Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

If it is the economy stupid then Labour should sink further in the polls – politicalbetting.com

1234568»

Comments

  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,317
    MaxPB said:

    I really don't think it will, who cares if there's an open border with France when France has the power to deport their illegal immigrants without endless court battles and deals with third countries where they can be deported? It would need reform of the ECHR which again could be done under the cover of the UK joining Schengen and needing tougher external border controls and deportation ability. I think most European countries now want to do it, most are facing far right insurrections so any action to make it easier to deport illegal immigrants, criminals and failed asylum seekers will be widely welcomed. Using our joining Schengen as cover for all of this would be extremely convenient for the EU, it makes us the "bad guy" but everyone gets what they want.
    I see the logic of your argument and I think it very sound, although I am very squeamish about ruthless deportation stuff (being a liver lived liberal), but the logic seems very sound.

    My issue with selling it is the public's reaction to an open border with the rest of Europe and people stop listening to the additional sentences which explains why it works. I assume that was @DavidL point as well. If you can do that I think you have a winner.

    I'm still worried about how the European wide illegal immigrant / asylum seeker stuff will work though. Will it be too harsh? Will it be ignored? The devil is in the detail.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,714
    edited February 8
    Driver said:

    So by your own quote, you're saying that Euroscepticism was neither legitimate nor mainstream before September 1988. Negotiations for the Maastricht Treaty started in December 1990. Given that there was no general election between the two, this is a distinction with minimal difference.

    Edited to add: It's true that politicians throughout the 1980s, and indeed subsequently, often blamed "Europe" for them implementing an unpopular policy. Makes you wonder why they were surprised that people took it to heart.
    A reluctant intervention. I sort of agree with you that EU membership wasn't a big issue in the country in the 1980s and 1990s - most people didn't care. But it was, increasingly so, in the Conservative Party; through the 1990s and into the 2000s - it was a running sore. Cameron saw a referendum as the only way, eventually, to lance the boil.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,244
    .

    I always find it really bizarre that they do. Of all the places on the internet to come on and try to spread BS, PB seems like one of the worst, as its full of politically engaged people who seem to love checking everything for the smallest of mistakes.
    And we prefer to generate our own bullshit.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    edited February 8
    Carnyx said:

    STILL NOT THE RIGHT ANSWER. Not constitional monarchy. Not a formal settlement. No more than temporary weakness (like many a king before him).
    A constitutional monarch is someone who rules with Parliament not without them like an absolute monarch, whether enshrined in statute (as it has been in the UK since 1688) or not.

    Every monarch since 1660 has been a constitutional monarch, even arguably James II except on his refusal to agree to Parliament's restrictions on the freedoms of Roman Catholics
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,743

    Hamas seem to keep their hostages in conditions that nearly, or indeed probably have, killed them.

    Yet based on today's numbers under this ceasefire each Israeli is worth ≈30 Hamas prisoners released.

    Might be a good idea just looking at the maths to keep Israeli hostages alive and properly fed?

    https://www.972mag.com/tunnels-hamas-lethal-gas-bombs-gaza/
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,968

    Hamas seem to keep their hostages in conditions that nearly, or indeed probably have, killed them.

    Yet based on today's numbers under this ceasefire each Israeli is worth ≈30 Hamas prisoners released.

    Might be a good idea just looking at the maths to keep Israeli hostages alive and properly fed?

    Don’t matter how many Palestinians Israel free. They are all off to live in the Egypt desert 😆
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,317
    Driver said:

    So by your own quote, you're saying that Euroscepticism was neither legitimate nor mainstream before September 1988. Negotiations for the Maastricht Treaty started in December 1990. Given that there was no general election between the two, this is a distinction with minimal difference.

    Edited to add: It's true that politicians throughout the 1980s, and indeed subsequently, often blamed "Europe" for them implementing an unpopular policy. Makes you wonder why they were surprised that people took it to heart.
    Oh for gods sake, can you never admit you were wrong:

    a) What do you think throughout the 1980s means?

    b) 1988 was 4 years before Masstricht which was your baseline. 4 years before you said it wasn't an issue

    c) What the hell has a GE got to do with it? You said anti Europeanism was negligible before Maastericht. Nothing about a GE. I have shown you that isn't true.

    d) Not my quote. From Contemporary British History. Would you like more proving you wrong? I can list out umpteen polls and articles. I can provide many more if you wish.

