I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
What's a phone box.
Where hookers used to leaving their calling cards.
What's a hooker?
Found on the front row of the scrum, between the tight-head and the loose-head.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
It's kind of tough to tell a scruff the big mistake he's making.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
I really don't see the problem with a supplier providing Lady Starmer with free clothing in the hope that the publicity will result in additional sales.
Indeed. I don't really get this 'story' at all. Where is the sleaze here? If a very rich Labour peer wants to pay for the first lady's wardrobe so she looks good on the international stage, why shouldn't he?
If he has demanded anything in return for that (e.g. favours etc) then that's a different matter, but as far as I can see there is no suggestion he has.
Granted, Sir Keir has made an apparent blunder by only declaring his own clobber and not Victoria's – but that would seem to be fairly small beer, an administrative cockup.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
I can, but then I have a keen eye for this.
See the second half of my comment above
When I was young, putting a lot of effort (and certainly a lot of time and/or expense) into your appearance was a bit frowned upon. You were expected, if possible, to achieve a certain level of cleanliness and/or personal hygiene, but anything more than that was a bit suspect - a bit 'look at me'. Actually, I say 'when I was young', I suspect most of men of my generation still think that way.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
Well lots of people can. You might not be interested in fashion but lots of people are and can easily tell the difference.
And some of those complaining about wardrobegate would be the first to complain if Dowdy Lady S were to let Britain down by being frumpy on the world stage. It would be better if we weren't like that as a country, but right now we are.
Yes, it should have been declared sooner rather than later. Yes, that failure is a bad thing. No, it's nowhere near the level of obscurity of some previous PMs.
As for why Blair got a honeymoon from the press and Starmer hasn't, you would have to ask the press that.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Yes, I think the Starmers always look smart and well turned out for whatever event they attend. Johnson was an embarrassing slob. Angela Rayner has commented on that many times: that she wouldn't dream of turning up for work without brushing her hair. Why should he get away with it?
I don't agree with it, but being scruffy was part of Johnson's image. The bumbling, the incoherence etc. I'm reminded that Frankie Howard used to carefully script his "ooh no" and looks to camera etc. What looked like ad lib was actually tightly controlled.
You can definitely argue that the PM of the country ought to be smart.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
I really don't see the problem with a supplier providing Lady Starmer with free clothing in the hope that the publicity will result in additional sales.
Indeed. I don't really get this 'story' at all. Where is the sleaze here? If a very rich Labour peer wants to pay for the first lady's wardrobe so she looks good on the international stage, why shouldn't he?
If he has demanded anything in return for that (e.g. favours etc) then that's a different matter, but as far as I can see there is no suggestion he has.
Granted, Sir Keir has made an apparent blunder by only declaring his own clobber and not Victoria's – but that would seem to be fairly small beer, an administrative cockup.
Watergate it ain't.
One of the reasons for paying MPs and ministers a salary is so that they can afford to pay their own way, and they aren't dependent on the largesse of wealthy donors. It's why PMs have the use of Number Ten and Chequers. They are paid by the people, and beholden to the people.
They shouldn't be receiving personal donations of money from wealthy people. It's just so obviously wrong in terms of buying influence.
A fashion label giving them freebies in exchange for exposure is different, but now that they have transgressed it all gets bundled up together.
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
What's a phone box.
Where hookers used to leaving their calling cards.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
I really don't see the problem with a supplier providing Lady Starmer with free clothing in the hope that the publicity will result in additional sales.
The problem is not with the provider - whether they are seeking good PR, or seeking to lobby, or just being nice. Business is business.
The problem is with the taker, though this may not feel fair, because on account of the uncontrolled chaos of the Tory party the expectations of the new government were exceptionally high in respect of old fashioned boring morality, honesty, communication skill and competence. And OTOH I think Labour and the leadership had fed those expectations, and garnered votes as being not the new Blair but the new Attlee.
I hope for his sake that his case is like my daughters. She was diagnosed late in November, when the only real symptoms were clumsiness and a somewhat husky voice, and died on Valentines Day. Valentines Day has never been the same since.
I am so sorry to hear that news
My daughter in law's father died of MND but managed to attend her wedding in 2015 in Kelona but passed away 2 months later
It’s a while ago, thanks Mr G. We’ll never really get over, of course.
Of course you won't
Our daughter had a miscarriage before her first was born, and that upsets her even today no matter she has 21 and 15 year daughter and son
I'm sorry to hear that. We have had three, but we learned to accept those by the simple fact that, had they not happened, we would not have any of the three children we have today.* We'd have different children, sure, but to regret the miscarriages is to regret the chain of events that led to us having the three children that we love.
*the timings were such that we would not have the same children, the largest gap between due date for miscarriage and birth was approx one year - with a larger gap between miscarriage and child, that may not, of course, apply
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
I really don't see the problem with a supplier providing Lady Starmer with free clothing in the hope that the publicity will result in additional sales.
Indeed. I don't really get this 'story' at all. Where is the sleaze here? If a very rich Labour peer wants to pay for the first lady's wardrobe so she looks good on the international stage, why shouldn't he?
If he has demanded anything in return for that (e.g. favours etc) then that's a different matter, but as far as I can see there is no suggestion he has.
Granted, Sir Keir has made an apparent blunder by only declaring his own clobber and not Victoria's – but that would seem to be fairly small beer, an administrative cockup.
Watergate it ain't.
Wasn't access to No 10 granted?
Labour peer since 1998, long-term donor, friend of friends of the Blair government... I doubt that the No 10 pass was linked to the clothes.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
Well lots of people can. You might not be interested in fashion but lots of people are and can easily tell the difference.
And some of those complaining about wardrobegate would be the first to complain if Dowdy Lady S were to let Britain down by being frumpy on the world stage. It would be better if we weren't like that as a country, but right now we are.
Yes, it should have been declared sooner rather than later. Yes, that failure is a bad thing. No, it's nowhere near the level of obscurity of some previous PMs.
As for why Blair got a honeymoon from the press and Starmer hasn't, you would have to ask the press that.
Nearly four million votes and 10pp is why.
If the polls before the campaign had been right, and Starmer had received more than 40% of the vote, his coverage would be different.
Obviously, the remedy to that will be extremely expensive and means replicating many of the US systems, including manufacturing. It also means the diplomatic difficulty of telling the US that Europe doesn't trust it. It also means military and political co-operation across Europe that will be difficult in current circumstances. None of those are reasons for not doing it, other than to craven politicians who prefer burying their heads in the sand to protecting their countries. I hope, behind the scenes, it's already happening.
This is all true, but nobody wants to pay for strategic autonomy and it's a guaranteed election losing prospectus. If DJT wins then SKS will gargle his nuts to get a bilateral defence agreement if necessary.
There is no bilateral anything with Trump. There is no agreement that can be trusted. There is no guarantee that he won't leverage the same things he's previously promised in order to extract further concessions.
Besides, I don't think opposing that kind of investment is an election-winning prospectus. Being seen as 'weak on defence' has frequently been an election-losing prospectus (in the UK at least).
I'm still watching for some thoughtful commentary on Trump's potential impact on Five Eyes, given that we already know that he regards USA secret information as things that he is entitled to sell for personal gain when he is President, and the Supreme Court to which he manipulated appointments has declared that he will not practically be able to be prosecuted.
Thank God for the 22nd amendment. My hope is people will mislead, disobey and ignore him as necessary while running the clock down to 2028.
