the banker for Rishi Sunak you think it is. An argument that says “she’s so awful it shows Labour will take anyone” doesn’t really work if up until last Tuesday you were happy to have her in your party.

The angle isn't at Elphicke per se, it's that an ostensibly very right wing Tory has been welcomed. I.e. it's about fermenting resentment in the left of labour voters and in the PLP. Its not a game changer, but if it allows the Tories to work at peeling off 1 to 2% on the left to Green/WPB/indies/DK then it was indeed a misstep. No other defection I can recall has ever provoked reactions like this one so at the very least it was a mahoosive risk

I raised an eyebrow when Starmer introduced Elphicke. " Some mistake, surely" I thought. Now I can understand the animosity to Elphicke from the left of the Labour Party, but I also see the value in Starmer taking her on as an example of how Labour no longer scare right wing Tories. The Tories's claim regarding Buckland on the other hand is absurd. It reminds me of Vicki Pryce's retribution on Hune.

I don't disagree but the overall impact I think will be negative for him, it was a step too far, too randomly. The reaction versus reaction to other defections suggests to me something is indeed off.
Of course, as with all things, time will tell. Lot of ammo to give your opponents though if the big bazooka you got in return misfires.

The reply to Sunak’s criticism of Starmer must surely be “if she’s that bad, why hadn’t you withdrawn the whip from her?”

Because he'll be arguing on where she sits on the left to right spectrum and trying to wind up the left that way, not where she sits on the good un to rotten spectrum.

Off-topic:

An interesting article on claims that Russia spread anti-Israeli and anti-American propaganda in the Middle East during the 1970s:

https://www.rferl.org/a/soviet-islamist-terrorism-israel-america-disinformation-pacepa/25034290.html

Fairliered said:

Scott_xP said:

@RobDotHutton
How Rishi Sunak press conferences work. Reporters put their hands up, but this is what the prime minister has in front of him...

The BBC won’t be pleased at not getting the first question.

Conservative newspapers having the first two (and three of the first five) slots. OK, it's a game and we all know it's a game, but it looks a bit odd written down like that, doesn't it?

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

Given we have now seen Sunak's speech, I wonder how many PBers have drawn the inevitable conclusion?

The stage is being cleared.

The great new hope is waiting in the wings.

It's time.

TRUSS

Let's suppose the unlikely happens and Sunak somehow does well enough at the election to remain as PM. Initially he'll have a lot of credit with his MPs due to saving them from what looks like an impossible situation. But still.

How long until they change PM again?

Exactly, If you quite liked Sunak and was tempted to vote Tory what guarantee is there that 6 months down the line you don't up with a Braverman government?

Once they've got your vote the loony members can elect who they like.

Hmmm.

Just had a visit from a gentlemen establishing a new milk round in the area from a local dairy.

Andy_JS said:

"Why British women are so unhappy
Sadness is chic
"Julie Burchill

Being jolly has for some time been seen to be the mark of a peasant"

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-british-women-are-so-unhappy/

The quality of Julie Burchill's writing is no better than when she wrote for the NME fifty years ago. And she wasn't very good back in the day.

Starmer is the hedgehog in Berlin’s famous metaphor.

Britain hasn’t had a good one of those since Attlee.
But see also Merkel (supposedly now discredited, but respect must be paid to the longevity of her tenure, and surely superior to her predecessor and her successor).

northern_monkey said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

DougSeal said:

GIN1138 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Well the warning signs have been there for a long time. Supporting Corbyn, then booting him out. The curry night in lockdown. Sue Gray's appointment.

SKS being an unprincipled chancer with no conviction and no policies isn't a new development. The only difference is that now the election is getting closer, he and Labour are (rightly) starting to get more scrutiny.

The Tories are so despised that the increased Lab scrutiny won't be enough to deny Labour from forming the next government, but as I keep saying, the warning lights are flashing in bright red for what that Labour government will be like...

Oh, FFS.

He kicked out Corbyn because Corbyn refused to accept criticisms set out in an independent report into antisemitism the party had commissioned. That was principled. Keeping him because of party loyalty would have been unprincipled. Can you imagine the reaction on here if Starmer had allowed Corbyn to stay?

There was no curry night in lockdown. Not even the most one-eyed Tory called it a "curry night". The event in question wasn't even at night.

I must have missed the problem with Sue Gray. How was here appointment different from, say, appointing Dominic Cummings?

He's dull, boring and not my first choice as leader but the shit he gets from all sides on here is deranged. I can't think of a more hated politician and I can't fathom why.