    You were wrong. Spectacularly so. Own it.

    Just out of interest, seeing as you asked me. How old were you then? And I believe you are in manufacturing. Do you actually sell to the EU and if you do, did you before and after we left the EU and do you deal with the paperwork? Have you ever had to deal with a carnet and if so did you export before you needed to?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    edited February 8

    That would almost be Maximum Banter.

    Labour well down.
    Conservatives doing even worse than in 2024.
    And Reform still behind both of them.

    (It does highlight how easy the Socialists are likely to find things, as long as ex-tory wets drift off to the Yellow Peril and hard right wingers stomp off to Reform. Flip knows how you reunite them in an electorally useful way. Starmer being annoying and mediocre isn't going to do it, and neither are Badenoch's charms.)
    Though it does mean a hung parliament rather than a Socialist majority with the Liberals diluting the Socialist nirvana (and we all know how much the left hated the LDs last time they held the balance of power).

    Plus if the LDs prop up a Labour government that is the quickest way to send centre right LDs who voted for Cameron and May back to the Conservatives
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,695
    If you are bored or have some popcorn left hanging around that needs hovering up before Lent, then Hodges vs Owen Jones on Twitter/X this evening is a recommendation.

  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,559

    A reluctant intervention. I sort of agree with you that EU membership wasn't a big issue in the country in the 1980s and 1990s - most people didn't care. But it was, increasingly so, in the Conservative Party; through the 1990s and into the 2000s - it was a running sore. Cameron saw a referendum as the only way, eventually, to lance the boil.
    Oh, yeah, absolutely.

    The other point I missed in my last comment is that through the 80s and much of the 90s Euroscepticism was very much about trying to roll back the centralisation rather than actually leaving.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,961

    If you are bored or have some popcorn left hanging around that needs hovering up before Lent, then Hodges vs Owen Jones on Twitter/X this evening is a recommendation.

    Can't we just send both of them abroad?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,695
    edited February 8

    Don’t matter how many Palestinians Israel free. They are all off to live in the Egypt desert 😆
    Not if Egypt has anything to say about it.

    Although one can I suppose imagine them being made an offer by Trump too big to refuse - "here's $50billion - now will you take 'em?"
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,489

    A reluctant intervention. I sort of agree with you that EU membership wasn't a big issue in the country in the 1980s and 1990s - most people didn't care. But it was, increasingly so, in the Conservative Party; through the 1990s and into the 2000s - it was a running sore. Cameron saw a referendum as the only way, eventually, to lance the boil.
    I had a somewhat interesting chat recently with an LLM about the UK relations with EU. Back to the 70s votes, the initial #indyref, the Countryside Alliance, Referendum Party, Maastricht, etc.

    All kicked off from trying to remember the actor who played "Mike Yates" (UNIT - 70s Dr.Who), who it turns out went on a bit of a political voyage through time and space...

    "Franklin stood as a candidate for the UK Parliament for several parties and founded the Silent Majority Party. "

    Yes.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,244
    dixiedean said:

    Europe policy did not split Labour into two Parties.
    What was the SDP ?
    Just because it failed to draw off sufficient Labour defectors to achieve real breakthrough doesn’t mean it wasn’t a serious split.

    And its origins can be traced back to the 1973 efforts to deselect Dick Taverne (and subsequent by election) - who went on to found the Campaign for Social Democracy - over the issue of EC membership.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,679
    kjh said:

    I see the logic of your argument and I think it very sound, although I am very squeamish about ruthless deportation stuff (being a liver lived liberal), but the logic seems very sound.

    My issue with selling it is the public's reaction to an open border with the rest of Europe and people stop listening to the additional sentences which explains why it works. I assume that was @DavidL point as well. If you can do that I think you have a winner.

    I'm still worried about how the European wide illegal immigrant / asylum seeker stuff will work though. Will it be too harsh? Will it be ignored? The devil is in the detail.
    Well of course the devil is always in the detail and such a negotiation would take years to co-ordinate given there's a lot of moving parts, probably EU treaty reform, a UK-EU bilateral treaty on migration, reform of the ECHR to amend those parts that make it difficult to deport foreign criminals, failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, reform of our own laws to make it easier to deport people, a bilateral deal with France because those always seem to come as part of these negotiations.

