In search of signs of election activity, I've wandered around pretty much every shopping area and main street in the both the eastern (yesterday) and western (this afternoon) legs of the Islington North constituency and can report... nothing.
No leaflets, no posters, no presence on the streets, no sign of any canvassing activity.
I realise that the campaign hasn't officially started yet, but I would have thought that Corbyn would have wanted to take advantage of the bank holiday - getting a load of volunteers in to make their presence felt, offering social proof that "everyone's going to vote Corbyn", and cementing expectations of a win right from the start.
My expectation for this seat was that Corbyn would run a noisy by-election style campaign, and that the big question was whether Labour would be able to do anything to match it. But what if that doesn't happen, and things remain muted on both sides? Well, in that case, I think it would likely result in a narrow Labour win.
I don't suppose it'll turn out like that, though - Corbyn has always been an effective campaigner, so I still expect things to get off the ground sooner rather than later....
Corbyn is now 75 years old. Maybe he’s just had enough and like Sunak is just going through the motions.
Same could be said of the average tory and reform member.. they are old.... the whole right has no demographic future.... also it is spent as a political movement. All its energies gone. The age of the millenial is upon us. They will dominate for the next 30 years.
Which suggests the next iteration of the Tory party might build from some of the 'new right': younger, harder edged, less globalist, very anti-woke. Proud Boys/Yaxley-Lennon might provide a model.
Alternatively they return to centrist Dad territory to tempt back those who are currently Labour. I've been surprised by the number of people I generally see eye-to-eye with on here (eg @numbertwelve, @Stuartinromford and others) describe themselves as centre right and/or more naturally Tory than Labour.
Young uneducated white men don't have the numbers... not by a long shot. I was going for a completely different kind of centre right: progressive and pro-eu. That is where the sustainable numbers are.
I spend most of my working life with lots of young, uneducated white men. Màny of them are so woke they'd cause apoplexy on this site.
True, but you must also have noticed the echoes of Tate's messaging amongst some in that group recently.
Admittedly it was a bit of a bubble that has now burst, but we had quite a bit of it in school.
Notwithstanding that, I agree with @Cleitophon and @Ghedebrav that the numbers are small.
I did. But the majority thought Tate to be a massive asshat.
Very likely. Pensions, VAT and ISAs haven't been "pledged" and are natural targets for additional taxation, and a significant tightening of allowances and tax relief.
I note they haven't pledged to freeze Council Tax either.
Council Tax needs to be significantly increased. It would still be cheaper than constant car suspension repairs due to potholes, the effects on children of underfunded schools, or shortage of care home places.
I found myself rewatching Series 1 of House of Cards again last night - US not UK, the latter being before my time.
If you can get past the question marks surrounding Kevin Spacey then I’d forgotten just what a fantastic piece of political drama it is, especially in the early stages.
All the Machiavellian chthonic depths of political life right there.
Perfect viewing for an election campaign
It is but its a complete copy of the UK version which was sublime
I found myself rewatching Series 1 of House of Cards again last night - US not UK, the latter being before my time.
If you can get past the question marks surrounding Kevin Spacey then I’d forgotten just what a fantastic piece of political drama it is, especially in the early stages.
All the Machiavellian chthonic depths of political life right there.
Perfect viewing for an election campaign
Yes. It petered out in later series, but I enjoyed the first very much.
Very likely. Pensions, VAT and ISAs haven't been "pledged" and are natural targets for additional taxation, and a significant tightening of allowances and tax relief.
I note they haven't pledged to freeze Council Tax either.
As I've said before, scaling back ISAs is a kick in the teeth for small time savers, but the money to try to start fixing the decrepit state has to come from somewhere - and I can stomach it so long as Labour doesn't take another leaf out of the Tory playbook by screwing over the plebs whilst letting richer people off with token measures. If they won't do that with new property taxes then the least they can do is abolish higher rate tax relief on pension contributions. If those of us putting away relatively small sums from more modest incomes are to be stripped of some of our perks then people like hospital consultants and senior civil servants salting away big money so they can quit for a life on the golf course and cruise holidays at 55 should bloody well have to share the pain, too.
On the Labour response to the National Service , I dont think they should be mocking it as a teenage Dad's army - for two reasons - one it sounds like teenagers are incompetent and secondly , Dad's army and its characters were loved by the GBP (probably for at least trying to do their bit) . I dont agree with National Service but dont mock the community sentiment behind it - Cameron with his Big Society idea was mocked but again it felt a bit mean to many people
Dads army was a great comedy, with fantastic characters. Yes most of the time we laugh at the incompetence etc but every now and then something else shines through. In one episode they believe that the Germans are on their way, and you are left with no doubt that these lovable and laughable men would have died choking in their own blood (pace Churchill). In reality of cause the Home Guard was an awful lot of men who were (a) in the forties and fifties and (b) had served in WW1. They would have been a very useful force, given the weapons they needed.
The Conservative Party will outperform expectations on 4 July, and will get more than 200 seats. The LibDems will more than double their seat count, and will do rather better in terms of vote share than the current polls predict, but will miss out on a dozen seats by small margins. The SNP will hold on to their number two spot, getting around 30 seats. And Labour will manage an inverse of 2019, achieving a majority of around 80.
You heard it here first.
How do you come to this conclusion?
Simples:
(a) Sea changes don't happen very often. A reversion to the mean is much more likely than a new paradigm. Not impossible, of course, but (like recessions) they are predicted far more often than they actually happen.
(b) The LibDems often flatter to deceive, and it's hard to get 30+ seats on a low teens vote share. Not impossible (see the LD performance in Scotland for a clear demonstration of extremely efficient vote), but unlikely.
(c) Campaign gaffs and the like don't usually make that much difference. See Pussygate, etc.
(d) The Reform vote (see council elections / byelections / etc) doesn't actually seem to actually, you know, vote. And I think that in close races, there is plenty of opportunity for them to be squeezed. Which Reform voter wants to let in a LibDem?
(e) The Labour vote is usually overstated somewhat by the polls. (See London)
I wonder where LDs will end up on polling day.
I think they were 16-17% in 1997, and notched up from 10-12% at the start of the campaign.
I tend to agree they will outperform polls. My guesstimate is 13.5% on election day (GB).
Does anyone doubt that Netanyahu and his thugs are irredeemable monsters who don't care a fig for any life that doesn't belong to an Israeli?
Channel 4 News is unwatchable
“The creatures outside looked from Hitler to Netanyahu, and from Netanyahu to Hitler, and from Hitler to Netanyahu again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
It can only get better from here for the Tories. The media will want a new narrative in a few days. Still think a small Conservative majority is value.
I know you got a lot of people disagreeing, and I notice you were careful to say Conservative majority is VALUE (not expected) but I still remember 1992. I still remember John Major's 1997 vote which was (I think) 30.7% UK wide.
Lets be honest. A lot of people tell pollsters a load of old horseshit. They tell themselves a load of lies. They'll never vote Labour ever again! What has Peter Dowd ever done for me.... result? Labour HOLD Bootle, with an increased majority, up to 120% now, from 110%.
Personally: The floor of any vote for the Conservatives is probably 29%. The floor for Labour about 27% The floor for the LD is 7% The floor for the SNP is 2%
Put them all together, and you get 65%. But you know what? That feels about right. John Bird and John Fortune did a funny sketch pre-1997 election where they (correctly) said that the upcoming election would be decided by the people who can't decide. Stewart Lee, that staunch Conservative (!) said in one of his sketches, "In the 80s, everyone hated the Tories! The nurses hated the Tories, the miners hated the Tories, the teachers hated the Tories. EVERYONE hated the Tories........ *beat* which is why they continuously won election after election during that time."
Everyone hates the Tories. They'll hate them on 4th July too..... won't stop them voting for them anyway.
They won't win, but a hung parliament is certainly not off the cards. And a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party should be ruled out either.
The Conservative Party will outperform expectations on 4 July, and will get more than 200 seats. The LibDems will more than double their seat count, and will do rather better in terms of vote share than the current polls predict, but will miss out on a dozen seats by small margins. The SNP will hold on to their number two spot, getting around 30 seats. And Labour will manage an inverse of 2019, achieving a majority of around 80.
You heard it here first.
You could be right Robert. History would support your kind of assessment.
However, I don’t think it’s based on reading the room. (At the moment.)
Sunak will implode and the party with him. I'm predicting Where He Will Live If He Loses will become a big issue - ironically, because who gives a toss? But it is an easy attack line especially after Akshata's non dom wriggles. And the I want to stay here to support my team line is phony even for him.
There've been rumbles about this already, ever since he published his suspiciously-lacking-in-detail UK tax return.
It now seems almost certain that he's been paying tax in the US too - but why? If he's truly a UK domiciled UK citizen, why wouldn't he just fill in a W8-BEN like everyone else who owns shares or property or other sources of income in the US?
The only possible reason is that he actually does have US citizenship, or that he hasn't given up his green card after all.
Labour have been plugging away at this, asking a question about it every couple of weeks at PMQs and the like. I wonder if it might prove to be a bit of a bombshell later in the election campaign.
