p.s. re Tugendhat, if the tories do go to a 1997 or worse, remember what happened after that one. The young new darling of the party, William Hague, took on the leadership at the wrong time and when the inevitable happened in 2001, he went.
Hague should have backed Howard in 1997, let him take the 2001 landslide defeat, then he would likely have been the next leader not IDS. He could have cut Labour's majority in 2005, been young enough to stay leader and then beaten Brown in 2010 and become PM rather than Cameron. He did everything CV wise to become PM but tactically made a huge error politically.
I suspect Barclay is more likely the next Tory leader than Tugendhat anyway once it gets to the members
Wasn't Howard stuffed by Widdy's 'Something of the night' barb?
He still would have beaten Ken Clarke who Widdy backed then
The shadow health secretary has said he would buy up private beds for the NHS, in defiance of objections from “middle-class Lefties”. Wes Streeting said a Labour government would get the NHS to buy thousands of beds from care homes, to “unblock” a failing health and care system, while expanding use of private hospitals for state-funded operations.
Mr Streeting said there was “nothing Left-wing” about leaving working class patients to lie in pain because of “middle class Lefty” objections to the use of the private sector.
This is the second constituency poll of the campaign, both for The Economist. Both the Hartlepool and the Gillingham constituency polls suggest the polls and MRPs are being significantly too generous to the Conservatives.
Fascinating! It really does seem like there's a serious chance of the Tories ending up with less than 100 seats.
I've still not traded out any of my 50-99 seats bet on bf, and suspect that I'll now stick with it - if it comes off, it'll be my second-most successful bet ever.
The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.
And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.
I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.
No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.
The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.
This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.
Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.
And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.
Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.
OK.
The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.
So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.
We need to spend more on defence. Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.
I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.
Plus everyone wants more transport projects and everyone wants increasingly improving schools. Add on people always having a pet regulation….
The problem is that most expect the state can do more than it can do. It could only do what it did in the first place due to the revenue of empire and tbe legacy assets and soft power in the post empire world which have slowly inevitably decayed
Also, as life becomes more complex the state can do less. EM Forsters "The Machine Stops" was a boring book foisted on us at school but a very prohetic one.
The choice is collapse with authoritarianism on the way or a wholesale deregulation, a very limited state based on a principle of Caveat Emptor and an acceptance that people will make bad or inept decisions and suffer as a result and it is not the states job to prevent or mitigate this, other than to set some core, simple to understand rules (which is basically what Common Law is).
I think the die was cast though when Cameron beat Davis in 2005, or perhaps even when Wilson won in 1964.
You're overstating the "revenue of empire" here, as costs matched benefits from the 1870s onwards even if you look at it from a pure revenue perspective.
On a wider economic basis it produced a clear loss, especially when you factor in the downsides of it fucking our trade and monetary policy over and over and over again until we finally began to cut our losses in 1957.
Direct revenue is one thing. Indirect (a captive market for UK manufacturers) is another, this has lingered on to a certain extent even now (e.g MK will have good sales in Singapore, Ireland, Cyprus, Hong Kong and half the middle East and Africa as a legacy of empire is that they use BS1363 plugs and sockets.
Plenty more such trade was kicked in the nuts in 1973 when joined customs union with rival industrial countries and put trade barriers up with such countries as a result.
The root cause of empire is need, a country not having enough land and resources to support it's population sustainably. See Rome, Japan and us (not to mention Russia invading Ukraine, both now and in aftermath of the Russian Revolution)
It dosen't help that we are making it worse by unsustainable population increase and shunning the Oil, Gas and Coal resources (the latter of which is still abundant) so are therefore making our industry uncompetitive compared with those that do exploit such resources unreserved.
And yet S Korea - and postwar Japan - achieved great prosperity without significant natural resources, or captive markets.
And Hong Kong. And Singapore. And Switzerland.
It's almost like the most important natural resource is the human brain.
Denmark and South Korea are more prosperous than us because we have too many thickos..
The other thing to state about writing ref. earlier discussions is that you need never retire. If your brain/body stays fit you can write until you drop. It’s good for keeping the mind active and if you love it, keep at it.
If you are paid £1 or £2 a word you are one of the better paid jpurnalists on Fleet Street, and therefore one of the more noticeable. It's weird I cannot recognise your style. Do you specialise in a certain field?
Yes. And no. But I’m amused you refer to ‘Fleet Street’
I don’t have a weekly column by the way. Pieces from time to time, often on commission when they sense a juicy topic for me to write up.
I’ll leave it there but if anyone outs me on here you won’t ever see me again. I like to keep it anon and I hope that can be respected.
xx
No chance of that. All journos on this site are incredibly well disguised.
The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.
And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.
I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.
No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.
The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.
This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.
Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.
And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.
Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.
OK.
The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.
So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.
We need to spend more on defence. Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.
I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.
Plus everyone wants more transport projects and everyone wants increasingly improving schools. Add on people always having a pet regulation….
The problem is that most expect the state can do more than it can do. It could only do what it did in the first place due to the revenue of empire and tbe legacy assets and soft power in the post empire world which have slowly inevitably decayed
Also, as life becomes more complex the state can do less. EM Forsters "The Machine Stops" was a boring book foisted on us at school but a very prohetic one.
The choice is collapse with authoritarianism on the way or a wholesale deregulation, a very limited state based on a principle of Caveat Emptor and an acceptance that people will make bad or inept decisions and suffer as a result and it is not the states job to prevent or mitigate this, other than to set some core, simple to understand rules (which is basically what Common Law is).
I think the die was cast though when Cameron beat Davis in 2005, or perhaps even when Wilson won in 1964.
You're overstating the "revenue of empire" here, as costs matched benefits from the 1870s onwards even if you look at it from a pure revenue perspective.
On a wider economic basis it produced a clear loss, especially when you factor in the downsides of it fucking our trade and monetary policy over and over and over again until we finally began to cut our losses in 1957.
Direct revenue is one thing. Indirect (a captive market for UK manufacturers) is another, this has lingered on to a certain extent even now (e.g MK will have good sales in Singapore, Ireland, Cyprus, Hong Kong and half the middle East and Africa as a legacy of empire is that they use BS1363 plugs and sockets.
Plenty more such trade was kicked in the nuts in 1973 when joined customs union with rival industrial countries and put trade barriers up with such countries as a result.
The root cause of empire is need, a country not having enough land and resources to support it's population sustainably. See Rome, Japan and us (not to mention Russia invading Ukraine, both now and in aftermath of the Russian Revolution)
It dosen't help that we are making it worse by unsustainable population increase and shunning the Oil, Gas and Coal resources (the latter of which is still abundant) so are therefore making our industry uncompetitive compared with those that do exploit such resources unreserved.
And yet S Korea - and postwar Japan - achieved great prosperity without significant natural resources, or captive markets.
And Hong Kong. And Singapore. And Switzerland.
It's almost like the most important natural resource is the human brain.
Denmark and South Korea are more prosperous than us because we have too many thickos..
The other thing to state about writing ref. earlier discussions is that you need never retire. If your brain/body stays fit you can write until you drop. It’s good for keeping the mind active and if you love it, keep at it.
If you are paid £1 or £2 a word you are one of the better paid jpurnalists on Fleet Street, and therefore one of the more noticeable. It's weird I cannot recognise your style. Do you specialise in a certain field?
Yes. And no. But I’m amused you refer to ‘Fleet Street’
I don’t have a weekly column by the way. Pieces from time to time, often on commission when they sense a juicy topic for me to write up.
I’ll leave it there but if anyone outs me on here you won’t ever see me again. I like to keep it anon and I hope that can be respected.
xx
No chance of that. All journos on this site are incredibly well disguised.
I’ve had pieces published in HR Magazine and Personnel Today. Does that count?
I got Star Letter in Cats Today once.
I won a caption competition in The Chemical Engineer.
Something big is happening. Nigel will be an MP after July 5th.
Cue sea of old people jokes.
But in all seriousness people finally seem ready to put Farage into the Commons. He's been an important political figure for a long time, it will be interesting to see how he adapts to the role, or if he still spends his time licking boots in the United States.