    The UK joining Schengen would be a huge change for all of Europe, I think it is probably the single most important thing for the EU to achieve. It makes the UK feel "European" rather than some offshore entity where everyone needs a passport to go. It's a huge part of their cultural push behind ever closer union so getting the UK in, I think in their opinion, would remove the single largest barrier to the UK rejoining the EU completely.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,695
    HYUFD said:

    A constitutional monarch is someone who rules with Parliament not without them like an absolute monarch, whether enshrined in statute (as it has been in the UK since 1688) or not.

    Every monarch since 1660 has been a constitutional monarch, even arguably James II except on his refusal to agree to Parliament's restrictions on the freedoms of Roman Catholics
    It may be the one thing that saves us in next ten years.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,968
    dixiedean said:

    Europe policy did not split Labour into two Parties.
    The first SDP leader, Lord Jenkins, was previously punched and spat on by Labour front benchers, on his way into the lobby, as he was leader of the Labour rebels who took the UK into Europe in 1973. It comes across clearly in all the history books, overriding policy difference SDP founders had with Labour Party was Europe membership.

    What have you got to make you argue differently?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,110
    Euroscepticism was given a shot in the arm by the Delors Commission’s various attempts to impose additional labour rules on Europe.

    The UK largely managed to avoid this, but Maastricht was a turning point in Tory opinion and I certainly recall the right wing press (Telegraph, Times, and Sun) as being distinctly Eurosceptic from the early 90s onwards.

    Others cite Lisbon which, it’s true, delivered an even less congenial settlement.

    European membership was a core principle - along with NATO membership - of the British state ever since the decolonisation of the late 50s and 60s.

    No wonder the sundering has been so damaging and painful.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,317

    Have you travelled with a film crew and equipment? This is the issue Clarkson is highlighting.

    It's happening with other EU countries due to all the new Brexit dividends that British companies are experiencing.
    Yep, that is the big one. I have highlighted it a number of times. if you are taking stuff to Europe and you are bringing it back (in some form or other) it is a nightmare. Been there done that and the change is awful. Typical problem areas are musicians, motor racing, filming, building exhibition stands or stages, etc.

    I dread to think what a carnet for several artics are for a Rock band or McLaren looks like nor the conversations at the border. I had enough trouble with a car load. A friend who built exhibition stands and stages just wound up his business immediately upon Brexit because he could no longer compete in Europe, which just left him the UK.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,692
    Andrew Gwynne MP - What a scum bag!
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,559
    kjh said:

    Oh for gods sake, can you never admit you were wrong:

    a) What do you think throughout the 1980s means?

    b) 1988 was 4 years before Masstricht which was your baseline. 4 years before you said it wasn't an issue

    c) What the hell has a GE got to do with it? You said anti Europeanism was negligible before Maastericht. Nothing about a GE. I have shown you that isn't true.

    d) Not my quote. From Contemporary British History. Would you like more proving you wrong? I can list out umpteen polls and articles. I can provide many more if you wish.

    You were wrong. Spectacularly so. Own it.

    Just out of interest, seeing as you asked me. How old were you then? And I believe you are in manufacturing. Do you actually sell to the EU and if you do, did you before and after we left the EU and do you deal with the paperwork? Have you ever had to deal with a carnet and if so did you export before you needed to?
    (d) oh, my word, you're really tying yourself in knots now. "your quote" to mean "the quote you quoted" is surely not controversial.

    But (c) explains, I think, why you're tying yourself in knots. My original claim was that anti-Europeanism in the sense of actually wanting to leave (see the original comment I was replying to for the context) was negligible before Maastricht.

    And, yes, I export to the EU and deal with all the paperwork. It's easier than exporting to the Channel Islands was before Brexit.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,110
    edited February 8
    Trump has fired the National Archivist.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,780

    If you are bored or have some popcorn left hanging around that needs hovering up before Lent, then Hodges vs Owen Jones on Twitter/X this evening is a recommendation.

    https://nitter.poast.org/owenjonesjourno
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,692

    If you are bored or have some popcorn left hanging around that needs hovering up before Lent, then Hodges vs Owen Jones on Twitter/X this evening is a recommendation.

