Didn’t said Palmer do some sort of deal with the LibDems that got him in? Otherwise in that neck of the woods he’d have stood no chance, even before they found out about his former communist past.
Didn’t said Palmer do some sort of deal with the LibDems that got him in? Otherwise in that neck of the woods he’d have stood no chance, even before they found out about his former communist past.
Well you can see in the results from last time on that link I've posted that there was one candidate from Lab, LD and Greens versus 3 Tory candidates, so obviously a deal between those 3 parties to defeat the Tories, which worked very well in 2023.
This site is very lively for what must be the small hours on a British Tuesday night?
Nice to see isn't it? Maybe with Lab in government and Con in Opposition we go back to the "glory days" - which I remember as being from around 2007 to 2010 - when traffic on this site was absolutely crazy.
If the site does blow up again hopefully OGH and Smithson The Younger will be able to find a way to monetize, since Google ads have been pulled.
Something is happening in the locals for the conservatives
I think 24.4% was an absolutely rock bottom result for the Tories at the GE and they're starting to slowly recover from it. (I know a recent opinion poll put them on 21% but I wouldn't take too much notice of that compared to real results).
I think they will probably recover a bit as a dead cat bounce, but are a long way off looking like a viable government. They have a couple of years before the real preparation starts. They will have to work hard as the disenchantment with Starmer is mostly from the left. Even Reform voters want more sweeties. That's not an easy seam for Jrnrick to mine.
Colston Bassett blue stilton with Okanagan strawberry chilli jam???
Who knew???
Fuck. That's good
Oh ffs. It's grub. Get a grip.
Your miserablism is a joy. Labour are such a disappointment. It's delicious to watch
Tho not as delicious as Colston Bassett stilton with Okanagan chili jam
I can well imagine. I have had a similar combination with Stilton, and it's magnificent.
What are you eating this concoction on? For a long time I sidestepped cheese as vaguely unsatisfactory but it turned out what was actually unsatisfactory was the cracker or oatcake or otger taste vacuum it sat on. My solution is a digestive or hovis biscuit.
The term "digestive biscuit" is NOT a masterpierce of British marketing.
Sounds like something a vet would prescribe for a consipated parrot.
Well, that just shows where you are wrong. Digestive biscuits are made with bicarbonate of soda, which is a mild laxative, and so the name was chosen deliberately to sell them as a Victorian era health food to aid in digestion. This marketing was so popular that digestive biscuits are still a staple biscuit in Britain today.
So constipated Victorians used to seek relief, by shoving disgestive buscuits up their fundaments?
Surprise, surprise!
You eat them.
Look, there's a reason why the number one item we are asked to bring with us by Americans when we cross the Atlantic is biscuits. The British simply do biscuits better than the Americans, however hard oreos may be advertised.
Store-bought? Perhaps, though I seriously doubt it.
Home-made? No freaking way that home-baked UK "biscuits" surpass US made-from-scratch cookies.
What US manufactured cookie surpasses the chocolate hobnob ?
Oatmill cookies. Which appear to be the inspiration for the UK (nockoff?) "Hobnob".
Best when (reasonably) fresh (for store bought) AND with raisins.
I imported a stash of Chocolate Hobnobs for some friends in Seattle (on request).
They had been there a number of years and had apparently not found a decent substitute.
My own sainted mother baked oatmeal cookies to die for. Sadly she's NOT baking in Seattle, or anywhere else (that I know of anyway).
Am no longer consuming cookies (home-made or store-bought) but Archway oakmeal with raison cookies used to be pretty good. However, unsure they would meet exacting requirements of your friends; certainly NOT something to impress guests!
Speaking of "digestive" properties of digestive buscuits, somehow doubt that, should one be afflicted with constipation, scarfing down a half-dozen or more is gonna unplug ones plumbing.
I think Americans bake more cookies than we do, perhaps ? Raisins in cookies are anathema* AFAIAC, but I have had some excellent fresh baked chocolate chip efforts in the US.
*the horror of the Garibaldi remains a childhood trauma.
Something is happening in the locals for the conservatives
I think 24.4% was an absolutely rock bottom result for the Tories at the GE and they're starting to slowly recover from it. (I know a recent opinion poll put them on 21% but I wouldn't take too much notice of that compared to real results).
I think they will probably recover a bit as a dead cat bounce, but are a long way off looking like a viable government. They have a couple of years before the real preparation starts. They will have to work hard as the disenchantment with Starmer is mostly from the left. Even Reform voters want more sweeties. That's not an easy seam for Jrnrick to mine.
Jenrick will launch a campaign for honesty and integrity in politics. That should be fun to watch….
Didn’t said Palmer do some sort of deal with the LibDems that got him in? Otherwise in that neck of the woods he’d have stood no chance, even before they found out about his former communist past.
Well you can see in the results from last time on that link I've posted that there was one candidate from Lab, LD and Greens versus 3 Tory candidates, so obviously a deal between those 3 parties to defeat the Tories, which worked very well in 2023.
Perhaps THE quintessential Great American Cookie is the TOLLHOUSE COOKIE
as per wikiL
The most notable chocolate chip cookie recipe was invented by American chef Ruth Graves Wakefield in 1938. She invented the recipe during the period when she owned the Toll House Inn, in Whitman, Massachusetts. . . .
"We had been serving a thin butterscotch nut cookie with ice cream. Everybody seemed to love it, but I was trying to give them something different. So I came up with Toll House cookie". She added chopped up bits from a Nestlé semi-sweet chocolate bar into a cookie. . . . Wakefield gave Nestle the recipe for her cookies and was paid with a lifetime supply of chocolate from the company.
SSI - The very best Tollhouse cookies also feature chopped up pieces of walnut, a killer combination with the choclate chips. My sainted mother's version was beyond outstanding, especially when still warm with gooey choclate chips; she slighted neither chips nor nuts, bless her!
Many thanks for wonderful opportunity (as a Revolting Colonial) to mock one Great British Institution - the Digestive Buscuit - with another - Politicalbetting.com.
OR is it the other way around?
There may be many ways an American can mock Britain, and some may secretly hurt. We are not a self-confident people. But every single one of us - all 67 million of us - are so sure of the adequacy of the digestive biscuit that your barbs have no sting whatsoever. Mocking us for the paucity of our biscuits would be like us mocking you for the smallness of your country.
I was going to make some harsh observations about nomenclature until I noticed your username. But seriously has anything ever sounded less appetising than biscuits & gravy?
It's actually pretty good. When I'm on the road in America (admittedly not often nowadays) I like to take in some proper country cooking. Cracker Barrel is rather hokey, but the food is surprisingly OK.
