Labour will be a socialist government and they're about to shit right in your lunch.
It's a turnoff for you but the rest of us realise are paying socialist levels of tax with libertarian levels of public service. If we're going to pay we may as well try the real thing. That's why you're losing. Oh, and the fact that from Neil Hamilton to Michelle Mone the Conservative Party has shown for 30 years that it would be prosecuted under the RICO Act if it were incorporated in the USA.
Fucking pathetic.
Scrutinise the challenger.
Shall we start with the IFS who saying there is an £18bn hole created by Hunt that needs to be filled. How are the Tory party going to actually do that?
Challenge YOUR LOT. Labour.
*L-a-b-o-u-r*
I'm sick and tired of zero scrutiny being applied to their bullshit this campaign. It's a complete dereliction of duty by the press and the curious voter.
They are going to waltz into office without any questioning whatsoever.
If you don't put them on the spot you can't make any complaints whatsoever about what they subsequently do in office. Because you didn't give a shit.
You are pathetic. Are you saying that no-one in the country except you has interrogated the Labour manifesto? Seriously? Do you have so little faith in the electorate? You have to realise that you have failed and there is a better option on the table.
Doug, I'd be amazed if more than one person in a hundred has scrutinised a manifesto of any colour.
Labour will be a socialist government and they're about to shit right in your lunch.
It's a turnoff for you but the rest of us realise are paying socialist levels of tax with libertarian levels of public service. If we're going to pay we may as well try the real thing. That's why you're losing. Oh, and the fact that from Neil Hamilton to Michelle Mone the Conservative Party has shown for 30 years that it would be prosecuted under the RICO Act if it were incorporated in the USA.
Fucking pathetic.
Scrutinise the challenger.
I've scrutinised the challenger against the incumbent.
The incumbent loses on every single metric.
Your party has given me no reason to vote for it. It has given me several, very personal, reasons to want to bury it 12 feet in the ground.
Then, that's an OTT emotional and illogical reaction.
And, you'll pay for it.
I just want to be left alone by the government but the blues keep sticking their nose in.
I've got news for you mate: if that's what you want you're voting for the wrong team.
Really? Having seen what the Tories offer, and what Labour propose, I'll take my chances over your merry bunch of authoritarian curtain twitchers. There's a reason why most Tory members would pick Farage as your next leader if available. Anyone who values their privacy and freedom, takes a big chance, given your members' recent record of replacing leaders mid-Parliament (i.e. Truss) is insane. Vote for Sunak and get...who exactly?
"Readers added context they thought people might want to know The Conservative Government have been in power since 2010 and have raised overall taxes to their highest level since 1948."
Doesn't mean readers don't want to know a Labour Government that will take power in 2024 will raise them further to their highest level since 1713.
Great days, Window Tax in full swing. Hearth Tax departed but a happy memory for all those grateful taxpayers. Income Tax, that temporary expedient, 100 years away.
Have another think about it.
You're the one who has to live with your decision.
How is your plan to move abroad going?
Wife sceptical, parents don't want me to go.
I couldn't fuck off hard or fast enough given the choice. Which, I'm sure you'd welcome.
I'd probably go for the Canadian paradise. Probably Alberta.
Phil Foden is having his third child at the age of 24. Fair play to him in addressing thr demographic crisis - but it shows what can be done if you don't have to worry about bedrooms or childcare costs.
Labour will be a socialist government and they're about to shit right in your lunch.
It's a turnoff for you but the rest of us realise are paying socialist levels of tax with libertarian levels of public service. If we're going to pay we may as well try the real thing. That's why you're losing. Oh, and the fact that from Neil Hamilton to Michelle Mone the Conservative Party has shown for 30 years that it would be prosecuted under the RICO Act if it were incorporated in the USA.
Fucking pathetic.
Scrutinise the challenger.
Shall we start with the IFS who saying there is an £18bn hole created by Hunt that needs to be filled. How are the Tory party going to actually do that?
Challenge YOUR LOT. Labour.
*L-a-b-o-u-r*
I'm sick and tired of zero scrutiny being applied to their bullshit this campaign. It's a complete dereliction of duty by the press and the curious voter.
They are going to waltz into office without any questioning whatsoever.
If you don't put them on the spot you can't make any complaints whatsoever about what they subsequently do in office. Because you didn't give a shit.
It's 2019 in reverse.
A lot of people weren't keen on the idea of PM Boris, but decided that PM Jeremy was such a terrible prospect that 'any port in a storm' applied.
Now, that's suboptimal. It gave the Conservatives a chunky majority which they have squandered by governing like a bunch of toddlers high on Haribos. And the entire country has suffered the consequences.
It's quite possible that we're about to make the equivalent mistake on the other side. Less likely, because Starmer and Labour are unlikely to give us the really baroque stuff. A PM sacked by his party and then leaving Parliament in disgrace. A premiership collapsing in less than two months. That sort of thing.
The voting public have done enough scrutiny to think that the incumbents are terrible and the challenges are, at least, less terrible. In FPTP, that's all they need to do.
And the Conservative Party has two broad options. One is to accept the verdict of the electorate with good grace as a piece of feedback and try to become a better potential government. Or they can tell themselves and the voters that the voters have got it wrong. That second option is the sort of thing that we all ridicule Corbynites and similar for.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
Putin never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. He has by his actions created a Ukranian nationalist consciousness in places that never had it before, and earned the permanent opposition of Russian speaking Ukranians.
In very much the same way that British actions over the 1916 Easter rising and the Black and Tans created Nationalist Ireland.
But doubled down in the six Oblasts Counties.
Its going to end up with Ulster type partition.
And yes just as much strong feelings on both sides of that partition.
Thats just reality.
It's hard to tell, for obvious reasons, but I doubt that pro-Russian sentiment in Russian-occupied Ukraine is as strong as pro-British sentiment in Northern Ireland.
Crimea 100% certain pro russian. Think county Down or Antrim if the inhabitants of West Belfast had been sent packing at partition
Donetsk/Luhansk - Londonderry/Armagh - except the Russians don't control the "Bogside" and "South Armagh"
The halves of Zaporizhzhia (without) and Kherson (wjthout) they have. Think Tyrone and Fermanagh. Majority "Republican" but hung on to make the place viable (and land bridge to Crimea).
These are results that you are looking for. Every single oblast voted for independence in 1991 it wasn't even close anywhere but crimea.
So might every county of Ireland if one had been arranged by the victorious Germans in the aftermath of UK losing World War 1, and subsequent economic the collapse, with the collapse of healthcare, abrupt ending of welfare and pensions etc etc.
Putinbot 1 on full nonsense whataboutism today I see.
Labour will be a socialist government and they're about to shit right in your lunch.
It's a turnoff for you but the rest of us realise are paying socialist levels of tax with libertarian levels of public service. If we're going to pay we may as well try the real thing. That's why you're losing. Oh, and the fact that from Neil Hamilton to Michelle Mone the Conservative Party has shown for 30 years that it would be prosecuted under the RICO Act if it were incorporated in the USA.
Fucking pathetic.
Scrutinise the challenger.
I've scrutinised the challenger against the incumbent.
The incumbent loses on every single metric.
Your party has given me no reason to vote for it. It has given me several, very personal, reasons to want to bury it 12 feet in the ground.
Then, that's an OTT emotional and illogical reaction.
And, you'll pay for it.
I just want to be left alone by the government but the blues keep sticking their nose in.
I've got news for you mate: if that's what you want you're voting for the wrong team.