    Two attention seeking twerps... attention seeking? No thanks!
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,559
    Anyway, enough of this nonsense. It's past my bedtime.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,317

    A reluctant intervention. I sort of agree with you that EU membership wasn't a big issue in the country in the 1980s and 1990s - most people didn't care. But it was, increasingly so, in the Conservative Party; through the 1990s and into the 2000s - it was a running sore. Cameron saw a referendum as the only way, eventually, to lance the boil.
    I agree with you and actually acknowledged the point that it wasn't in the top tier of issues then. I was really making a point because @Driver has done this several times over the last few weeks as has @Luckyguy1983 (admittedly only on one pet topic - EU regulations) which I highlighted today. You can't just come out with statements of fact that are plainly not true or are an opinion or not be able to back them up. This was not a fact. It was an opinion and the evidence available shows that it is invalid. Most people at that point admit they were mistaken and that it wasn't their memory of events.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,692
    dixiedean said:

    Europe policy did not split Labour into two Parties.
    It wasn't the only reason for the split but it was certainly part of the reason (and a big part at that) ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,244
    edited February 8

    The first SDP leader, Lord Jenkins, was previously punched and spat on by Labour front benchers, on his way into the lobby, as he was leader of the Labour rebels who took the UK into Europe in 1973. It comes across clearly in all the history books, overriding policy difference SDP founders had with Labour Party was Europe membership.

    What have you got to make you argue differently?
    While the proximate reason for the split was Militant, Europe was certainly a live issue - and opposition to membership was something that probably kept some on Labour’s right in the party led by Foot.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,692
    MaxPB said:

    I think what scared me the most was a Remain vote being used by EU politicians to tell dissenting UK representatives to stfu because the public had voted by a narrow margin to stay. Suddenly we become the whipping boys and our interests are overridden even though no one consented to that new arrangement.
    It did become a "do or die" moment. I think most people realized that we either took this one and only opportunity to set a new course, or we had to submit completely to the EU, including the Euro.

    We couldn't go on as we were. Half in, half out, griping from the sidelines but always (ALWAYS) getting deeper and deeper involved with every new treaty.

    So people took their chance... And then added to that you have the people who hadn't voted for 30 years and had nothing. If you have nothing you have nothing to lose...

    Put it all together and you have Brexit.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,244

    Trump has fired the National Archivist.

    There’s a general assault on all state institutions.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,695
    Hah, ha, ha...


    Neil Henderson
    @hendopolis
    ·
    2h
    SUNDAY EXPRESS: Tories call for Reform pact to save UK #TomorrowsPapersToday
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,695
    Nigelb said:

    There’s a general assault on all state institutions.
    As I posted earlier -

    first they came for the librarians.



  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292

    Trump has fired the National Archivist.

    Due to her involvement in his classified documents case apparently.

    He has said he will appoint a new National Archivist to replace her, I hope they are qualified!
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,163

    As I posted earlier -

    first they came for the librarians.



    Musk still has time for his frivolous lawsuits, while he's taking over the federal government.

    (from a week ago, but I missed it then)

    https://www.npr.org/2025/02/01/nx-s1-5283271/elon-musk-lawsuit-advertisers-boycott-new

    Elon Musk's X sues Lego, Nestlé and more brands, accusing them of advertising boycott
  • Hah, ha, ha...


    Neil Henderson
    @hendopolis
    ·
    2h
    SUNDAY EXPRESS: Tories call for Reform pact to save UK #TomorrowsPapersToday

    Evening, PB.

    This reminds me of when Bozza Johnson often took the Tory Party to be the U.K, too.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,317
    edited February 9
    Driver said:

    (d) oh, my word, you're really tying yourself in knots now. "your quote" to mean "the quote you quoted" is surely not controversial.

    But (c) explains, I think, why you're tying yourself in knots. My original claim was that anti-Europeanism in the sense of actually wanting to leave (see the original comment I was replying to for the context) was negligible before Maastricht.

    And, yes, I export to the EU and deal with all the paperwork. It's easier than exporting to the Channel Islands was before Brexit.
    @Driver

    So no answer for a) and b) then that prove you wrong.

    Re d). Never said it was controversial. It isn't, but good deflection to avoid dealing with the evidence that proves you wrong in that point

    Re c) What a load of bollocks. Your reply has nothing to do with what either you or I said. Again trying to deflect from what you said being painfully obviously wrong.