As per the previous thread, the New Statesman / Britain Elects prediction for Richmond and Northallerton is Con 33.2 (-30.1%), Lab 26.1% (+9.7%), Ref 13.9% (+13.9%)
But. If he's locally unpopular, AND seen to be a) likely to do a runner to the States by September and b) something comes out about his tax returns or citizenship status during the campaign, there may be value in a flutter. The only odds I can find at the moment are 5/1 on Labour at William Hill, but I'm not particularly tempted at those odds. Worth watching to see if it gets priced up anywhere else, though.
@joerichlaw CCHQ has been frantically calling up some strange people to fill ‘shortlists’ for these seats. A friend of mine, who is already selected as a LibDem Parliamentary candidate, got a call. Really odd - especially when they are blocking so many @Conservatives from standing.
I expect some in this CCHQ would probably prefer a LD parliamentary candidate to a Boris supporting Conservative
The whole filthy CCHQ organisation needs to be sacked and start again.
Something the more extreme Trussites and Borisites might agree on. However, at the moment you should spare a thought for CCHQ because they have three simultaneous massive tasks, any one of which alone will likely overwhelm then.
run this election campaign and its logistics of designing and printing leaflets and booking helicopters and battlebuses;
produce a manifesto from thin air
find (and vet and impose) at least 150 more candidates by 7th June, which is to say by the end of next week, and they still do not have the full list of which existing MPs are standing down
And all because Rishi called a snap election? Or because CCHQ was complacent and incompetent because they must have known an election was due soon even if they thought they had another couple of months?
Could the Telegraph be trying to nudge older voters away from voting Labour?
Tom McPhail has written this piece previously on a different site. A pensions guy, not a Telegraph hack, and has been warning this for a while including on last weeks Merryn Talks Money podcast.
His view seems to be labour are going to win, what does that mean for you.
I think it good sense to try to anticipate what a labour govt will mean for me financially.
Very likely. Pensions, VAT and ISAs haven't been "pledged" and are natural targets for additional taxation, and a significant tightening of allowances and tax relief.
I note they haven't pledged to freeze Council Tax either.
Council Tax needs to be significantly increased. It would still be cheaper than constant car suspension repairs due to potholes, the effects on children of underfunded schools, or shortage of care home places.
Total reform or outright replacement is needed. The fact that a colossal mansion in band H only attracts three times the charge of a mouldy bedsit in band A is f***ing obscene.
In search of signs of election activity, I've wandered around pretty much every shopping area and main street in the both the eastern (yesterday) and western (this afternoon) legs of the Islington North constituency and can report... nothing.
No leaflets, no posters, no presence on the streets, no sign of any canvassing activity.
I realise that the campaign hasn't officially started yet, but I would have thought that Corbyn would have wanted to take advantage of the bank holiday - getting a load of volunteers in to make their presence felt, offering social proof that "everyone's going to vote Corbyn", and cementing expectations of a win right from the start.
My expectation for this seat was that Corbyn would run a noisy by-election style campaign, and that the big question was whether Labour would be able to do anything to match it. But what if that doesn't happen, and things remain muted on both sides? Well, in that case, I think it would likely result in a narrow Labour win.
I don't suppose it'll turn out like that, though - Corbyn has always been an effective campaigner, so I still expect things to get off the ground sooner rather than later....
Corbyn is now 75 years old. Maybe he’s just had enough and like Sunak is just going through the motions.
Big question in Islington North is could the Greens come through the middle, if the Labour vote is evenly split?
It's possible - at the last council elections in 2022, the greens topped the poll in the Highbury ward, and came second in 6 of the other 7 wards that make up the seat.
It sounds, though, like they're not particularly interested in making a fight of it - essentially, they're passively supporting Corbyn:
"GREEN Party strategists want to keep the election contest in Islington North “as boring as possible”, strategy notes seen by the Tribune reveal.
Sheridan Kates, who lives in Highbury Corner, has been named as their candidate but notes from an internal meeting held in March reveal that the party is not hopeful of winning the seat and is mindful of taking votes away from Jeremy Corbyn, who is now standing as an independent MP and is likely to be Labour’s biggest opposition in the constituency." https://www.islingtontribune.co.uk/article/keep-it-boring-is-the-green-strategy
Very likely. Pensions, VAT and ISAs haven't been "pledged" and are natural targets for additional taxation, and a significant tightening of allowances and tax relief.
I note they haven't pledged to freeze Council Tax either.
Council Tax needs to be significantly increased. It would still be cheaper than constant car suspension repairs due to potholes, the effects on children of underfunded schools, or shortage of care home places.
They may well look at the bands and increasing the top of the range.
A fun* day our shooting video for social media. Now a pile of editing to do.
Met my Labour opponent! Nice guy, not from the constituency, doesn't sound like he is running a campaign.
What’s your constituency?
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Ok thanks - good luck!
Can’t be many longer constituency names than that.
There was a bit of research from QMUL that pointed out that constituency names have been getting ever longer since WWII from a mean of 12.8 characters (median 12) in 1950 to mean 15.8 (median 15) now. Part of this will be local pandering, I remember David Laws making a big thing about wanting Yeovil to be renamed Yeovil and Chard in the 2010 boundary review.
Stephen McGann @StephenMcGann · 1h If I can't be a Tory candidate, then I definitely want a job as the Greek customs officer that keeps Steve Baker waiting 4 hours in the Non-EU passport control queue.
@joerichlaw CCHQ has been frantically calling up some strange people to fill ‘shortlists’ for these seats. A friend of mine, who is already selected as a LibDem Parliamentary candidate, got a call. Really odd - especially when they are blocking so many @Conservatives from standing.
I expect some in this CCHQ would probably prefer a LD parliamentary candidate to a Boris supporting Conservative
The whole filthy CCHQ organisation needs to be sacked and start again.
Something the more extreme Trussites and Borisites might agree on. However, at the moment you should spare a thought for CCHQ because they have three simultaneous massive tasks, any one of which alone will likely overwhelm then.
run this election campaign and its logistics of designing and printing leaflets and booking helicopters and battlebuses;
produce a manifesto from thin air
find (and vet and impose) at least 150 more candidates by 7th June, which is to say by the end of next week, and they still do not have the full list of which existing MPs are standing down
And all because Rishi called a snap election? Or because CCHQ was complacent and incompetent because they must have known an election was due soon even if they thought they had another couple of months?
Our local Tory MP declared that he was standing down in January after about 82 years, yet there's still no sign of a replacement candidate being announced. Local associations must also be at least partly responsible for this as well. You wonder how many have got around to starting the selection process, even though they knew an election was coming sooner rather than later. Meanwhile, the local Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and RefUK are all ready to roll. Well organised it ain't.
Very likely. Pensions, VAT and ISAs haven't been "pledged" and are natural targets for additional taxation, and a significant tightening of allowances and tax relief.
I note they haven't pledged to freeze Council Tax either.
Council Tax needs to be significantly increased. It would still be cheaper than constant car suspension repairs due to potholes, the effects on children of underfunded schools, or shortage of care home places.
They may well look at the bands and increasing the top of the range.
It needs abolishing and replacing altogether.
I'd replace it (and Stamp Duty and all other land-based taxes) with a single Land Value Tax. Levied nationally, not locally.
@joerichlaw CCHQ has been frantically calling up some strange people to fill ‘shortlists’ for these seats. A friend of mine, who is already selected as a LibDem Parliamentary candidate, got a call. Really odd - especially when they are blocking so many @Conservatives from standing.
I expect some in this CCHQ would probably prefer a LD parliamentary candidate to a Boris supporting Conservative
The whole filthy CCHQ organisation needs to be sacked and start again.
Something the more extreme Trussites and Borisites might agree on. However, at the moment you should spare a thought for CCHQ because they have three simultaneous massive tasks, any one of which alone will likely overwhelm then.
run this election campaign and its logistics of designing and printing leaflets and booking helicopters and battlebuses;
produce a manifesto from thin air
find (and vet and impose) at least 150 more candidates by 7th June, which is to say by the end of next week, and they still do not have the full list of which existing MPs are standing down
And all because Rishi called a snap election? Or because CCHQ was complacent and incompetent because they must have known an election was due soon even if they thought they had another couple of months?
I wouldn't feel too sorry for them, they seem to he doing their usual of using it as an opportunity to scour their phonebooks for proven Lib Dems to put up as preferred candidates.
In search of signs of election activity, I've wandered around pretty much every shopping area and main street in the both the eastern (yesterday) and western (this afternoon) legs of the Islington North constituency and can report... nothing.
No leaflets, no posters, no presence on the streets, no sign of any canvassing activity.
I realise that the campaign hasn't officially started yet, but I would have thought that Corbyn would have wanted to take advantage of the bank holiday - getting a load of volunteers in to make their presence felt, offering social proof that "everyone's going to vote Corbyn", and cementing expectations of a win right from the start.
My expectation for this seat was that Corbyn would run a noisy by-election style campaign, and that the big question was whether Labour would be able to do anything to match it. But what if that doesn't happen, and things remain muted on both sides? Well, in that case, I think it would likely result in a narrow Labour win.
I don't suppose it'll turn out like that, though - Corbyn has always been an effective campaigner, so I still expect things to get off the ground sooner rather than later....
Corbyn is now 75 years old. Maybe he’s just had enough and like Sunak is just going through the motions.
Big question in Islington North is could the Greens come through the middle, if the Labour vote is evenly split?
It's possible - at the last council elections in 2022, the greens topped the poll in the Highbury ward, and came second in 6 of the other 7 wards that make up the seat.