Scones seem to be a savoury staple once you get into Confederate territory. Or even in those states that almost joined the confederacy, but didn’t. Breakfast Biscuit is the Louisville breakfast, a fried egg, bacon and cheese, inside a scone.
Well, I did have 5 formative years in Georgia. Quite partial to cornbread, corn dogs, and chicken fried steak, but never got to like grits.
US legal drugs are expensive. Ozempic in the US is 8-10 times more expensive than UK. And USA is around 5 times more populous. If everybody in the US who would benefit from Ozempic went on it, it would cost more than the existing purchases of all other USA legal drugs combined.
By this point in this point in the 2019-2024 Parliament we'd had 11 VI polls from 8 companies: BMG, Opinium, YouGov, Survation, IPSOS/MORI, Redfield/Whilton, Survatna/ComRes...
If we We Think, Stonehaven and More In Common had't entered the fray since early 2020 we would only have had 2 opinion polls from BMG so far this Parliament?
It's almost starting to feel like the biggest pollsters are deliberately refusing to conduct voting intention polls after Labour was elected in on 4th July 2024?
US legal drugs are expensive. Ozempic in the US is 8-10 times more expensive than UK. And USA is around 5 times more populous. If everybody in the US who would benefit from Ozempic went on it, it would cost more than the existing purchases of all other USA legal drugs combined.
Somehow they have to pay for all the medical adverts.
I’m sure we’ve all spent a lazy afternoon googling symptoms, and before you know it we’re worrying about having all sorts of conditions we previously knew nothing about.
In the US, you don’t need to go online; the adverts alarming you about your health arrive by TV, radio, and on giant billboards next to the road.
By this point in this point in the 2019-2024 Parliament we'd had 11 VI polls from 8 companies: BMG, Opinium, YouGov, Survation, IPSOS/MORI, Redfield/Whilton, Survatna/ComRes...
If we We Think, Stonehaven and More In Common had't entered the fray since early 2020 we would only have had 2 opinion polls from BMG so far this Parliament?
It's almost starting to feel like the biggest pollsters are deliberately refusing to conduct voting intention polls after Labour was elected in on 4th July 2024?
Surely that couldn't be the case, right? 🤷♂️
What's going on?
They are on holiday. Plus they are also trying to work out why they all overestimated Labour and underestimated Conservatives.
By this point in this point in the 2019-2024 Parliament we'd had 11 VI polls from 8 companies: BMG, Opinium, YouGov, Survation, IPSOS/MORI, Redfield/Whilton, Survatna/ComRes...
If we We Think, Stonehaven and More In Common had't entered the fray since early 2020 we would only have had 2 opinion polls from BMG so far this Parliament?
It's almost starting to feel like the biggest pollsters are deliberately refusing to conduct voting intention polls after Labour was elected in on 4th July 2024?
Surely that couldn't be the case, right? 🤷♂️
What's going on?
They are on holiday. Plus they are also trying to work out why they all overestimated Labour and underestimated Conservatives.
Overstimation of Labour in UK general elections by the pollsters is something that's been going on since probably Election 1970 and maybe even longer?
But that's no reason to just stop polling? When you look at the names that had been conducting VI polls by this point in the 2019-2024 Parliament (YouGov, Survation, Opinium, MORI/IPSOS, ComRes/Survanta) and compare it to the names we currently have polling VI, it actually starts to look slightly sinister.
Why are the country's leading pollsters refusing to do their jobs and poll VI? What's going on? 🤷♂️
By this point in this point in the 2019-2024 Parliament we'd had 11 VI polls from 8 companies: BMG, Opinium, YouGov, Survation, IPSOS/MORI, Redfield/Whilton, Survatna/ComRes...
If we We Think, Stonehaven and More In Common had't entered the fray since early 2020 we would only have had 2 opinion polls from BMG so far this Parliament?
It's almost starting to feel like the biggest pollsters are deliberately refusing to conduct voting intention polls after Labour was elected in on 4th July 2024?
Surely that couldn't be the case, right? 🤷♂️
What's going on?
They are on holiday. Plus they are also trying to work out why they all overestimated Labour and underestimated Conservatives.
Overstimation of Labour in UK general elections by the pollsters is something that's been going on since probably Election 1970 and maybe even longer?
But that's no reason to just stop polling? When you look at the names that had been conducting VI polls by this point in the 2019-2024 Parliament (YouGov, Survation, Opinium, MORI/IPSOS, ComRes/Survanta) and compare it to the names we currently have polling VI, it actually starts to look slightly sinister.
Why are the country's leading pollsters refusing to do their jobs and poll VI? What's going on? 🤷♂️
Who's paying for it? They don't do these things for free. Plus it's conference season.
From FPT: " In 2022, the total fertility rate in Iran remained nearly unchanged at around 1.68 children per woman. But still, the fertility rate reached its lowest value of the observation period in 2022." https://www.statista.com/statistics/294115/iran-fertility-rate/
The TFR rose from 2010 to 2017, though still staying below 2.1, and then has fallen every year since. (As an American, I can't help wondering whether it rose on the possibility of peace with the US, and then fell when that became less likely.)
I don't know of any formal studies on the question, but I have long thought that a country's TFR depended -- in part -- on the morale in the country. That would help explain, for example, the very different population paths that Franceand Gemrany took, after 1870.
Naturally, I would be interested in seeing Gareths's thoughts on this question, after that very interesting header.
From FPT: " In 2022, the total fertility rate in Iran remained nearly unchanged at around 1.68 children per woman. But still, the fertility rate reached its lowest value of the observation period in 2022." https://www.statista.com/statistics/294115/iran-fertility-rate/
The TFR rose from 2010 to 2017, though still staying below 2.1, and then has fallen every year since. (As an American, I can't help wondering whether it rose on the possibility of peace with the US, and then fell when that became less likely.)
I don't know of any formal studies on the question, but I have long thought that a country's TFR depended -- in part -- on the morale in the country. That would help explain, for example, the very different population paths that Franceand Gemrany took, after 1870.
Naturally, I would be interested in seeing Gareths's thoughts on this question, after that very interesting header.
I always find it slightly bizarre to note that Germany has had more deaths than births every year since 1972. That isn't true for any other western European country.
By this point in this point in the 2019-2024 Parliament we'd had 11 VI polls from 8 companies: BMG, Opinium, YouGov, Survation, IPSOS/MORI, Redfield/Whilton, Survatna/ComRes...
If we We Think, Stonehaven and More In Common had't entered the fray since early 2020 we would only have had 2 opinion polls from BMG so far this Parliament?