He could be Tory Deputy Leader by Christmas.
He's not going to accept being deputy anything is he?
Merely a stepping stone, after a Tory Reform merger in which the Tories were the largest portion. He'd then make his move in time.
I had a read of the reform manifesto. It has just been 'launched' but actually the policies have been up on the Reform website for months almost word for word. It is the manifesto that the tories desperately wanted to write and has a lot of very solid, popular stuff in it - (but let down mainly by the pro motorist nonsense - something the tories are also guilty of). I cannot avoid the conclusion that the historic blunder the conservatives have made is not merging with the Reform party, dumping the centrists, and going in to opposition with 200+ seats.
I don’t think their proposals to effectively abolish the right to paid holiday and maternity leave, amongst the other bonfire of employment right, are that popular. Labour would be all over that.
Where is this in their manifesto, as in their 'contract with Britain'? I am interested. Even if this is true, isn't what they are suggesting pretty similar to the US? I understand that people dislike Farage and Lee Anderson, but it feels like they project things on to this party that are not supported by evidence. As I said before, their actual manifesto just seems to be mainstream conservative circa 2024.
The Hajj may become ecologically unsustainable, and indeed unfeasible. That will be a major blow to one of the great pillars of one of humanity's most important religions: without which the world would be so hugely different
It is almost too hard to bear. I am actually crying, here in my chair, and I only emotionally getting by with a decent Rioja to numb the pain. It must be even worse for Muslims
The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.
And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.
I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.
No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.
The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.
This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.
Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.
And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.
Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.
OK.
The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.
So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.
We need to spend more on defence. Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.
I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.
Plus everyone wants more transport projects and everyone wants increasingly improving schools. Add on people always having a pet regulation….
The problem is that most expect the state can do more than it can do. It could only do what it did in the first place due to the revenue of empire and tbe legacy assets and soft power in the post empire world which have slowly inevitably decayed
Also, as life becomes more complex the state can do less. EM Forsters "The Machine Stops" was a boring book foisted on us at school but a very prohetic one.
The choice is collapse with authoritarianism on the way or a wholesale deregulation, a very limited state based on a principle of Caveat Emptor and an acceptance that people will make bad or inept decisions and suffer as a result and it is not the states job to prevent or mitigate this, other than to set some core, simple to understand rules (which is basically what Common Law is).
I think the die was cast though when Cameron beat Davis in 2005, or perhaps even when Wilson won in 1964.
You're overstating the "revenue of empire" here, as costs matched benefits from the 1870s onwards even if you look at it from a pure revenue perspective.
On a wider economic basis it produced a clear loss, especially when you factor in the downsides of it fucking our trade and monetary policy over and over and over again until we finally began to cut our losses in 1957.
Direct revenue is one thing. Indirect (a captive market for UK manufacturers) is another, this has lingered on to a certain extent even now (e.g MK will have good sales in Singapore, Ireland, Cyprus, Hong Kong and half the middle East and Africa as a legacy of empire is that they use BS1363 plugs and sockets.
Plenty more such trade was kicked in the nuts in 1973 when joined customs union with rival industrial countries and put trade barriers up with such countries as a result.
The root cause of empire is need, a country not having enough land and resources to support it's population sustainably. See Rome, Japan and us (not to mention Russia invading Ukraine, both now and in aftermath of the Russian Revolution)
It dosen't help that we are making it worse by unsustainable population increase and shunning the Oil, Gas and Coal resources (the latter of which is still abundant) so are therefore making our industry uncompetitive compared with those that do exploit such resources unreserved.
And yet S Korea - and postwar Japan - achieved great prosperity without significant natural resources, or captive markets.
And Hong Kong. And Singapore. And Switzerland.
It's almost like the most important natural resource is the human brain.
Denmark and South Korea are more prosperous than us because we have too many thickos..
The other thing to state about writing ref. earlier discussions is that you need never retire. If your brain/body stays fit you can write until you drop. It’s good for keeping the mind active and if you love it, keep at it.
If you are paid £1 or £2 a word you are one of the better paid jpurnalists on Fleet Street, and therefore one of the more noticeable. It's weird I cannot recognise your style. Do you specialise in a certain field?
Yes. And no. But I’m amused you refer to ‘Fleet Street’
I don’t have a weekly column by the way. Pieces from time to time, often on commission when they sense a juicy topic for me to write up.
I’ll leave it there but if anyone outs me on here you won’t ever see me again. I like to keep it anon and I hope that can be respected.
xx
No chance of that. All journos on this site are incredibly well disguised.
I’ve had pieces published in HR Magazine and Personnel Today. Does that count?
I got Star Letter in Cats Today once.
I won a caption competition in The Chemical Engineer.
I mean, his academic work is interesting and all. But you his political views were lazy, and his reflexiveness anti-Americanism resulted in him cozying up to the most revolting of dictators.
For the record, I thought Henry Kissinger was a piece of shit too.
And the world is a far better place than it was a few hours ago.
Nasty
The scumbag defended warcrimes even most Serbians wouldn't touch.
Is he actually dead? Suggestions he’s alive and well.
His genocide denials were indeed rather Irving-esque. Cambodia, FFS.
I don't know the ins and outs. Perhaps he did say outrageous things - things I couldn't defend. But in a lifetime of opposition to state violence, it's not surprising that he put the backs up of some powerful people. Regarding Cambodia he said his comments never minimised atrocities. He claims he criticised how media and political bodies used the reporting of events to serve their interests. Perhaps you know more.
I think he may not have died, but to crow at the announcement of the death of an old man seems awful to me!
Mind you his comments will not I imagine win over many Tories to Labour but might have a few leftwingers spitting out their herbal tea and going Green.
'Mr Caudwell said he had donated to the Conservatives in 2019 “because I couldn’t possibly stand a Corbyn government, and I am still of exactly the same view there.”
He praised Sir Keir's attempts to get rid of what he called "the loony Left" which he claimed had focused on "extreme socialist policies", instead of "creating a wealthy Britain".
"We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
And the world is a far better place than it was a few hours ago.
Nasty
The scumbag defended warcrimes even most Serbians wouldn't touch.
Is he actually dead? Suggestions he’s alive and well.
His genocide denials were indeed rather Irving-esque. Cambodia, FFS.
I don't know the ins and outs. Perhaps he did say outrageous things - things I couldn't defend. But in a lifetime of opposition to state violence, it's not surprising that he put the backs up of some powerful people. Regarding Cambodia he said his comments never minimised atrocities. He claims he criticised how media and political bodies used the reporting of events to serve their interests. Perhaps you know more.
I think he may not have died, but to crow at the announcement of the death of an old man seems awful to me!
He was a total fucking piece of shit, who simply supported anyone who was in conflict with the US.
The world is a better place without him, and there are very few people I would say that about.
During a radio interview on Tuesday, Sir Keir was asked what he meant by working people.
“People who earn their living, rely on our [public] services and don’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble,” he told LBC.
“So the sort of people I’m meeting pretty well every day now. It’s quite a big group because these days there are many people obviously not so well off.”
Two-thirds of working-age households have savings of more than £1,000 - considered the minimum “rainy day” fund - according to the Resolution Foundation.
The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.
And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.
I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.
No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.
The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.
This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.
Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.
And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.
Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.
OK.
The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.
So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.
We need to spend more on defence. Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.
I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.
Plus everyone wants more transport projects and everyone wants increasingly improving schools. Add on people always having a pet regulation….
The problem is that most expect the state can do more than it can do. It could only do what it did in the first place due to the revenue of empire and tbe legacy assets and soft power in the post empire world which have slowly inevitably decayed
Also, as life becomes more complex the state can do less. EM Forsters "The Machine Stops" was a boring book foisted on us at school but a very prohetic one.
The choice is collapse with authoritarianism on the way or a wholesale deregulation, a very limited state based on a principle of Caveat Emptor and an acceptance that people will make bad or inept decisions and suffer as a result and it is not the states job to prevent or mitigate this, other than to set some core, simple to understand rules (which is basically what Common Law is).