The 22nd Amendment is not the safeguard a lot of people think it is, particularly with this Supreme Court. There are ways round it.
Is there anything to prevent, say, Trump running as VP on a ticket after completing a second term and then serving as president when the president steps down?
Russia's term limits have not proved too much of a difficulty to Putin.
That's the most obvious route by which it could be done (he could also just remain as VP and run things from there, a la Putin-Medvedev 2008-12, though that's not really Trump's style. Nor Putin's these days).
The argument against it is the provision in the 12th amendment that no person is eligible to be VP who is not eligible to be president. However, the 22nd amendment merely says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". It doesn't say that they are barred outright and cannot inherit the presidency by some other means than election, nor does it place a bar on the same people being elected as VP. That's probably enough wriggle room for a former president barred under the 22nd, to be let through by the (this) SCOTUS to stand to be VP.
So Trump could never be elected President more than twice. If Vance was GOP candidate in 2028 if he and Trump won in November he would pick another VP candidate anyway
In which case Trump would run a different proxy against him, who *would* pick Donald as VP.
Vance's prime job at the moment is being a political bodyguard to Trump; an additional assurance against impeachment.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
I really don't see the problem with a supplier providing Lady Starmer with free clothing in the hope that the publicity will result in additional sales.
Indeed. I don't really get this 'story' at all. Where is the sleaze here? If a very rich Labour peer wants to pay for the first lady's wardrobe so she looks good on the international stage, why shouldn't he?
If he has demanded anything in return for that (e.g. favours etc) then that's a different matter, but as far as I can see there is no suggestion he has.
Granted, Sir Keir has made an apparent blunder by only declaring his own clobber and not Victoria's – but that would seem to be fairly small beer, an administrative cockup.
Watergate it ain't.
Wasn't access to No 10 granted?
He got a temporary pass for No. 10 at some point. Is this forbidden to Labour peers? And in what way is it related to Lady Vic's dresses?
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
I really don't see the problem with a supplier providing Lady Starmer with free clothing in the hope that the publicity will result in additional sales.
The problem is not with the provider - whether they are seeking good PR, or seeking to lobby, or just being nice. Business is business.
The problem is with the taker, though this may not feel fair, because on account of the uncontrolled chaos of the Tory party the expectations of the new government were exceptionally high in respect of old fashioned boring morality, honesty, communication skill and competence. And OTOH I think Labour and the leadership had fed those expectations, and garnered votes as being not the new Blair but the new Attlee.
Spot on. One of Starmer's selling points compared with the previous lot is that he was 'squeaky clean'. It doesn't really matter what the reality is - it's the perception that counts. He shouldn't accept gifts from anybody, in any form, including football tickets. He's got enough money to buy what he wants/needs.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
Well lots of people can. You might not be interested in fashion but lots of people are and can easily tell the difference.
I am about as far from a fashionista as it is possible to get, but I think it's more complex than that. The cost of an outfit is far less important than how you wear it. A cheap £150 suit from a High Street shop that has been cheaply adjusted to fit, and which the wearer knows how to wear, can look much 'better' than a £1,500 suit worn by a slob. Also, accessories matter: wearing the right-coloured tie or shoes for the main material.
It's not just the outfit; it's how the outfit is worn. Much less attention is spent on how an outfit is worn than how much it costs. Because that's difficult and takes skill; cost doesn't.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
I can, but then I have a keen eye for this.
See the second half of my comment above
When I was young, putting a lot of effort (and certainly a lot of time and/or expense) into your appearance was a bit frowned upon. You were expected, if possible, to achieve a certain level of cleanliness and/or personal hygiene, but anything more than that was a bit suspect - a bit 'look at me'. Actually, I say 'when I was young', I suspect most of men of my generation still think that way.
Maybe that is true, but it's hardly something to be proud of, is it?
According to BBC website the court must also decide whether an offence falls into the category of possession, distribution or production. I've not followed the Edward's case or the one that you link to but - I think - Edwards produced whereas the offender you linked to possessed. One would think the former far more serious?
The problem is that the minority are very vocal and determined. And rapidly discover ways to slow things down in The Process.
There's a couple of (Tories) in my apartment block who are agitating to get the Residents Association to come out against the Cambs-Oxon rail project "because it will increase the number of trains that come along the line".
YOU BOUGHT A FLAT PRACTICALLY NEXT TO THE RAILWAY STATION ADJACENT TO THE RAIL LINE YOU NUMPTY.
NIMBYism definitely crosses party boundaries.
There are people around here who move into villages and then object to bell ringing and the movement of livestock along and across roads.
There was a popular 250 or thereabouts year old pub locally next to which, about fifteen years ago, someone built a house. He then complained of the noise from the pub, particularly on Saturday nights.
The classic was a “Cow Lane”, near Oxford. Which has a mention in the Doomsday Book, IIRC, for having cows driven along it.
Yes, people move there and complain.
My brother used to live about 25m from 'Cutthroat Lane' and walk along it frequently. I still think he'd have had cause to complain if someone came up behind him with a knife
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
I really don't see the problem with a supplier providing Lady Starmer with free clothing in the hope that the publicity will result in additional sales.
Indeed. I don't really get this 'story' at all. Where is the sleaze here? If a very rich Labour peer wants to pay for the first lady's wardrobe so she looks good on the international stage, why shouldn't he?
If he has demanded anything in return for that (e.g. favours etc) then that's a different matter, but as far as I can see there is no suggestion he has.
Granted, Sir Keir has made an apparent blunder by only declaring his own clobber and not Victoria's – but that would seem to be fairly small beer, an administrative cockup. Watergate it ain't.
Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.
As a former lawyer and DPP he should have countless ethics briefings about this.
I give this briefing regularly, I am happy to brief the Starmers on this, my rates are reasonable.
You can probably dispense fashion advice, too. Although that's likely overly costly.
The problem is that the minority are very vocal and determined. And rapidly discover ways to slow things down in The Process.
There's a couple of (Tories) in my apartment block who are agitating to get the Residents Association to come out against the Cambs-Oxon rail project "because it will increase the number of trains that come along the line".
YOU BOUGHT A FLAT PRACTICALLY NEXT TO THE RAILWAY STATION ADJACENT TO THE RAIL LINE YOU NUMPTY.
NIMBYism definitely crosses party boundaries.
There are people around here who move into villages and then object to bell ringing and the movement of livestock along and across roads.
There was a popular 250 or thereabouts year old pub locally next to which, about fifteen years ago, someone built a house. He then complained of the noise from the pub, particularly on Saturday nights.
The classic was a “Cow Lane”, near Oxford. Which has a mention in the Doomsday Book, IIRC, for having cows driven along it.
Yes, people move there and complain.
My brother used to live about 25m from 'Cutthroat Lane' and walk along it frequently. I still think he'd have had cause to complain if someone came up behind him with a knife
Probably euphemistically renamed. On those silly knot boards you see in nautical themed pubs the thing labelled "cut splice" is pretty obviously not called that.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
Well lots of people can. You might not be interested in fashion but lots of people are and can easily tell the difference.
And some of those complaining about wardrobegate would be the first to complain if Dowdy Lady S were to let Britain down by being frumpy on the world stage. It would be better if we weren't like that as a country, but right now we are.
Yes, it should have been declared sooner rather than later. Yes, that failure is a bad thing. No, it's nowhere near the level of obscurity of some previous PMs.