Really? Having seen what the Tories offer, and what Labour propose, I'll take my chances over your merry bunch of authoritarian curtain twitchers. There's a reason why most Tory members would pick Farage as your next leader if available. Anyone who values their privacy and freedom, takes a big chance, given your members' recent record of replacing leaders mid-Parliament (i.e. Truss) is insane. Vote for Sunak and get...who exactly?
You can't even describe what Labour propose.
Starmer is being allowed to get away with his Ming Vase only because noone has bothered to put him under pressure.
Look inside and you'll find a massive hidden floater. No, a facehugger constrained but desperate to jump out.
Labour to bring in automatic voter registration under plans to boost franchise
Labour is planning to introduce automatic registration for voting under plans to add millions more people to the electoral roll for future elections, especially young people, the Guardian has learned.
Starmer is not going to waste any opportunity to put finger on the scales once he gets power. Where as the Tories spent 14 years not really gaining a massive advantage of the much watered down redrawing constituencies (remember the more radical proposal originally was far fewer seats) and the voter id stuff which is nothing like the gerrymandering type stuff in the US.
I can see a scandal coming of people being auto registered who end up not being eligible.
Votes for 16 and auto enrolment.
How long before compulsory voting ?
I’m guessing the same people who condemned the Tories over their attempts to game the system will be as equally condemnatory here.
Is making it easier to vote, worth equal condemnation with making voting harder?
I don't think that's a reasonable summary of it though.
I don't support the Tories' voter ID changes*, but not all changes 'making it easier to vote' are automatically a good thing.
To take it to an extreme, votes at 12 would be making it easier to vote, but most people would not support that, quite reasonably. Allowing any foreign nationals to vote in all elections would be making it easier to vote, but would that be fair and reasonable, when to my knowledge no country operates that widely?
On votes at 16 I am not in favour of it, but it is a simple change to enact and for whatever reason support for it has been growing among political circles, so I'm more or less resigned to it.
Electoral changes tend to be proposed because those doing it think they will benefit, and whether they do or not not if they are reasonable they stick around. So Labour believing they will gain an advantage is not intrinsically wrong if the principal is still sound, or at least arguable.
But it is also the case that just because something is proposed for a supposedly positive reason, does not mean it is a good idea. Some people support electronic voting as it would be faster and you coudl do it from your phone or something, but in fact it is a terrible idea.
Auto-enrollment I'd need to see more details about, as it sounds reasonable but what is the reason it is not already the case (evil Tories cannot always be the answer).
*Weirdly, Labour are not proposing reversing the Tory voter ID changes.
I partly agree, but it's a straw man to bring in other changes that Labour aren't proposing. I was replying to a post that compared actual Labour and Tory policies, not "extreme" daft ones.
We know there are millions of people not on the electoral rolls. We also know they tend to be younger, more likely to rent etc. I can't think of a strong moral argument for not making it easier for them to take part in our democracy.
You are making the assumption they don't vote because its hard. I haven't voted since 2010....not because its too hard but because politicians aren't generally worth voting for and haven't been for longer. You want better political engagement how about you give us something worth actually getting out of bed for because all the major parties currently are not.
Labour will be a socialist government and they're about to shit right in your lunch.
It's a turnoff for you but the rest of us realise are paying socialist levels of tax with libertarian levels of public service. If we're going to pay we may as well try the real thing. That's why you're losing. Oh, and the fact that from Neil Hamilton to Michelle Mone the Conservative Party has shown for 30 years that it would be prosecuted under the RICO Act if it were incorporated in the USA.
Fucking pathetic.
Scrutinise the challenger.
Shall we start with the IFS who saying there is an £18bn hole created by Hunt that needs to be filled. How are the Tory party going to actually do that?
Challenge YOUR LOT. Labour.
*L-a-b-o-u-r*
I'm sick and tired of zero scrutiny being applied to their bullshit this campaign. It's a complete dereliction of duty by the press and the curious voter.
They are going to waltz into office without any questioning whatsoever.
If you don't put them on the spot you can't make any complaints whatsoever about what they subsequently do in office. Because you didn't give a shit.
You are pathetic. Are you saying that no-one in the country except you has interrogated the Labour manifesto? Seriously? Do you have so little faith in the electorate? You have to realise that you have failed and there is a better option on the table.
It's not a better option. It's a shitter option.
Starmer will use your vote to bolster the size of his giant strap-on and then royally fuck you in the arse, sans vaseline, laughing all the while, at the "mandate" you've given him.
After 5 years your bum is going to be rather sore. It will possibly need surgery.
The Tories should get you to write their eve of poll….
I'd do a better job than those usual wankers in CCHQ sending us all to our doom.
Phil Foden is having his third child at the age of 24. Fair play to him in addressing thr demographic crisis - but it shows what can be done if you don't have to worry about bedrooms or childcare costs.
He’s just on a bet with Kyle Walker to see who can populate greater Manchester more.
In an interview with @dwarkesh_sp, former prime minister Tony Blair has claimed that Covid lockdowns in the developing world 'did more harm that good', and that decisions to lock down should not have been left with politicians."
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
Putin never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. He has by his actions created a Ukranian nationalist consciousness in places that never had it before, and earned the permanent opposition of Russian speaking Ukranians.
In very much the same way that British actions over the 1916 Easter rising and the Black and Tans created Nationalist Ireland.
But doubled down in the six Oblasts Counties.
Its going to end up with Ulster type partition.
And yes just as much strong feelings on both sides of that partition.
Thats just reality.
It's hard to tell, for obvious reasons, but I doubt that pro-Russian sentiment in Russian-occupied Ukraine is as strong as pro-British sentiment in Northern Ireland.
Crimea 100% certain pro russian. Think county Down or Antrim if the inhabitants of West Belfast had been sent packing at partition
Donetsk/Luhansk - Londonderry/Armagh - except the Russians don't control the "Bogside" and "South Armagh"
The halves of Zaporizhzhia (without) and Kherson (wjthout) they have. Think Tyrone and Fermanagh. Majority "Republican" but hung on to make the place viable (and land bridge to Crimea).
These are results that you are looking for. Every single oblast voted for independence in 1991 it wasn't even close anywhere but crimea.
So might every county of Ireland if one had been arranged by the victorious Germans in the aftermath of UK losing World War 1, and subsequent economic the collapse, with the collapse of healthcare, abrupt ending of welfare and pensions etc etc.
I've just been working (*) for a couple of hours, listening to music as I code. I come on PB and lose my train of thought.
I realised the music I've been listening to has been on auto-repeat the whole time. On one song.
And I had not noticed.
"Leaving", by the Pet Shop Boys, if anyone cares.
(*) Sort of...
Because you were only being boring?
What have I done to deserve this?
These opinion polls remind me of domino dancing.
All day All day.
You just want it to be The Way It Used To Be (*) when the Tories were winning. Sadly, too many candidates have seen Opportunities to Make Lots of Money in the betting markets, and the voters won't let them have One More Chance. A Man Could Get Arrested for their shenanigans. There's too much Monkey Business in the Conservative Party; they have Delusions Of Grandeur, but this is The Calm Before The Storm.
In an interview with @dwarkesh_sp, former prime minister Tony Blair has claimed that Covid lockdowns in the developing world 'did more harm that good', and that decisions to lock down should not have been left with politicians."
18 Reform seats seems far too high, I have more faith in the country that it won't vote in that many Quislings.
Given your (correct imo) assessment of Farage as a grubby little racist it still surprises me that you voted for him in 2019. Ok, the Euro elections, but still. I would have thought no nose-peg could have been quite strong enough.
I voted for him to be ousted from [the European] Parliament, not elected into it.