I think the die was cast though when Cameron beat Davis in 2005, or perhaps even when Wilson won in 1964.
You're overstating the "revenue of empire" here, as costs matched benefits from the 1870s onwards even if you look at it from a pure revenue perspective.
On a wider economic basis it produced a clear loss, especially when you factor in the downsides of it fucking our trade and monetary policy over and over and over again until we finally began to cut our losses in 1957.
Direct revenue is one thing. Indirect (a captive market for UK manufacturers) is another, this has lingered on to a certain extent even now (e.g MK will have good sales in Singapore, Ireland, Cyprus, Hong Kong and half the middle East and Africa as a legacy of empire is that they use BS1363 plugs and sockets.
Plenty more such trade was kicked in the nuts in 1973 when joined customs union with rival industrial countries and put trade barriers up with such countries as a result.
The root cause of empire is need, a country not having enough land and resources to support it's population sustainably. See Rome, Japan and us (not to mention Russia invading Ukraine, both now and in aftermath of the Russian Revolution)
It dosen't help that we are making it worse by unsustainable population increase and shunning the Oil, Gas and Coal resources (the latter of which is still abundant) so are therefore making our industry uncompetitive compared with those that do exploit such resources unreserved.
And yet S Korea - and postwar Japan - achieved great prosperity without significant natural resources, or captive markets.
And Hong Kong. And Singapore. And Switzerland.
It's almost like the most important natural resource is the human brain.
Denmark and South Korea are more prosperous than us because we have too many thickos..
The other thing to state about writing ref. earlier discussions is that you need never retire. If your brain/body stays fit you can write until you drop. It’s good for keeping the mind active and if you love it, keep at it.
If you are paid £1 or £2 a word you are one of the better paid jpurnalists on Fleet Street, and therefore one of the more noticeable. It's weird I cannot recognise your style. Do you specialise in a certain field?
Yes. And no. But I’m amused you refer to ‘Fleet Street’
I don’t have a weekly column by the way. Pieces from time to time, often on commission when they sense a juicy topic for me to write up.
I’ll leave it there but if anyone outs me on here you won’t ever see me again. I like to keep it anon and I hope that can be respected.
xx
No chance of that. All journos on this site are incredibly well disguised.
I’ve had pieces published in HR Magazine and Personnel Today. Does that count?
I got Star Letter in Cats Today once.
I won a caption competition in The Chemical Engineer.
I mean, his academic work is interesting and all. But you his political views were lazy, and his reflexiveness anti-Americanism resulted in him cozying up to the most revolting of dictators.
For the record, I thought Henry Kissinger was a piece of shit too.
I mean, his academic work is interesting and all. But you his political views were lazy, and his reflexiveness anti-Americanism resulted in him cozying up to the most revolting of dictators.
For the record, I thought Henry Kissinger was a piece of shit too.
The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.
And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.
I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.
No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.
The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.
This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.
Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.
And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.
Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.
OK.
The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.
So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.
We need to spend more on defence. Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.
I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.
Plus everyone wants more transport projects and everyone wants increasingly improving schools. Add on people always having a pet regulation….
The problem is that most expect the state can do more than it can do. It could only do what it did in the first place due to the revenue of empire and tbe legacy assets and soft power in the post empire world which have slowly inevitably decayed
Also, as life becomes more complex the state can do less. EM Forsters "The Machine Stops" was a boring book foisted on us at school but a very prohetic one.
The choice is collapse with authoritarianism on the way or a wholesale deregulation, a very limited state based on a principle of Caveat Emptor and an acceptance that people will make bad or inept decisions and suffer as a result and it is not the states job to prevent or mitigate this, other than to set some core, simple to understand rules (which is basically what Common Law is).
I think the die was cast though when Cameron beat Davis in 2005, or perhaps even when Wilson won in 1964.
You're overstating the "revenue of empire" here, as costs matched benefits from the 1870s onwards even if you look at it from a pure revenue perspective.
On a wider economic basis it produced a clear loss, especially when you factor in the downsides of it fucking our trade and monetary policy over and over and over again until we finally began to cut our losses in 1957.
Direct revenue is one thing. Indirect (a captive market for UK manufacturers) is another, this has lingered on to a certain extent even now (e.g MK will have good sales in Singapore, Ireland, Cyprus, Hong Kong and half the middle East and Africa as a legacy of empire is that they use BS1363 plugs and sockets.
Plenty more such trade was kicked in the nuts in 1973 when joined customs union with rival industrial countries and put trade barriers up with such countries as a result.
The root cause of empire is need, a country not having enough land and resources to support it's population sustainably. See Rome, Japan and us (not to mention Russia invading Ukraine, both now and in aftermath of the Russian Revolution)
It dosen't help that we are making it worse by unsustainable population increase and shunning the Oil, Gas and Coal resources (the latter of which is still abundant) so are therefore making our industry uncompetitive compared with those that do exploit such resources unreserved.
And yet S Korea - and postwar Japan - achieved great prosperity without significant natural resources, or captive markets.
And Hong Kong. And Singapore. And Switzerland.
It's almost like the most important natural resource is the human brain.
Denmark and South Korea are more prosperous than us because we have too many thickos..
The other thing to state about writing ref. earlier discussions is that you need never retire. If your brain/body stays fit you can write until you drop. It’s good for keeping the mind active and if you love it, keep at it.
If you are paid £1 or £2 a word you are one of the better paid jpurnalists on Fleet Street, and therefore one of the more noticeable. It's weird I cannot recognise your style. Do you specialise in a certain field?
Yes. And no. But I’m amused you refer to ‘Fleet Street’
I don’t have a weekly column by the way. Pieces from time to time, often on commission when they sense a juicy topic for me to write up.
I’ll leave it there but if anyone outs me on here you won’t ever see me again. I like to keep it anon and I hope that can be respected.
xx
No chance of that. All journos on this site are incredibly well disguised.
I’ve had pieces published in HR Magazine and Personnel Today. Does that count?
I got Star Letter in Cats Today once.
I won a caption competition in The Chemical Engineer.
Did you get a good reaction?
Alas there wasn't a prize, just the glory of victory.
I did however come away with a pen when our team won at an IChemE quiz night.
I remember some time ago you called me out for mental health issues when I started posting like this. I am now worried about your welfare. Hope you can get some help.
During a radio interview on Tuesday, Sir Keir was asked what he meant by working people.
“People who earn their living, rely on our [public] services and don’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble,” he told LBC.
“So the sort of people I’m meeting pretty well every day now. It’s quite a big group because these days there are many people obviously not so well off.”
Two-thirds of working-age households have savings of more than £1,000 - considered the minimum “rainy day” fund - according to the Resolution Foundation.
Glaswegians and Mancunians need more than £1,000, as we have more rainy days.
And the world is a far better place than it was a few hours ago.
Nasty
The scumbag defended warcrimes even most Serbians wouldn't touch.
Is he actually dead? Suggestions he’s alive and well.
His genocide denials were indeed rather Irving-esque. Cambodia, FFS.
I don't know the ins and outs. Perhaps he did say outrageous things - things I couldn't defend. But in a lifetime of opposition to state violence, it's not surprising that he put the backs up of some powerful people. Regarding Cambodia he said his comments never minimised atrocities. He claims he criticised how media and political bodies used the reporting of events to serve their interests. Perhaps you know more.
I think he may not have died, but to crow at the announcement of the death of an old man seems awful to me!
I’m not sure he has died - seem to be suggestions his wife has been in touch saying he’s alive and well.
I was a bit of a fan, but had a moment of disillusionment at a talk he gave on the eve of the Iraq war at Harvard (I was visiting a friend there). He gave Iraq about 10 minutes and then started banging on about Serbia. He really did seem to be convinced that Milosevic was a victim of Western propaganda and the Serbs were just courageously defending themselves.
During a radio interview on Tuesday, Sir Keir was asked what he meant by working people.
“People who earn their living, rely on our [public] services and don’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble,” he told LBC.