As for why Blair got a honeymoon from the press and Starmer hasn't, you would have to ask the press that.
Nearly four million votes and 10pp is why.
If the polls before the campaign had been right, and Starmer had received more than 40% of the vote, his coverage would be different.
Not this nonsense AGAIN, surely? Labour banned – banned! – their MPs campaigning in safe seats. To the point that as soon as their canvassing app picked up any responses from their heartland seats, HQ would immediately call the canvasser for a meeting without coffee.
They willingly that their national share of the vote slide to ensure they piled up votes where they needed them. They played FPP as the rules of the game imply. You might dislike the rules, but they are the rules. The wise man plays the game to win under the rules as they are, not how some people would wish them to be.
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
What's a phone box.
Where hookers used to leaving their calling cards.
What's a hooker?
A rugby player m’lud. In proper rugby he wears a no.9 shirt. In boring rugby he wears a no.2 shirt.
Also great fun watching smarty Starter licking up to Italian PM Melons. Very refreshing to see the GE actually saw the reelection of a traditional Story government. Hypocrisy rules ok!😂😂😂
The problem is that the minority are very vocal and determined. And rapidly discover ways to slow things down in The Process.
There's a couple of (Tories) in my apartment block who are agitating to get the Residents Association to come out against the Cambs-Oxon rail project "because it will increase the number of trains that come along the line".
YOU BOUGHT A FLAT PRACTICALLY NEXT TO THE RAILWAY STATION ADJACENT TO THE RAIL LINE YOU NUMPTY.
NIMBYism definitely crosses party boundaries.
There are people around here who move into villages and then object to bell ringing and the movement of livestock along and across roads.
There was a popular 250 or thereabouts year old pub locally next to which, about fifteen years ago, someone built a house. He then complained of the noise from the pub, particularly on Saturday nights.
The classic was a “Cow Lane”, near Oxford. Which has a mention in the Doomsday Book, IIRC, for having cows driven along it.
Yes, people move there and complain.
My brother used to live about 25m from 'Cutthroat Lane' and walk along it frequently. I still think he'd have had cause to complain if someone came up behind him with a knife
Probably euphemistically renamed. On those silly knot boards you see in nautical themed pubs the thing labelled "cut splice" is pretty obviously not called that.
"So, let’s do something. Let’s commit never again to lockdown children. Let’s ban smartphones in school. Let’s follow Australia: impose a higher, tougher age limit on social media. Phones are frying undeveloped brains, and it’s strange that the British government – so keen to control sugar or vaping – has given up on controlling their use. Even odder that so many parents have, too."
Far more than any dubious notions of "woke", the term "nanny state" has done untold damage. Sometimes, and I say this with all due deference to the libertarians and the other so-called "defenders of free speech" here, people need to be told what to do and people need to be told what's good for them.
Now, what individuals choose to do with the information provided is up to them but not providing the information for fear of being labelled "interfering" or whatever is just plain wrong.
While we're on about freedom of speech, I saw Anne Widdecombe on her hobby horse about the "right to offend" and the "right to be offended". In theory, yes, in practice, no. The problem is the right to offend is too often used by the same people to offned/demonise other individuals/groups who don't have the right to reply or respond. GBN gives the likes of Widdecombe, Farage, Dolan and others a platform - I think it should be compelled to provide an equal amount of broadcasting time to their opponents.
We have free speech - we don't have fair speech. Too many voices remain excluded because they don't share the views of the wealthy or the powerful. The plural part of plural democracy remains lacking - even on here, I suspect a disproportionately large number of posts are made by a disproportionately small number of posters.
Free speech in some sense is more or less possible (subject to the interminable discussions about what is excluded), but at least as an idea we can work towards it.
Fair speech is not a thing that can be worked towards except by accident. But by accident the internet has enabled every single voice, including an infinity of voices with little or nothing useful to say, to have access to a global audience.
Once that is the case, other forces like chance and luck take over. There may well be a particular narrow pattern to PB posters, and a stark variation in how many posts are made by whom. But the forum (SFAICS) is open to all without limit.
Having to right to free speech is one thing. Worth being listened to is quite another. Pyongyang Times, Stormfront and Russia Today are all freely available. If 'fair speech' means I have to access them, no thank you.
...one element of the Polish experience might be relevant: the speed with which norms and conventions can shift, and the depth of the disorientation that can follow. Consider what we have seen or learned in just the past few months and years. Two Supreme Court justices were accepting large, undisclosed gifts from people who might have had an interest in their jurisprudence; the wife of one of those justices played a role in seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election; more than one justice misled Congress during confirmation hearings about their intentions to overturn Roe v. Wade ; money and lobbyists have played an enormous role in the transformation of the Court; the Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell broke convention to block one nomination and then enable another; and now that Republican-dominated Court has extended immunity to a Republican ex-president who has broken the law—all of this has had a cumulative and damaging effect. The Supreme Court and all other federal courts now appear to both halves of the polarized political spectrum to be weaker, more political, easier to manipulate, less bound to the Constitution. A Gallup poll conducted in July showed that a yawning gap has emerged between the 15 percent of Democrats who still approve of the Court and the 66 percent of Republicans who do. Overall, respect for the courts is at historic lows...
...Now imagine a second Trump presidency, during which dozens more Aileen Cannons are appointed to the courts—dozens more minimally qualified people who believe their role is to defend the president or avenge his enemies, not to defend the rule of law. Then imagine another president, a Democrat, elected in 2028, who feels no obligation to adhere to the decisions made by these highly partisan courts. Or imagine a contested 2028 election in which Vice President J. D. Vance backs insurrectionists attempting to prevent the lawful transfer of power, as he has said he would have done in 2020—when courts rejected dozens of claims from Trump’s legal advisers who sought to overturn the result. What if, in 2028 and 2029, courts were to rule in the opposite direction, with the intention of helping install an unelected president?...
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
What's a phone box.
Where hookers used to leaving their calling cards.
What's a hooker?
Found on the front row of the scrum, between the tight-head and the loose-head.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
Well lots of people can. You might not be interested in fashion but lots of people are and can easily tell the difference.
And some of those complaining about wardrobegate would be the first to complain if Dowdy Lady S were to let Britain down by being frumpy on the world stage. It would be better if we weren't like that as a country, but right now we are.
Yes, it should have been declared sooner rather than later. Yes, that failure is a bad thing. No, it's nowhere near the level of obscurity of some previous PMs.
As for why Blair got a honeymoon from the press and Starmer hasn't, you would have to ask the press that.
Nearly four million votes and 10pp is why.
If the polls before the campaign had been right, and Starmer had received more than 40% of the vote, his coverage would be different.
Not this nonsense AGAIN, surely? Labour banned – banned! – their MPs campaigning in safe seats. To the point that as soon as their canvassing app picked up any responses from their heartland seats, HQ would immediately call the canvasser for a meeting without coffee.
They willingly that their national share of the vote slide to ensure they piled up votes where they needed them. They played FPP as the rules of the game imply. You might dislike the rules, but they are the rules. The wise man plays the game to win under the rules as they are, not how some people would wish them to be.
Result:
Labour 411 Conservative 121
You may believe that the number of votes received and where was mainly due to local canvassing efforts and strategic brilliance, but my suspicion is that the national shares of the vote are mainly due to the national collective mood. On that metric Starmer and Labour performed poorly, and were saved only by the catastrophic - worst result in two hundred years - performance of their principal rival.