And Theresa "Go Home" May was not much of a better alternative.
Yes I know the thinking. But I also know if I despised a politician as much as you do Nigel Farage, considered him a vile racist, I would need an unbelievably compelling reason to vote for them in any election under any circumstances. I guess your dislike of our EU membership was so strong as to be that reason. Quite something really when you think about it. And never again, one hopes.
Not my dislike of the EU, I was torn whether to vote Leave or Remain until the last minute and had entered the campaign backing Remain but was won over by Richard_Tyndall, Casino_Royale and others.
My desire to get him removed from Parliament, Theresa May removed as PM, as well as my belief in democracy and that having made a decision to Leave in 2016 that decision should be respected.
But yes it was absolutely sui generis and never again.
Sounds like your vote for Nigel Farage was in your mind a vote against Nigel Farage then. Interesting way of looking at it. We were just talking earlier about "thinking outside the box". Good example right here.
Yes, it was a vote that got him out of Parliament. He's a has-been now who is not an elected representative.
Good riddance.
Odd (in a good way) to hear a passionate Leaver describe that EU talking shop as "Parliament", one word capital P.
But as for "has been" I'm afraid he looks good for Clacton. Which would put him (for the first time) in the Mother of all.
I'm not that passionate a Leaver. I'm a passionate democrat and wanted our democratic vote respected, which led to my passion in the Brexit debates (as well as my vehement opposition to the antidemocratic backstop).
Had we voted the other way in the Referendum I'd have respected that and wanted it respected too.
As for calling the European Parliament by its name, it's it's name. 🤷♂️
As for Clacton, I fervently hope that Farage is an eight time loser next week. If they elect him I will be very disappointed in the voters of Clacton.
Phil Foden is having his third child at the age of 24. Fair play to him in addressing thr demographic crisis - but it shows what can be done if you don't have to worry about bedrooms or childcare costs.
He’s just on a bet with Kyle Walker to see who can populate greater Manchester more.
Walker has an advantage that he isn't fussy about who he works with in order to achieve that.
In an interview with @dwarkesh_sp, former prime minister Tony Blair has claimed that Covid lockdowns in the developing world 'did more harm that good', and that decisions to lock down should not have been left with politicians."
Labour will be a socialist government and they're about to shit right in your lunch.
It's a turnoff for you but the rest of us realise are paying socialist levels of tax with libertarian levels of public service. If we're going to pay we may as well try the real thing. That's why you're losing. Oh, and the fact that from Neil Hamilton to Michelle Mone the Conservative Party has shown for 30 years that it would be prosecuted under the RICO Act if it were incorporated in the USA.
Fucking pathetic.
Scrutinise the challenger.
Shall we start with the IFS who saying there is an £18bn hole created by Hunt that needs to be filled. How are the Tory party going to actually do that?
Challenge YOUR LOT. Labour.
*L-a-b-o-u-r*
I'm sick and tired of zero scrutiny being applied to their bullshit this campaign. It's a complete dereliction of duty by the press and the curious voter.
They are going to waltz into office without any questioning whatsoever.
If you don't put them on the spot you can't make any complaints whatsoever about what they subsequently do in office. Because you didn't give a shit.
You are pathetic. Are you saying that no-one in the country except you has interrogated the Labour manifesto? Seriously? Do you have so little faith in the electorate? You have to realise that you have failed and there is a better option on the table.
Doug, I'd be amazed if more than one person in a hundred has scrutinised a manifesto of any colour.
How would we be informed about delights like the 99 flakes if people werent paying attention to at least the more sensible and reality based of the various manifestos.
Labour will be a socialist government and they're about to shit right in your lunch.
It's a turnoff for you but the rest of us realise are paying socialist levels of tax with libertarian levels of public service. If we're going to pay we may as well try the real thing. That's why you're losing. Oh, and the fact that from Neil Hamilton to Michelle Mone the Conservative Party has shown for 30 years that it would be prosecuted under the RICO Act if it were incorporated in the USA.
Fucking pathetic.
Scrutinise the challenger.
I've scrutinised the challenger against the incumbent.
The incumbent loses on every single metric.
Your party has given me no reason to vote for it. It has given me several, very personal, reasons to want to bury it 12 feet in the ground.
Then, that's an OTT emotional and illogical reaction.
And, you'll pay for it.
I just want to be left alone by the government but the blues keep sticking their nose in.
I've got news for you mate: if that's what you want you're voting for the wrong team.
Really? Having seen what the Tories offer, and what Labour propose, I'll take my chances over your merry bunch of authoritarian curtain twitchers. There's a reason why most Tory members would pick Farage as your next leader if available. Anyone who values their privacy and freedom, takes a big chance, given your members' recent record of replacing leaders mid-Parliament (i.e. Truss) is insane. Vote for Sunak and get...who exactly?
You can't even describe what Labour propose.
Starmer is being allowed to get away with his Ming Vase only because noone has bothered to put him under pressure.
Look inside and you'll find a massive hidden floater. No, a facehugger constrained but desperate to jump out.
I 100% agree with you that the conservatives have failed to put starmer under any pressure and that’s the no 1 reason they deserve to lose badly and why reform are surging so there can be a REAL opposition !!
Instead all we are talking about what is a woman working person and which politicians have bet on politics.
The first point he makes is a really tough one. Small business, turn-over taxes are crippling, but for large multi-national businesses, its too easy to avoid profit based taxes. And of course large businesses can not only absorb red tape, it also acts as a moat against smaller challengers.
Interesting he is also talking about that there is a signs of wealth and brain drain has been occurring.
Also some bloke on t'interweb (well he runs a load of businesses) has more sensible policies than most of what crap the political parties have been proposing.
"Readers added context they thought people might want to know The Conservative Government have been in power since 2010 and have raised overall taxes to their highest level since 1948."
Doesn't mean readers don't want to know a Labour Government that will take power in 2024 will raise them further to their highest level since 1713.
Great days, Window Tax in full swing. Hearth Tax departed but a happy memory for all those grateful taxpayers. Income Tax, that temporary expedient, 100 years away.
Have another think about it.
You're the one who has to live with your decision.
How is your plan to move abroad going?
Wife sceptical, parents don't want me to go.
I couldn't fuck off hard or fast enough given the choice. Which, I'm sure you'd welcome.
I'd probably go for the Canadian paradise. Probably Alberta.
Freezing in winter catches fire in summer. Spring and autumn don't happen. Woke as buggery. Lovely place.
I've just been working (*) for a couple of hours, listening to music as I code. I come on PB and lose my train of thought.
I realised the music I've been listening to has been on auto-repeat the whole time. On one song.
And I had not noticed.
"Leaving", by the Pet Shop Boys, if anyone cares.
(*) Sort of...
Because you were only being boring?
What have I done to deserve this?
These opinion polls remind me of domino dancing.
All day All day.
You just want it to be The Way It Used To Be (*) when the Tories were winning. Sadly, too many candidates have seen Opportunities to Make Lots of Money in the betting markets, and the voters won't let them have One More Chance. A Man Could Get Arrested for their shenanigans. There's too much Monkey Business in the Conservative Party; they have Delusions Of Grandeur, but this is The Calm Before The Storm.
(*) A song I love.
Whether you visit Suburbia or Go West, where the Liberal Democrats seem to be doing well, people are saying the same thing to the Conservatives.
Phil Foden is having his third child at the age of 24. Fair play to him in addressing thr demographic crisis - but it shows what can be done if you don't have to worry about bedrooms or childcare costs.