“So the sort of people I’m meeting pretty well every day now. It’s quite a big group because these days there are many people obviously not so well off.”
Two-thirds of working-age households have savings of more than £1,000 - considered the minimum “rainy day” fund - according to the Resolution Foundation.
I'm often right. But, not enough people want to hear it in the next 2 weeks, and time is running out.
Think very carefully how you mark your ballot. Because, after that, you're stuck with it for a full 5 years.
Do you want to look yourself in the mirror that whole time knowing you voted for it?
This is the second constituency poll of the campaign, both for The Economist. Both the Hartlepool and the Gillingham constituency polls suggest the polls and MRPs are being significantly too generous to the Conservatives.
Fascinating! It really does seem like there's a serious chance of the Tories ending up with less than 100 seats.
I've still not traded out any of my 50-99 seats bet on bf, and suspect that I'll now stick with it - if it comes off, it'll be my second-most successful bet ever.
What times are these.
I was on less than 49 seats at 26.
Cashed out a bit now one can lay that for 6.4.
6.4!!! The most successful party in democracy is layable at 6 for seats less than 49!!!
I mean, his academic work is interesting and all. But you his political views were lazy, and his reflexiveness anti-Americanism resulted in him cozying up to the most revolting of dictators.
For the record, I thought Henry Kissinger was a piece of shit too.
I remember some time ago you called me out for mental health issues when I started posting like this. I am now worried about your welfare. Hope you can get some help.
He's joking. It's a sign of mental health. You're welcome
This is the second constituency poll of the campaign, both for The Economist. Both the Hartlepool and the Gillingham constituency polls suggest the polls and MRPs are being significantly too generous to the Conservatives.
Fascinating! It really does seem like there's a serious chance of the Tories ending up with less than 100 seats.
I've still not traded out any of my 50-99 seats bet on bf, and suspect that I'll now stick with it - if it comes off, it'll be my second-most successful bet ever.
What times are these.
I was on less than 49 seats at 26.
Cashed out a bit now one can lay that for 6.4.
6.4!!! The most successful party in democracy is layable at 6 for seats less than 49!!!
Mind you his comments will not I imagine win over many Tories to Labour but might have a few leftwingers spitting out their herbal tea and going Green.
'Mr Caudwell said he had donated to the Conservatives in 2019 “because I couldn’t possibly stand a Corbyn government, and I am still of exactly the same view there.”
He praised Sir Keir's attempts to get rid of what he called "the loony Left" which he claimed had focused on "extreme socialist policies", instead of "creating a wealthy Britain".
"We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
Sir Jim who moved to Monaco to save - checks - £4bn in taxes.
And he's lecturing other people about paying their taxes?
What a total fucking scumbag.
Just to add: if you move your taxable residence away from the UK to avoid paying taxes, no fucking way should you be allowed to vote.
Do you mean that you would have no voters who are not tax-resident in the UK, or would you introduce some sort of test to judge whether people had moved abroad for other reasons?
The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.
And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.
I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.
No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.
The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.
This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.
Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.
And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.
Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.
OK.
The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.
So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.
We need to spend more on defence. Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.
I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.
Plus everyone wants more transport projects and everyone wants increasingly improving schools. Add on people always having a pet regulation….
The problem is that most expect the state can do more than it can do. It could only do what it did in the first place due to the revenue of empire and tbe legacy assets and soft power in the post empire world which have slowly inevitably decayed
Also, as life becomes more complex the state can do less. EM Forsters "The Machine Stops" was a boring book foisted on us at school but a very prohetic one.
The choice is collapse with authoritarianism on the way or a wholesale deregulation, a very limited state based on a principle of Caveat Emptor and an acceptance that people will make bad or inept decisions and suffer as a result and it is not the states job to prevent or mitigate this, other than to set some core, simple to understand rules (which is basically what Common Law is).
I think the die was cast though when Cameron beat Davis in 2005, or perhaps even when Wilson won in 1964.
You're overstating the "revenue of empire" here, as costs matched benefits from the 1870s onwards even if you look at it from a pure revenue perspective.
On a wider economic basis it produced a clear loss, especially when you factor in the downsides of it fucking our trade and monetary policy over and over and over again until we finally began to cut our losses in 1957.
Direct revenue is one thing. Indirect (a captive market for UK manufacturers) is another, this has lingered on to a certain extent even now (e.g MK will have good sales in Singapore, Ireland, Cyprus, Hong Kong and half the middle East and Africa as a legacy of empire is that they use BS1363 plugs and sockets.
Plenty more such trade was kicked in the nuts in 1973 when joined customs union with rival industrial countries and put trade barriers up with such countries as a result.
The root cause of empire is need, a country not having enough land and resources to support it's population sustainably. See Rome, Japan and us (not to mention Russia invading Ukraine, both now and in aftermath of the Russian Revolution)
It dosen't help that we are making it worse by unsustainable population increase and shunning the Oil, Gas and Coal resources (the latter of which is still abundant) so are therefore making our industry uncompetitive compared with those that do exploit such resources unreserved.
And yet S Korea - and postwar Japan - achieved great prosperity without significant natural resources, or captive markets.
And Hong Kong. And Singapore. And Switzerland.
It's almost like the most important natural resource is the human brain.
Denmark and South Korea are more prosperous than us because we have too many thickos..
The other thing to state about writing ref. earlier discussions is that you need never retire. If your brain/body stays fit you can write until you drop. It’s good for keeping the mind active and if you love it, keep at it.
If you are paid £1 or £2 a word you are one of the better paid jpurnalists on Fleet Street, and therefore one of the more noticeable. It's weird I cannot recognise your style. Do you specialise in a certain field?
Yes. And no. But I’m amused you refer to ‘Fleet Street’
I don’t have a weekly column by the way. Pieces from time to time, often on commission when they sense a juicy topic for me to write up.
I’ll leave it there but if anyone outs me on here you won’t ever see me again. I like to keep it anon and I hope that can be respected.
xx
No chance of that. All journos on this site are incredibly well disguised.
I’ve had pieces published in HR Magazine and Personnel Today. Does that count?
I got Star Letter in Cats Today once.
I won a caption competition in The Chemical Engineer.
I remember some time ago you called me out for mental health issues when I started posting like this. I am now worried about your welfare. Hope you can get some help.
He's joking. It's a sign of mental health. You're welcome
I pretended I was joking too but actually I wasn't. Casino's recent posts are a pattern of behaviour and I am concerned. I do hope he can get help.
I hope you can too, you're clearly in need of a friend. But that won't be me.
Mind you his comments will not I imagine win over many Tories to Labour but might have a few leftwingers spitting out their herbal tea and going Green.
'Mr Caudwell said he had donated to the Conservatives in 2019 “because I couldn’t possibly stand a Corbyn government, and I am still of exactly the same view there.”
He praised Sir Keir's attempts to get rid of what he called "the loony Left" which he claimed had focused on "extreme socialist policies", instead of "creating a wealthy Britain".
"We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
During a radio interview on Tuesday, Sir Keir was asked what he meant by working people.
“People who earn their living, rely on our [public] services and don’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble,” he told LBC.
“So the sort of people I’m meeting pretty well every day now. It’s quite a big group because these days there are many people obviously not so well off.”
Two-thirds of working-age households have savings of more than £1,000 - considered the minimum “rainy day” fund - according to the Resolution Foundation.
I'm often right. But, not enough people want to hear it in the next 2 weeks, and time is running out.
Think very carefully how you mark your ballot. Because, after that, you're stuck with it for a full 5 years.
Do you want to look yourself in the mirror that whole time knowing you voted for it?
Don't worry, I and the rest of my close family are voting Tory, not that it will do much good in Woking.
I'm curious as to what Labour have planned. If they scrap ISAs or something, then fine, I don't like it, but whatever. If they decide to help themselves to savings I already have, then that's theft.
I remember some time ago you called me out for mental health issues when I started posting like this. I am now worried about your welfare. Hope you can get some help.
He's joking. It's a sign of mental health. You're welcome
I pretended I was joking too but actually I wasn't. Casino's recent posts are a pattern of behaviour and I am concerned. I do hope he can get help.