It's almost starting to feel like the biggest pollsters are deliberately refusing to conduct voting intention polls after Labour was elected in on 4th July 2024?
Surely that couldn't be the case, right? 🤷♂️
What's going on?
Embarrassment at overestimating the Labour lead by nearly 10%.
By this point in this point in the 2019-2024 Parliament we'd had 11 VI polls from 8 companies: BMG, Opinium, YouGov, Survation, IPSOS/MORI, Redfield/Whilton, Survatna/ComRes...
If we We Think, Stonehaven and More In Common had't entered the fray since early 2020 we would only have had 2 opinion polls from BMG so far this Parliament?
It's almost starting to feel like the biggest pollsters are deliberately refusing to conduct voting intention polls after Labour was elected in on 4th July 2024?
Surely that couldn't be the case, right? 🤷♂️
What's going on?
Embarrassment at overestimating the Labour lead by nearly 10%.
Maybe!
It's a bit of a mystery why the leading pollsters like Ipsos, YouGov, Survation and Opinion have just stopped polling VI and buggered off? 🤷♂️
Excruciating. Starmer should do away with jails for short sentennces and make miscreants read the thoughts of bitter Tory supporters on PB. Boring doesn't begin to describe it to describe the repetitive posts
Boring doesn't begin to describe it. It's painful. "Fishing" predicting Starmer's downfall in five years time is neither interesting nor insightful whether it happens or not. And surely he's seen Leon make the same prediction ten times already........
Get Stuart back. Get Alastair back. Tim even.....Anyone....
Time to bring on some subs .......
People are leaving the ground in droves and we're only ten minutes into the game.
Stoke on a rainy night in November would be a blessed relief
Sorry about my first post. I literally went to sleep when writing. Not surprising I'd just trudged my way through this thread hoping to hear how the Labour conference was going. ......
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
How thick is a whale omelette? And - come to mention it - how does one make a whale omelette, given whales are mammals?
Presumably it’s a larger version of a salmon omelette.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
From FPT: " In 2022, the total fertility rate in Iran remained nearly unchanged at around 1.68 children per woman. But still, the fertility rate reached its lowest value of the observation period in 2022." https://www.statista.com/statistics/294115/iran-fertility-rate/
The TFR rose from 2010 to 2017, though still staying below 2.1, and then has fallen every year since. (As an American, I can't help wondering whether it rose on the possibility of peace with the US, and then fell when that became less likely.)
I don't know of any formal studies on the question, but I have long thought that a country's TFR depended -- in part -- on the morale in the country. That would help explain, for example, the very different population paths that Franceand Gemrany took, after 1870.
Naturally, I would be interested in seeing Gareths's thoughts on this question, after that very interesting header.
As in most countries the female education rate is the great predictor of TFR. For all it's many faults the Iranian regime is not the Taliban and female education in Iran is supported.
The Tertiary education rate for Iranian women has gone up 20 fold from 1978, from 3% to 59%, as high as much more developed countries, though dropping a few percent recently.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I don't believe I have ever cited an article by Allister Heath (I rarely if ever post articles to Telegraph columnists as they range from really boring to mental) and I post links to articles from all other the place. You might be shocked if I buy a paper on Sunday, its the Observer. You seem to be going off the deep end, where even a genuine question asking for answer to something not known is somehow a dog whistle massive criticism.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
"A point rarely mentioned - if ever - about Lord Alli, is that Matt Faulding, the fixer figure who sorted out scores of Labour selections - and to whom many of the new MPs owe their jobs - did so while on secondment from Lord Alli's office."
Three hundred new state nurseries will open in England’s schools by next September, the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, has promised, as the government hurries to find places before the introduction of free childcare.
Phillipson said in an interview that she would launch a callout this month for schools in England with empty classrooms resulting from lower demand on school places to be converted into state nurseries, with the aim of 300 new nurseries opening by next September.
"A point rarely mentioned - if ever - about Lord Alli, is that Matt Faulding, the fixer figure who sorted out scores of Labour selections - and to whom many of the new MPs owe their jobs - did so while on secondment from Lord Alli's office."
For all the fun over freebies that leading politicians couldn't help taking, the focus has been lost that a) he got a pass which was abnormal (and when did he really give it up) and b) he seems to be very close to the action of selections.
Its a little bit like expenses in that respect, while entitled MPs would just send in a big list of receipts for all their bills that included moat dredging and duck houses (which weren't paid out) got the heat, it took focus away from some very stinky stuff e.g. paying your rent in cash to your mate with absolutely no contract or records.
"A point rarely mentioned - if ever - about Lord Alli, is that Matt Faulding, the fixer figure who sorted out scores of Labour selections - and to whom many of the new MPs owe their jobs - did so while on secondment from Lord Alli's office."
For all the fun over freebies that leading politicians couldn't help taking, the focus has been lost that a) he got a pass which was abnormal (and when did he really give it up) and b) he seems to be very close to the action of selections.
Its a little bit like expenses in that respect, while entitled MPs would just send in a big list of receipts for all their bills that included moat dredging and duck houses (which weren't paid out) got the heat, it took focus away from some very stinky stuff e.g. paying your rent in cash to your mate with absolutely no contract or records.
We also have had a number of other people make donations ending up in supposedly impartial civil service jobs.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
I know you are getting old and your brain is a bit addled by copious lashings of rosé in the warm southern French Sun but if you think back way into the mists of time, a whole few months ago, you will remember every mis-step, gaffe, dodgy decision and infight in the Tory ranks being kept on and mocked or criticised endlessly.
It was fair enough, my team/your team. I would grumble internally that there were more important things to discuss and the site was boring going on and on, but that’s how it is. You are finding it repetitive and boring because you had higher hopes for your team. My team are enjoying a bit of boot on the other footism.
I know it’s all lightweight and there are more important things to come but it’s also a bit like when your team is losing 4-0 then you score with a goal off the goalkeeper’s backside - you’ve still lost but you make the most of it and hope for a better performance in the reverse fixture.
Three hundred new state nurseries will open in England’s schools by next September, the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, has promised, as the government hurries to find places before the introduction of free childcare.
Phillipson said in an interview that she would launch a callout this month for schools in England with empty classrooms resulting from lower demand on school places to be converted into state nurseries, with the aim of 300 new nurseries opening by next September.
I have no idea, what is the split of nursery between state and private? I presumed it was all private entities now that provided this.
No they won't.
Leaving aside the fact that the classrooms in question would need quite extensive adapting to be suitable for nurseries, it's not the buildings but the staffing that is the problem. There are simply not enough care assistants, and there are not enough providers offering training to change it in less than a year.