I note a hint of bitterness there. But your point is basically correct. Footballers wages were always obscene but at a time when much of the country us struggling they have become totally immoral. A maximum wage would be a good idea. And before any clown talks about the market there are always foreign billionaires willing to bail out football clubs so there is no market.
I've just been working (*) for a couple of hours, listening to music as I code. I come on PB and lose my train of thought.
I realised the music I've been listening to has been on auto-repeat the whole time. On one song.
And I had not noticed.
"Leaving", by the Pet Shop Boys, if anyone cares.
(*) Sort of...
Because you were only being boring?
What have I done to deserve this?
These opinion polls remind me of domino dancing.
All day All day.
You just want it to be The Way It Used To Be (*) when the Tories were winning. Sadly, too many candidates have seen Opportunities to Make Lots of Money in the betting markets, and the voters won't let them have One More Chance. A Man Could Get Arrested for their shenanigans. There's too much Monkey Business in the Conservative Party; they have Delusions Of Grandeur, but this is The Calm Before The Storm.
Labour will be a socialist government and they're about to shit right in your lunch.
It's a turnoff for you but the rest of us realise are paying socialist levels of tax with libertarian levels of public service. If we're going to pay we may as well try the real thing. That's why you're losing. Oh, and the fact that from Neil Hamilton to Michelle Mone the Conservative Party has shown for 30 years that it would be prosecuted under the RICO Act if it were incorporated in the USA.
Fucking pathetic.
Scrutinise the challenger.
Shall we start with the IFS who saying there is an £18bn hole created by Hunt that needs to be filled. How are the Tory party going to actually do that?
Challenge YOUR LOT. Labour.
*L-a-b-o-u-r*
I'm sick and tired of zero scrutiny being applied to their bullshit this campaign. It's a complete dereliction of duty by the press and the curious voter.
They are going to waltz into office without any questioning whatsoever.
If you don't put them on the spot you can't make any complaints whatsoever about what they subsequently do in office. Because you didn't give a shit.
You are pathetic. Are you saying that no-one in the country except you has interrogated the Labour manifesto? Seriously? Do you have so little faith in the electorate? You have to realise that you have failed and there is a better option on the table.
It's not a better option. It's a shitter option.
Starmer will use your vote to bolster the size of his giant strap-on and then royally fuck you in the arse, sans vaseline, laughing all the while, at the "mandate" you've given him.
After 5 years your bum is going to be rather sore. It will possibly need surgery.
The Tories should get you to write their eve of poll….
I'd do a better job than those usual wankers in CCHQ sending us all to our doom.
To be frank I could do a better job and I don't want them to win....
In an interview with @dwarkesh_sp, former prime minister Tony Blair has claimed that Covid lockdowns in the developing world 'did more harm that good', and that decisions to lock down should not have been left with politicians."
In an interview with @dwarkesh_sp, former prime minister Tony Blair has claimed that Covid lockdowns in the developing world 'did more harm that good', and that decisions to lock down should not have been left with politicians."
Yes, a replacement for Putin may be 'worse' for Ukraine and the west than Putin. He may be more competent, more liable to press the big red button, whatever.
That's a concern. Or a replacement might be 'better' for us; one more willing to work with us, to turn Russia back into a civilised nation.
Russia's in a pickle. Any new leader would be insecure at first, and will want to secure his position. He could do this by continuing Putin's agenda and winning in Ukraine (difficult), or he could do this by ending the war however he can.
And my point is this: Putin has painted himself into a corner. He has said a load of shite to the Russian public, and although he can do minor changes, any major ones - like a retreat from Ukraine - would mean the end of his premiership and, by extension, his life.
An successor may well have more latitude to find an accommodation with Ukraine that Putin could not. He would be, to a certain extent, a fresh sheet. Even if he is also a fresh shit as well.
My view, having previously lived in Russia and worked with Russians for many years, is that Russia as a society is totally poisoned by nationalism, imperialism and victim complex, and won't get out of this short of a postwar-Germany-style transformation of how the country thinks. Even a light interrogation of the most liberal Muscovite will result in 'yeah but NATO yeah but America took our credit for WWII' after a bit. With this in mind, a new leader would change precisely bollock
Labour will be a socialist government and they're about to shit right in your lunch.
It's a turnoff for you but the rest of us realise are paying socialist levels of tax with libertarian levels of public service. If we're going to pay we may as well try the real thing. That's why you're losing. Oh, and the fact that from Neil Hamilton to Michelle Mone the Conservative Party has shown for 30 years that it would be prosecuted under the RICO Act if it were incorporated in the USA.
Fucking pathetic.
Scrutinise the challenger.
I've scrutinised the challenger against the incumbent.
The incumbent loses on every single metric.
Your party has given me no reason to vote for it. It has given me several, very personal, reasons to want to bury it 12 feet in the ground.
Then, that's an OTT emotional and illogical reaction.
And, you'll pay for it.
I just want to be left alone by the government but the blues keep sticking their nose in.
I've got news for you mate: if that's what you want you're voting for the wrong team.
The Tories are as interfering and authoritarian as Labour, just in different ways. They are as bad as one another.
Labour will be a socialist government and they're about to shit right in your lunch.
It's a turnoff for you but the rest of us realise are paying socialist levels of tax with libertarian levels of public service. If we're going to pay we may as well try the real thing. That's why you're losing. Oh, and the fact that from Neil Hamilton to Michelle Mone the Conservative Party has shown for 30 years that it would be prosecuted under the RICO Act if it were incorporated in the USA.
Fucking pathetic.
Scrutinise the challenger.
Shall we start with the IFS who saying there is an £18bn hole created by Hunt that needs to be filled. How are the Tory party going to actually do that?
Challenge YOUR LOT. Labour.
*L-a-b-o-u-r*
I'm sick and tired of zero scrutiny being applied to their bullshit this campaign. It's a complete dereliction of duty by the press and the curious voter.
They are going to waltz into office without any questioning whatsoever.
If you don't put them on the spot you can't make any complaints whatsoever about what they subsequently do in office. Because you didn't give a shit.
You are pathetic. Are you saying that no-one in the country except you has interrogated the Labour manifesto? Seriously? Do you have so little faith in the electorate? You have to realise that you have failed and there is a better option on the table.
Doug, I'd be amazed if more than one person in a hundred has scrutinised a manifesto of any colour.
And it doesn’t really matter, anyway; the Tories have forfeited a right to a hearing on the serious stuff because of the never-ending stream of stupid stuff and dishonest stuff to which we’ve been subjected these past nine years.
Labour to bring in automatic voter registration under plans to boost franchise
Labour is planning to introduce automatic registration for voting under plans to add millions more people to the electoral roll for future elections, especially young people, the Guardian has learned.
Starmer is not going to waste any opportunity to put finger on the scales once he gets power. Where as the Tories spent 14 years not really gaining a massive advantage of the much watered down redrawing constituencies (remember the more radical proposal originally was far fewer seats) and the voter id stuff which is nothing like the gerrymandering type stuff in the US.
I can see a scandal coming of people being auto registered who end up not being eligible.
Votes for 16 and auto enrolment.
How long before compulsory voting ?
I’m guessing the same people who condemned the Tories over their attempts to game the system will be as equally condemnatory here.
Is making it easier to vote, worth equal condemnation with making voting harder?
I don't think that's a reasonable summary of it though.
I don't support the Tories' voter ID changes*, but not all changes 'making it easier to vote' are automatically a good thing.
To take it to an extreme, votes at 12 would be making it easier to vote, but most people would not support that, quite reasonably. Allowing any foreign nationals to vote in all elections would be making it easier to vote, but would that be fair and reasonable, when to my knowledge no country operates that widely?