It sounds, though, like they're not particularly interested in making a fight of it - essentially, they're passively supporting Corbyn:
"GREEN Party strategists want to keep the election contest in Islington North “as boring as possible”, strategy notes seen by the Tribune reveal.
Sheridan Kates, who lives in Highbury Corner, has been named as their candidate but notes from an internal meeting held in March reveal that the party is not hopeful of winning the seat and is mindful of taking votes away from Jeremy Corbyn, who is now standing as an independent MP and is likely to be Labour’s biggest opposition in the constituency." https://www.islingtontribune.co.uk/article/keep-it-boring-is-the-green-strategy
Isn't the basic problem that they're effectively fighting for the same left of Labour 'protest' votes as Corbyn? That would help them in council elections, where they could be a repository of Lab votes annoyed at the defenestration of the High Marrow. But surely in Islington North there aren't that many voters who are so wedded to the Greens rather than broadly that kind of left politics, they'd vote for the party over Jezza? Though elsewhere it's true where there's a more NIMBY, Toryish Green vote. Seems unlikely there.
I blame Sunak for the lack of polls: who calls an election before a bank holiday weekend in the middle of school half term?
Has he no respect for the need for a constant stream of reliable polls for us to scrutinise? How will we know if changes are due to holiday polling idiosyncrasies, Rain-on-Rishi, or forcing kids* to do some proper work like we** used to?
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
Have Labour HQ ordered a job lot of parachutes? Lot of safe seat step downs today. Still no Tories since Leadsom? I thought they were expecting loads this weekend?
That always struck me as the expectations game. It always appeared likely that some MPs who had not announced an intention but had thought it through and decided they would go (either whatever or if it seemed very unlikely the election was winnable). It seemed less likely they'd ponder it for days then announce it - Gove, Leadsom and others most likely knew their plan the moment the election was called, and it was just about making the announcement.
Gove was a shock (to an extent), so it makes some sense for the Conservatives to brief about concerns there may be many more, then present it as the ship being steadied when there weren't.
None of it detracts from the big picture - as in 2010 and 1997, there are a heck of a lot of incumbent party MPs calling it a day, including people who'd expect to be in senior roles if their party were to win, which tells a story about the way they see the wind blowing.
A fun* day our shooting video for social media. Now a pile of editing to do.
Met my Labour opponent! Nice guy, not from the constituency, doesn't sound like he is running a campaign.
What’s your constituency?
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
I see that the constituency includes St Fergus and Peterhead. Where all the investment in the Acorn CCS cluster is supposed to happen. And create plenty of jobs. A mischievous LibDem could put the word about that the Tories would cancel the project if they get reelected. Force them to deny it.
A fun* day our shooting video for social media. Now a pile of editing to do.
Met my Labour opponent! Nice guy, not from the constituency, doesn't sound like he is running a campaign.
What’s your constituency?
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Ok thanks - good luck!
Can’t be many longer constituency names than that.
There was a bit of research from QMUL that pointed out that constituency names have been getting ever longer since WWII from a mean of 12.8 characters (median 12) in 1950 to mean 15.8 (median 15) now. Part of this will be local pandering, I remember David Laws making a big thing about wanting Yeovil to be renamed Yeovil and Chard in the 2010 boundary review.
Mine must be one of the shorter ones at seven letters.
In search of signs of election activity, I've wandered around pretty much every shopping area and main street in the both the eastern (yesterday) and western (this afternoon) legs of the Islington North constituency and can report... nothing.
No leaflets, no posters, no presence on the streets, no sign of any canvassing activity.
I realise that the campaign hasn't officially started yet, but I would have thought that Corbyn would have wanted to take advantage of the bank holiday - getting a load of volunteers in to make their presence felt, offering social proof that "everyone's going to vote Corbyn", and cementing expectations of a win right from the start.
My expectation for this seat was that Corbyn would run a noisy by-election style campaign, and that the big question was whether Labour would be able to do anything to match it. But what if that doesn't happen, and things remain muted on both sides? Well, in that case, I think it would likely result in a narrow Labour win.
I don't suppose it'll turn out like that, though - Corbyn has always been an effective campaigner, so I still expect things to get off the ground sooner rather than later....
Corbyn is now 75 years old. Maybe he’s just had enough and like Sunak is just going through the motions.
Same could be said of the average tory and reform member.. they are old.... the whole right has no demographic future.... also it is spent as a political movement. All its energies gone. The age of the millenial is upon us. They will dominate for the next 30 years.
Which suggests the next iteration of the Tory party might build from some of the 'new right': younger, harder edged, less globalist, very anti-woke. Proud Boys/Yaxley-Lennon might provide a model.
Alternatively they return to centrist Dad territory to tempt back those who are currently Labour. I've been surprised by the number of people I generally see eye-to-eye with on here (eg @numbertwelve, @Stuartinromford and others) describe themselves as centre right and/or more naturally Tory than Labour.
Young uneducated white men don't have the numbers... not by a long shot. I was going for a completely different kind of centre right: progressive and pro-eu. That is where the sustainable numbers are.
The progessives who want to unite with all the white European countries, as opposed to the racist little Englanders who don't know their smörgåsbord from their ironing board.
More sycophantic reporting from the BBC reporter following Sunak around . She’s not there to call Sunaks national service plan bold .
Don’t these reporters realize that another 5 years of the Tories will spell the end of the BBC .
Has Laura Kuenssberg mentioned how odd it is for Rishi Sunak to go to a non-league football ground yet?
CCHQ: Starmer has visited lower tier football grounds. We don't know why but it must be an idea of Machiavellian genius. Book Rishi into the first club that will take him.
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
I found myself rewatching Series 1 of House of Cards again last night - US not UK, the latter being before my time.
If you can get past the question marks surrounding Kevin Spacey then I’d forgotten just what a fantastic piece of political drama it is, especially in the early stages.
All the Machiavellian chthonic depths of political life right there.
Perfect viewing for an election campaign
It is but its a complete copy of the UK version which was sublime
Wasn’t Michael Dobbs involved on both?
I like the high production standards on the US one, and the fab music in the title sequence, but maybe I should try and get hold of the UK one?
I found myself rewatching Series 1 of House of Cards again last night - US not UK, the latter being before my time.
If you can get past the question marks surrounding Kevin Spacey then I’d forgotten just what a fantastic piece of political drama it is, especially in the early stages.
All the Machiavellian chthonic depths of political life right there.
Perfect viewing for an election campaign
It is but its a complete copy of the UK version which was sublime
Wasn’t Michael Dobbs involved on both?
I like the high production standards on the US one, and the fab music in the title sequence, but maybe I should try and get hold of the UK one?
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
Its completely deniable.
It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.
But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
The Conservative Party will outperform expectations on 4 July, and will get more than 200 seats. The LibDems will more than double their seat count, and will do rather better in terms of vote share than the current polls predict, but will miss out on a dozen seats by small margins. The SNP will hold on to their number two spot, getting around 30 seats. And Labour will manage an inverse of 2019, achieving a majority of around 80.
You heard it here first.
How do you come to this conclusion?
Simples:
(a) Sea changes don't happen very often. A reversion to the mean is much more likely than a new paradigm. Not impossible, of course, but (like recessions) they are predicted far more often than they actually happen.
(b) The LibDems often flatter to deceive, and it's hard to get 30+ seats on a low teens vote share. Not impossible (see the LD performance in Scotland for a clear demonstration of extremely efficient vote), but unlikely.
(c) Campaign gaffs and the like don't usually make that much difference. See Pussygate, etc.
(d) The Reform vote (see council elections / byelections / etc) doesn't actually seem to actually, you know, vote. And I think that in close races, there is plenty of opportunity for them to be squeezed. Which Reform voter wants to let in a LibDem?
(e) The Labour vote is usually overstated somewhat by the polls. (See London)
I wonder where LDs will end up on polling day.
I think they were 16-17% in 1997, and notched up from 10-12% at the start of the campaign.
There is no cast iron rule that the LDs improve in the polls as the election goes on. They can just as easily get squeezed.
During the course of the 2019 campaign, the LDs went backwards with a vengence. At the end of October, as parliament was voting through the bill to allow the general election, they stood at about 18%-19% in the polls and were talking about winning loads of seats. Then they went backwards very rapidly and ended up below 12% with Swinson losing her seat, amid recriminations that they targeted seats far too broadly at the expense of campaigns in seats that they had a realistic chance of winning.
A fun* day our shooting video for social media. Now a pile of editing to do.
Met my Labour opponent! Nice guy, not from the constituency, doesn't sound like he is running a campaign.
What’s your constituency?
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Ok thanks - good luck!
Can’t be many longer constituency names than that.
There was a bit of research from QMUL that pointed out that constituency names have been getting ever longer since WWII from a mean of 12.8 characters (median 12) in 1950 to mean 15.8 (median 15) now. Part of this will be local pandering, I remember David Laws making a big thing about wanting Yeovil to be renamed Yeovil and Chard in the 2010 boundary review.
Adding the name of your favourite vegetable to the constituency name seems somewhat unnecessary.
A fun* day our shooting video for social media. Now a pile of editing to do.
Met my Labour opponent! Nice guy, not from the constituency, doesn't sound like he is running a campaign.
What’s your constituency?
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Ok thanks - good luck!