Having a curry after work with colleagues was as much a violation of Covid lockdown rules as (m)any other such violations.

No it wasn’t. The rules were different in 2021.

Please tell me you are more intelligent than that ?

Were they now. The rules weren't of course the law and all of the rules and the law and the regulations were designed to prevent cross-infection. Something that didn't appear to trouble SKS in the slightest.

This rears it's head every couple of weeks, someone else keeps losing their nut over Currygate, isam i think.

People point out again and again that it wasn't against the rules in place at the time. If it had been they'd have done him and he'd be gone. They didn't and he's still here.

First off "the rules" is meaningless. It is meaningless because there were things that were advice and rules and guidance and regulations and then actually illegal. Probably one person in 10,000 could know the difference (I was one of them). And secondly, all the rules and guidance and whatnot were in place supposedly to prevent cross infection. And it turned our that SKS, who petitioned vocally for longer, harder lockdowns for presumably just this reason, didn't really think it was that much of a problem.

MattW said:

Hmmm.

Just had a visit from a gentlemen establishing a new milk round in the area from a local dairy.

We just had a visit from a lady testing our tapwater this morning. I've heard of this before, but we've never had one come knocking.

https://www.anglianwater.co.uk/services/water/looking-after-your-water/monitoring-drinking-water-quality/

It seems to me that Sunak's speech sets up a question to which he may not wish to hear the answer.

He paints a picture of great dangers and great opportunities in the next few years - so who do you want to take charge of dealing with that? The answer, rather obviously, is "not you, Prime Minister".

wooliedyed said:

Unless I'm misreading, Rishi has hit his lowest personal ratings on Deltapoll. Well done that man

That's just the workings of entropy. Over time, Prime Ministers become less popular. This is a really poignant graph that IPSOS produce;



https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-04/ipsos-political-monitor-april-2024-charts.pdf

Which isn't to say that Sunak isn't doing terribly.

Gardenwalker said:

Starmer is the hedgehog in Berlin’s famous metaphor.

Britain hasn’t had a good one of those since Attlee.
But see also Merkel (supposedly now discredited, but respect must be paid to the longevity of her tenure, and surely superior to her predecessor and her successor).

Archilochus...

wooliedyed said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

It seems to me that Sunak's speech sets up a question to which he may not wish to hear the answer.

He paints a picture of great dangers and great opportunities in the next few years - so who do you want to take charge of dealing with that? The answer, rather obviously, is not you Prime Minister.

Pitching to the large swathe of 2019 Tory to DKs and, to a lesser extent, Reform. Everything he does from here is about maximising his losing percentage of the vote

I don't see how that pitches to them. It simply reminds them why they parted ways.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

wooliedyed said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

It seems to me that Sunak's speech sets up a question to which he may not wish to hear the answer.

He paints a picture of great dangers and great opportunities in the next few years - so who do you want to take charge of dealing with that? The answer, rather obviously, is not you Prime Minister.

Pitching to the large swathe of 2019 Tory to DKs and, to a lesser extent, Reform. Everything he does from here is about maximising his losing percentage of the vote

I don't see how that pitches to them. It simply reminds them why they parted ways.

Because he's putting himself up as the stop Labour guy. Danger ahead, stick with us, labour is a risk.
It won't work, it'll add little to his score but he's out of road so it is what it is, a load of desperate shite

turbotubbs said:

Mexicanpete said:

turbotubbs said:

DougSeal said:

GIN1138 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.

Well the warning signs have been there for a long time. Supporting Corbyn, then booting him out. The curry night in lockdown. Sue Gray's appointment.

SKS being an unprincipled chancer with no conviction and no policies isn't a new development. The only difference is that now the election is getting closer, he and Labour are (rightly) starting to get more scrutiny.

The Tories are so despised that the increased Lab scrutiny won't be enough to deny Labour from forming the next government, but as I keep saying, the warning lights are flashing in bright red for what that Labour government will be like...

Oh, FFS.

He kicked out Corbyn because Corbyn refused to accept criticisms set out in an independent report into antisemitism the party had commissioned. That was principled. Keeping him because of party loyalty would have been unprincipled. Can you imagine the reaction on here if Starmer had allowed Corbyn to stay?

There was no curry night in lockdown. Not even the most one-eyed Tory called it a "curry night". The event in question wasn't even at night.

I must have missed the problem with Sue Gray. How was here appointment different from, say, appointing Dominic Cummings?

He's dull, boring and not my first choice as leader but the shit he gets from all sides on here is deranged. I can't think of a more hated politician and I can't fathom why.