On votes at 16 I am not in favour of it, but it is a simple change to enact and for whatever reason support for it has been growing among political circles, so I'm more or less resigned to it.
Electoral changes tend to be proposed because those doing it think they will benefit, and whether they do or not not if they are reasonable they stick around. So Labour believing they will gain an advantage is not intrinsically wrong if the principal is still sound, or at least arguable.
But it is also the case that just because something is proposed for a supposedly positive reason, does not mean it is a good idea. Some people support electronic voting as it would be faster and you coudl do it from your phone or something, but in fact it is a terrible idea.
Auto-enrollment I'd need to see more details about, as it sounds reasonable but what is the reason it is not already the case (evil Tories cannot always be the answer).
*Weirdly, Labour are not proposing reversing the Tory voter ID changes.
I partly agree, but it's a straw man to bring in other changes that Labour aren't proposing. I was replying to a post that compared actual Labour and Tory policies, not "extreme" daft ones.
We know there are millions of people not on the electoral rolls. We also know they tend to be younger, more likely to rent etc. I can't think of a strong moral argument for not making it easier for them to take part in our democracy.
You are making the assumption they don't vote because its hard. I haven't voted since 2010....not because its too hard but because politicians aren't generally worth voting for and haven't been for longer. You want better political engagement how about you give us something worth actually getting out of bed for because all the major parties currently are not.
Indeed. Registering to vote is a matter of a minute's effort using the online platform. Every address gets an annual reminder
It really is not difficult for the overwhelming majority of the population.
Automatic registration run by algorithms is not preferable in the slightest. It is too important to put trust in a state computer system.
By all means send out a reminder to every mobile phone with a link on how to register if you want to try and reach those who have thus far decline to engage. But automatic systems in the UK are not reliable enough.
Labour will be a socialist government and they're about to shit right in your lunch.
It's a turnoff for you but the rest of us realise are paying socialist levels of tax with libertarian levels of public service. If we're going to pay we may as well try the real thing. That's why you're losing. Oh, and the fact that from Neil Hamilton to Michelle Mone the Conservative Party has shown for 30 years that it would be prosecuted under the RICO Act if it were incorporated in the USA.
Fucking pathetic.
Scrutinise the challenger.
Shall we start with the IFS who saying there is an £18bn hole created by Hunt that needs to be filled. How are the Tory party going to actually do that?
Challenge YOUR LOT. Labour.
*L-a-b-o-u-r*
I'm sick and tired of zero scrutiny being applied to their bullshit this campaign. It's a complete dereliction of duty by the press and the curious voter.
They are going to waltz into office without any questioning whatsoever.
If you don't put them on the spot you can't make any complaints whatsoever about what they subsequently do in office. Because you didn't give a shit.
It's 2019 in reverse.
A lot of people weren't keen on the idea of PM Boris, but decided that PM Jeremy was such a terrible prospect that 'any port in a storm' applied.
Now, that's suboptimal. It gave the Conservatives a chunky majority which they have squandered by governing like a bunch of toddlers high on Haribos. And the entire country has suffered the consequences.
It's quite possible that we're about to make the equivalent mistake on the other side. Less likely, because Starmer and Labour are unlikely to give us the really baroque stuff. A PM sacked by his party and then leaving Parliament in disgrace. A premiership collapsing in less than two months. That sort of thing.
The voting public have done enough scrutiny to think that the incumbents are terrible and the challenges are, at least, less terrible. In FPTP, that's all they need to do.
And the Conservative Party has two broad options. One is to accept the verdict of the electorate with good grace as a piece of feedback and try to become a better potential government. Or they can tell themselves and the voters that the voters have got it wrong. That second option is the sort of thing that we all ridicule Corbynites and similar for.
Don't become a right wing Corbynite.
If I was a right wing Corbynite I'd support Reform. And no-one has denigrated them in stronger terms than I have.
Labour will be a socialist government and they're about to shit right in your lunch.
It's a turnoff for you but the rest of us realise are paying socialist levels of tax with libertarian levels of public service. If we're going to pay we may as well try the real thing. That's why you're losing. Oh, and the fact that from Neil Hamilton to Michelle Mone the Conservative Party has shown for 30 years that it would be prosecuted under the RICO Act if it were incorporated in the USA.
Fucking pathetic.
Scrutinise the challenger.
I've scrutinised the challenger against the incumbent.
The incumbent loses on every single metric.
Your party has given me no reason to vote for it. It has given me several, very personal, reasons to want to bury it 12 feet in the ground.
Then, that's an OTT emotional and illogical reaction.
And, you'll pay for it.
I just want to be left alone by the government but the blues keep sticking their nose in.
I've got news for you mate: if that's what you want you're voting for the wrong team.
The Tories are as interfering and authoritarian as Labour, just in different ways. They are as bad as one another.
See the ridiculous smoking ban....on this kind of shit there isn't much between current Tories and Labour. Banning phone, energy drinks, meddling with EPL football clubs....
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
Putin never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. He has by his actions created a Ukranian nationalist consciousness in places that never had it before, and earned the permanent opposition of Russian speaking Ukranians.
In very much the same way that British actions over the 1916 Easter rising and the Black and Tans created Nationalist Ireland.
But doubled down in the six Oblasts Counties.
Its going to end up with Ulster type partition.
And yes just as much strong feelings on both sides of that partition.
Thats just reality.
It's hard to tell, for obvious reasons, but I doubt that pro-Russian sentiment in Russian-occupied Ukraine is as strong as pro-British sentiment in Northern Ireland.
Crimea 100% certain pro russian. Think county Down or Antrim if the inhabitants of West Belfast had been sent packing at partition
Donetsk/Luhansk - Londonderry/Armagh - except the Russians don't control the "Bogside" and "South Armagh"
The halves of Zaporizhzhia (without) and Kherson (wjthout) they have. Think Tyrone and Fermanagh. Majority "Republican" but hung on to make the place viable (and land bridge to Crimea).
These are results that you are looking for. Every single oblast voted for independence in 1991 it wasn't even close anywhere but crimea.
So might every county of Ireland if one had been arranged by the victorious Germans in the aftermath of UK losing World War 1, and subsequent economic the collapse, with the collapse of healthcare, abrupt ending of welfare and pensions etc etc.
Erm...the vast majority of counties in Ireland did vote for independence after the end of WW1 and the UK didn't even lose.
That was an ELE for the Irish Parliamentary Party...
Question: what was the break point at which Irish independence became inevitable?
Gladstone's third home rule bill? Later?
The Famine.
It proved that the relationship between Britain and Ireland continued to be colonialist. A colonised country will always want to be free, if its population has not been supplanted.
If British policy had averted a famine, then the Union might have endured in perpetuity.
It would probably have helped if George III hadn't blocked Catholic emancipation earlier.
Yes, a replacement for Putin may be 'worse' for Ukraine and the west than Putin. He may be more competent, more liable to press the big red button, whatever.
That's a concern. Or a replacement might be 'better' for us; one more willing to work with us, to turn Russia back into a civilised nation.
Russia's in a pickle. Any new leader would be insecure at first, and will want to secure his position. He could do this by continuing Putin's agenda and winning in Ukraine (difficult), or he could do this by ending the war however he can.
And my point is this: Putin has painted himself into a corner. He has said a load of shite to the Russian public, and although he can do minor changes, any major ones - like a retreat from Ukraine - would mean the end of his premiership and, by extension, his life.
An successor may well have more latitude to find an accommodation with Ukraine that Putin could not. He would be, to a certain extent, a fresh sheet. Even if he is also a fresh shit as well.