She's identified the consequence, and has a simplistic solution to deal with it, but shows no grasp of the root cause of the problem. As is the case, for example, with teacher recruitment and retention where she's asked the DfE to develop a strategy. The best strategy would be to tell the DfE to STFU and stop their inept meddling for ten years.
I wrote a thread header pointing out the issues in education and related how there were no easy solutions to them and many of them an attempt to correct the problems might make matters worse. Unfortunately, Phillipson doesn't seem to grasp this.
She's more and more reminding me of Michael Gove, and not in a good way.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Bless you for your concern, but I don't feel too drowned out.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
The pigs head thing was Lord Ashcroft and Isabelle Oakshot? Genuinely never heard anything about Cameron son death - that sounds vile.
From FPT: " In 2022, the total fertility rate in Iran remained nearly unchanged at around 1.68 children per woman. But still, the fertility rate reached its lowest value of the observation period in 2022." https://www.statista.com/statistics/294115/iran-fertility-rate/
The TFR rose from 2010 to 2017, though still staying below 2.1, and then has fallen every year since. (As an American, I can't help wondering whether it rose on the possibility of peace with the US, and then fell when that became less likely.)
I don't know of any formal studies on the question, but I have long thought that a country's TFR depended -- in part -- on the morale in the country. That would help explain, for example, the very different population paths that Franceand Gemrany took, after 1870.
Naturally, I would be interested in seeing Gareths's thoughts on this question, after that very interesting header.
I always find it slightly bizarre to note that Germany has had more deaths than births every year since 1972. That isn't true for any other western European country.
Must have held true 1914-18 (probably longer with Spanish flu) and 1939-45 too.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
The pigs head thing was Lord Ashcroft and Isabelle Oakshot? Genuinely never heard anything about Cameron son death - that sounds vile.
The coterie around Gordon Brown seemed to have no barriers at all. Vile indeed.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
I wouldn't call myself a Labour supporter, although I do see a double standard. Several recent stories have attempted to equalise, for example, Labour grifting with industrial scale Conservative corruption. Starmer and Labour have handled the donations story very poorly. You know they have lost when Farage and Jenrick can take the high ground. Goonergate in the minds of the Daily Mail neutralises the PPE scandal.
The Pigs head as I recall was the. work of those great Labour Stalwarts Ashcroft and Oakshott.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
The pigs head thing was Lord Ashcroft and Isabelle Oakshot? Genuinely never heard anything about Cameron son death - that sounds vile.
The coterie around Gordon Brown seemed to have no barriers at all. Vile indeed.
Oakshott and Ashcroft were part of Brown's cabal of no-marks?
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
The pigs head thing was Lord Ashcroft and Isabelle Oakshot? Genuinely never heard anything about Cameron son death - that sounds vile.
Labour and their supporters picked up the pig's head and ran with it though. It was mentioned on a podcast a few months back as a way to get at the Tories. Despicable behaviour over what was obviously an invented story.
From memory: when Ivan Cameron died, that beacon of morality Kevin Maguire wrote that the people down the pub were asking for Cameron's medical details to be released, you know, nudge-nudge. Others online made more obvious links. Again, despicable behaviour.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
The pigs head thing was Lord Ashcroft and Isabelle Oakshot? Genuinely never heard anything about Cameron son death - that sounds vile.
The coterie around Gordon Brown seemed to have no barriers at all. Vile indeed.
Oakshott and Ashcroft were part of Brown's cabal of no-marks?
History has shown Cameron had more enemies on the right than the left
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
The pigs head thing was Lord Ashcroft and Isabelle Oakshot? Genuinely never heard anything about Cameron son death - that sounds vile.
Labour and their supporters picked up the pig's head and ran with it though. It was mentioned on a podcast a few months back as a way to get at the Tories. Despicable behaviour over what was obviously an invented story.
From memory: when Ivan Cameron died, that beacon of morality Kevin Maguire wrote that the people down the pub were asking for Cameron's medical details to be released, you know, nudge-nudge. Others online made more obvious links. Again, despicable behaviour.
Kevin Maguire is a Mirror journalist. You are applying guilt by association. So far the two disgusting slurs you have cited as Labour Party immorality can't be attributed to the Labour Party.
That is not to say Labour isn't manned by disgusting individuals. There are some real humdingers. Ones who might for example use Parliamentary Privilege to assert the LOTO was in cahoots with Jimmy Savile.
If all these measures are accurate (it's just one poll), it underlines what a weak candidate Donald Trump is - a Republican should be winning, especially against a flawed candidate like Harris. This somewhat contradicts some posters' apparent belief that Trump's more batshit rhetoric is actually a genius vote-winning strategy.
By this point in this point in the 2019-2024 Parliament we'd had 11 VI polls from 8 companies: BMG, Opinium, YouGov, Survation, IPSOS/MORI, Redfield/Whilton, Survatna/ComRes...
If we We Think, Stonehaven and More In Common had't entered the fray since early 2020 we would only have had 2 opinion polls from BMG so far this Parliament?
It's almost starting to feel like the biggest pollsters are deliberately refusing to conduct voting intention polls after Labour was elected in on 4th July 2024?
Surely that couldn't be the case, right? 🤷♂️
What's going on?
Embarrassment at overestimating the Labour lead by nearly 10%.
Partly that.
Partly the need to identify and fix the problems by recalibrating their internal models.
Partly the press not seeming to want to buy them at the moment. No YouGov in the Times for example, or ComRes in the Telegraph. Neither of them is exactly a friend of the government.
Which comes back to... a lot of normals have tuned out for a bit. Not entirely- WFA cut through and got a mixed response, the riots saw the government do basically OK and freebiegate was seen largely negatively.
But most of the noise is about the losing side saying "I told you so" very loudly. And even if they're right (to an extent, they are), it's irrelevant for now.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
The pigs head thing was Lord Ashcroft and Isabelle Oakshot? Genuinely never heard anything about Cameron son death - that sounds vile.
The coterie around Gordon Brown seemed to have no barriers at all. Vile indeed.
Oakshott and Ashcroft were part of Brown's cabal of no-marks?
History has shown Cameron had more enemies on the right than the left
And however much Conservatives and pensioners hate him, Starmer's most implacable enemies are on his left.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
The pigs head thing was Lord Ashcroft and Isabelle Oakshot? Genuinely never heard anything about Cameron son death - that sounds vile.
Labour and their supporters picked up the pig's head and ran with it though. It was mentioned on a podcast a few months back as a way to get at the Tories. Despicable behaviour over what was obviously an invented story.