Obviously Labour were right to concentrate their campaigning efforts where those would make the most difference, but the idea they would have received millions more votes had they sent canvassers into safe seats is risible.
It's such a pathetic denial. It demeans you and everyone who repeats the argument.
Obviously, the remedy to that will be extremely expensive and means replicating many of the US systems, including manufacturing. It also means the diplomatic difficulty of telling the US that Europe doesn't trust it. It also means military and political co-operation across Europe that will be difficult in current circumstances. None of those are reasons for not doing it, other than to craven politicians who prefer burying their heads in the sand to protecting their countries. I hope, behind the scenes, it's already happening.
This is all true, but nobody wants to pay for strategic autonomy and it's a guaranteed election losing prospectus. If DJT wins then SKS will gargle his nuts to get a bilateral defence agreement if necessary.
There is no bilateral anything with Trump. There is no agreement that can be trusted. There is no guarantee that he won't leverage the same things he's previously promised in order to extract further concessions.
Besides, I don't think opposing that kind of investment is an election-winning prospectus. Being seen as 'weak on defence' has frequently been an election-losing prospectus (in the UK at least).
I'm still watching for some thoughtful commentary on Trump's potential impact on Five Eyes, given that we already know that he regards USA secret information as things that he is entitled to sell for personal gain when he is President, and the Supreme Court to which he manipulated appointments has declared that he will not practically be able to be prosecuted.
Thank God for the 22nd amendment. My hope is people will mislead, disobey and ignore him as necessary while running the clock down to 2028.
The 22nd Amendment is not the safeguard a lot of people think it is, particularly with this Supreme Court. There are ways round it.
Is there anything to prevent, say, Trump running as VP on a ticket after completing a second term and then serving as president when the president steps down?
Russia's term limits have not proved too much of a difficulty to Putin.
That's the most obvious route by which it could be done (he could also just remain as VP and run things from there, a la Putin-Medvedev 2008-12, though that's not really Trump's style. Nor Putin's these days).
The argument against it is the provision in the 12th amendment that no person is eligible to be VP who is not eligible to be president. However, the 22nd amendment merely says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". It doesn't say that they are barred outright and cannot inherit the presidency by some other means than election, nor does it place a bar on the same people being elected as VP. That's probably enough wriggle room for a former president barred under the 22nd, to be let through by the (this) SCOTUS to stand to be VP.
So Trump could never be elected President more than twice. If Vance was GOP candidate in 2028 if he and Trump won in November he would pick another VP candidate anyway
In which case Trump would run a different proxy against him, who *would* pick Donald as VP.
Vance's prime job at the moment is being a political bodyguard to Trump; an additional assurance against impeachment.
Vance's backers have their own agenda, which overlaps, but is not identical to that of Trump.
Also great fun watching smarty Starter licking up to Italian PM Melons. Very refreshing to see the GE actually saw the reelection of a traditional Story government. Hypocrisy rules ok!😂😂😂
I think (hope!) you've got autocorrect issues there!
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
Well lots of people can. You might not be interested in fashion but lots of people are and can easily tell the difference.
And some of those complaining about wardrobegate would be the first to complain if Dowdy Lady S were to let Britain down by being frumpy on the world stage. It would be better if we weren't like that as a country, but right now we are.
Yes, it should have been declared sooner rather than later. Yes, that failure is a bad thing. No, it's nowhere near the level of obscurity of some previous PMs.
As for why Blair got a honeymoon from the press and Starmer hasn't, you would have to ask the press that.
Nearly four million votes and 10pp is why.
If the polls before the campaign had been right, and Starmer had received more than 40% of the vote, his coverage would be different.
Not this nonsense AGAIN, surely? Labour banned – banned! – their MPs campaigning in safe seats. To the point that as soon as their canvassing app picked up any responses from their heartland seats, HQ would immediately call the canvasser for a meeting without coffee.
They willingly that their national share of the vote slide to ensure they piled up votes where they needed them. They played FPP as the rules of the game imply. You might dislike the rules, but they are the rules. The wise man plays the game to win under the rules as they are, not how some people would wish them to be.
Result:
Labour 411 Conservative 121
You may believe that the number of votes received and where was mainly due to local canvassing efforts and strategic brilliance, but my suspicion is that the national shares of the vote are mainly due to the national collective mood. On that metric Starmer and Labour performed poorly, and were saved only by the catastrophic - worst result in two hundred years - performance of their principal rival.
Obviously Labour were right to concentrate their campaigning efforts where those would make the most difference, but the idea they would have received millions more votes had they sent canvassers into safe seats is risible.
It's such a pathetic denial. It demeans you and everyone who repeats the argument.
I know from the ground that that is what happened. What I have told you about the system is true. If you wish to harp on regardless for reasons known only to yourself, up to you.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
Well lots of people can. You might not be interested in fashion but lots of people are and can easily tell the difference.
And some of those complaining about wardrobegate would be the first to complain if Dowdy Lady S were to let Britain down by being frumpy on the world stage. It would be better if we weren't like that as a country, but right now we are.
Yes, it should have been declared sooner rather than later. Yes, that failure is a bad thing. No, it's nowhere near the level of obscurity of some previous PMs.
As for why Blair got a honeymoon from the press and Starmer hasn't, you would have to ask the press that.
Nearly four million votes and 10pp is why.
If the polls before the campaign had been right, and Starmer had received more than 40% of the vote, his coverage would be different.
Not this nonsense AGAIN, surely? Labour banned – banned! – their MPs campaigning in safe seats. To the point that as soon as their canvassing app picked up any responses from their heartland seats, HQ would immediately call the canvasser for a meeting without coffee.
They willingly that their national share of the vote slide to ensure they piled up votes where they needed them. They played FPP as the rules of the game imply. You might dislike the rules, but they are the rules. The wise man plays the game to win under the rules as they are, not how some people would wish them to be.
Result:
Labour 411 Conservative 121
You may believe that the number of votes received and where was mainly due to local canvassing efforts and strategic brilliance, but my suspicion is that the national shares of the vote are mainly due to the national collective mood. On that metric Starmer and Labour performed poorly, and were saved only by the catastrophic - worst result in two hundred years - performance of their principal rival.
Obviously Labour were right to concentrate their campaigning efforts where those would make the most difference, but the idea they would have received millions more votes had they sent canvassers into safe seats is risible.
It's such a pathetic denial. It demeans you and everyone who repeats the argument.
I know from the ground that that is what happened. What I have told you about the system is true. If you wish to harp on regardless for reasons known only to yourself, up to you.
Like I said, Labour were right to concentrate their campaigning resources where they would make the most difference.
Do you honestly believe they would have got 40% of the vote if they'd sent canvassers into safe seats instead?
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
I can, but then I have a keen eye for this.
See the second half of my comment above
When I was young, putting a lot of effort (and certainly a lot of time and/or expense) into your appearance was a bit frowned upon. You were expected, if possible, to achieve a certain level of cleanliness and/or personal hygiene, but anything more than that was a bit suspect - a bit 'look at me'. Actually, I say 'when I was young', I suspect most of men of my generation still think that way.
Maybe that is true, but it's hardly something to be proud of, is it?