Can’t be many longer constituency names than that.
There was a bit of research from QMUL that pointed out that constituency names have been getting ever longer since WWII from a mean of 12.8 characters (median 12) in 1950 to mean 15.8 (median 15) now. Part of this will be local pandering, I remember David Laws making a big thing about wanting Yeovil to be renamed Yeovil and Chard in the 2010 boundary review.
Mine must be one of the shorter ones at seven letters.
Shortest is Bath at 4 characters, then there's a number at 5 characters, Fylde, Gower, Lewes, Poole, Rugby, Selby and Wigan. Until 2005 we had Ayr but that's Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock now.
Longest now is Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (40 characters)
"In the UK, renewables are subsidised by three different schemes. Feed-in-Tariffs fund mostly solar power. The latest report for 2022-23 shows the average total payment was >£190/MWh, about 3X the current cost of gas-fired power."
So though we're continually being told that renewables, especially wind, have become cheaper than gas, we're actually paying 3 times the amount for renewable energy than we are for gas, and that includes carbon payments.
This will go up even more when the higher guaranteed price that the Government had to dangle in-front of wind providers to get them to actually bid in the most recent round of auctions feeds into the system. If wind is so cheap, why did we need to increase the price paid by 70%?
The high feed-in tariffs will be from the old scheme that existed when solar panels were a lot more expensive, and the tariffs were reduced as the panels became cheaper, and I believe don't exist for new installations.
So the scheme provides direct evidence of the technology becoming cheaper over time, and the subsidies being removed as a result.
What's your problem exactly?
My problem is that we're consistently told that the price of renewables has fallen beneath that of gas, yet the price to the consumer of renewables is massively above that of gas. So someone appears to be lying, or at least very confused about the relative whereabouts of their arse and their elbow.
Furthermore, even if we exclude all currently built projects, in order to get any new ones built, the Government has to guarantee a price of £73 per MWH. It also doesn't include constraint and other grid balancing costs. The current gas price, still historically high and with the Russian industry having all but halted exports, is only £74.5 per MWH, and has been as low as £23 per MWH in more normal conditions.
The reason for the massive discrepancy between the cheap theory and the expensive reality appears to be that wind farms cost way more to maintain than anyone imagined.
For years, governments have told us of a revolution in windfarms costs. Developers may even have believed it themselves, submitting extraordinarily low bids into the renewables auctions. But for the sums to add up, costs had to go down and output had to go up. So developers shaved engineering margins to the bone and moved to bigger turbines and windier sites far from shore.
The results have been an almost complete disappointment. In the hostile environment of the North Sea, operating costs have soared, and those big turbines have worn out much faster than expected. It seems that engineering margins had been cut too far. This is the real reason developers forced such an astonishing price increase from the Government. They can’t get the costs down in the way that was claimed.
So while DESNZ says that offshore wind has been cheap for many years, the sums demanded at auction, and the hard data from windfarm financial accounts, tell another story.
So we're not making energy cheaper, we're baking in high prices and having to subsidise our own manufacturers to the tune of £4.5bn because they can't afford energy.
I can quite believe judging by your posting oeuvre that you think this is all a jolly good wheeze, but Barty poses as a free marketeer.
Very likely. Pensions, VAT and ISAs haven't been "pledged" and are natural targets for additional taxation, and a significant tightening of allowances and tax relief.
I note they haven't pledged to freeze Council Tax either.
Council Tax needs to be significantly increased. It would still be cheaper than constant car suspension repairs due to potholes, the effects on children of underfunded schools, or shortage of care home places.
They may well look at the bands and increasing the top of the range.
It needs abolishing and replacing altogether.
I'd replace it (and Stamp Duty and all other land-based taxes) with a single Land Value Tax. Levied nationally, not locally.
I found myself rewatching Series 1 of House of Cards again last night - US not UK, the latter being before my time.
If you can get past the question marks surrounding Kevin Spacey then I’d forgotten just what a fantastic piece of political drama it is, especially in the early stages.
All the Machiavellian chthonic depths of political life right there.
Perfect viewing for an election campaign
It is but its a complete copy of the UK version which was sublime
Wasn’t Michael Dobbs involved on both?
I like the high production standards on the US one, and the fab music in the title sequence, but maybe I should try and get hold of the UK one?
You should.
The Final Cut is somewhat meh. Dobbs removed his name from the credits on it due to the funeral in the first episode.
I found myself rewatching Series 1 of House of Cards again last night - US not UK, the latter being before my time.
If you can get past the question marks surrounding Kevin Spacey then I’d forgotten just what a fantastic piece of political drama it is, especially in the early stages.
All the Machiavellian chthonic depths of political life right there.
Perfect viewing for an election campaign
It is but its a complete copy of the UK version which was sublime
Wasn’t Michael Dobbs involved on both?
I like the high production standards on the US one, and the fab music in the title sequence, but maybe I should try and get hold of the UK one?
yes , all the same stuff is there , the explaining to camera , the loyal ruthless wife ,the (eventually murdered) young journalist.
A fun* day our shooting video for social media. Now a pile of editing to do.
Met my Labour opponent! Nice guy, not from the constituency, doesn't sound like he is running a campaign.
What’s your constituency?
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Ok thanks - good luck!
Can’t be many longer constituency names than that.
There was a bit of research from QMUL that pointed out that constituency names have been getting ever longer since WWII from a mean of 12.8 characters (median 12) in 1950 to mean 15.8 (median 15) now. Part of this will be local pandering, I remember David Laws making a big thing about wanting Yeovil to be renamed Yeovil and Chard in the 2010 boundary review.
Mine must be one of the shorter ones at seven letters.
Bath is a four letter word... Shame that they insisted on adding "and East Cambridgeshire" to Ely.
A fun* day our shooting video for social media. Now a pile of editing to do.
Met my Labour opponent! Nice guy, not from the constituency, doesn't sound like he is running a campaign.
What’s your constituency?
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Ok thanks - good luck!
Can’t be many longer constituency names than that.
There was a bit of research from QMUL that pointed out that constituency names have been getting ever longer since WWII from a mean of 12.8 characters (median 12) in 1950 to mean 15.8 (median 15) now. Part of this will be local pandering, I remember David Laws making a big thing about wanting Yeovil to be renamed Yeovil and Chard in the 2010 boundary review.
Adding the name of your favourite vegetable to the constituency name seems somewhat unnecessary.
Oh dear, that's my Beetroot Staines campaign canned before it starts.
More sycophantic reporting from the BBC reporter following Sunak around . She not there to call Sunaks national service plan bold .
Don’t these reporters realize that another 5 years of the Tories will spell the end of the BBC .
The BBC's doom is well out of the hands of the Tories, whether they are in power or not.
The Tories hate the BBC and want it gone to please their media chums . They’ve done nothing but attack it for years.
Yet here it still is and the license fee is safe for the time being.
Their so called media chums object to its unfair advantage when it comes to fund raising for it then to compete against them. They’re right. It’s time to remove the license fee and make the Beeb compete for its funding.
A fun* day our shooting video for social media. Now a pile of editing to do.
Met my Labour opponent! Nice guy, not from the constituency, doesn't sound like he is running a campaign.
What’s your constituency?
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Ok thanks - good luck!
Can’t be many longer constituency names than that.
There was a bit of research from QMUL that pointed out that constituency names have been getting ever longer since WWII from a mean of 12.8 characters (median 12) in 1950 to mean 15.8 (median 15) now. Part of this will be local pandering, I remember David Laws making a big thing about wanting Yeovil to be renamed Yeovil and Chard in the 2010 boundary review.
Mine must be one of the shorter ones at seven letters.
Shortest is Bath at 4 characters, then there's a number at 5 characters, Fylde, Gower, Lewes, Poole, Rugby, Selby and Wigan. Until 2005 we had Ayr but that's Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock now.
Longest now is Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (40 characters)
Should that not be Ayr, Carrick, Cumnock and Turnip?
A fun* day our shooting video for social media. Now a pile of editing to do.
Met my Labour opponent! Nice guy, not from the constituency, doesn't sound like he is running a campaign.
What’s your constituency?
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Ok thanks - good luck!
Can’t be many longer constituency names than that.
There was a bit of research from QMUL that pointed out that constituency names have been getting ever longer since WWII from a mean of 12.8 characters (median 12) in 1950 to mean 15.8 (median 15) now. Part of this will be local pandering, I remember David Laws making a big thing about wanting Yeovil to be renamed Yeovil and Chard in the 2010 boundary review.
Mine must be one of the shorter ones at seven letters.
Bath is a four letter word... Shame that they insisted on adding "and East Cambridgeshire" to Ely.
Yep, I was looking to see if it had only been Ely, but it had been called Isle of Ely up to 1983.
In search of signs of election activity, I've wandered around pretty much every shopping area and main street in the both the eastern (yesterday) and western (this afternoon) legs of the Islington North constituency and can report... nothing.
No leaflets, no posters, no presence on the streets, no sign of any canvassing activity.
I realise that the campaign hasn't officially started yet, but I would have thought that Corbyn would have wanted to take advantage of the bank holiday - getting a load of volunteers in to make their presence felt, offering social proof that "everyone's going to vote Corbyn", and cementing expectations of a win right from the start.