I hope you can too, you're clearly in need of a friend. But that won't be me.
Mind you his comments will not I imagine win over many Tories to Labour but might have a few leftwingers spitting out their herbal tea and going Green.
'Mr Caudwell said he had donated to the Conservatives in 2019 “because I couldn’t possibly stand a Corbyn government, and I am still of exactly the same view there.”
He praised Sir Keir's attempts to get rid of what he called "the loony Left" which he claimed had focused on "extreme socialist policies", instead of "creating a wealthy Britain".
"We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
Sir Jim who moved to Monaco to save - checks - £4bn in taxes.
And he's lecturing other people about paying their taxes?
What a total fucking scumbag.
Just to add: if you move your taxable residence away from the UK to avoid paying taxes, no fucking way should you be allowed to vote.
Ratcliffe is only after billions of support for regeneration of the Old Trafford industrial area and a new multi billion pound home for Manchester United to compete with Wembley '
He already has has a well publicised meeting with Burnham and Starmer so absolutely no surprise what he is after
The Hajj may become ecologically unsustainable, and indeed unfeasible. That will be a major blow to one of the great pillars of one of humanity's most important religions: without which the world would be so hugely different
It is almost too hard to bear. I am actually crying, here in my chair, and I only emotionally getting by with a decent Rioja to numb the pain. It must be even worse for Muslims
I don't understand that fairly sentimental (to me) reaction. There's human sympathy of course, but it is hardly unusual as a number of pilgrims to die for various reasons during Hajj. Hundreds being killed is fairly routine. 100+ killed has happened on a large number of occasions in the last several decades.
In orthodox Islam it will be viewed as kismet, the WIll of Allah, and a pass straight to heaven. That's an Islamic attitude.
I remember some time ago you called me out for mental health issues when I started posting like this. I am now worried about your welfare. Hope you can get some help.
He's joking. It's a sign of mental health. You're welcome
I pretended I was joking too but actually I wasn't. Casino's recent posts are a pattern of behaviour and I am concerned. I do hope he can get help.
I hope you can too, you're clearly in need of a friend. But that won't be me.
During a radio interview on Tuesday, Sir Keir was asked what he meant by working people.
“People who earn their living, rely on our [public] services and don’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble,” he told LBC.
“So the sort of people I’m meeting pretty well every day now. It’s quite a big group because these days there are many people obviously not so well off.”
Two-thirds of working-age households have savings of more than £1,000 - considered the minimum “rainy day” fund - according to the Resolution Foundation.
I'm often right. But, not enough people want to hear it in the next 2 weeks, and time is running out.
Think very carefully how you mark your ballot. Because, after that, you're stuck with it for a full 5 years.
Do you want to look yourself in the mirror that whole time knowing you voted for it?
I think everyone will be proud of voting to end the shitshow of the last 5 years.
I remember some time ago you called me out for mental health issues when I started posting like this. I am now worried about your welfare. Hope you can get some help.
He's joking. It's a sign of mental health. You're welcome
I pretended I was joking too but actually I wasn't. Casino's recent posts are a pattern of behaviour and I am concerned. I do hope he can get help.
I hope you can too, you're clearly in need of a friend. But that won't be me.
You say you are just like I did. But I think based on your comments over many days there's something deeper afoot. I really hope like me you have a supportive network around you that can help. Best wishes.
Could the Lib Dems and SNP agree an 'Opposition Pact' to marginalise the Tories and Reform?
If you're Ed Davey, perhaps the chance for much greater prominence on the national stage as HM Official Opposition, outweighs any negatives of the association with the SNP. You can say "We want to effectively hold Labour to account, despite our disagreements on policy..." or something.
OTOH the SNP may demand prominent shadow cabinet positions from it. Or perhaps they'd be satisfied to have relatively few, if they think it could advance their cause somehow to just be in the official opposition.
I remember some time ago you called me out for mental health issues when I started posting like this. I am now worried about your welfare. Hope you can get some help.
He's joking. It's a sign of mental health. You're welcome
I pretended I was joking too but actually I wasn't. Casino's recent posts are a pattern of behaviour and I am concerned. I do hope he can get help.
I hope you can too, you're clearly in need of a friend. But that won't be me.
I think we are agreed
I never know what you're going on about so there is nothing to agree about. I am done talking to you.
During a radio interview on Tuesday, Sir Keir was asked what he meant by working people.
“People who earn their living, rely on our [public] services and don’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble,” he told LBC.
“So the sort of people I’m meeting pretty well every day now. It’s quite a big group because these days there are many people obviously not so well off.”
Two-thirds of working-age households have savings of more than £1,000 - considered the minimum “rainy day” fund - according to the Resolution Foundation.
I'm often right. But, not enough people want to hear it in the next 2 weeks, and time is running out.
Think very carefully how you mark your ballot. Because, after that, you're stuck with it for a full 5 years.
Do you want to look yourself in the mirror that whole time knowing you voted for it?
Don't worry, I and the rest of my close family are voting Tory, not that it will do much good in Woking.
I'm curious as to what Labour have planned. If they scrap ISAs or something, then fine, I don't like it, but whatever. If they decide to help themselves to savings I already have, then that's theft.
I remember some time ago you called me out for mental health issues when I started posting like this. I am now worried about your welfare. Hope you can get some help.
He's joking. It's a sign of mental health. You're welcome
I pretended I was joking too but actually I wasn't. Casino's recent posts are a pattern of behaviour and I am concerned. I do hope he can get help.
I hope you can too, you're clearly in need of a friend. But that won't be me.
Could the Lib Dems and SNP agree an 'Opposition Pact' to marginalise the Tories and Reform?
If you're Ed Davey, I assume the chance for much greater prominence on the national stage, outweighs any negatives of the association with the SNP. You can say "We want to effectively hold Labour to account, despite our disagreements on policy..." or something.
I remember some time ago you called me out for mental health issues when I started posting like this. I am now worried about your welfare. Hope you can get some help.
He's joking. It's a sign of mental health. You're welcome
I pretended I was joking too but actually I wasn't. Casino's recent posts are a pattern of behaviour and I am concerned. I do hope he can get help.
I hope you can too, you're clearly in need of a friend. But that won't be me.
You say you are just like I did. But I think based on your comments over many days there's something deeper afoot. I really hope like me you have a supportive network around you that can help. Best wishes.
Err, OK mate.
Anyway. Need to get an early night. School day tomorrow.
I remember some time ago you called me out for mental health issues when I started posting like this. I am now worried about your welfare. Hope you can get some help.
He's joking. It's a sign of mental health. You're welcome
I pretended I was joking too but actually I wasn't. Casino's recent posts are a pattern of behaviour and I am concerned. I do hope he can get help.
I hope you can too, you're clearly in need of a friend. But that won't be me.
You say you are just like I did. But I think based on your comments over many days there's something deeper afoot. I really hope like me you have a supportive network around you that can help. Best wishes.
Err, OK mate.
Anyway. Need to get an early night. School day tomorrow.
It's hard to accept, I do know that. But hope you can. Good luck.
Mind you his comments will not I imagine win over many Tories to Labour but might have a few leftwingers spitting out their herbal tea and going Green.
'Mr Caudwell said he had donated to the Conservatives in 2019 “because I couldn’t possibly stand a Corbyn government, and I am still of exactly the same view there.”
He praised Sir Keir's attempts to get rid of what he called "the loony Left" which he claimed had focused on "extreme socialist policies", instead of "creating a wealthy Britain".
"We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
I remember some time ago you called me out for mental health issues when I started posting like this. I am now worried about your welfare. Hope you can get some help.
He's joking. It's a sign of mental health. You're welcome
I pretended I was joking too but actually I wasn't. Casino's recent posts are a pattern of behaviour and I am concerned. I do hope he can get help.
I hope you can too, you're clearly in need of a friend. But that won't be me.
I think we are agreed
Is this the bit where you now both kiss?
Leon is a poster I actively avoid unless he forces his way into conversations. I wish I could avoid him at all costs but sadly I make do where I can.