    Re what you do:

    a) You didn't answer most of my questions. So how old were you in 1980 and do you send stuff to Europe that has to be returned in some form or other eg exhibition equipment, racing cars going to a race, etc.

    b) Your justification for exporting to the EU being more difficult now is that it is easier than exporting to say Jersey. Really. Well whoopy do. So your argument is let's make stuff harder to export to Europe provided it is easier than sending to Jersey. And that is ok is it? Rather than Jersey lets make the baseline Bhutan instead. let's be more adventurous. Then by your logic as long as anywhere is marginally more easier than exporting to Bhutan that is ok then. Bizarre! Which school of logic did you study at?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,968
    edited February 9

    As I posted earlier -

    first they came for the librarians.



    And as we all answered - SHHHHHHHHHHH

    At least by being so open in their anti institutions, cross checks on power, and fast and loose with democracy and accountability, they are proving without doubt they are not conservatives. It makes it very awkward for those UK Conservatives who now appear part of MAGA gang.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,780

    Trump has fired the National Archivist.

    As you can imagine, that hits close to home... :(
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,476

    Fixed for you.
    Fixed your fix
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,968

    Hah, ha, ha...


    Neil Henderson
    @hendopolis
    ·
    2h
    SUNDAY EXPRESS: Tories call for Reform pact to save UK #TomorrowsPapersToday

    There is nothing on the front page to say who these “LEADING TORIES” and “POWERFUL FIGURES” are.

    Maybe they got a meow from the cat of a former Tory donor now in reform, made it up from that, knocked off early having this front page sorted and opened a couple of boxes of cheap supermarket wine?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,695
    Not sure Starmer's magic genie is still working.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,695

    And as we all answered - SHHHHHHHHHHH

    At least by being so open in their anti institutions, cross checks on power, and fast and loose with democracy and accountability, they are proving without doubt they are not conservatives. It makes it very awkward for those UK Conservatives who now appear part of MAGA gang.
    Are there any conservatives, in the traditional, widely understood meaning, left in Badenoch's party?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,110

    And as we all answered - SHHHHHHHHHHH

    At least by being so open in their anti institutions, cross checks on power, and fast and loose with democracy and accountability, they are proving without doubt they are not conservatives. It makes it very awkward for those UK Conservatives who now appear part of MAGA gang.
    And for the likely gang on here who have moved seamlessly from fervent Brexitism to outright Trumpery.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,695
    HYUFD said:

    Due to her involvement in his classified documents case apparently.

    He has said he will appoint a new National Archivist to replace her, I hope they are qualified!
    I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the new archivist will be a glamorous, blonde, twenty-something producer from Fox News who owns a dictionary so she is qualified.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063

    And as we all answered - SHHHHHHHHHHH

    At least by being so open in their anti institutions, cross checks on power, and fast and loose with democracy and accountability, they are proving without doubt they are not conservatives. It makes it very awkward for those UK Conservatives who now appear part of MAGA gang.
    And we know it is genuine too, since Trump was not even popular among Consevative voters, so any current or former Tory MPs trying to ape MAGA are doing it because they believe in it, not to be popular among their voters (possibly Reform voters).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063

    Hah, ha, ha...


    Neil Henderson
    @hendopolis
    ·
    2h
    SUNDAY EXPRESS: Tories call for Reform pact to save UK #TomorrowsPapersToday

    The only surprise would be that it took this long for more people to start saying it.

    You can see from the front page of Reform's website that they really do want to be friends.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 33,924

    Trump has fired the National Archivist.

    What was his beef with them?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    HYUFD said:

    Due to her involvement in his classified documents case apparently.

    He has said he will appoint a new National Archivist to replace her, I hope they are qualified!
    He believes he can unclassify things secretyly with his mind and that government papers become his personal property just because.

    Of course the replacement won't be qualified.

    (He wouldn't even have been in any legal trouble if he'd just handed the documents back when asked, it was the most inexplicable of all the cases against him as it was completely needless).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    Nigelb said:

    There’s a general assault on all state institutions.
    The President is the only state people need.

    Believes Clarence Thomas, probably.

    (Just kidding, he would believe in the need for a Supreme Court which is unaccountable to and superior to all other branches of government).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    ohnotnow said:

    "Franklin stood as a candidate for the UK Parliament for several parties and founded the Silent Majority Party. "

    As a party name it sounds about as contrary to its probable efforts as the Left Unity party.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    HYUFD said:

    Charles II never raised an army or tried to raise taxes without Parliament's approval unlike his father.