I kind of think it is. We used to consider vanity a vice rather than a virtue. We used to consider showing off something to be dissuaded. We used to mock peacockery. A certain parsimoniousness whn it comes to one's appearance seems to me to be something to be applauded. By which I don't necessarily mean turning up in a t-shirt riven with holes and ketchup stains. But I rather disdain the mindset which thinks it acceptable to spend £1000 a year or more on one's own appearance. It seems frivolous. Do you remember the book of sports lists? I remember a list in it of sportsmen who cared rather too much for their own appearance - it included, I think, Peter Shilton, who would drive to a city 30 miles away for his particular needs for a haircut, and, possibly, Kevin Keegan, who spent rather more than the then-quite-daring £5 a month on a haircut. And someone who spent a lot on clothes, no doubt. But the fact that ten such people could be picked out showed how comparatively rare that sort of vanity was in those days. If you made a list now of sportsmen who cared too much for their own appearance you'd be here until doomsday.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
Well lots of people can. You might not be interested in fashion but lots of people are and can easily tell the difference.
And some of those complaining about wardrobegate would be the first to complain if Dowdy Lady S were to let Britain down by being frumpy on the world stage. It would be better if we weren't like that as a country, but right now we are.
Yes, it should have been declared sooner rather than later. Yes, that failure is a bad thing. No, it's nowhere near the level of obscurity of some previous PMs.
As for why Blair got a honeymoon from the press and Starmer hasn't, you would have to ask the press that.
Nearly four million votes and 10pp is why.
If the polls before the campaign had been right, and Starmer had received more than 40% of the vote, his coverage would be different.
Not this nonsense AGAIN, surely? Labour banned – banned! – their MPs campaigning in safe seats. To the point that as soon as their canvassing app picked up any responses from their heartland seats, HQ would immediately call the canvasser for a meeting without coffee.
They willingly that their national share of the vote slide to ensure they piled up votes where they needed them. They played FPP as the rules of the game imply. You might dislike the rules, but they are the rules. The wise man plays the game to win under the rules as they are, not how some people would wish them to be.
Result:
Labour 411 Conservative 121
You may believe that the number of votes received and where was mainly due to local canvassing efforts and strategic brilliance, but my suspicion is that the national shares of the vote are mainly due to the national collective mood. On that metric Starmer and Labour performed poorly, and were saved only by the catastrophic - worst result in two hundred years - performance of their principal rival.
Obviously Labour were right to concentrate their campaigning efforts where those would make the most difference, but the idea they would have received millions more votes had they sent canvassers into safe seats is risible.
It's such a pathetic denial. It demeans you and everyone who repeats the argument.
I know from the ground that that is what happened. What I have told you about the system is true. If you wish to harp on regardless for reasons known only to yourself, up to you.
Like I said, Labour were right to concentrate their campaigning resources where they would make the most difference.
Do you honestly believe they would have got 40% of the vote if they'd sent canvassers into safe seats instead?
I think I agree with LostPassword here. If canvassing makes a difference - and it's not obvious to me that the difference is massive - and there is a finite amount of canvassing to be done - then it seems obvious that it impacts where the votes are, rather than the number of votes. Different tactics might have resulted in differently located votes and therefore a different number of seats, but the same overall percentage of the vote.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
Well lots of people can. You might not be interested in fashion but lots of people are and can easily tell the difference.
And some of those complaining about wardrobegate would be the first to complain if Dowdy Lady S were to let Britain down by being frumpy on the world stage. It would be better if we weren't like that as a country, but right now we are.
Yes, it should have been declared sooner rather than later. Yes, that failure is a bad thing. No, it's nowhere near the level of obscurity of some previous PMs.
As for why Blair got a honeymoon from the press and Starmer hasn't, you would have to ask the press that.
Nearly four million votes and 10pp is why.
If the polls before the campaign had been right, and Starmer had received more than 40% of the vote, his coverage would be different.
Not this nonsense AGAIN, surely? Labour banned – banned! – their MPs campaigning in safe seats. To the point that as soon as their canvassing app picked up any responses from their heartland seats, HQ would immediately call the canvasser for a meeting without coffee.
They willingly that their national share of the vote slide to ensure they piled up votes where they needed them. They played FPP as the rules of the game imply. You might dislike the rules, but they are the rules. The wise man plays the game to win under the rules as they are, not how some people would wish them to be.
Result:
Labour 411 Conservative 121
You may believe that the number of votes received and where was mainly due to local canvassing efforts and strategic brilliance, but my suspicion is that the national shares of the vote are mainly due to the national collective mood. On that metric Starmer and Labour performed poorly, and were saved only by the catastrophic - worst result in two hundred years - performance of their principal rival.
Obviously Labour were right to concentrate their campaigning efforts where those would make the most difference, but the idea they would have received millions more votes had they sent canvassers into safe seats is risible.
It's such a pathetic denial. It demeans you and everyone who repeats the argument.
I know from the ground that that is what happened. What I have told you about the system is true. If you wish to harp on regardless for reasons known only to yourself, up to you.
Like I said, Labour were right to concentrate their campaigning resources where they would make the most difference.
Do you honestly believe they would have got 40% of the vote if they'd sent canvassers into safe seats instead?
What is so magical about 40%? Why not 50%? Or 60%? I assume you are a fan of PR, so surely you’d seek a higher proportion for such a high proportion of the seats?
I don’t know what the return would have been if Labour had (stupidly) chased share rather than seats. Didn’t Corbo get 40% or close to it? Yet he lost as he piled up Labour votes in places they didn’t need them, tacking towards lefties in their heartlands. Starmer did the opposite and won big.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
I can, but then I have a keen eye for this.
See the second half of my comment above
When I was young, putting a lot of effort (and certainly a lot of time and/or expense) into your appearance was a bit frowned upon. You were expected, if possible, to achieve a certain level of cleanliness and/or personal hygiene, but anything more than that was a bit suspect - a bit 'look at me'. Actually, I say 'when I was young', I suspect most of men of my generation still think that way.
Maybe that is true, but it's hardly something to be proud of, is it?
I kind of think it is. We used to consider vanity a vice rather than a virtue. We used to consider showing off something to be dissuaded. We used to mock peacockery. A certain parsimoniousness whn it comes to one's appearance seems to me to be something to be applauded. By which I don't necessarily mean turning up in a t-shirt riven with holes and ketchup stains. But I rather disdain the mindset which thinks it acceptable to spend £1000 a year or more on one's own appearance. It seems frivolous. Do you remember the book of sports lists? I remember a list in it of sportsmen who cared rather too much for their own appearance - it included, I think, Peter Shilton, who would drive to a city 30 miles away for his particular needs for a haircut, and, possibly, Kevin Keegan, who spent rather more than the then-quite-daring £5 a month on a haircut. And someone who spent a lot on clothes, no doubt. But the fact that ten such people could be picked out showed how comparatively rare that sort of vanity was in those days. If you made a list now of sportsmen who cared too much for their own appearance you'd be here until doomsday.
Do you apply these hairshirt morals to women too, or just men?
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
Well lots of people can. You might not be interested in fashion but lots of people are and can easily tell the difference.
And some of those complaining about wardrobegate would be the first to complain if Dowdy Lady S were to let Britain down by being frumpy on the world stage. It would be better if we weren't like that as a country, but right now we are.
Yes, it should have been declared sooner rather than later. Yes, that failure is a bad thing. No, it's nowhere near the level of obscurity of some previous PMs.
As for why Blair got a honeymoon from the press and Starmer hasn't, you would have to ask the press that.
Nearly four million votes and 10pp is why.