The answer is no btw. He lost my respect a long time ago back when he was Sean.
Mind you his comments will not I imagine win over many Tories to Labour but might have a few leftwingers spitting out their herbal tea and going Green.
'Mr Caudwell said he had donated to the Conservatives in 2019 “because I couldn’t possibly stand a Corbyn government, and I am still of exactly the same view there.”
He praised Sir Keir's attempts to get rid of what he called "the loony Left" which he claimed had focused on "extreme socialist policies", instead of "creating a wealthy Britain".
"We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
Mind you his comments will not I imagine win over many Tories to Labour but might have a few leftwingers spitting out their herbal tea and going Green.
'Mr Caudwell said he had donated to the Conservatives in 2019 “because I couldn’t possibly stand a Corbyn government, and I am still of exactly the same view there.”
He praised Sir Keir's attempts to get rid of what he called "the loony Left" which he claimed had focused on "extreme socialist policies", instead of "creating a wealthy Britain".
"We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
During a radio interview on Tuesday, Sir Keir was asked what he meant by working people.
“People who earn their living, rely on our [public] services and don’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble,” he told LBC.
“So the sort of people I’m meeting pretty well every day now. It’s quite a big group because these days there are many people obviously not so well off.”
Two-thirds of working-age households have savings of more than £1,000 - considered the minimum “rainy day” fund - according to the Resolution Foundation.
I'm often right. But, not enough people want to hear it in the next 2 weeks, and time is running out.
Think very carefully how you mark your ballot. Because, after that, you're stuck with it for a full 5 years.
Do you want to look yourself in the mirror that whole time knowing you voted for it?
Don't worry, I and the rest of my close family are voting Tory, not that it will do much good in Woking.
I'm curious as to what Labour have planned. If they scrap ISAs or something, then fine, I don't like it, but whatever. If they decide to help themselves to savings I already have, then that's theft.
Yes and if they decide to sacrifice your first-born that's murder. But neither are happening of course.
Still if you're desperate to find reasons to vote for this stunningly incompetent excuse for a government, this is the sort of fiction that will have to serve, I guess.
Mind you his comments will not I imagine win over many Tories to Labour but might have a few leftwingers spitting out their herbal tea and going Green.
'Mr Caudwell said he had donated to the Conservatives in 2019 “because I couldn’t possibly stand a Corbyn government, and I am still of exactly the same view there.”
He praised Sir Keir's attempts to get rid of what he called "the loony Left" which he claimed had focused on "extreme socialist policies", instead of "creating a wealthy Britain".
"We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
Could the Lib Dems and SNP agree an 'Opposition Pact' to marginalise the Tories and Reform?
If you're Ed Davey, I assume the chance for much greater prominence on the national stage, outweighs any negatives of the association with the SNP. You can say "We want to effectively hold Labour to account, despite our disagreements on policy..." or something.
Mind you his comments will not I imagine win over many Tories to Labour but might have a few leftwingers spitting out their herbal tea and going Green.
'Mr Caudwell said he had donated to the Conservatives in 2019 “because I couldn’t possibly stand a Corbyn government, and I am still of exactly the same view there.”
He praised Sir Keir's attempts to get rid of what he called "the loony Left" which he claimed had focused on "extreme socialist policies", instead of "creating a wealthy Britain".
"We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
Boris Johnson is no longer expected to join Tory election campaign trail because party is facing decimation in the red wall seats he won in 2019 and there are fears he will not appeal to voters in the south
Johnson is instead expected to go on his second summer holiday within the next few days and is not due back in the UK until July 3
Sunak did not tell Johnson that he was planning a snap election and has not spoken to him for the duration of the campaign
Allies of Sunak are said to be concerned that Johnson could prove to be a distraction because of the ‘media circus’ that would surround him if he spent a day on the campaign trail
Tory strategist: ‘What’s the point of sending him to the red wall when the focus of the campaign is to defend 150 seats in the south?
‘This is not a campaign that is looking to win seats in the red wall. This is a fight for survival. If you look at the seats we’re targeting they don’t have Boris Johnson supporters’
In the past ten days the prime minister has spent his time in seats with an average Conservative majority of 15,000, up from 10,000 in the first two weeks of the campaign
Could the Lib Dems and SNP agree an 'Opposition Pact' to marginalise the Tories and Reform?
If you're Ed Davey, I assume the chance for much greater prominence on the national stage, outweighs any negatives of the association with the SNP. You can say "We want to effectively hold Labour to account, despite our disagreements on policy..." or something.
SNP too pro EU for the LDs.
'Opposition Pact' ??
There's no such thing constitutionally I think?
The Cons would be Opposition on those numbers.
Yes until the Farage reverse takeover, at which point 7 or 8 One-nation Tories defect to the LDs and hey presto Davey becomes LOTO.
Boris Johnson is no longer expected to join Tory election campaign trail because party is facing decimation in the red wall seats he won in 2019 and there are fears he will not appeal to voters in the south
Johnson is instead expected to go on his second summer holiday within the next few days and is not due back in the UK until July 3
Sunak did not tell Johnson that he was planning a snap election and has not spoken to him for the duration of the campaign
Allies of Sunak are said to be concerned that Johnson could prove to be a distraction because of the ‘media circus’ that would surround him if he spent a day on the campaign trail
Tory strategist: ‘What’s the point of sending him to the red wall when the focus of the campaign is to defend 150 seats in the south?
‘This is not a campaign that is looking to win seats in the red wall. This is a fight for survival. If you look at the seats we’re targeting they don’t have Boris Johnson supporters’
In the past ten days the prime minister has spent his time in seats with an average Conservative majority of 15,000, up from 10,000 in the first two weeks of the campaign
Could the Lib Dems and SNP agree an 'Opposition Pact' to marginalise the Tories and Reform?
If you're Ed Davey, I assume the chance for much greater prominence on the national stage, outweighs any negatives of the association with the SNP. You can say "We want to effectively hold Labour to account, despite our disagreements on policy..." or something.
SNP too pro EU for the LDs.
'Opposition Pact' ??
There's no such thing constitutionally I think?
The Cons would be Opposition on those numbers.
I've seen conflicting things online about whether 3rd and 4th parties can sit together and be the official opposition - I think ultimately it's at the speaker's discretion but can't be sure
If Sunak is spending his time in seats with majorities of 15,000 that implies that the private polling is as bad as the worst of the public polling right?
Are the Tories now as unpopular as Labour in 2019? Really?
Could the Lib Dems and SNP agree an 'Opposition Pact' to marginalise the Tories and Reform?
If you're Ed Davey, I assume the chance for much greater prominence on the national stage, outweighs any negatives of the association with the SNP. You can say "We want to effectively hold Labour to account, despite our disagreements on policy..." or something.
SNP too pro EU for the LDs.
'Opposition Pact' ??
There's no such thing constitutionally I think?
The Cons would be Opposition on those numbers.
Probably a matter of convention, but it's hard to see for what reason there would be a departure.
The prevalence (on the whole) of the two-party system has usually removed any uncertainty as to which party has the right to be called the ‘Official Opposition’; it is the largest minority party which is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the Government, to assume office. https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5986/the-official-opposition
Boris Johnson is no longer expected to join Tory election campaign trail because party is facing decimation in the red wall seats he won in 2019 and there are fears he will not appeal to voters in the south
Johnson is instead expected to go on his second summer holiday within the next few days and is not due back in the UK until July 3
Sunak did not tell Johnson that he was planning a snap election and has not spoken to him for the duration of the campaign
Allies of Sunak are said to be concerned that Johnson could prove to be a distraction because of the ‘media circus’ that would surround him if he spent a day on the campaign trail
Tory strategist: ‘What’s the point of sending him to the red wall when the focus of the campaign is to defend 150 seats in the south?
‘This is not a campaign that is looking to win seats in the red wall. This is a fight for survival. If you look at the seats we’re targeting they don’t have Boris Johnson supporters’
In the past ten days the prime minister has spent his time in seats with an average Conservative majority of 15,000, up from 10,000 in the first two weeks of the campaign
If Sunak is spending his time in seats with majorities of 15,000 that implies that the private polling is as bad as the worst of the public polling right?