    He also unlike his brother backed down on a Declaration of Indulgence and agreed to implement the Test Acts passed by Parliament which required those holding office to deny the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and take Anglican communion
    No one really wanted to start the fighting up again and Charles II wasn't stupid or stubborn enough to push things to the point confrontation became inevitable again.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    kle4 said:

    The only surprise would be that it took this long for more people to start saying it.

    You can see from the front page of Reform's website that they really do want to be friends.

    Although funnly enough 'Conservative Reform' is probably the kind of reform most people prefer over the radical kind.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 33,924
    On topic, not for the thread but for the site.

    "Revealed: gambling firms secretly sharing users’ data with Facebook without permission
    Meta accounts of those affected flooded with ads for casinos and betting sites"

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/08/gambling-firms-secretly-shared-users-data-with-facebook-without-permission
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,840
    kle4 said:

    He believes he can unclassify things secretyly with his mind and that government papers become his personal property just because.

    Of course the replacement won't be qualified.

    (He wouldn't even have been in any legal trouble if he'd just handed the documents back when asked, it was the most inexplicable of all the cases against him as it was completely needless).
    It was also emblematic of Trump's belief that the rules do not apply to him.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,968

    Are there any conservatives, in the traditional, widely understood meaning, left in Badenoch's party?
    There’s me. Fighting the good fight. I know my stuff, know Conservatism is right. Though I’m not in the party. But my Dad is. He says in politics it all just goes round in a cycle, and a One Nation Conservative Party will get back in power again, somewhere on the cycle.

    There’s plenty of people with very right wing views who still believe in democracy, still believe all politicians should be held accountable, for whom the juvenile cosplay fascism across the pond becomes something of an embarrassment.
     
    For Conservatives everywhere, including Boris, Farage, who associated themselves with Trump, this is far more than embarrassing, being tarred by their association with the Project 25 Gang can start to hurt their own political ambitions, arm interviewers with a whole load of very good questions.

    Conservatives cannot be populist. Populism pushes the idea of popular sovereignty above the independence of democratic institutions and the professionalism of the representatives and leaders of those institutions - populism as opportunism, masquerading as values and agenda for government like a crusading ideology pretending it is voice of all the people, whilst acting undemocratically deaf to anyone with a different view. Likewise the undermining and attack on all the counterbalances of power. This is very opposite ideology to UK Conservatism, which has thrived in UK opposing such people and their populist ideology - be the populist threat from the left or the right.

    Sleepy Joe’s Administration was indeed sleepy on what voters felt about uncontrolled immigration, yet as governments around the world who had presided over historic income falls, themselves fell, Trump was so rubbish he still nearly blew it. Joe Biden said he would be a transitional president and then refused to announce his retirement in January 2023. Then Biden pulled out so late in 2024, there was no time for a normal primary. Imo very few Americans actually voted for Project 25, they don’t want this. There’s an argument - despite price of eggs and immigration - Trump would be packed off into retirement now, and Biden has some responsibility for all this happening. And as it plays out in America, giving populism a bad reputation, it is going to hurt UK populists, so far cosy with Trump.

    It’s possible Leon might have declared peak Leon this evening with his “happiest day ever” post. From here, his happiness might only deteriorate. 😈
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 33,924
    edited February 9
    This is pretty scary.

    "As our new eight-episode podcast, “Scam Inc”, describes, online fraudsters have become rich and powerful enough to corrupt entire governments, turning whole countries into the cyber-scam equivalent of narco-states. Scam operations can be found all over the world, from Myanmar to Mexico. The global proceeds of online fraud are probably more than $500bn a year, estimates Martin Purbrick, an expert in Chinese organised crime who was a police officer in Hong Kong for 11 years. That puts scamming on a par with the illegal drugs trade as one of the world’s biggest illicit industries. And unlike illegal drugs, scams cannot be seized by police or customs. With nothing more than a phone line and internet connection, scammers can turn anyone into a potential victim."

    https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/02/06/online-scams-may-already-be-as-big-a-scourge-as-illegal-drugs
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,840
    Andy_JS said:

    This is pretty scary.