My view, having previously lived in Russia and worked with Russians for many years, is that Russia as a society is totally poisoned by nationalism, imperialism and victim complex, and won't get out of this short of a postwar-Germany-style transformation of how the country thinks. Even a light interrogation of the most liberal Muscovite will result in 'yeah but NATO yeah but America took our credit for WWII' after a bit. With this in mind, a new leader would change precisely bollock
Labour will be a socialist government and they're about to shit right in your lunch.
It's a turnoff for you but the rest of us realise are paying socialist levels of tax with libertarian levels of public service. If we're going to pay we may as well try the real thing. That's why you're losing. Oh, and the fact that from Neil Hamilton to Michelle Mone the Conservative Party has shown for 30 years that it would be prosecuted under the RICO Act if it were incorporated in the USA.
Fucking pathetic.
Scrutinise the challenger.
Shall we start with the IFS who saying there is an £18bn hole created by Hunt that needs to be filled. How are the Tory party going to actually do that?
Challenge YOUR LOT. Labour.
*L-a-b-o-u-r*
I'm sick and tired of zero scrutiny being applied to their bullshit this campaign. It's a complete dereliction of duty by the press and the curious voter.
They are going to waltz into office without any questioning whatsoever.
If you don't put them on the spot you can't make any complaints whatsoever about what they subsequently do in office. Because you didn't give a shit.
You are pathetic. Are you saying that no-one in the country except you has interrogated the Labour manifesto? Seriously? Do you have so little faith in the electorate? You have to realise that you have failed and there is a better option on the table.
It's not a better option. It's a shitter option.
Starmer will use your vote to bolster the size of his giant strap-on and then royally fuck you in the arse, sans vaseline, laughing all the while, at the "mandate" you've given him.
After 5 years your bum is going to be rather sore. It will possibly need surgery.
The Tories should get you to write their eve of poll….
I'd do a better job than those usual wankers in CCHQ sending us all to our doom.
In terms of vote share, I strongly suspect the reverse, but it would certainly be a more memorable campaign.
Phil Foden is having his third child at the age of 24. Fair play to him in addressing thr demographic crisis - but it shows what can be done if you don't have to worry about bedrooms or childcare costs.
I note a hint of bitterness there. But your point is basically correct. Footballers wages were always obscene but at a time when much of the country us struggling they have become totally immoral. A maximum wage would be a good idea. And before any clown talks about the market there are always foreign billionaires willing to bail out football clubs so there is no market.
I don't begrudge high wages - he clearly earns it. If City didn't pay him oth.ers would. Despite my ambivalence to football I don't mind if others buy into tge product with enthusiasm. But if the demographic crisis is a problem - and I think it is - there are things we can do as a society to make breeding less terrifyingly expensive. I only mention Phil in surprise at the news he's already had a third.
I've just been working (*) for a couple of hours, listening to music as I code. I come on PB and lose my train of thought.
I realised the music I've been listening to has been on auto-repeat the whole time. On one song.
And I had not noticed.
"Leaving", by the Pet Shop Boys, if anyone cares.
(*) Sort of...
Because you were only being boring?
What have I done to deserve this?
These opinion polls remind me of domino dancing.
All day All day.
You just want it to be The Way It Used To Be (*) when the Tories were winning. Sadly, too many candidates have seen Opportunities to Make Lots of Money in the betting markets, and the voters won't let them have One More Chance. A Man Could Get Arrested for their shenanigans. There's too much Monkey Business in the Conservative Party; they have Delusions Of Grandeur, but this is The Calm Before The Storm.
(*) A song I love.
Whether you visit Suburbia or Go West, where the Liberal Democrats seem to be doing well, people are saying the same thing to the Conservatives.
How Can You Expect to Be Taken Seriously?
Next Thursday will be a Red Letter Day for the country. It may be The End Of The World for the Conservatives, who have suffered Friendly Fire in their campaign, but God Willing, on the Friday there will be lots of Happy People with Heart who realise that Happiness Is An Option.
But are Labour going to be Home And Dry?
Tories are going to look at Sunak and say: I'm With Stupid, whilst everyone else will say: I'm Not Scared. I Want to Wake Up on the Friday morning seeing a new vision for the country. Sunak will be The Man who Has Everything - except being PM.
The Sun last night, Sir Philip said, “What’s it go to do with you whether I did or didn’t” place the bet. He added: “I hope to win. I'm busting a gut to win. I expect to lose. In the 2005 election, I busted a gut to win. I expected to lose. I had a bet on myself to lose in the 2005 election, and my bet went down the pan."
That ok that you did it before and lost.....hmmm....do these people not do any PR training?
Yes, a replacement for Putin may be 'worse' for Ukraine and the west than Putin. He may be more competent, more liable to press the big red button, whatever.
That's a concern. Or a replacement might be 'better' for us; one more willing to work with us, to turn Russia back into a civilised nation.
Russia's in a pickle. Any new leader would be insecure at first, and will want to secure his position. He could do this by continuing Putin's agenda and winning in Ukraine (difficult), or he could do this by ending the war however he can.
And my point is this: Putin has painted himself into a corner. He has said a load of shite to the Russian public, and although he can do minor changes, any major ones - like a retreat from Ukraine - would mean the end of his premiership and, by extension, his life.
An successor may well have more latitude to find an accommodation with Ukraine that Putin could not. He would be, to a certain extent, a fresh sheet. Even if he is also a fresh shit as well.
My view, having previously lived in Russia and worked with Russians for many years, is that Russia as a society is totally poisoned by nationalism, imperialism and victim complex, and won't get out of this short of a postwar-Germany-style transformation of how the country thinks. Even a light interrogation of the most liberal Muscovite will result in 'yeah but NATO yeah but America took our credit for WWII' after a bit. With this in mind, a new leader would change precisely bollock
Except the fall of the USSR shows that a Russian leader can change things.
Labour will be a socialist government and they're about to shit right in your lunch.
It's a turnoff for you but the rest of us realise are paying socialist levels of tax with libertarian levels of public service. If we're going to pay we may as well try the real thing. That's why you're losing. Oh, and the fact that from Neil Hamilton to Michelle Mone the Conservative Party has shown for 30 years that it would be prosecuted under the RICO Act if it were incorporated in the USA.
Fucking pathetic.
Scrutinise the challenger.
Shall we start with the IFS who saying there is an £18bn hole created by Hunt that needs to be filled. How are the Tory party going to actually do that?
Challenge YOUR LOT. Labour.
*L-a-b-o-u-r*
I'm sick and tired of zero scrutiny being applied to their bullshit this campaign. It's a complete dereliction of duty by the press and the curious voter.
They are going to waltz into office without any questioning whatsoever.
If you don't put them on the spot you can't make any complaints whatsoever about what they subsequently do in office. Because you didn't give a shit.
You are pathetic. Are you saying that no-one in the country except you has interrogated the Labour manifesto? Seriously? Do you have so little faith in the electorate? You have to realise that you have failed and there is a better option on the table.
Doug, I'd be amazed if more than one person in a hundred has scrutinised a manifesto of any colour.
And it doesn’t really matter, anyway; the Tories have forfeited a right to a hearing on the serious stuff because of the never-ending stream of stupid stuff and dishonest stuff to which we’ve been subjected these past nine years.
Exactly. We are not electing a new wonder govt with excellent policies. We are instead cleaning the Commons of the persistent offenders who keep soiling the place with their incontinent behaviour.