Are the Tories now as unpopular as Labour in 2019? Really?
UK - Next General Election - Liberal Democrats U/O 59.5 Seats
Odds don't seem great however - currently 1.83 for over 59.5 seats. The 'Most Seats Without Labour' for the Lib Dems is 4.7 - if they get 60+ seats they'll have quite a good chance of coming 2nd.
If Sunak is spending his time in seats with majorities of 15,000 that implies that the private polling is as bad as the worst of the public polling right?
Are the Tories now as unpopular as Labour in 2019? Really?
Much worse.
Are they really though? I mean, in 2019 Labour had destroyed itself, was led by a historically unpopular leader and was being racist. Are the Tories really as bad as that?
Boris Johnson is no longer expected to join Tory election campaign trail because party is facing decimation in the red wall seats he won in 2019 and there are fears he will not appeal to voters in the south
Johnson is instead expected to go on his second summer holiday within the next few days and is not due back in the UK until July 3
Sunak did not tell Johnson that he was planning a snap election and has not spoken to him for the duration of the campaign
Allies of Sunak are said to be concerned that Johnson could prove to be a distraction because of the ‘media circus’ that would surround him if he spent a day on the campaign trail
Tory strategist: ‘What’s the point of sending him to the red wall when the focus of the campaign is to defend 150 seats in the south?
‘This is not a campaign that is looking to win seats in the red wall. This is a fight for survival. If you look at the seats we’re targeting they don’t have Boris Johnson supporters’
In the past ten days the prime minister has spent his time in seats with an average Conservative majority of 15,000, up from 10,000 in the first two weeks of the campaign
Boris Johnson is no longer expected to join Tory election campaign trail because party is facing decimation in the red wall seats he won in 2019 and there are fears he will not appeal to voters in the south
Johnson is instead expected to go on his second summer holiday within the next few days and is not due back in the UK until July 3
Sunak did not tell Johnson that he was planning a snap election and has not spoken to him for the duration of the campaign
Allies of Sunak are said to be concerned that Johnson could prove to be a distraction because of the ‘media circus’ that would surround him if he spent a day on the campaign trail
Tory strategist: ‘What’s the point of sending him to the red wall when the focus of the campaign is to defend 150 seats in the south?
‘This is not a campaign that is looking to win seats in the red wall. This is a fight for survival. If you look at the seats we’re targeting they don’t have Boris Johnson supporters’
In the past ten days the prime minister has spent his time in seats with an average Conservative majority of 15,000, up from 10,000 in the first two weeks of the campaign
Thanks Scott and Paste. You are pointless.
Ignore Horse Scott, I for one like the twitter posts, saves me the bother of hooking into twitter.
(One request though, please post the tweet link each time.)
Boris Johnson is no longer expected to join Tory election campaign trail because party is facing decimation in the red wall seats he won in 2019 and there are fears he will not appeal to voters in the south
Johnson is instead expected to go on his second summer holiday within the next few days and is not due back in the UK until July 3
Sunak did not tell Johnson that he was planning a snap election and has not spoken to him for the duration of the campaign
Allies of Sunak are said to be concerned that Johnson could prove to be a distraction because of the ‘media circus’ that would surround him if he spent a day on the campaign trail
Tory strategist: ‘What’s the point of sending him to the red wall when the focus of the campaign is to defend 150 seats in the south?
‘This is not a campaign that is looking to win seats in the red wall. This is a fight for survival. If you look at the seats we’re targeting they don’t have Boris Johnson supporters’
In the past ten days the prime minister has spent his time in seats with an average Conservative majority of 15,000, up from 10,000 in the first two weeks of the campaign
Thanks Scott and Paste. You are pointless.
Ignore Horse Scott, I for one like the twitter posts, saves me the bother of hooking into twitter.
(One request though, please post the tweet link each time.)
Does anyone know how to scott & paste the tweet text and URL at the same time? Asking for a friend...
Could the Lib Dems and SNP agree an 'Opposition Pact' to marginalise the Tories and Reform?
If you're Ed Davey, I assume the chance for much greater prominence on the national stage, outweighs any negatives of the association with the SNP. You can say "We want to effectively hold Labour to account, despite our disagreements on policy..." or something.
SNP too pro EU for the LDs.
'Opposition Pact' ??
There's no such thing constitutionally I think?
The Cons would be Opposition on those numbers.
Til early August when 15 of them have joined Farage's Nazis party
Hmm. interesting. Lose their short money for starters.
If Sunak is spending his time in seats with majorities of 15,000 that implies that the private polling is as bad as the worst of the public polling right?
Are the Tories now as unpopular as Labour in 2019? Really?
Much worse.
Are they really though? I mean, in 2019 Labour had destroyed itself, was led by a historically unpopular leader and was being racist. Are the Tories really as bad as that?
Their unpopularity is much worse, because unlike Labour in 2019 the Tories have also lost a substantial portion of their previously tribal vote.
Their competence may also be worse at this point, though Sunak would still be a better pick than Corbyn.
Boris Johnson is no longer expected to join Tory election campaign trail because party is facing decimation in the red wall seats he won in 2019 and there are fears he will not appeal to voters in the south
Johnson is instead expected to go on his second summer holiday within the next few days and is not due back in the UK until July 3
Sunak did not tell Johnson that he was planning a snap election and has not spoken to him for the duration of the campaign
Allies of Sunak are said to be concerned that Johnson could prove to be a distraction because of the ‘media circus’ that would surround him if he spent a day on the campaign trail
Tory strategist: ‘What’s the point of sending him to the red wall when the focus of the campaign is to defend 150 seats in the south?
‘This is not a campaign that is looking to win seats in the red wall. This is a fight for survival. If you look at the seats we’re targeting they don’t have Boris Johnson supporters’
In the past ten days the prime minister has spent his time in seats with an average Conservative majority of 15,000, up from 10,000 in the first two weeks of the campaign
Thanks Scott and Paste. You are pointless.
Ignore Horse Scott, I for one like the twitter posts, saves me the bother of hooking into twitter.
(One request though, please post the tweet link each time.)
Does anyone know how to scott & paste the tweet text and URL at the same time? Asking for a friend...
Apple supports a 3rd party app called iClip. I've been in IT for decades and it is the single most productive tool I have come across.
Mind you his comments will not I imagine win over many Tories to Labour but might have a few leftwingers spitting out their herbal tea and going Green.
'Mr Caudwell said he had donated to the Conservatives in 2019 “because I couldn’t possibly stand a Corbyn government, and I am still of exactly the same view there.”
He praised Sir Keir's attempts to get rid of what he called "the loony Left" which he claimed had focused on "extreme socialist policies", instead of "creating a wealthy Britain".
"We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
Boris Johnson is no longer expected to join Tory election campaign trail because party is facing decimation in the red wall seats he won in 2019 and there are fears he will not appeal to voters in the south
Johnson is instead expected to go on his second summer holiday within the next few days and is not due back in the UK until July 3
Sunak did not tell Johnson that he was planning a snap election and has not spoken to him for the duration of the campaign
Allies of Sunak are said to be concerned that Johnson could prove to be a distraction because of the ‘media circus’ that would surround him if he spent a day on the campaign trail
Tory strategist: ‘What’s the point of sending him to the red wall when the focus of the campaign is to defend 150 seats in the south?
‘This is not a campaign that is looking to win seats in the red wall. This is a fight for survival. If you look at the seats we’re targeting they don’t have Boris Johnson supporters’
In the past ten days the prime minister has spent his time in seats with an average Conservative majority of 15,000, up from 10,000 in the first two weeks of the campaign
Thanks Scott and Paste. You are pointless.
Ignore Horse Scott, I for one like the twitter posts, saves me the bother of hooking into twitter.
(One request though, please post the tweet link each time.)
Does anyone know how to scott & paste the tweet text and URL at the same time? Asking for a friend...