My expectation for this seat was that Corbyn would run a noisy by-election style campaign, and that the big question was whether Labour would be able to do anything to match it. But what if that doesn't happen, and things remain muted on both sides? Well, in that case, I think it would likely result in a narrow Labour win.
I don't suppose it'll turn out like that, though - Corbyn has always been an effective campaigner, so I still expect things to get off the ground sooner rather than later....
Corbyn is now 75 years old. Maybe he’s just had enough and like Sunak is just going through the motions.
Same could be said of the average tory and reform member.. they are old.... the whole right has no demographic future.... also it is spent as a political movement. All its energies gone. The age of the millenial is upon us. They will dominate for the next 30 years.
Which suggests the next iteration of the Tory party might build from some of the 'new right': younger, harder edged, less globalist, very anti-woke. Proud Boys/Yaxley-Lennon might provide a model.
Alternatively they return to centrist Dad territory to tempt back those who are currently Labour. I've been surprised by the number of people I generally see eye-to-eye with on here (eg @numbertwelve, @Stuartinromford and others) describe themselves as centre right and/or more naturally Tory than Labour.
Young uneducated white men don't have the numbers... not by a long shot. I was going for a completely different kind of centre right: progressive and pro-eu. That is where the sustainable numbers are.
The progessives who want to unite with all the white European countries, as opposed to the racist little Englanders who don't know their smörgåsbord from their ironing board.
I bow to nobody in my admiration of the WWC, but I doubt ironing boards are much more plentiful there than smorgasboards. Dart boards now...
A fun* day our shooting video for social media. Now a pile of editing to do.
Met my Labour opponent! Nice guy, not from the constituency, doesn't sound like he is running a campaign.
What’s your constituency?
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Ok thanks - good luck!
Can’t be many longer constituency names than that.
There was a bit of research from QMUL that pointed out that constituency names have been getting ever longer since WWII from a mean of 12.8 characters (median 12) in 1950 to mean 15.8 (median 15) now. Part of this will be local pandering, I remember David Laws making a big thing about wanting Yeovil to be renamed Yeovil and Chard in the 2010 boundary review.
Adding the name of your favourite vegetable to the constituency name seems somewhat unnecessary.
Oh dear, that's my Beetroot Staines campaign canned before it starts.
A fun* day our shooting video for social media. Now a pile of editing to do.
Met my Labour opponent! Nice guy, not from the constituency, doesn't sound like he is running a campaign.
What’s your constituency?
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Ok thanks - good luck!
Can’t be many longer constituency names than that.
There was a bit of research from QMUL that pointed out that constituency names have been getting ever longer since WWII from a mean of 12.8 characters (median 12) in 1950 to mean 15.8 (median 15) now. Part of this will be local pandering, I remember David Laws making a big thing about wanting Yeovil to be renamed Yeovil and Chard in the 2010 boundary review.
Mine must be one of the shorter ones at seven letters.
Shortest is Bath at 4 characters, then there's a number at 5 characters, Fylde, Gower, Lewes, Poole, Rugby, Selby and Wigan. Until 2005 we had Ayr but that's Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock now.
Longest now is Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (40 characters)
Should that not be Ayr, Carrick, Cumnock and Turnip?
"In the UK, renewables are subsidised by three different schemes. Feed-in-Tariffs fund mostly solar power. The latest report for 2022-23 shows the average total payment was >£190/MWh, about 3X the current cost of gas-fired power."
So though we're continually being told that renewables, especially wind, have become cheaper than gas, we're actually paying 3 times the amount for renewable energy than we are for gas, and that includes carbon payments.
This will go up even more when the higher guaranteed price that the Government had to dangle in-front of wind providers to get them to actually bid in the most recent round of auctions feeds into the system. If wind is so cheap, why did we need to increase the price paid by 70%?
The high feed-in tariffs will be from the old scheme that existed when solar panels were a lot more expensive, and the tariffs were reduced as the panels became cheaper, and I believe don't exist for new installations.
So the scheme provides direct evidence of the technology becoming cheaper over time, and the subsidies being removed as a result.
What's your problem exactly?
My problem is that we're consistently told that the price of renewables has fallen beneath that of gas, yet the price to the consumer of renewables is massively above that of gas. So someone appears to be lying, or at least very confused about the relative whereabouts of their arse and their elbow.
Furthermore, even if we exclude all currently built projects, in order to get any new ones built, the Government has to guarantee a price of £73 per MWH. It also doesn't include constraint and other grid balancing costs. The current gas price, still historically high and with the Russian industry having all but halted exports, is only £74.5 per MWH, and has been as low as £23 per MWH in more normal conditions.
The reason for the massive discrepancy between the cheap theory and the expensive reality appears to be that wind farms cost way more to maintain than anyone imagined.
For years, governments have told us of a revolution in windfarms costs. Developers may even have believed it themselves, submitting extraordinarily low bids into the renewables auctions. But for the sums to add up, costs had to go down and output had to go up. So developers shaved engineering margins to the bone and moved to bigger turbines and windier sites far from shore.
The results have been an almost complete disappointment. In the hostile environment of the North Sea, operating costs have soared, and those big turbines have worn out much faster than expected. It seems that engineering margins had been cut too far. This is the real reason developers forced such an astonishing price increase from the Government. They can’t get the costs down in the way that was claimed.
So while DESNZ says that offshore wind has been cheap for many years, the sums demanded at auction, and the hard data from windfarm financial accounts, tell another story.
So we're not making energy cheaper, we're baking in high prices and having to subsidise our own manufacturers to the tune of £4.5bn because they can't afford energy.
I can quite believe judging by your posting oeuvre that you think this is all a jolly good wheeze, but Barty poses as a free marketeer.
Of course gas is cheaper than electricity. It takes a £££ CCGT power station to turn the gas to leccy at an efficiency of 60%, with associated labour and ETS costs on top.
The Conservative Party will outperform expectations on 4 July, and will get more than 200 seats. The LibDems will more than double their seat count, and will do rather better in terms of vote share than the current polls predict, but will miss out on a dozen seats by small margins. The SNP will hold on to their number two spot, getting around 30 seats. And Labour will manage an inverse of 2019, achieving a majority of around 80.
You heard it here first.
You could be right Robert. History would support your kind of assessment.
However, I don’t think it’s based on reading the room. (At the moment.)
Sunak will implode and the party with him. I'm predicting Where He Will Live If He Loses will become a big issue - ironically, because who gives a toss? But it is an easy attack line especially after Akshata's non dom wriggles. And the I want to stay here to support my team line is phony even for him.
There've been rumbles about this already, ever since he published his suspiciously-lacking-in-detail UK tax return.
It now seems almost certain that he's been paying tax in the US too - but why? If he's truly a UK domiciled UK citizen, why wouldn't he just fill in a W8-BEN like everyone else who owns shares or property or other sources of income in the US?
The only possible reason is that he actually does have US citizenship, or that he hasn't given up his green card after all.
Labour have been plugging away at this, asking a question about it every couple of weeks at PMQs and the like. I wonder if it might prove to be a bit of a bombshell later in the election campaign.
Hang on.
If you have a Green Card, then you're filling in a US tax return whether you are US resident or not. It's why I am quite keen not to go down that route if I can avoid it.
Have Labour HQ ordered a job lot of parachutes? Lot of safe seat step downs today. Still no Tories since Leadsom? I thought they were expecting loads this weekend?
Well spotted regarding your first point. Too many Labour MPs standing down on the same day for that to be a coincidence.
As an example of the use of parachutes, there was a lot of controversy locally when Dennis Turner stood down for Wolverhampton SE literally at an extremely late stage during the 2005 general election, to be replaced by Blair's then political secretary one Pat McFadden. A week after the election Dennis Turner turned into Lord Bilston. A deal had been done.
I found myself rewatching Series 1 of House of Cards again last night - US not UK, the latter being before my time.
If you can get past the question marks surrounding Kevin Spacey then I’d forgotten just what a fantastic piece of political drama it is, especially in the early stages.
All the Machiavellian chthonic depths of political life right there.
Perfect viewing for an election campaign
It is but its a complete copy of the UK version which was sublime
Wasn’t Michael Dobbs involved on both?
I like the high production standards on the US one, and the fab music in the title sequence, but maybe I should try and get hold of the UK one?
A fun* day our shooting video for social media. Now a pile of editing to do.
Met my Labour opponent! Nice guy, not from the constituency, doesn't sound like he is running a campaign.
What’s your constituency?
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Ok thanks - good luck!
Can’t be many longer constituency names than that.
There was a bit of research from QMUL that pointed out that constituency names have been getting ever longer since WWII from a mean of 12.8 characters (median 12) in 1950 to mean 15.8 (median 15) now. Part of this will be local pandering, I remember David Laws making a big thing about wanting Yeovil to be renamed Yeovil and Chard in the 2010 boundary review.
Mine must be one of the shorter ones at seven letters.
Bath is a four letter word... Shame that they insisted on adding "and East Cambridgeshire" to Ely.
Yep, I was looking to see if it had only been Ely, but it had been called Isle of Ely up to 1983.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
"In the UK, renewables are subsidised by three different schemes. Feed-in-Tariffs fund mostly solar power. The latest report for 2022-23 shows the average total payment was >£190/MWh, about 3X the current cost of gas-fired power."
So though we're continually being told that renewables, especially wind, have become cheaper than gas, we're actually paying 3 times the amount for renewable energy than we are for gas, and that includes carbon payments.