From memory: when Ivan Cameron died, that beacon of morality Kevin Maguire wrote that the people down the pub were asking for Cameron's medical details to be released, you know, nudge-nudge. Others online made more obvious links. Again, despicable behaviour.
Kevin Maguire is a Mirror journalist. You are applying guilt by association. So far the two disgusting slurs you have cited as Labour Party immorality can't be attributed to the Labour Party.
That is not to say Labour isn't manned by disgusting individuals. There are some real humdingers. Ones who might for example use Parliamentary Privilege to assert the LOTO was in cahoots with Jimmy Savile.
Oh come off it, it's got bells on. Maguire was deep-in with Labour. It's not guilt by association; you're trying to excuse the inexcusable.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
The pigs head thing was Lord Ashcroft and Isabelle Oakshot? Genuinely never heard anything about Cameron son death - that sounds vile.
Labour and their supporters picked up the pig's head and ran with it though. It was mentioned on a podcast a few months back as a way to get at the Tories. Despicable behaviour over what was obviously an invented story.
From memory: when Ivan Cameron died, that beacon of morality Kevin Maguire wrote that the people down the pub were asking for Cameron's medical details to be released, you know, nudge-nudge. Others online made more obvious links. Again, despicable behaviour.
Kevin Maguire is a Mirror journalist. You are applying guilt by association. So far the two disgusting slurs you have cited as Labour Party immorality can't be attributed to the Labour Party.
That is not to say Labour isn't manned by disgusting individuals. There are some real humdingers. Ones who might for example use Parliamentary Privilege to assert the LOTO was in cahoots with Jimmy Savile.
Oh come off it, it's got bells on. Maguire was deep-in with Labour. It's not guilt by association; you're trying to excuse the inexcusable.
What is it with you faithful Tories manipulating fact to fulfil your narrative? Now I am not defending the more disreputable features of Labour, but I am questioning the legitimacy of your specific assertion in relation to Maguire.
If all these measures are accurate (it's just one poll), it underlines what a weak candidate Donald Trump is - a Republican should be winning, especially against a flawed candidate like Harris. This somewhat contradicts some posters' apparent belief that Trump's more batshit rhetoric is actually a genius vote-winning strategy.
Hard to say that he is not though - that assertion re not winning is based on national polls which were flawed in 2016 and 2020, and may be flawed again.
On the Labour vs PB Tories thing - Labour have made a terrible start. Objectively, obviously. Calling that out isn't bias, it just being awake.
The comedy bit is when people start saying that the previous governments were better, or that people will look at what Labour are doing and it will boost the Tories.
As we know, voters have very very long memories, and they're not going to forget the shambles of the last 9 or so years in a hurry. Better still, the Tories who are laughing at Labour are about to serve up a feast.
The Tory conference is already a binfire. A final 4 where the front runners are Really? And You're Kidding! Paraded in front of a Tory membership so disconnected from reality that they truly believe they did a Great Job in office. That Truss and Boris were cruelly ousted for no good reason. And that the best person to lead them forward is JENRICK.
PB Tories should remember that every member of every other party is cheering on JENRICK but not for the same reasons you are...
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
The pigs head thing was Lord Ashcroft and Isabelle Oakshot? Genuinely never heard anything about Cameron son death - that sounds vile.
Labour and their supporters picked up the pig's head and ran with it though. It was mentioned on a podcast a few months back as a way to get at the Tories. Despicable behaviour over what was obviously an invented story.
From memory: when Ivan Cameron died, that beacon of morality Kevin Maguire wrote that the people down the pub were asking for Cameron's medical details to be released, you know, nudge-nudge. Others online made more obvious links. Again, despicable behaviour.
Kevin Maguire is a Mirror journalist. You are applying guilt by association. So far the two disgusting slurs you have cited as Labour Party immorality can't be attributed to the Labour Party.
That is not to say Labour isn't manned by disgusting individuals. There are some real humdingers. Ones who might for example use Parliamentary Privilege to assert the LOTO was in cahoots with Jimmy Savile.
Oh come off it, it's got bells on. Maguire was deep-in with Labour. It's not guilt by association; you're trying to excuse the inexcusable.
What is it with you faithful Tories manipulating fact to fulfil your narrative? Now I am not defending the more disreputable features of Labour, but I am questioning the legitimacy of your specific assertion in relation to Maguire.
Me? a 'faithful Tory' ????
LOL. Yes, you can go through PB and see my unquestioning and total loyal support for Boris, Truss, and Sunak. I never once criticised them, and argued they were right at all times. (/sarcasm)
What are you questioning about my specific assertion in relation to Maguire? That it happened?
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
I wouldn't call myself a Labour supporter, although I do see a double standard. Several recent stories have attempted to equalise, for example, Labour grifting with industrial scale Conservative corruption. Starmer and Labour have handled the donations story very poorly. You know they have lost when Farage and Jenrick can take the high ground. Goonergate in the minds of the Daily Mail neutralises the PPE scandal.
The Pigs head as I recall was the. work of those great Labour Stalwarts Ashcroft and Oakshott.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
I wouldn't call myself a Labour supporter, although I do see a double standard. Several recent stories have attempted to equalise, for example, Labour grifting with industrial scale Conservative corruption. Starmer and Labour have handled the donations story very poorly. You know they have lost when Farage and Jenrick can take the high ground. Goonergate in the minds of the Daily Mail neutralises the PPE scandal.
The Pigs head as I recall was the. work of those great Labour Stalwarts Ashcroft and Oakshott.
The Conservative grifting never actually cut through particularly. What did, and bloody hell it did, was partying in Downing St while people were locked down.
Why? Because people were told they had to suffer for the greater good. Then it turned out their lords and masters were not suffering, they were partying.
Familiar? Because that’s what’s happening now and why it’s so toxic. Labour gets into power and immediately tells us the country’s gone to shit so we all need to make sacrifices. Then it turns out their front bench have been living the life of old Reilly.
It may seem unfair and overblown but it’s how public opinion works.
If all these measures are accurate (it's just one poll), it underlines what a weak candidate Donald Trump is - a Republican should be winning, especially against a flawed candidate like Harris. This somewhat contradicts some posters' apparent belief that Trump's more batshit rhetoric is actually a genius vote-winning strategy.
Hard to say that he is not though - that assertion re not winning is based on national polls which were flawed in 2016 and 2020, and may be flawed again.