"Dawn Butler under fire for saying Kemi Badenoch shouldn’t exist
Candidate for Brent East accused of bringing Labour into disrepute for agreeing with David Tennant’s remark that he wanted a world without the cabinet minister"
Phil Foden is having his third child at the age of 24. Fair play to him in addressing thr demographic crisis - but it shows what can be done if you don't have to worry about bedrooms or childcare costs.
Really? How interesting. Is he transgender or will he be donating his body to medical science?
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv) is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
How many other countries are entitled to invade their neighbours to right a 'historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for vengeance' ?
Mr £8k will be getting suspended shortly and that is tomorrow's media...particularly that it is a real serious amount, not the £5-20 that Jack was betting.
Labour will be a socialist government and they're about to shit right in your lunch.
It's a turnoff for you but the rest of us realise are paying socialist levels of tax with libertarian levels of public service. If we're going to pay we may as well try the real thing. That's why you're losing. Oh, and the fact that from Neil Hamilton to Michelle Mone the Conservative Party has shown for 30 years that it would be prosecuted under the RICO Act if it were incorporated in the USA.
Fucking pathetic.
Scrutinise the challenger.
Shall we start with the IFS who saying there is an £18bn hole created by Hunt that needs to be filled. How are the Tory party going to actually do that?
Challenge YOUR LOT. Labour.
*L-a-b-o-u-r*
I'm sick and tired of zero scrutiny being applied to their bullshit this campaign. It's a complete dereliction of duty by the press and the curious voter.
They are going to waltz into office without any questioning whatsoever.
If you don't put them on the spot you can't make any complaints whatsoever about what they subsequently do in office. Because you didn't give a shit.
You are pathetic. Are you saying that no-one in the country except you has interrogated the Labour manifesto? Seriously? Do you have so little faith in the electorate? You have to realise that you have failed and there is a better option on the table.
It's not a better option. It's a shitter option.
Starmer will use your vote to bolster the size of his giant strap-on and then royally fuck you in the arse, sans vaseline, laughing all the while, at the "mandate" you've given him.
After 5 years your bum is going to be rather sore. It will possibly need surgery.
The Tories should get you to write their eve of poll….
I'd do a better job than those usual wankers in CCHQ sending us all to our doom.
In terms of vote share, I strongly suspect the reverse, but it would certainly be a more memorable campaign.
At these levels I could shit in my hands and clap and it'd attract more votes.
Starmer says he doesn't want to ban politicians betting on politics.....I can see him quango-ing it up, some independent body where you have to register all the bets you have placed.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
So... the moment any country in the world gets nukes, it becomes the interest of the rest of the world to prop up their government?
So, when Suez went down, everyone should have just given Britain and France everything they wanted, because nukes?
{Starts studying a map of Europe intently. Orders crayons on Amazon}
Starmer says he doesn't want to ban politicians betting on politics.....I can see him quango-ing it up, some independent body where you have to register all the bets you have placed.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv) is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
How many other countries are entitled to invade their neighbours to right a 'historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for vengeance' ?
Phil Foden is having his third child at the age of 24. Fair play to him in addressing thr demographic crisis - but it shows what can be done if you don't have to worry about bedrooms or childcare costs.
I note a hint of bitterness there. But your point is basically correct. Footballers wages were always obscene but at a time when much of the country us struggling they have become totally immoral. A maximum wage would be a good idea. And before any clown talks about the market there are always foreign billionaires willing to bail out football clubs so there is no market.
I don't begrudge high wages - he clearly earns it. If City didn't pay him oth.ers would. Despite my ambivalence to football I don't mind if others buy into tge product with enthusiasm. But if the demographic crisis is a problem - and I think it is - there are things we can do as a society to make breeding less terrifyingly expensive. I only mention Phil in surprise at the news he's already had a third.
Isn't Walker the one really doing his bit for the demographic crisis?
Phil Foden is having his third child at the age of 24. Fair play to him in addressing thr demographic crisis - but it shows what can be done if you don't have to worry about bedrooms or childcare costs.
I note a hint of bitterness there. But your point is basically correct. Footballers wages were always obscene but at a time when much of the country us struggling they have become totally immoral. A maximum wage would be a good idea. And before any clown talks about the market there are always foreign billionaires willing to bail out football clubs so there is no market.
I don't begrudge high wages - he clearly earns it. If City didn't pay him oth.ers would. Despite my ambivalence to football I don't mind if others buy into tge product with enthusiasm. But if the demographic crisis is a problem - and I think it is - there are things we can do as a society to make breeding less terrifyingly expensive. I only mention Phil in surprise at the news he's already had a third.
Isn't Walker the one really doing his bit for the demographic crisis?
Phil Foden is having his third child at the age of 24. Fair play to him in addressing thr demographic crisis - but it shows what can be done if you don't have to worry about bedrooms or childcare costs.
I note a hint of bitterness there. But your point is basically correct. Footballers wages were always obscene but at a time when much of the country us struggling they have become totally immoral. A maximum wage would be a good idea. And before any clown talks about the market there are always foreign billionaires willing to bail out football clubs so there is no market.
I don't begrudge high wages - he clearly earns it. If City didn't pay him oth.ers would. Despite my ambivalence to football I don't mind if others buy into tge product with enthusiasm. But if the demographic crisis is a problem - and I think it is - there are things we can do as a society to make breeding less terrifyingly expensive. I only mention Phil in surprise at the news he's already had a third.
Isn't Walker the one really doing his bit for the demographic crisis?
So we have politicians and plod betting. If I was an up and coming reporter from outside the lobby, I think I would be having a look at what journalists get up to as well.
Is there a way to see a list of the 19 reform seats that MRP predicts? I went to the electoral calculus page and could only see a map which is not so easy to use
Labour will be a socialist government and they're about to shit right in your lunch.
It's a turnoff for you but the rest of us realise are paying socialist levels of tax with libertarian levels of public service. If we're going to pay we may as well try the real thing. That's why you're losing. Oh, and the fact that from Neil Hamilton to Michelle Mone the Conservative Party has shown for 30 years that it would be prosecuted under the RICO Act if it were incorporated in the USA.
Fucking pathetic.
Scrutinise the challenger.
Shall we start with the IFS who saying there is an £18bn hole created by Hunt that needs to be filled. How are the Tory party going to actually do that?
Challenge YOUR LOT. Labour.
*L-a-b-o-u-r*
I'm sick and tired of zero scrutiny being applied to their bullshit this campaign. It's a complete dereliction of duty by the press and the curious voter.
They are going to waltz into office without any questioning whatsoever.
If you don't put them on the spot you can't make any complaints whatsoever about what they subsequently do in office. Because you didn't give a shit.
It's 2019 in reverse.
A lot of people weren't keen on the idea of PM Boris, but decided that PM Jeremy was such a terrible prospect that 'any port in a storm' applied.
Now, that's suboptimal. It gave the Conservatives a chunky majority which they have squandered by governing like a bunch of toddlers high on Haribos. And the entire country has suffered the consequences.
It's quite possible that we're about to make the equivalent mistake on the other side. Less likely, because Starmer and Labour are unlikely to give us the really baroque stuff. A PM sacked by his party and then leaving Parliament in disgrace. A premiership collapsing in less than two months. That sort of thing.
The voting public have done enough scrutiny to think that the incumbents are terrible and the challenges are, at least, less terrible. In FPTP, that's all they need to do.
And the Conservative Party has two broad options. One is to accept the verdict of the electorate with good grace as a piece of feedback and try to become a better potential government. Or they can tell themselves and the voters that the voters have got it wrong. That second option is the sort of thing that we all ridicule Corbynites and similar for.
Don't become a right wing Corbynite.