If the polls before the campaign had been right, and Starmer had received more than 40% of the vote, his coverage would be different.
Not this nonsense AGAIN, surely? Labour banned – banned! – their MPs campaigning in safe seats. To the point that as soon as their canvassing app picked up any responses from their heartland seats, HQ would immediately call the canvasser for a meeting without coffee.
They willingly that their national share of the vote slide to ensure they piled up votes where they needed them. They played FPP as the rules of the game imply. You might dislike the rules, but they are the rules. The wise man plays the game to win under the rules as they are, not how some people would wish them to be.
Result:
Labour 411 Conservative 121
You may believe that the number of votes received and where was mainly due to local canvassing efforts and strategic brilliance, but my suspicion is that the national shares of the vote are mainly due to the national collective mood. On that metric Starmer and Labour performed poorly, and were saved only by the catastrophic - worst result in two hundred years - performance of their principal rival.
Obviously Labour were right to concentrate their campaigning efforts where those would make the most difference, but the idea they would have received millions more votes had they sent canvassers into safe seats is risible.
It's such a pathetic denial. It demeans you and everyone who repeats the argument.
I know from the ground that that is what happened. What I have told you about the system is true. If you wish to harp on regardless for reasons known only to yourself, up to you.
Like I said, Labour were right to concentrate their campaigning resources where they would make the most difference.
Do you honestly believe they would have got 40% of the vote if they'd sent canvassers into safe seats instead?
What is so magical about 40%? Why not 50%? Or 60%? I assume you are a fan of PR, so surely you’d seek a higher proportion for such a high proportion of the seats?
I don’t know what the return would have been if Labour had (stupidly) chased share rather than seats. Didn’t Corbo get 40% or close to it? Yet he lost as he piled up Labour votes in places they didn’t need them, tacking towards lefties in their heartlands. Starmer did the opposite and won big.
DYOR.
Like I said, you're in denial of how little popularity Starmer has.
Corbyn, of course, was so unpopular that he lost two elections, one to May and the other to Johnson.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
I really don't see the problem with a supplier providing Lady Starmer with free clothing in the hope that the publicity will result in additional sales.
Indeed. I don't really get this 'story' at all. Where is the sleaze here? If a very rich Labour peer wants to pay for the first lady's wardrobe so she looks good on the international stage, why shouldn't he?
If he has demanded anything in return for that (e.g. favours etc) then that's a different matter, but as far as I can see there is no suggestion he has.
Granted, Sir Keir has made an apparent blunder by only declaring his own clobber and not Victoria's – but that would seem to be fairly small beer, an administrative cockup.
Watergate it ain't.
Wasn't access to No 10 granted?
He got a temporary pass for No. 10 at some point. Is this forbidden to Labour peers? And in what way is it related to Lady Vic's dresses?
I believe Mrs Starmer should buy her own frocks. Has she never been to Zara?
That said, those on here trying to equate this with Johnson's wallpaper, Jenrick spooning Desmond or the industrial scale PPE scandal are having as big a laugh as they were when they tried convincing us a beer and a curry in Durham was worse than Johnson living it large in Downing Street whilst the Queen buried her husband.
Meanwhile LD leader Sir Ed Davey joins former Conservative PM Boris Johnson and Defence Secretaries Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps in urging Starmer, Biden and other NATO leaders to allow Ukraine to send Storm Shadow missiles into Russia
They can urge what they want but it's up to Biden and the gang at Foggy Bottom, not SKS.
European (including UK) reliance on US infrastructure for essential national security is something that should be concentrating minds across the continent - and indeed, should have been for the last decade, at least.
It should be clear that Europe cannot rely even on Democrat administrations to hold the line, never mind Republican ones. And with the US understandably increasingly concerned about Eastern Asia and the Pacific, that's not entirely unreasonable. Europe would need to up its self-reliance even without the outbreak of Trumpite insanity within the Republicans.
But the extent of European reliance on US satellite and intelligence data, and military hardware (the two often being interlinked) should be unacceptable. It's an obvious Trump power lever, for one thing; one he will be willing to pull for his own ends if he actually understands its effectiveness (which is merely a matter of his own and his team's curiosity).
Obviously, the remedy to that will be extremely expensive and means replicating many of the US systems, including manufacturing. It also means the diplomatic difficulty of telling the US that Europe doesn't trust it. It also means military and political co-operation across Europe that will be difficult in current circumstances. None of those are reasons for not doing it, other than to craven politicians who prefer burying their heads in the sand to protecting their countries. I hope, behind the scenes, it's already happening.
Where are OneWeb in this arena these days?
Technically, UK Gov own 10%, as do the French Gov, and UK Gov has a Golden Share.
I'm assuming that the "use for satellite navigation" suggestion from several years ago was BJBS.
I'm not sure it was ever given as a motive by the government.
From memory, the Guardian interviewed a scientist, asking if it was possible to use them as such (because Gallileo was in the news due to Brexit) then wrote it up as a "Stupid Brexit Britain bought the wrong satellites" story, which of course Centrist Dad twitter loved.
Using LEO constellation satellites for navigation is perfectly possible.
In fact, around the time of the OneWeb purchase, someone demonstrated that you could use the Starlink signals for exactly that - not getting GPS data from the satellites, but using the satellites own positions to generate a ground position.
Story surrounds the long time leftwing opposition party sacrificing principles to get them into power. Once in power they throw vulnerable groups under the bus for limited savings and then they water down pre-election promises.
Bit historic really and obviously couldn’t happen today.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
Well lots of people can. You might not be interested in fashion but lots of people are and can easily tell the difference.
And some of those complaining about wardrobegate would be the first to complain if Dowdy Lady S were to let Britain down by being frumpy on the world stage. It would be better if we weren't like that as a country, but right now we are.
Yes, it should have been declared sooner rather than later. Yes, that failure is a bad thing. No, it's nowhere near the level of obscurity of some previous PMs.
As for why Blair got a honeymoon from the press and Starmer hasn't, you would have to ask the press that.
Nearly four million votes and 10pp is why.
If the polls before the campaign had been right, and Starmer had received more than 40% of the vote, his coverage would be different.
Not this nonsense AGAIN, surely? Labour banned – banned! – their MPs campaigning in safe seats. To the point that as soon as their canvassing app picked up any responses from their heartland seats, HQ would immediately call the canvasser for a meeting without coffee.
They willingly that their national share of the vote slide to ensure they piled up votes where they needed them. They played FPP as the rules of the game imply. You might dislike the rules, but they are the rules. The wise man plays the game to win under the rules as they are, not how some people would wish them to be.
Result:
Labour 411 Conservative 121
You may believe that the number of votes received and where was mainly due to local canvassing efforts and strategic brilliance, but my suspicion is that the national shares of the vote are mainly due to the national collective mood. On that metric Starmer and Labour performed poorly, and were saved only by the catastrophic - worst result in two hundred years - performance of their principal rival.
Obviously Labour were right to concentrate their campaigning efforts where those would make the most difference, but the idea they would have received millions more votes had they sent canvassers into safe seats is risible.
It's such a pathetic denial. It demeans you and everyone who repeats the argument.
I know from the ground that that is what happened. What I have told you about the system is true. If you wish to harp on regardless for reasons known only to yourself, up to you.
It's easily tested, surely? Not the canvassing effect, but the (change in) Lab vote share in safe versus marginal seats?