If he wins, it'll mostly be because people think the economy is doing badly, they'll be worse off under Harris, and they trust the Republicans more on immigration. It won't be because he rambles on about windmills giving you cancer or the size of his crowds. I don't think those are net vote-winners for him. Now maybe this is because I am apparently a guardian-adjacent virtue signaller, but it seems Republican strategists and his own advisors think Trump would be better off dropping some of the more fruity rhetoric and focus on the economy and immigration. No doubt @Topping will be along to tell me they are also "super thicko guardian-reading virtue signallers" , or something.
On the Labour vs PB Tories thing - Labour have made a terrible start. Objectively, obviously. Calling that out isn't bias, it just being awake.
The comedy bit is when people start saying that the previous governments were better, or that people will look at what Labour are doing and it will boost the Tories.
As we know, voters have very very long memories, and they're not going to forget the shambles of the last 9 or so years in a hurry. Better still, the Tories who are laughing at Labour are about to serve up a feast.
The Tory conference is already a binfire. A final 4 where the front runners are Really? And You're Kidding! Paraded in front of a Tory membership so disconnected from reality that they truly believe they did a Great Job in office. That Truss and Boris were cruelly ousted for no good reason. And that the best person to lead them forward is JENRICK.
PB Tories should remember that every member of every other party is cheering on JENRICK but not for the same reasons you are...
Personally, I'm not saying that the previous Tory government was 'better'. And the public should not forget or forgive the mistakes and poor behaviour by the recent Tory governments.
But a government has to be judged by its own standards, and a Labour party that (rightly) shrieked about moral failings and bad behaviour in the last government, which is now shown to be less than clean, deserves opprobrium.
Johnson was brought down by his own personal failings. Starmer won't be bought down by his own personal failings, but it's clear he utterly failed to learn the lessons. If you preach cleanliness and godliness, ensure you are clean and godly yourself. Worse: it seems he *still* has not learnt the lessons, and is in denial.
As for the next Tory leader: I don't like any of the options. They won't learn the lessons of where they went wrong, and continue in the wrong direction. Their *only* upside is that Labour's popularity is weak, despite its mahoosive majority.
No PM has done a better Conference speech in my memory than this one by Starmer.
Which doesn't mean it was a great speech. Starmer is no Obama or Bill Clinton but it went down well in Conference as far as I can tell. Ideally with a stump speech you also address a wider audience. This one didn't but none of others have either.
You think he’s better than Blair?
Good call. Blair gave better conference speeches than Starmer but he was seven prime ministers ago.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
I wouldn't call myself a Labour supporter, although I do see a double standard. Several recent stories have attempted to equalise, for example, Labour grifting with industrial scale Conservative corruption. Starmer and Labour have handled the donations story very poorly. You know they have lost when Farage and Jenrick can take the high ground. Goonergate in the minds of the Daily Mail neutralises the PPE scandal.
The Pigs head as I recall was the. work of those great Labour Stalwarts Ashcroft and Oakshott.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
I wouldn't call myself a Labour supporter, although I do see a double standard. Several recent stories have attempted to equalise, for example, Labour grifting with industrial scale Conservative corruption. Starmer and Labour have handled the donations story very poorly. You know they have lost when Farage and Jenrick can take the high ground. Goonergate in the minds of the Daily Mail neutralises the PPE scandal.
The Pigs head as I recall was the. work of those great Labour Stalwarts Ashcroft and Oakshott.
The Conservative grifting never actually cut through particularly. What did, and bloody hell it did, was partying in Downing St while people were locked down.
Why? Because people were told they had to suffer for the greater good. Then it turned out their lords and masters were not suffering, they were partying.
Familiar? Because that’s what’s happening now and why it’s so toxic. Labour gets into power and immediately tells us the country’s gone to shit so we all need to make sacrifices. Then it turns out their front bench have been living the life of old Reilly.
It may seem unfair and overblown but it’s how public opinion works.
In fact, this is surely the secret of successful corruption: let the good times roll, and you’ll be forgiven all manner of things. Act all puritanical and severe and you’re digging a hole for yourself. No surprise that Boris got away with it until he started preaching abstinence to the masses.
As they sing in Evita, “when the money keeps rolling in you don’t ask questions”.
Keir and Rach should have announced that the good times were back. 1997 again. Cool Britannia. It would have been politically more effective than what we got but it would also have been fiscally sensible as it would have got us all spending our money and paying VAT.
There was a time when you could recommend PB as a place for insightful political discussion from some very bright and articulate posters. Some of them are still here but they're being drowned out.
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
Labour are in power. They have to make decisions. Those decisions will get criticised, good or bad.
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Criticism of Starmer, Reeves and the Government in general is fair game, certainly when errors or missteps have been made.. Although a couple of posters push articles, quite often from the Telegraph which follow the principle of Betteridge's law. Essentially it is a fake news question, the answer to which is "no" which sets out a false narrative. The pubs thing yesterday was a case in point. The critique is for policy that either hasn't been implemented or quite likely never will.
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
I'd strongly argue that the gifts mess is the biggest genuine criticism. However much Labour try to deny it, it was an utterly self-inflicted wound. And there has been plenty of denial on here about it.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
The pigs head thing was Lord Ashcroft and Isabelle Oakshot? Genuinely never heard anything about Cameron son death - that sounds vile.
The coterie around Gordon Brown seemed to have no barriers at all. Vile indeed.
Damian McBride had to spend a decade doing PR for a Catholic aid charity, on a very average salary, to finally learn in his 40s how to be nice to people.
On the Labour vs PB Tories thing - Labour have made a terrible start. Objectively, obviously. Calling that out isn't bias, it just being awake.
The comedy bit is when people start saying that the previous governments were better, or that people will look at what Labour are doing and it will boost the Tories.
As we know, voters have very very long memories, and they're not going to forget the shambles of the last 9 or so years in a hurry. Better still, the Tories who are laughing at Labour are about to serve up a feast.
The Tory conference is already a binfire. A final 4 where the front runners are Really? And You're Kidding! Paraded in front of a Tory membership so disconnected from reality that they truly believe they did a Great Job in office. That Truss and Boris were cruelly ousted for no good reason. And that the best person to lead them forward is JENRICK.
PB Tories should remember that every member of every other party is cheering on JENRICK but not for the same reasons you are...
I'm not sure there are any pb Tories cheering on Jenrick. I think only one poster (HYUFD) has offered lukewarm support but even he doesn't have him as his first choice.
I certainly wouldn't claim to be a pb Tory, and I'd say I gave the last government more criticism than support. But I am 75% convinced that the current government will be worse.
Three hundred new state nurseries will open in England’s schools by next September, the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, has promised, as the government hurries to find places before the introduction of free childcare.
Phillipson said in an interview that she would launch a callout this month for schools in England with empty classrooms resulting from lower demand on school places to be converted into state nurseries, with the aim of 300 new nurseries opening by next September.