Populist Corbyn got a hung parliament in 2017 and was just another 30 gains from the Tories from likely becoming PM.
Yes Boris beat him in 2019 but on a more populist manifesto than May had had in 2017 too. Only that defeat in 2019 for Labour and Corbyn led them to pick Starmer to replace him.
Both Starmer and Sunak are establishment centrist figures, inevitably the Conservatives will go populist again if they lose heavily under Sunak and Hunt and Cameron, especially if Reform are likely to take large numbers of their 2019 voters too
Starmer says he doesn't want to ban politicians betting on politics.....I can see him quango-ing it up, some independent body where you have to register all the bets you have placed.
The Tote?
No we have to have a new body with a £200k a year head and an ever expanding budget. Like the one for expenses, but for betting activity.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv) is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
How many other countries are entitled to invade their neighbours to right a 'historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for vengeance' ?
Palestine
We can probably invade france on those grounds
The Treaty of Troyes is all the legal grounds you could want.
Well of course he does, why would he replace a FPTP system set to give Labour over 400 seats on current polls and a massive majority and to reduce the Tories to 100 seats or less with PR? PR would likely force him to do a coalition government with the LDs and/or Greens on current polling and would give almost 100 Reform MPs and more Tory MPs too than projected for them under FPTP
Phil Foden is having his third child at the age of 24. Fair play to him in addressing thr demographic crisis - but it shows what can be done if you don't have to worry about bedrooms or childcare costs.
I note a hint of bitterness there. But your point is basically correct. Footballers wages were always obscene but at a time when much of the country us struggling they have become totally immoral. A maximum wage would be a good idea. And before any clown talks about the market there are always foreign billionaires willing to bail out football clubs so there is no market.
Well Zenit St. Petersburg is owned by Gazprom, is it not?
Starmer says he doesn't want to ban politicians betting on politics.....I can see him quango-ing it up, some independent body where you have to register all the bets you have placed.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv) is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
How many other countries are entitled to invade their neighbours to right a 'historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for vengeance' ?
Palestine
We can probably invade france on those grounds
The Treaty of Troyes is all the legal grounds you could want.
All you really have to do is is say you disagree with the last 100 years of developments in international law, resign from the UN, and claim right of conquest. One for the next Reform manifesto.
Comments
I couldn't fuck off hard or fast enough given the choice. Which, I'm sure you'd welcome.
I'd probably go for the Canadian paradise. Probably Alberta.
A lot of people weren't keen on the idea of PM Boris, but decided that PM Jeremy was such a terrible prospect that 'any port in a storm' applied.
Now, that's suboptimal. It gave the Conservatives a chunky majority which they have squandered by governing like a bunch of toddlers high on Haribos. And the entire country has suffered the consequences.
It's quite possible that we're about to make the equivalent mistake on the other side. Less likely, because Starmer and Labour are unlikely to give us the really baroque stuff. A PM sacked by his party and then leaving Parliament in disgrace. A premiership collapsing in less than two months. That sort of thing.
The voting public have done enough scrutiny to think that the incumbents are terrible and the challenges are, at least, less terrible. In FPTP, that's all they need to do.
And the Conservative Party has two broad options. One is to accept the verdict of the electorate with good grace as a piece of feedback and try to become a better potential government. Or they can tell themselves and the voters that the voters have got it wrong. That second option is the sort of thing that we all ridicule Corbynites and similar for.
Don't become a right wing Corbynite.
https://x.com/CockertonMark/status/1805175878755774886?t=7pTMHDQAwdZiGpa0B8HQKg&s=19
Starmer is being allowed to get away with his Ming Vase only because noone has bothered to put him under pressure.
Look inside and you'll find a massive hidden floater. No, a facehugger constrained but desperate to jump out.
Next time round may be the time to put a proper voting system in the manifesto but changing our electoral system unilaterally wouldn't be on...
"@unherd
In an interview with @dwarkesh_sp, former prime minister Tony Blair has claimed that Covid lockdowns in the developing world 'did more harm that good', and that decisions to lock down should not have been left with politicians."
https://x.com/unherd/status/1806032212871074005
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Ireland
(*) A song I love.
Had we voted the other way in the Referendum I'd have respected that and wanted it respected too.
As for calling the European Parliament by its name, it's it's name. 🤷♂️
As for Clacton, I fervently hope that Farage is an eight time loser next week. If they elect him I will be very disappointed in the voters of Clacton.
A gag that has rarely ever been cracked.
Also some bloke on t'interweb (well he runs a load of businesses) has more sensible policies than most of what crap the political parties have been proposing.
How Can You Expect to Be Taken Seriously?
It really is not difficult for the overwhelming majority of the population.
Automatic registration run by algorithms is not preferable in the slightest. It is too important to put trust in a state computer system.
By all means send out a reminder to every mobile phone with a link on how to register if you want to try and reach those who have thus far decline to engage. But automatic systems in the UK are not reliable enough.
I'm a Shire Tory. Always have been.
It proved that the relationship between Britain and Ireland continued to be colonialist. A colonised country will always want to be free, if its population has not been supplanted.
If British policy had averted a famine, then the Union might have endured in perpetuity.
It would probably have helped if George III hadn't blocked Catholic emancipation earlier.
Damaging nonetheless
But if the demographic crisis is a problem - and I think it is - there are things we can do as a society to make breeding less terrifyingly expensive.
I only mention Phil in surprise at the news he's already had a third.
Another crazy
@MrHarryCole
exclusive: The Sun can reveal a top Tory is accused placed a £8,000 bet on himself to lose his seat on July 4.
Sir Philip Davies is said to have wagered he will not hold his Shipley constituency
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/28772956/cops-take-over-betting-scandal-probe/
But are Labour going to be Home And Dry?
Tories are going to look at Sunak and say: I'm With Stupid, whilst everyone else will say: I'm Not Scared. I Want to Wake Up on the Friday morning seeing a new vision for the country. Sunak will be The Man who Has Everything - except being PM.
The Sun last night, Sir Philip said, “What’s it go to do with you whether I did or didn’t” place the bet. He added: “I hope to win. I'm busting a gut to win. I expect to lose. In the 2005 election, I busted a gut to win. I expected to lose. I had a bet on myself to lose in the 2005 election, and my bet went down the pan."
That ok that you did it before and lost.....hmmm....do these people not do any PR training?
"Dawn Butler under fire for saying Kemi Badenoch shouldn’t exist
Candidate for Brent East accused of bringing Labour into disrepute for agreeing with David Tennant’s remark that he wanted a world without the cabinet minister"
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/dawn-butler-under-fire-for-saying-kemi-badenoch-shouldnt-exist-x39l0trsq
I might need a six week holiday after July 5th.
Vanilla - the only thing in the known universe more useless than the Department for Education.
{Starts studying a map of Europe intently. Orders crayons on Amazon}
Yes Boris beat him in 2019 but on a more populist manifesto than May had had in 2017 too. Only that defeat in 2019 for Labour and Corbyn led them to pick Starmer to replace him.
Both Starmer and Sunak are establishment centrist figures, inevitably the Conservatives will go populist again if they lose heavily under Sunak and Hunt and Cameron, especially if Reform are likely to take large numbers of their 2019 voters too
Battlestar Galactica Score - Calm, Relaxing (Continuous Mix)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owkFaK27_uU
Keeps me going for about a hour
I am sure he will love editing PB writing threads on Starmer's mahoosive majority.
Dave making a comeback?
https://x.com/Taj_Ali1/status/1806032200615502207
https://x.com/ShehabKhan/status/1805957926432985334