If what you say is true (and it's broadly what I believe) then there should be a clear effect. Now, a Labour party that truly enthused would rack up big votes everywhere, but I don't think many dispute that the Conservatives lost the election and Lab, partly in response to the conservatives imploding, ran a competent, safety first campaign to ensure victory
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
What's a phone box.
Where hookers used to leaving their calling cards.
What's a hooker?
A rugby position.
And the game ends. If you had said a Number 2, we could have kept it going a while
Obviously, the remedy to that will be extremely expensive and means replicating many of the US systems, including manufacturing. It also means the diplomatic difficulty of telling the US that Europe doesn't trust it. It also means military and political co-operation across Europe that will be difficult in current circumstances. None of those are reasons for not doing it, other than to craven politicians who prefer burying their heads in the sand to protecting their countries. I hope, behind the scenes, it's already happening.
This is all true, but nobody wants to pay for strategic autonomy and it's a guaranteed election losing prospectus. If DJT wins then SKS will gargle his nuts to get a bilateral defence agreement if necessary.
There is no bilateral anything with Trump. There is no agreement that can be trusted. There is no guarantee that he won't leverage the same things he's previously promised in order to extract further concessions.
Besides, I don't think opposing that kind of investment is an election-winning prospectus. Being seen as 'weak on defence' has frequently been an election-losing prospectus (in the UK at least).
I'm still watching for some thoughtful commentary on Trump's potential impact on Five Eyes, given that we already know that he regards USA secret information as things that he is entitled to sell for personal gain when he is President, and the Supreme Court to which he manipulated appointments has declared that he will not practically be able to be prosecuted.
Thank God for the 22nd amendment. My hope is people will mislead, disobey and ignore him as necessary while running the clock down to 2028.
The 22nd Amendment is not the safeguard a lot of people think it is, particularly with this Supreme Court. There are ways round it.
Is there anything to prevent, say, Trump running as VP on a ticket after completing a second term and then serving as president when the president steps down?
Russia's term limits have not proved too much of a difficulty to Putin.
That's the most obvious route by which it could be done (he could also just remain as VP and run things from there, a la Putin-Medvedev 2008-12, though that's not really Trump's style. Nor Putin's these days).
The argument against it is the provision in the 12th amendment that no person is eligible to be VP who is not eligible to be president. However, the 22nd amendment merely says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". It doesn't say that they are barred outright and cannot inherit the presidency by some other means than election, nor does it place a bar on the same people being elected as VP. That's probably enough wriggle room for a former president barred under the 22nd, to be let through by the (this) SCOTUS to stand to be VP.
So Trump could never be elected President more than twice. If Vance was GOP candidate in 2028 if he and Trump won in November he would pick another VP candidate anyway
In which case Trump would run a different proxy against him, who *would* pick Donald as VP.
Vance's prime job at the moment is being a political bodyguard to Trump; an additional assurance against impeachment.
Vance's backers have their own agenda, which overlaps, but is not identical to that of Trump.
True. However Vance without Trump (indeed, *against* Trump) is nothing like a credible presidential candidate.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
Well lots of people can. You might not be interested in fashion but lots of people are and can easily tell the difference.
And some of those complaining about wardrobegate would be the first to complain if Dowdy Lady S were to let Britain down by being frumpy on the world stage. It would be better if we weren't like that as a country, but right now we are.
Yes, it should have been declared sooner rather than later. Yes, that failure is a bad thing. No, it's nowhere near the level of obscurity of some previous PMs.
As for why Blair got a honeymoon from the press and Starmer hasn't, you would have to ask the press that.
Nearly four million votes and 10pp is why.
If the polls before the campaign had been right, and Starmer had received more than 40% of the vote, his coverage would be different.
Not this nonsense AGAIN, surely? Labour banned – banned! – their MPs campaigning in safe seats. To the point that as soon as their canvassing app picked up any responses from their heartland seats, HQ would immediately call the canvasser for a meeting without coffee.
They willingly that their national share of the vote slide to ensure they piled up votes where they needed them. They played FPP as the rules of the game imply. You might dislike the rules, but they are the rules. The wise man plays the game to win under the rules as they are, not how some people would wish them to be.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
I really don't see the problem with a supplier providing Lady Starmer with free clothing in the hope that the publicity will result in additional sales.
Indeed. I don't really get this 'story' at all. Where is the sleaze here? If a very rich Labour peer wants to pay for the first lady's wardrobe so she looks good on the international stage, why shouldn't he?
If he has demanded anything in return for that (e.g. favours etc) then that's a different matter, but as far as I can see there is no suggestion he has.
Granted, Sir Keir has made an apparent blunder by only declaring his own clobber and not Victoria's – but that would seem to be fairly small beer, an administrative cockup.
Watergate it ain't.
The donor received access to Number 10 that he wouldn't have received otherwise - that's fairly straightforward cash for access, though I think it's very unlikely he'd have achieved any major change in Government policy with his access.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
Well lots of people can. You might not be interested in fashion but lots of people are and can easily tell the difference.
And some of those complaining about wardrobegate would be the first to complain if Dowdy Lady S were to let Britain down by being frumpy on the world stage. It would be better if we weren't like that as a country, but right now we are.
Yes, it should have been declared sooner rather than later. Yes, that failure is a bad thing. No, it's nowhere near the level of obscurity of some previous PMs.
As for why Blair got a honeymoon from the press and Starmer hasn't, you would have to ask the press that.
Nearly four million votes and 10pp is why.
If the polls before the campaign had been right, and Starmer had received more than 40% of the vote, his coverage would be different.
Not this nonsense AGAIN, surely? Labour banned – banned! – their MPs campaigning in safe seats. To the point that as soon as their canvassing app picked up any responses from their heartland seats, HQ would immediately call the canvasser for a meeting without coffee.
They willingly that their national share of the vote slide to ensure they piled up votes where they needed them. They played FPP as the rules of the game imply. You might dislike the rules, but they are the rules. The wise man plays the game to win under the rules as they are, not how some people would wish them to be.
Result:
Labour 411 Conservative 121
You may believe that the number of votes received and where was mainly due to local canvassing efforts and strategic brilliance, but my suspicion is that the national shares of the vote are mainly due to the national collective mood. On that metric Starmer and Labour performed poorly, and were saved only by the catastrophic - worst result in two hundred years - performance of their principal rival.
Obviously Labour were right to concentrate their campaigning efforts where those would make the most difference, but the idea they would have received millions more votes had they sent canvassers into safe seats is risible.
It's such a pathetic denial. It demeans you and everyone who repeats the argument.
I know from the ground that that is what happened. What I have told you about the system is true. If you wish to harp on regardless for reasons known only to yourself, up to you.
Like I said, Labour were right to concentrate their campaigning resources where they would make the most difference.
Do you honestly believe they would have got 40% of the vote if they'd sent canvassers into safe seats instead?
What is so magical about 40%? Why not 50%? Or 60%? I assume you are a fan of PR, so surely you’d seek a higher proportion for such a high proportion of the seats?
I don’t know what the return would have been if Labour had (stupidly) chased share rather than seats. Didn’t Corbo get 40% or close to it? Yet he lost as he piled up Labour votes in places they didn’t need them, tacking towards lefties in their heartlands. Starmer did the opposite and won big.
DYOR.
I've done my own research. For example:
Is there a relationship between turnout and marginality?
Overall, there was no relationship between turnout and the size of a winning margin.