Arguably Sue Grey/Gray was tapped up, in the style of football managers (you are not supposed to approach other club's mangers without asking permission, but of course to do so implies you may want to change your current one, which leaks out etc). The suggestion is that she lacked impartiality in her report on partygate. An alternative is that she is someone who knows how the civil service works and is an excellent appointment.

Re currygate, I have been pretty clear that I think Starmer probably did break the regulations, but in a trivial way. He also played a blinder with his pledge to to resign - no police force was ever going to force the leader of the opposition to resign over a covid 'parking ticket' My issue with Starmer is that he was always attacking from the I would be more cautious side - longer lockdowns etc. He failed to articulate or convince that he was aware of the other costs of that approach.

AIUI Corbyn did accept the criticisms of the report, but did so in a rather mealy mouthed way.

Yeah but you had your violin out for Johnson when he was "ambushed by a cake".

I can't help believing what I believe. I'm sorry if politely disagreeing is so wrong nowadays. I have always maintained that the 'parties' Johnson was at were not the hedonistic raves depicted in the TV programme. I think he believed they were sticking to the rules. Doesn't mean he was right, and yes he and the rest of them should have done better.

The whole 10 Downing Street operation seemed aware but Johnson alone thought he was sticking to the rules?

OK.

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Donkeys said:

Leon said:

Roger said:

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

Roger said:

Just read through the last thread. Incredible the number of fine posters on PB who have been banned yet the likes of Livermore who would probably be banned from most Nazi sites just sail on spreading their ignorant poison

Calling for other posters to be banned is not an engaging attribute imo.

As for Blanche, I disagree with their take on Gaza and on the benefits system but it hardly struck me as something that 'would probably be banned from most Nazi sites'.

Get a grip Roger.

What is this list of banned posters?

A number of people have left, but the list of banned is pretty small.

Stuart ....Ishmael....and several other Scottish posters.

And in their place we have posters like this;

"Do the Palestinians who want their kids to be martyrs have kids because they want dead Jews, or because they want the Hamas endowment? "

Even Braverman might think twice before posting this fascistic drivel. It's ugly and ill informed. My question was not to get Livermore banned but to wonder what these other posters could have written that was considered worse?

Er, that’s a totally fair question. Let’s go through it

1. Do some Palestinians WANT their sons to be martyrs? Yes, absolutely. We have tons of evidence of this. Young Gazans grow up in a theo-fascist statelet which inculcates the glory of martyrdom into them. Their parents go along with it, some embrace it (cf trans….)

2. If they want their kids to be martyred, why is that? there are two obvious reasons

2a they think killing Jews in Israel is a noble and holy cause; they want Jews in Israel dead

2b (less likely but plausible, perhaps in combination with the above) they believe it will advance the family as a whole. Gain them social status. This is hardly unknown - families sacrifice sons in martial societies in exchange for esteem and position

There. Sorted for you. @BlancheLivermore was making an entirely rational if polemical point

"Gazans"? "Theo-fascist statelet"? Remind me how most Palestinian families in Gaza got there, and also which side has bombed the churches.

You're throwing shit at Palestinians for getting killed. Apparently even when they get killed it's because they're so sick and Jew-haty that they want to be killed.

Are you denying Gaza is a “theo-fascist statelet”? Because it really is. They throw gays off buildings dontchaknow

I’ve not said a word about Israel. But here’s a few words: Israel’s behaviour is barbaric, demonic even. I’ve discussed before that they seem so traumatised by the Holocaust they are intent on re-enacting one; like abused children who reiterate that abuse in later life

But radical Islam has not done a lot to win friends in the last 40 years so I have almost zero sympathy for anyone associated with it

Quite frankly I’m bored and sickened by the whole thing and I’m tired of it hijacking global politics taking attention away from more deserving communities and problems

Let them fight to the death and be done with it

It's all immensely boring. I might prefer Israel because they're industrious, developed, Westernised and more liberal - we all know Palestine would be like another Lebanon in the counterfactual - and they run it better but it's really fucking boring and has been since at least the 1930s.

What is not - or should not be - immensely boring is the level of abuse and hatred levelled at Jews in this country by fellow citizens in recent months. It should shame us.

We can do little or nothing about what happens in the Middle East. We can and should do something about how people are treated here. Instead we barely notice, for instance, that the Green Councillor elected in Oldham is one of those whose threats against the Jewish chaplain at Leeds University led to him and his family having to go into hiding.

The vast majority of my Jewish friends and relatives are far more discomforted by what the Israelis are doing in their name in Gaza than they are by any slights in this country of which I have so far heard of none.