This will go up even more when the higher guaranteed price that the Government had to dangle in-front of wind providers to get them to actually bid in the most recent round of auctions feeds into the system. If wind is so cheap, why did we need to increase the price paid by 70%?
The high feed-in tariffs will be from the old scheme that existed when solar panels were a lot more expensive, and the tariffs were reduced as the panels became cheaper, and I believe don't exist for new installations.
So the scheme provides direct evidence of the technology becoming cheaper over time, and the subsidies being removed as a result.
What's your problem exactly?
My problem is that we're consistently told that the price of renewables has fallen beneath that of gas, yet the price to the consumer of renewables is massively above that of gas. So someone appears to be lying, or at least very confused about the relative whereabouts of their arse and their elbow.
Furthermore, even if we exclude all currently built projects, in order to get any new ones built, the Government has to guarantee a price of £73 per MWH. It also doesn't include constraint and other grid balancing costs. The current gas price, still historically high and with the Russian industry having all but halted exports, is only £74.5 per MWH, and has been as low as £23 per MWH in more normal conditions.
The reason for the massive discrepancy between the cheap theory and the expensive reality appears to be that wind farms cost way more to maintain than anyone imagined.
For years, governments have told us of a revolution in windfarms costs. Developers may even have believed it themselves, submitting extraordinarily low bids into the renewables auctions. But for the sums to add up, costs had to go down and output had to go up. So developers shaved engineering margins to the bone and moved to bigger turbines and windier sites far from shore.
The results have been an almost complete disappointment. In the hostile environment of the North Sea, operating costs have soared, and those big turbines have worn out much faster than expected. It seems that engineering margins had been cut too far. This is the real reason developers forced such an astonishing price increase from the Government. They can’t get the costs down in the way that was claimed.
So while DESNZ says that offshore wind has been cheap for many years, the sums demanded at auction, and the hard data from windfarm financial accounts, tell another story.
So we're not making energy cheaper, we're baking in high prices and having to subsidise our own manufacturers to the tune of £4.5bn because they can't afford energy.
I can quite believe judging by your posting oeuvre that you think this is all a jolly good wheeze, but Barty poses as a free marketeer.
Is this the source of your ignorance?
Do you actually think you can flick a switch and someone converts gas to electricity for free?
The wholesale price of electricity made via CCGT fuelled by gas is not the same as the wholesale price of gas.
The Conservative Party will outperform expectations on 4 July, and will get more than 200 seats. The LibDems will more than double their seat count, and will do rather better in terms of vote share than the current polls predict, but will miss out on a dozen seats by small margins. The SNP will hold on to their number two spot, getting around 30 seats. And Labour will manage an inverse of 2019, achieving a majority of around 80.
You heard it here first.
How do you come to this conclusion?
Simples:
(a) Sea changes don't happen very often. A reversion to the mean is much more likely than a new paradigm. Not impossible, of course, but (like recessions) they are predicted far more often than they actually happen.
(b) The LibDems often flatter to deceive, and it's hard to get 30+ seats on a low teens vote share. Not impossible (see the LD performance in Scotland for a clear demonstration of extremely efficient vote), but unlikely.
(c) Campaign gaffs and the like don't usually make that much difference. See Pussygate, etc.
(d) The Reform vote (see council elections / byelections / etc) doesn't actually seem to actually, you know, vote. And I think that in close races, there is plenty of opportunity for them to be squeezed. Which Reform voter wants to let in a LibDem?
(e) The Labour vote is usually overstated somewhat by the polls. (See London)
I wonder where LDs will end up on polling day.
I think they were 16-17% in 1997, and notched up from 10-12% at the start of the campaign.
There is no cast iron rule that the LDs improve in the polls as the election goes on. They can just as easily get squeezed.
During the course of the 2019 campaign, the LDs went backwards with a vengence. At the end of October, as parliament was voting through the bill to allow the general election, they stood at about 18%-19% in the polls and were talking about winning loads of seats. Then they went backwards very rapidly and ended up below 12% with Swinson losing her seat, amid recriminations that they targeted seats far too broadly at the expense of campaigns in seats that they had a realistic chance of winning.
The Lib Dems problem in 2019 was that their campaign was predicated on Labour continuing to self-immolate over Brexit and Corbyn, but sanity within Labour won out and they went for the defensive tactic of a 2nd Referendum. Moderates rallied round knowing Corbyn wasn't going to be PM and from there they were doomed to be squeezed.
It was a strategy that offered a chance of a spectacular result (if Labour continued to prevaricate on Brexit and Labour moderates had given up), but a big risk that what did happen would happen.
This time they appear much more focused on the Tory seats in the South East and corralling the anti-Tory vote - which could gain them a significant number of seats on not a big increase in national vote share due to tactical voting and simple efficiency in being the anti-Tory option where people want a change.
@joerichlaw CCHQ has been frantically calling up some strange people to fill ‘shortlists’ for these seats. A friend of mine, who is already selected as a LibDem Parliamentary candidate, got a call. Really odd - especially when they are blocking so many @Conservatives from standing.
I expect some in this CCHQ would probably prefer a LD parliamentary candidate to a Boris supporting Conservative
The whole filthy CCHQ organisation needs to be sacked and start again.
Something the more extreme Trussites and Borisites might agree on. However, at the moment you should spare a thought for CCHQ because they have three simultaneous massive tasks, any one of which alone will likely overwhelm then.
run this election campaign and its logistics of designing and printing leaflets and booking helicopters and battlebuses;
produce a manifesto from thin air
find (and vet and impose) at least 150 more candidates by 7th June, which is to say by the end of next week, and they still do not have the full list of which existing MPs are standing down
And all because Rishi called a snap election? Or because CCHQ was complacent and incompetent because they must have known an election was due soon even if they thought they had another couple of months?
I wouldn't feel too sorry for them, they seem to he doing their usual of using it as an opportunity to scour their phonebooks for proven Lib Dems to put up as preferred candidates.
I'm not feeling sorry for CCHQ so much as pointing to reasons why the Tory campaign has been "inauspicious" (to quote the header) and why things might not improve next week.
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
Its completely deniable.
It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.
But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
Here is my thinking.
500 years ago in every part of the world: - lives were short and brutal - starvation was a common experience - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that - women were second class citizens - disability was feared and stigmatised - education was the preserve of the top 1% - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes. - animal cruelty was ubiquitous - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent - difference was pilloried (often literally) ... I could go on.
Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.
We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
"In the UK, renewables are subsidised by three different schemes. Feed-in-Tariffs fund mostly solar power. The latest report for 2022-23 shows the average total payment was >£190/MWh, about 3X the current cost of gas-fired power."
So though we're continually being told that renewables, especially wind, have become cheaper than gas, we're actually paying 3 times the amount for renewable energy than we are for gas, and that includes carbon payments.
This will go up even more when the higher guaranteed price that the Government had to dangle in-front of wind providers to get them to actually bid in the most recent round of auctions feeds into the system. If wind is so cheap, why did we need to increase the price paid by 70%?
The high feed-in tariffs will be from the old scheme that existed when solar panels were a lot more expensive, and the tariffs were reduced as the panels became cheaper, and I believe don't exist for new installations.
So the scheme provides direct evidence of the technology becoming cheaper over time, and the subsidies being removed as a result.
What's your problem exactly?
My problem is that we're consistently told that the price of renewables has fallen beneath that of gas, yet the price to the consumer of renewables is massively above that of gas. So someone appears to be lying, or at least very confused about the relative whereabouts of their arse and their elbow.
Furthermore, even if we exclude all currently built projects, in order to get any new ones built, the Government has to guarantee a price of £73 per MWH. It also doesn't include constraint and other grid balancing costs. The current gas price, still historically high and with the Russian industry having all but halted exports, is only £74.5 per MWH, and has been as low as £23 per MWH in more normal conditions.
The reason for the massive discrepancy between the cheap theory and the expensive reality appears to be that wind farms cost way more to maintain than anyone imagined.
For years, governments have told us of a revolution in windfarms costs. Developers may even have believed it themselves, submitting extraordinarily low bids into the renewables auctions. But for the sums to add up, costs had to go down and output had to go up. So developers shaved engineering margins to the bone and moved to bigger turbines and windier sites far from shore.
The results have been an almost complete disappointment. In the hostile environment of the North Sea, operating costs have soared, and those big turbines have worn out much faster than expected. It seems that engineering margins had been cut too far. This is the real reason developers forced such an astonishing price increase from the Government. They can’t get the costs down in the way that was claimed.
So while DESNZ says that offshore wind has been cheap for many years, the sums demanded at auction, and the hard data from windfarm financial accounts, tell another story.
So we're not making energy cheaper, we're baking in high prices and having to subsidise our own manufacturers to the tune of £4.5bn because they can't afford energy.
I can quite believe judging by your posting oeuvre that you think this is all a jolly good wheeze, but Barty poses as a free marketeer.
Is this the source of your ignorance?
Do you actually think you can flick a switch and someone converts gas to electricity for free?
The wholesale price of electricity made via CCGT fuelled by gas is not the same as the wholesale price of gas.
That is the cost of generating electricity by gas you pillock.