I have no idea, what is the split of nursery between state and private? I presumed it was all private entities now that provided this.
Most primary schools around here have at least one year of nursery provision prior to reception. Parents get (it's been a few years now, so this may be out of date) c.30 hours a week, c 38 weeks a year of free nursery provision which you can take either at state or private provsion (for private, if you want more than that you can pay to top it up).
On the Labour vs PB Tories thing - Labour have made a terrible start. Objectively, obviously. Calling that out isn't bias, it just being awake.
The comedy bit is when people start saying that the previous governments were better, or that people will look at what Labour are doing and it will boost the Tories.
As we know, voters have very very long memories, and they're not going to forget the shambles of the last 9 or so years in a hurry. Better still, the Tories who are laughing at Labour are about to serve up a feast.
The Tory conference is already a binfire. A final 4 where the front runners are Really? And You're Kidding! Paraded in front of a Tory membership so disconnected from reality that they truly believe they did a Great Job in office. That Truss and Boris were cruelly ousted for no good reason. And that the best person to lead them forward is JENRICK.
PB Tories should remember that every member of every other party is cheering on JENRICK but not for the same reasons you are...
I don't think anybody here has claimed that Bojo was less venal than Starmer, but that doesn't mean the Starmer Government is automatically better in every area. Boris was widely mocked here for his 'boosterism' which was considered empty and meaningless. Well, now we've had a Government with a deliberate strategy of being negative about the fiscal and economic situation - how's that going? Not very well, judging by consumer confidence surveys and business investment decisions. Turns out a bit of 'boosterism' is actually not just more pleasant, but necessary.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
Prefab housing, built in factories and trucked to site for final assembly. 3-bed house costs £100k, plus the land and site works.
The obstacles are that they need to be either mortgageable, or buyable by housing associations or public sector on the basis of a 50-year lifespan.
Comments
If the site does blow up again hopefully OGH and Smithson The Younger will be able to find a way to monetize, since Google ads have been pulled.
Raisins in cookies are anathema* AFAIAC, but I have had some excellent fresh baked chocolate chip efforts in the US.
*the horror of the Garibaldi remains a childhood trauma.
as per wikiL
The most notable chocolate chip cookie recipe was invented by American chef Ruth Graves Wakefield in 1938. She invented the recipe during the period when she owned the Toll House Inn, in Whitman, Massachusetts. . . .
"We had been serving a thin butterscotch nut cookie with ice cream. Everybody seemed to love it, but I was trying to give them something different. So I came up with Toll House cookie". She added chopped up bits from a Nestlé semi-sweet chocolate bar into a cookie. . . . Wakefield gave Nestle the recipe for her cookies and was paid with a lifetime supply of chocolate from the company.
SSI - The very best Tollhouse cookies also feature chopped up pieces of walnut, a killer combination with the choclate chips. My sainted mother's version was beyond outstanding, especially when still warm with gooey choclate chips; she slighted neither chips nor nuts, bless her!
Growing unease in NHS about 'broken' messaging, BBC told
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2k0449747o
Awks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqHmvMjXuro
Since Election '24 we've had 8 VI opinion polls from just 4 companies: We Think. Stonehaven. BMG. More In Common.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
By this point in this point in the 2019-2024 Parliament we'd had 11 VI polls from 8 companies: BMG, Opinium, YouGov, Survation, IPSOS/MORI, Redfield/Whilton, Survatna/ComRes...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election
If we We Think, Stonehaven and More In Common had't entered the fray since early 2020 we would only have had 2 opinion polls from BMG so far this Parliament?
It's almost starting to feel like the biggest pollsters are deliberately refusing to conduct voting intention polls after Labour was elected in on 4th July 2024?
Surely that couldn't be the case, right? 🤷♂️
What's going on?
I’m sure we’ve all spent a lazy afternoon googling symptoms, and before you know it we’re worrying about having all sorts of conditions we previously knew nothing about.
In the US, you don’t need to go online; the adverts alarming you about your health arrive by TV, radio, and on giant billboards next to the road.
But that's no reason to just stop polling? When you look at the names that had been conducting VI polls by this point in the 2019-2024 Parliament (YouGov, Survation, Opinium, MORI/IPSOS, ComRes/Survanta) and compare it to the names we currently have polling VI, it actually starts to look slightly sinister.
Why are the country's leading pollsters refusing to do their jobs and poll VI? What's going on? 🤷♂️
https://www.statista.com/statistics/294115/iran-fertility-rate/
The TFR rose from 2010 to 2017, though still staying below 2.1, and then has fallen every year since. (As an American, I can't help wondering whether it rose on the possibility of peace with the US, and then fell when that became less likely.)
I don't know of any formal studies on the question, but I have long thought that a country's TFR depended -- in part -- on the morale in the country. That would help explain, for example, the very different population paths that Franceand Gemrany took, after 1870.
Naturally, I would be interested in seeing Gareths's thoughts on this question, after that very interesting header.
It's a bit of a mystery why the leading pollsters like Ipsos, YouGov, Survation and Opinion have just stopped polling VI and buggered off? 🤷♂️
Boring doesn't begin to describe it. It's painful. "Fishing" predicting Starmer's downfall in five years time is neither interesting nor insightful whether it happens or not. And surely he's seen Leon make the same prediction ten times already........
Get Stuart back. Get Alastair back. Tim even.....Anyone....
Time to bring on some subs .......
People are leaving the ground in droves and we're only ten minutes into the game.
Stoke on a rainy night in November would be a blessed relief
Couldn't we have a permanent ongoing thread dedicated to how long Starmer is likely to survive and anyone who wants to can go into as much detail as they like about how shit he is?
It's called supporting the party in power.
Live with it.
Missouri executes Marcellus Williams despite prosecutors’ push to overturn conviction
Williams long maintained his innocence and the killing was opposed by victim’s family, jurors and office that tried him
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/24/missouri-executes-marcellus-williams
The Field Marshal will be along later to make insightful posts like "Reeves is a disaster". Urquhart and William Glenn will cite an article from Allister Heath as gospel and Leon will troll with anecdotes from his family WhatsApp group. All pretty meagre gruel.
The biggest genuine criticism of this government isn't what it has done or might do in the mind of Nick Ferrari, but the fact that there is so little to show for the last ten weeks..
The Tertiary education rate for Iranian women has gone up 20 fold from 1978, from 3% to 59%, as high as much more developed countries, though dropping a few percent recently.
https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2020/dec/09/part-5-statistics-women-iran#:~:text=On Education:&text=Females who finished primary education,to 59 percent in 2018.