Comments
When I was young, putting a lot of effort (and certainly a lot of time and/or expense) into your appearance was a bit frowned upon. You were expected, if possible, to achieve a certain level of cleanliness and/or personal hygiene, but anything more than that was a bit suspect - a bit 'look at me'. Actually, I say 'when I was young', I suspect most of men of my generation still think that way.
Yes, it should have been declared sooner rather than later. Yes, that failure is a bad thing. No, it's nowhere near the level of obscurity of some previous PMs.
As for why Blair got a honeymoon from the press and Starmer hasn't, you would have to ask the press that.
I'm reminded that Frankie Howard used to carefully script his "ooh no" and looks to camera etc. What looked like ad lib was actually tightly controlled.
You can definitely argue that the PM of the country ought to be smart.
They shouldn't be receiving personal donations of money from wealthy people. It's just so obviously wrong in terms of buying influence.
A fashion label giving them freebies in exchange for exposure is different, but now that they have transgressed it all gets bundled up together.
The problem is with the taker, though this may not feel fair, because on account of the uncontrolled chaos of the Tory party the expectations of the new government were exceptionally high in respect of old fashioned boring morality, honesty, communication skill and competence. And OTOH I think Labour and the leadership had fed those expectations, and garnered votes as being not the new Blair but the new Attlee.
(Though to be fair to Edwards he pled guilty and has no previous so was probably a fair sentence even if he is an upper middle class liberal)
*the timings were such that we would not have the same children, the largest gap between due date for miscarriage and birth was approx one year - with a larger gap between miscarriage and child, that may not, of course, apply
If the polls before the campaign had been right, and Starmer had received more than 40% of the vote, his coverage would be different.
Vance's prime job at the moment is being a political bodyguard to Trump; an additional assurance against impeachment.
It's not just the outfit; it's how the outfit is worn. Much less attention is spent on how an outfit is worn than how much it costs. Because that's difficult and takes skill; cost doesn't.
Although that's likely overly costly.
They willingly that their national share of the vote slide to ensure they piled up votes where they needed them. They played FPP as the rules of the game imply. You might dislike the rules, but they are the rules. The wise man plays the game to win under the rules as they are, not how some people would wish them to be.
Result:
Labour 411
Conservative 121
Fair speech is not a thing that can be worked towards except by accident. But by accident the internet has enabled every single voice, including an infinity of voices with little or nothing useful to say, to have access to a global audience.
Once that is the case, other forces like chance and luck take over. There may well be a particular narrow pattern to PB posters, and a stark variation in how many posts are made by whom. But the forum (SFAICS) is open to all without limit.
Having to right to free speech is one thing. Worth being listened to is quite another. Pyongyang Times, Stormfront and Russia Today are all freely available. If 'fair speech' means I have to access them, no thank you.
Poland, narrowly, managed to overthrow at the ballot box a government sliding into authoritarianism. The judicial system remains a compromised mess.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/10/judicial-independence-judge-aileen-cannon-trump/679561/?gift=hVZeG3M9DnxL4CekrWGK3wT8mMlv9SBR61mcCYYk8O0&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
...one element of the Polish experience might be relevant: the speed with which norms and conventions can shift, and the depth of the disorientation that can follow. Consider what we have seen or learned in just the past few months and years. Two Supreme Court justices were accepting large, undisclosed gifts from people who might have had an interest in their jurisprudence; the wife of one of those justices played a role in seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election; more than one justice misled Congress during confirmation hearings about their intentions to overturn Roe v. Wade ; money and lobbyists have played an enormous role in the transformation of the Court; the Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell broke convention to block one nomination and then enable another; and now that Republican-dominated Court has extended immunity to a Republican ex-president who has broken the law—all of this has had a cumulative and damaging effect. The Supreme Court and all other federal courts now appear to both halves of the polarized political spectrum to be weaker, more political, easier to manipulate, less bound to the Constitution. A Gallup poll conducted in July showed that a yawning gap has emerged between the 15 percent of Democrats who still approve of the Court and the 66 percent of Republicans who do. Overall, respect for the courts is at historic lows...
...Now imagine a second Trump presidency, during which dozens more Aileen Cannons are appointed to the courts—dozens more minimally qualified people who believe their role is to defend the president or avenge his enemies, not to defend the rule of law. Then imagine another president, a Democrat, elected in 2028, who feels no obligation to adhere to the decisions made by these highly partisan courts. Or imagine a contested 2028 election in which Vice President J. D. Vance backs insurrectionists attempting to prevent the lawful transfer of power, as he has said he would have done in 2020—when courts rejected dozens of claims from Trump’s legal advisers who sought to overturn the result. What if, in 2028 and 2029, courts were to rule in the opposite direction, with the intention of helping install an unelected president?...
Obviously Labour were right to concentrate their campaigning efforts where those would make the most difference, but the idea they would have received millions more votes had they sent canvassers into safe seats is risible.
It's such a pathetic denial. It demeans you and everyone who repeats the argument.
Do you honestly believe they would have got 40% of the vote if they'd sent canvassers into safe seats instead?
By which I don't necessarily mean turning up in a t-shirt riven with holes and ketchup stains. But I rather disdain the mindset which thinks it acceptable to spend £1000 a year or more on one's own appearance. It seems frivolous.
Do you remember the book of sports lists? I remember a list in it of sportsmen who cared rather too much for their own appearance - it included, I think, Peter Shilton, who would drive to a city 30 miles away for his particular needs for a haircut, and, possibly, Kevin Keegan, who spent rather more than the then-quite-daring £5 a month on a haircut. And someone who spent a lot on clothes, no doubt. But the fact that ten such people could be picked out showed how comparatively rare that sort of vanity was in those days. If you made a list now of sportsmen who cared too much for their own appearance you'd be here until doomsday.
NEW THREAD
I don’t know what the return would have been if Labour had (stupidly) chased share rather than seats. Didn’t Corbo get 40% or close to it? Yet he lost as he piled up Labour votes in places they didn’t need them, tacking towards lefties in their heartlands. Starmer did the opposite and won big.
DYOR.
Corbyn, of course, was so unpopular that he lost two elections, one to May and the other to Johnson.
That said, those on here trying to equate this with Johnson's wallpaper, Jenrick spooning Desmond or the industrial scale PPE scandal are having as big a laugh as they were when they tried convincing us a beer and a curry in Durham was worse than Johnson living it large in Downing Street whilst the Queen buried her husband.
In fact, around the time of the OneWeb purchase, someone demonstrated that you could use the Starlink signals for exactly that - not getting GPS data from the satellites, but using the satellites own positions to generate a ground position.
Story surrounds the long time leftwing opposition party sacrificing principles to get them into power. Once in power they throw vulnerable groups under the bus for limited savings and then they water down pre-election promises.
Bit historic really and obviously couldn’t happen today.
If what you say is true (and it's broadly what I believe) then there should be a clear effect. Now, a Labour party that truly enthused would rack up big votes everywhere, but I don't think many dispute that the Conservatives lost the election and Lab, partly in response to the conservatives imploding, ran a competent, safety first campaign to ensure victory
Is there a relationship between turnout and marginality?
Overall, there was no relationship between turnout and the size of a winning margin.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/2024-general-election-marginality/
My conclusion? It's very unlikely that Labour could have got a much higher vote share if they hadn't "banned campaigning" in safe seats.
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1835758241952776641
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."