Alba launching their campaign at the V&A is a fine excuse to deploy one of my favourite electoral nuggets (h/t @ailsa_henderson) - the shoreline-hugging nature of the new Dundee Central boundary means the pointy end of the museum actually sticks right out of the constituency
A fun* day our shooting video for social media. Now a pile of editing to do.
Met my Labour opponent! Nice guy, not from the constituency, doesn't sound like he is running a campaign.
What’s your constituency?
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
I see that the constituency includes St Fergus and Peterhead. Where all the investment in the Acorn CCS cluster is supposed to happen. And create plenty of jobs. A mischievous LibDem could put the word about that the Tories would cancel the project if they get reelected. Force them to deny it.
A mischievous Lib Dem would also insinuate that Duguid was in the pocket of the big fishing conglomerates, to the detriment of the independent skippers.
"In the UK, renewables are subsidised by three different schemes. Feed-in-Tariffs fund mostly solar power. The latest report for 2022-23 shows the average total payment was >£190/MWh, about 3X the current cost of gas-fired power."
So though we're continually being told that renewables, especially wind, have become cheaper than gas, we're actually paying 3 times the amount for renewable energy than we are for gas, and that includes carbon payments.
This will go up even more when the higher guaranteed price that the Government had to dangle in-front of wind providers to get them to actually bid in the most recent round of auctions feeds into the system. If wind is so cheap, why did we need to increase the price paid by 70%?
The high feed-in tariffs will be from the old scheme that existed when solar panels were a lot more expensive, and the tariffs were reduced as the panels became cheaper, and I believe don't exist for new installations.
So the scheme provides direct evidence of the technology becoming cheaper over time, and the subsidies being removed as a result.
What's your problem exactly?
My problem is that we're consistently told that the price of renewables has fallen beneath that of gas, yet the price to the consumer of renewables is massively above that of gas. So someone appears to be lying, or at least very confused about the relative whereabouts of their arse and their elbow.
Furthermore, even if we exclude all currently built projects, in order to get any new ones built, the Government has to guarantee a price of £73 per MWH. It also doesn't include constraint and other grid balancing costs. The current gas price, still historically high and with the Russian industry having all but halted exports, is only £74.5 per MWH, and has been as low as £23 per MWH in more normal conditions.
The reason for the massive discrepancy between the cheap theory and the expensive reality appears to be that wind farms cost way more to maintain than anyone imagined.
For years, governments have told us of a revolution in windfarms costs. Developers may even have believed it themselves, submitting extraordinarily low bids into the renewables auctions. But for the sums to add up, costs had to go down and output had to go up. So developers shaved engineering margins to the bone and moved to bigger turbines and windier sites far from shore.
The results have been an almost complete disappointment. In the hostile environment of the North Sea, operating costs have soared, and those big turbines have worn out much faster than expected. It seems that engineering margins had been cut too far. This is the real reason developers forced such an astonishing price increase from the Government. They can’t get the costs down in the way that was claimed.
So while DESNZ says that offshore wind has been cheap for many years, the sums demanded at auction, and the hard data from windfarm financial accounts, tell another story.
So we're not making energy cheaper, we're baking in high prices and having to subsidise our own manufacturers to the tune of £4.5bn because they can't afford energy.
I can quite believe judging by your posting oeuvre that you think this is all a jolly good wheeze, but Barty poses as a free marketeer.
Is this the source of your ignorance?
Do you actually think you can flick a switch and someone converts gas to electricity for free?
The wholesale price of electricity made via CCGT fuelled by gas is not the same as the wholesale price of gas.
That is the cost of generating electricity by gas you pillock.
I found myself rewatching Series 1 of House of Cards again last night - US not UK, the latter being before my time.
If you can get past the question marks surrounding Kevin Spacey then I’d forgotten just what a fantastic piece of political drama it is, especially in the early stages.
All the Machiavellian chthonic depths of political life right there.
Perfect viewing for an election campaign
It is but its a complete copy of the UK version which was sublime
Wasn’t Michael Dobbs involved on both?
I like the high production standards on the US one, and the fab music in the title sequence, but maybe I should try and get hold of the UK one?
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
Its completely deniable.
It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.
But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
Here is my thinking.
500 years ago in every part of the world: - lives were short and brutal - starvation was a common experience - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that - women were second class citizens - disability was feared and stigmatised - education was the preserve of the top 1% - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes. - animal cruelty was ubiquitous - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent - difference was pilloried (often literally) ... I could go on.
Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.
We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
But that's a selected portion of history. We've made progress culturally, economically and technologically, however in contrast for instance the dark ages were retrograde compared to Graeco-Roman times.
Yes we've come a long way, post-enlightenment. Pre-enlightenment history was not so progressive and its not been one-way traffic.
Also, again, you are selectively looking at what has changed and disregarding all the aborted failed changes in that time, as well as the horrors like the great leap forward, Pol Pot, Holocaust etc.
I found myself rewatching Series 1 of House of Cards again last night - US not UK, the latter being before my time.
If you can get past the question marks surrounding Kevin Spacey then I’d forgotten just what a fantastic piece of political drama it is, especially in the early stages.
All the Machiavellian chthonic depths of political life right there.
Perfect viewing for an election campaign
It is but its a complete copy of the UK version which was sublime
Wasn’t Michael Dobbs involved on both?
I like the high production standards on the US one, and the fab music in the title sequence, but maybe I should try and get hold of the UK one?
You should.
The Final Cut is somewhat meh. Dobbs removed his name from the credits on it due to the funeral in the first episode.
It also has Michael Fabricant as its Parliamentary consultant which is why the House of Commons scenes are batshit crazy. When Urquhart’s rival crosses the floor he suddenly gets unlimited questions during Parliamentary debates etc.
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
Its completely deniable.
It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.
But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
Here is my thinking.
500 years ago in every part of the world: - lives were short and brutal - starvation was a common experience - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that - women were second class citizens - disability was feared and stigmatised - education was the preserve of the top 1% - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes. - animal cruelty was ubiquitous - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent - difference was pilloried (often literally) ... I could go on.
Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.
We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
you may have a point with the UK (although its not political evolution but technology and science that evolve society imo) , but many parts of the world have not evolved - Haiti ,N.Korea etc
A fun* day our shooting video for social media. Now a pile of editing to do.
Met my Labour opponent! Nice guy, not from the constituency, doesn't sound like he is running a campaign.
What’s your constituency?
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Ok thanks - good luck!
Can’t be many longer constituency names than that.
There was a bit of research from QMUL that pointed out that constituency names have been getting ever longer since WWII from a mean of 12.8 characters (median 12) in 1950 to mean 15.8 (median 15) now. Part of this will be local pandering, I remember David Laws making a big thing about wanting Yeovil to be renamed Yeovil and Chard in the 2010 boundary review.
Mine must be one of the shorter ones at seven letters.
Bath is a four letter word... Shame that they insisted on adding "and East Cambridgeshire" to Ely.
If Dumfries and Galloway constituency was named after one of its villages, it could be Ae constituency!
More sycophantic reporting from the BBC reporter following Sunak around . She’s not there to call Sunaks national service plan bold .
Don’t these reporters realize that another 5 years of the Tories will spell the end of the BBC .
So the BBC should be campaigning against the Tories and not “neutral”? I guess it’s a way to guarantee the end of the BBC. Would it be better if they just said what you agree with politically?
Out of interest, has anyone seen a list of which constituencies Alba plan to stand in? Alex Salmond lives in ANME in the next village from mine, surely he wants to have a go? He used to be the MP here...
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
I read a quote once which went something like: in 400AD somebody living in what is now Newcastle could prepare a salad with a vinaigrette dressing, and then lost the skill for the next millennia-and-a-half.
More sycophantic reporting from the BBC reporter following Sunak around . She’s not there to call Sunaks national service plan bold .
Don’t these reporters realize that another 5 years of the Tories will spell the end of the BBC .
So the BBC should be campaigning against the Tories and not “neutral”? I guess it’s a way to guarantee the end of the BBC. Would it be better if they just said what you agree with politically?
I expect the BBC to be neutral . Not arse lick Sunak and give him an easier ride .
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
Its completely deniable.
It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.
But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
Here is my thinking.
500 years ago in every part of the world: - lives were short and brutal - starvation was a common experience - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that - women were second class citizens - disability was feared and stigmatised - education was the preserve of the top 1% - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes. - animal cruelty was ubiquitous - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent - difference was pilloried (often literally) ... I could go on.
Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.
We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.
Out of interest, has anyone seen a list of which constituencies Alba plan to stand in? Alex Salmond lives in ANME in the next village from mine, surely he wants to have a go? He used to be the MP here...
Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.
The frozen personal allowances mean that HMRC are increasingly having to write to bemused pensioners who only get the State Pension, telling them to pay some tax (and online is the only easy way to do that, which goes down well with the target demographic).
I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.
She could claim that on account of the number of Tory MPs standing down, Rishi Sunak's coup has no standing and she is the legitimate leader of the party.
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
Its completely deniable.
It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.
But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
Here is my thinking.
500 years ago in every part of the world: - lives were short and brutal - starvation was a common experience - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that - women were second class citizens - disability was feared and stigmatised - education was the preserve of the top 1% - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes. - animal cruelty was ubiquitous - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent - difference was pilloried (often literally) ... I could go on.
Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.
We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
It is usual that technology should develop, as we stand on the shoulders of previous generations (though I feel even that is currently being threatened). What is a different question is whether we're progressing in thought and character.