As for articles: yes. But the same thing happened to the Tory governments as well. And worse. Labour - and its supporters who agreed - should hang their heads in shame for things like Cameron and the pig's head, or trying to connect Cameron's son's death with drugs use.
Labour cannot say they want a nicer politics now, after they way they behaved over the last fifteen years (and, in fact, before then, given Brown's constant undermining of Blair pre 2007...). They use the media as much as anyone else.
Some Tory supporters (or, perhaps, more accurately, anti-Labour) are going too far in writing off this government after a few weeks. I've said so. But I'll also say that thanks to some simple mistakes, Labour have had f-all honeymoon period. There are valid criticisms to be made about Starmer's government so far, and indeed Starmer himself, but too many Labour supporters don't want to hear them.
https://www.northwestmeccano.co.uk/Giant Bridge.html
https://x.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1838132437273981414
Phillipson said in an interview that she would launch a callout this month for schools in England with empty classrooms resulting from lower demand on school places to be converted into state nurseries, with the aim of 300 new nurseries opening by next September.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/sep/25/labour-pledges-300-new-state-nurseries-in-england-within-12-months
I have no idea, what is the split of nursery between state and private? I presumed it was all private entities now that provided this.
Its a little bit like expenses in that respect, while entitled MPs would just send in a big list of receipts for all their bills that included moat dredging and duck houses (which weren't paid out) got the heat, it took focus away from some very stinky stuff e.g. paying your rent in cash to your mate with absolutely no contract or records.
F1: fun fact - Hulkenberg is now ahead of Stroll in the standings (tied on 24 points each).
It was fair enough, my team/your team. I would grumble internally that there were more important things to discuss and the site was boring going on and on, but that’s how it is. You are finding it repetitive and boring because you had higher hopes for your team. My team are enjoying a bit of boot on the other footism.
I know it’s all lightweight and there are more important things to come but it’s also a bit like when your team is losing 4-0 then you score with a goal off the goalkeeper’s backside - you’ve still lost but you make the most of it and hope for a better performance in the reverse fixture.
Leaving aside the fact that the classrooms in question would need quite extensive adapting to be suitable for nurseries, it's not the buildings but the staffing that is the problem. There are simply not enough care assistants, and there are not enough providers offering training to change it in less than a year.
She's identified the consequence, and has a simplistic solution to deal with it, but shows no grasp of the root cause of the problem. As is the case, for example, with teacher recruitment and retention where she's asked the DfE to develop a strategy. The best strategy would be to tell the DfE to STFU and stop their inept meddling for ten years.
I wrote a thread header pointing out the issues in education and related how there were no easy solutions to them and many of them an attempt to correct the problems might make matters worse. Unfortunately, Phillipson doesn't seem to grasp this.
She's more and more reminding me of Michael Gove, and not in a good way.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/651092/2024-election-environment-favorable-gop.aspx
The Pigs head as I recall was the. work of those great Labour Stalwarts Ashcroft and Oakshott.
From memory: when Ivan Cameron died, that beacon of morality Kevin Maguire wrote that the people down the pub were asking for Cameron's medical details to be released, you know, nudge-nudge. Others online made more obvious links. Again, despicable behaviour.
That is not to say Labour isn't manned by disgusting individuals. There are some real humdingers. Ones who might for example use Parliamentary Privilege to assert the LOTO was in cahoots with Jimmy Savile.
Partly the need to identify and fix the problems by recalibrating their internal models.
Partly the press not seeming to want to buy them at the moment. No YouGov in the Times for example, or ComRes in the Telegraph. Neither of them is exactly a friend of the government.
Which comes back to... a lot of normals have tuned out for a bit. Not entirely- WFA cut through and got a mixed response, the riots saw the government do basically OK and freebiegate was seen largely negatively.
But most of the noise is about the losing side saying "I told you so" very loudly. And even if they're right (to an extent, they are), it's irrelevant for now.
Them's the rules.
For the lulz...
The comedy bit is when people start saying that the previous governments were better, or that people will look at what Labour are doing and it will boost the Tories.
As we know, voters have very very long memories, and they're not going to forget the shambles of the last 9 or so years in a hurry. Better still, the Tories who are laughing at Labour are about to serve up a feast.
The Tory conference is already a binfire. A final 4 where the front runners are Really? And You're Kidding! Paraded in front of a Tory membership so disconnected from reality that they truly believe they did a Great Job in office. That Truss and Boris were cruelly ousted for no good reason. And that the best person to lead them forward is JENRICK.
PB Tories should remember that every member of every other party is cheering on JENRICK but not for the same reasons you are...
LOL. Yes, you can go through PB and see my unquestioning and total loyal support for Boris, Truss, and Sunak. I never once criticised them, and argued they were right at all times. (/sarcasm)
What are you questioning about my specific assertion in relation to Maguire? That it happened?
Why? Because people were told they had to suffer for the greater good. Then it turned out their lords and masters were not suffering, they were partying.
Familiar? Because that’s what’s happening now and why it’s so toxic. Labour gets into power and immediately tells us the country’s gone to shit so we all need to make sacrifices. Then it turns out their front bench have been living the life of old Reilly.
It may seem unfair and overblown but it’s how public opinion works.
But a government has to be judged by its own standards, and a Labour party that (rightly) shrieked about moral failings and bad behaviour in the last government, which is now shown to be less than clean, deserves opprobrium.
Johnson was brought down by his own personal failings. Starmer won't be bought down by his own personal failings, but it's clear he utterly failed to learn the lessons. If you preach cleanliness and godliness, ensure you are clean and godly yourself. Worse: it seems he *still* has not learnt the lessons, and is in denial.
As for the next Tory leader: I don't like any of the options. They won't learn the lessons of where they went wrong, and continue in the wrong direction. Their *only* upside is that Labour's popularity is weak, despite its mahoosive majority.
As they sing in Evita, “when the money keeps rolling in you don’t ask questions”.
Keir and Rach should have announced that the good times were back. 1997 again. Cool Britannia. It would have been politically more effective than what we got but it would also have been fiscally sensible as it would have got us all spending our money and paying VAT.
NEW THREAD
I certainly wouldn't claim to be a pb Tory, and I'd say I gave the last government more criticism than support. But I am 75% convinced that the current government will be worse.
Parents get (it's been a few years now, so this may be out of date) c.30 hours a week, c 38 weeks a year of free nursery provision which you can take either at state or private provsion (for private, if you want more than that you can pay to top it up).
The obstacles are that they need to be either mortgageable, or buyable by housing associations or public sector on the basis of a 50-year lifespan.