Apple supports a 3rd party app called iClip. I've been in IT for decades and it is the single most productive tool I have come across.
Mind you his comments will not I imagine win over many Tories to Labour but might have a few leftwingers spitting out their herbal tea and going Green.
'Mr Caudwell said he had donated to the Conservatives in 2019 “because I couldn’t possibly stand a Corbyn government, and I am still of exactly the same view there.”
He praised Sir Keir's attempts to get rid of what he called "the loony Left" which he claimed had focused on "extreme socialist policies", instead of "creating a wealthy Britain".
"We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
Sir Jim who moved to Monaco to save - checks - £4bn in taxes.
And he's lecturing other people about paying their taxes?
What a total fucking scumbag.
Just to add: if you move your taxable residence away from the UK to avoid paying taxes, no fucking way should you be allowed to vote.
Ratcliffe is only after billions of support for regeneration of the Old Trafford industrial area and a new multi billion pound home for Manchester United to compete with Wembley '
He already has has a well publicised meeting with Burnham and Starmer so absolutely no surprise what he is after
You don't become a gazillionaire by backing losers.
The media don't ask the right questions of these celebrity 'switchers'.
Comments
I've still not traded out any of my 50-99 seats bet on bf, and suspect that I'll now stick with it - if it comes off, it'll be my second-most successful bet ever.
Even if this is true, isn't what they are suggesting pretty similar to the US?
I understand that people dislike Farage and Lee Anderson, but it feels like they project things on to this party that are not supported by evidence.
As I said before, their actual manifesto just seems to be mainstream conservative circa 2024.
It is almost too hard to bear. I am actually crying, here in my chair, and I only emotionally getting by with a decent Rioja to numb the pain. It must be even worse for Muslims
I mean, his academic work is interesting and all. But you his political views were lazy, and his reflexiveness anti-Americanism resulted in him cozying up to the most revolting of dictators.
For the record, I thought Henry Kissinger was a piece of shit too.
I think he may not have died, but to crow at the announcement of the death of an old man seems awful to me!
The world is a better place without him, and there are very few people I would say that about.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/18/starmer-leaves-door-open-to-tax-rises-for-millions/
During a radio interview on Tuesday, Sir Keir was asked what he meant by working people.
“People who earn their living, rely on our [public] services and don’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble,” he told LBC.
“So the sort of people I’m meeting pretty well every day now. It’s quite a big group because these days there are many people obviously not so well off.”
Two-thirds of working-age households have savings of more than £1,000 - considered the minimum “rainy day” fund - according to the Resolution Foundation.
https://www.timesnownews.com/world/what-happened-to-noam-chomsky-reports-of-american-professorsdeathfalse-says-wife-valeria-wasserman-article-111093969
I did however come away with a pen when our team won at an IChemE quiz night.
I'm too old for such hedonism these days.
I was a bit of a fan, but had a moment of disillusionment at a talk he gave on the eve of the Iraq war at Harvard (I was visiting a friend there). He gave Iraq about 10 minutes and then started banging on about Serbia. He really did seem to be convinced that Milosevic was a victim of Western propaganda and the Serbs were just courageously defending themselves.
Think very carefully how you mark your ballot. Because, after that, you're stuck with it for a full 5 years.
Do you want to look yourself in the mirror that whole time knowing you voted for it?
I was on less than 49 seats at 26.
Cashed out a bit now one can lay that for 6.4.
6.4!!! The most successful party in democracy is layable at 6 for seats less than 49!!!
Can we pin this post for the past 100+ years?
https://x.com/bellacaledonia/status/1803180909140865073
Superstar DJ's,
Here we go!
I hope you can too, you're clearly in need of a friend. But that won't be me.
I'm curious as to what Labour have planned. If they scrap ISAs or something, then fine, I don't like it, but whatever. If they decide to help themselves to savings I already have, then that's theft.
Gallows humour.
He already has has a well publicised meeting with Burnham and Starmer so absolutely no surprise what he is after
In orthodox Islam it will be viewed as kismet, the WIll of Allah, and a pass straight to heaven. That's an Islamic attitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidents_during_the_Hajj
CON 70
LIB DEM 60
SNP 20
REFUK 3
Could the Lib Dems and SNP agree an 'Opposition Pact' to marginalise the Tories and Reform?
If you're Ed Davey, perhaps the chance for much greater prominence on the national stage as HM Official Opposition, outweighs any negatives of the association with the SNP. You can say "We want to effectively hold Labour to account, despite our disagreements on policy..." or something.
OTOH the SNP may demand prominent shadow cabinet positions from it. Or perhaps they'd be satisfied to have relatively few, if they think it could advance their cause somehow to just be in the official opposition.
Anyway. Need to get an early night. School day tomorrow.
Do not forget
That it is not he or she or them or it
That you belong to.
Also the most modest, forget the tripe that @TSE posts.
The answer is no btw. He lost my respect a long time ago back when he was Sean.
Still if you're desperate to find reasons to vote for this stunningly incompetent excuse for a government, this is the sort of fiction that will have to serve, I guess.
He isn't particularly known for ever being palmed off.
There's no such thing constitutionally I think?
The Cons would be Opposition on those numbers.
He paid it, according to reporting.
https://www.artiopartners.com/renounce/boris-johnson-pays-irs-tax-bill/
Unless there is another tax bill he dodged.
Johnson is instead expected to go on his second summer holiday within the next few days and is not due back in the UK until July 3
Sunak did not tell Johnson that he was planning a snap election and has not spoken to him for the duration of the campaign
Allies of Sunak are said to be concerned that Johnson could prove to be a distraction because of the ‘media circus’ that would surround him if he spent a day on the campaign trail
Tory strategist: ‘What’s the point of sending him to the red wall when the focus of the campaign is to defend 150 seats in the south?
‘This is not a campaign that is looking to win seats in the red wall. This is a fight for survival. If you look at the seats we’re targeting they don’t have Boris Johnson supporters’
In the past ten days the prime minister has spent his time in seats with an average Conservative majority of 15,000, up from 10,000 in the first two weeks of the campaign
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1803183714698141762
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Exclusive:
Boris Johnson is no longer expected to join Tory election campaign trail because party is facing decimation in the red wall seats he won in 2019 and there are fears he will not appeal to voters in the south
Johnson is instead expected to go on his second summer holiday within the next few days and is not due back in the UK until July 3
Sunak did not tell Johnson that he was planning a snap election and has not spoken to him for the duration of the campaign
Allies of Sunak are said to be concerned that Johnson could prove to be a distraction because of the ‘media circus’ that would surround him if he spent a day on the campaign trail
Tory strategist: ‘What’s the point of sending him to the red wall when the focus of the campaign is to defend 150 seats in the south?
‘This is not a campaign that is looking to win seats in the red wall. This is a fight for survival. If you look at the seats we’re targeting they don’t have Boris Johnson supporters’
In the past ten days the prime minister has spent his time in seats with an average Conservative majority of 15,000, up from 10,000 in the first two weeks of the campaign
Are the Tories now as unpopular as Labour in 2019? Really?
The prevalence (on the whole) of the two-party system has usually removed any uncertainty as to which party has the right to be called the ‘Official Opposition’; it is the largest minority party which is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the Government, to assume office.
https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5986/the-official-opposition
UK - Next General Election - Liberal Democrats U/O 59.5 Seats
Odds don't seem great however - currently 1.83 for over 59.5 seats. The 'Most Seats Without Labour' for the Lib Dems is 4.7 - if they get 60+ seats they'll have quite a good chance of coming 2nd.
Point and LOL at the pollsters...
'Since the deadline for candidates has passed, Mr Brown will now run as an independent and Labour will not formally be standing anyone in the seat.'
It just keeps giving and giving.
(One request though, please post the tweet link each time.)
Or Rochdale really will end up winning by default, after the SNP also ditch their candidate or they get embroiled in a row.
Their competence may also be worse at this point, though Sunak would still be a better pick than Corbyn.
The media don't ask the right questions of these celebrity 'switchers'.
Talking of, have you put an election prediction down?