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
I read a quote once which went something like: in 400AD somebody living in what is now Newcastle could prepare a salad with a vinaigrette dressing, and then lost the skill for the next millennia-and-a-half.
But they didn't have avocados did they? Hah - that settles it!
Comments
But the majority thought Tate to be a massive asshat.
Channel 4 News is unwatchable
https://x.com/johncusack/status/1794923952638247316
Can’t be many longer constituency names than that.
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1795161214168834173?s=46
In reality of cause the Home Guard was an awful lot of men who were (a) in the forties and fifties and (b) had served in WW1. They would have been a very useful force, given the weapons they needed.
Lets be honest. A lot of people tell pollsters a load of old horseshit. They tell themselves a load of lies. They'll never vote Labour ever again! What has Peter Dowd ever done for me.... result? Labour HOLD Bootle, with an increased majority, up to 120% now, from 110%.
Personally:
The floor of any vote for the Conservatives is probably 29%.
The floor for Labour about 27%
The floor for the LD is 7%
The floor for the SNP is 2%
Put them all together, and you get 65%. But you know what? That feels about right. John Bird and John Fortune did a funny sketch pre-1997 election where they (correctly) said that the upcoming election would be decided by the people who can't decide. Stewart Lee, that staunch Conservative (!) said in one of his sketches, "In the 80s, everyone hated the Tories! The nurses hated the Tories, the miners hated the Tories, the teachers hated the Tories. EVERYONE hated the Tories........ *beat* which is why they continuously won election after election during that time."
Everyone hates the Tories. They'll hate them on 4th July too..... won't stop them voting for them anyway.
They won't win, but a hung parliament is certainly not off the cards. And a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party should be ruled out either.
But. If he's locally unpopular, AND seen to be a) likely to do a runner to the States by September and b) something comes out about his tax returns or citizenship status during the campaign, there may be value in a flutter. The only odds I can find at the moment are 5/1 on Labour at William Hill, but I'm not particularly tempted at those odds. Worth watching to see if it gets priced up anywhere else, though.
- run this election campaign and its logistics of designing and printing leaflets and booking helicopters and battlebuses;
- produce a manifesto from thin air
- find (and vet and impose) at least 150 more candidates by 7th June, which is to say by the end of next week, and they still do not have the full list of which existing MPs are standing down
And all because Rishi called a snap election? Or because CCHQ was complacent and incompetent because they must have known an election was due soon even if they thought they had another couple of months?His view seems to be labour are going to win, what does that mean for you.
I think it good sense to try to anticipate what a labour govt will mean for me financially.
More popcorn people.
It sounds, though, like they're not particularly interested in making a fight of it - essentially, they're passively supporting Corbyn:
"GREEN Party strategists want to keep the election contest in Islington North “as boring as possible”, strategy notes seen by the Tribune reveal.
Sheridan Kates, who lives in Highbury Corner, has been named as their candidate but notes from an internal meeting held in March reveal that the party is not hopeful of winning the seat and is mindful of taking votes away from Jeremy Corbyn, who is now standing as an independent MP and is likely to be Labour’s biggest opposition in the constituency."
https://www.islingtontribune.co.uk/article/keep-it-boring-is-the-green-strategy
We need some more objective data, so I will wait for the polls before saying anything else. Peace out PB.
Don’t these reporters realize that another 5 years of the Tories will spell the end of the BBC .
@StephenMcGann
·
1h
If I can't be a Tory candidate, then I definitely want a job as the Greek customs officer that keeps Steve Baker waiting 4 hours in the Non-EU passport control queue.
https://x.com/StephenMcGann/status/1795144796572471409
I'd replace it (and Stamp Duty and all other land-based taxes) with a single Land Value Tax. Levied nationally, not locally.
Has he no respect for the need for a constant stream of reliable polls for us to scrutinise? How will we know if changes are due to holiday polling idiosyncrasies, Rain-on-Rishi, or forcing kids* to do some proper work like we** used to?
Poor show.
* Adults. ** People over 80.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/
Gove was a shock (to an extent), so it makes some sense for the Conservatives to brief about concerns there may be many more, then present it as the ship being steadied when there weren't.
None of it detracts from the big picture - as in 2010 and 1997, there are a heck of a lot of incumbent party MPs calling it a day, including people who'd expect to be in senior roles if their party were to win, which tells a story about the way they see the wind blowing.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
I like the high production standards on the US one, and the fab music in the title sequence, but maybe I should try and get hold of the UK one?
It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.
But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
During the course of the 2019 campaign, the LDs went backwards with a vengence. At the end of October, as parliament was voting through the bill to allow the general election, they stood at about 18%-19% in the polls and were talking about winning loads of seats. Then they went backwards very rapidly and ended up below 12% with Swinson losing her seat, amid recriminations that they targeted seats far too broadly at the expense of campaigns in seats that they had a realistic chance of winning.
Longest now is Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (40 characters)
Furthermore, even if we exclude all currently built projects, in order to get any new ones built, the Government has to guarantee a price of £73 per MWH. It also doesn't include constraint and other grid balancing costs. The current gas price, still historically high and with the Russian industry having all but halted exports, is only £74.5 per MWH, and has been as low as £23 per MWH in more normal conditions.
The reason for the massive discrepancy between the cheap theory and the expensive reality appears to be that wind farms cost way more to maintain than anyone imagined.
The results have been an almost complete disappointment. In the hostile environment of the North Sea, operating costs have soared, and those big turbines have worn out much faster than expected. It seems that engineering margins had been cut too far. This is the real reason developers forced such an astonishing price increase from the Government. They can’t get the costs down in the way that was claimed.
So while DESNZ says that offshore wind has been cheap for many years, the sums demanded at auction, and the hard data from windfarm financial accounts, tell another story.
https://conservativehome.com/2024/05/27/andrew-montford-politicians-must-drop-their-comical-ali-approach-to-the-cost-of-offshore-wind/
So we're not making energy cheaper, we're baking in high prices and having to subsidise our own manufacturers to the tune of £4.5bn because they can't afford energy.
I can quite believe judging by your posting oeuvre that you think this is all a jolly good wheeze, but Barty poses as a free marketeer.
Their so called media chums object to its unfair advantage when it comes to fund raising for it then to compete against them. They’re right. It’s time to remove the license fee and make the Beeb compete for its funding.
@ashcowburn
EXCLUSIVE
Rishi Sunak ordered to publish a secret analysis showing impact of removing Universal Credit support
The Information Commissioners' Office has overruled the Treasury - which refused to release info on Covid-era uplift
Deadline 21 June
If you have a Green Card, then you're filling in a US tax return whether you are US resident or not. It's why I am quite keen not to go down that route if I can avoid it.
As an example of the use of parachutes, there was a lot of controversy locally when Dennis Turner stood down for Wolverhampton SE literally at an extremely late stage during the 2005 general election, to be replaced by Blair's then political secretary one Pat McFadden. A week after the election Dennis Turner turned into Lord Bilston. A deal had been done.
@Simon_Nixon
Replying to @DanielKorski @RishiSunak and 2 others
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
https://x.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1795147944594690299
Do you actually think you can flick a switch and someone converts gas to electricity for free?
The wholesale price of electricity made via CCGT fuelled by gas is not the same as the wholesale price of gas.
The Conservative general election campaign:
https://x.com/aljwhite/status/1795149040151036341
It was a strategy that offered a chance of a spectacular result (if Labour continued to prevaricate on Brexit and Labour moderates had given up), but a big risk that what did happen would happen.
This time they appear much more focused on the Tory seats in the South East and corralling the anti-Tory vote - which could gain them a significant number of seats on not a big increase in national vote share due to tactical voting and simple efficiency in being the anti-Tory option where people want a change.
Sunak struggles to control Tory party on chaotic fifth day of election campaign
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/27/sunak-struggles-to-control-tory-party-on-chaotic-fifth-day-of-election-campaign
500 years ago in every part of the world:
- lives were short and brutal
- starvation was a common experience
- most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that
- women were second class citizens
- disability was feared and stigmatised
- education was the preserve of the top 1%
- cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes.
- animal cruelty was ubiquitous
- superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many
- the rights of the individual were almost non-existent
- difference was pilloried (often literally)
... I could go on.
Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.
We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
@BBCPhilipSim
Alba launching their campaign at the V&A is a fine excuse to deploy one of my favourite electoral nuggets (h/t @ailsa_henderson) - the shoreline-hugging nature of the new Dundee Central boundary means the pointy end of the museum actually sticks right out of the constituency
But tbf, he may have got it from that source...
Yes we've come a long way, post-enlightenment. Pre-enlightenment history was not so progressive and its not been one-way traffic.
Also, again, you are selectively looking at what has changed and disregarding all the aborted failed changes in that time, as well as the horrors like the great leap forward, Pol Pot, Holocaust etc.
Country first. Party second. Always.
@GlennyRodge
Stick on a Dolly Parton album and then get on the ales.
- https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803122040473
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
- "The Folly of Liberal History" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w38t-NhrADM
I read a quote once which went something like: in 400AD somebody living in what is now Newcastle could prepare a salad with a vinaigrette dressing, and then lost the skill for the next millennia-and-a-half.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Scotland#Candidates
(usual Wikipedia caveats apply)