    "As our new eight-episode podcast, “Scam Inc”, describes, online fraudsters have become rich and powerful enough to corrupt entire governments, turning whole countries into the cyber-scam equivalent of narco-states. Scam operations can be found all over the world, from Myanmar to Mexico. The global proceeds of online fraud are probably more than $500bn a year, estimates Martin Purbrick, an expert in Chinese organised crime who was a police officer in Hong Kong for 11 years. That puts scamming on a par with the illegal drugs trade as one of the world’s biggest illicit industries. And unlike illegal drugs, scams cannot be seized by police or customs. With nothing more than a phone line and internet connection, scammers can turn anyone into a potential victim."

    https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/02/06/online-scams-may-already-be-as-big-a-scourge-as-illegal-drugs

    This is -sadly- very plausible.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 33,924
    edited February 9
    rcs1000 said:

    This is -sadly- very plausible.

    I get the impression another explanation for the rise of populism is that a lot of people feel like governments over the last 20 years or so didn't do enough to stop this sort of thing when it was first happening. They just sat back and let the scammers do almost whatever they wanted.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 33,924
    One of the main articles on Tory Home.

    "Will the last Tory to leave please turn out the lights?"

    https://conservativehome.com/2025/02/06/will-the-last-tory-to-leave-please-turn-out-the-lights/
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,308
    Good morning, everyone.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 562

    Get the popcorn in kids!!!

    Michael Crick
    @MichaelLCrick
    ·
    1h
    I hear that scores of screenshots of Andrew Gwynne's Trigger Me Timbers WhatsApp group are likely to emerge in the next few days, which will make life very uncomfortable for several local councillors and at least one MP.

    End to end encryption doesn't work with Shift+Prt Sc
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,450

    Not sure Starmer's magic genie is still working.

    Not a genie, he has the monkeys paw.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,864
    Andy_JS said:

    This is pretty scary.

    "As our new eight-episode podcast, “Scam Inc”, describes, online fraudsters have become rich and powerful enough to corrupt entire governments, turning whole countries into the cyber-scam equivalent of narco-states. Scam operations can be found all over the world, from Myanmar to Mexico. The global proceeds of online fraud are probably more than $500bn a year, estimates Martin Purbrick, an expert in Chinese organised crime who was a police officer in Hong Kong for 11 years. That puts scamming on a par with the illegal drugs trade as one of the world’s biggest illicit industries. And unlike illegal drugs, scams cannot be seized by police or customs. With nothing more than a phone line and internet connection, scammers can turn anyone into a potential victim."

    https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/02/06/online-scams-may-already-be-as-big-a-scourge-as-illegal-drugs

    Is this a coded reference to Elon Musk?
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 562
    An average middle manager in the South East can earn that. What's the issue? Pay peanuts, get monkeys?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 29,648
    What is hypocritical about leaning on the BBC to stop it reporting Sue Gray is paid £3,000 more than Starmer?

    Bloody stupid, perhaps. If you care that much, why not have given her a smaller pay increase, say £3,001 less?

    And besides newspaper editors, who does Starmer imagine gives a damn about yet another "X gets more than the Prime Minister" story?

    This is a story about the Prime Minister's lack of political judgement but not hypocrisy.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 29,648
    Andy_JS said:

    This is pretty scary.

    "As our new eight-episode podcast, “Scam Inc”, describes, online fraudsters have become rich and powerful enough to corrupt entire governments, turning whole countries into the cyber-scam equivalent of narco-states. Scam operations can be found all over the world, from Myanmar to Mexico. The global proceeds of online fraud are probably more than $500bn a year, estimates Martin Purbrick, an expert in Chinese organised crime who was a police officer in Hong Kong for 11 years. That puts scamming on a par with the illegal drugs trade as one of the world’s biggest illicit industries. And unlike illegal drugs, scams cannot be seized by police or customs. With nothing more than a phone line and internet connection, scammers can turn anyone into a potential victim."

    https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/02/06/online-scams-may-already-be-as-big-a-scourge-as-illegal-drugs

    In theory the Online Safety Act should deal with fraud but in practice, the only thing its creators seem to care about is porn. Fraud gets about three words.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,253
    Battlebus said:

    End to end encryption doesn't work with Shift+Prt Sc
    I just scratch my head over what people do online. Texting dick pics, glorifying rapists, racist rants, plotting with undercover officers to kidnap and murder celebrities etc.

  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,977
    edited February 9

    What is hypocritical about leaning on the BBC to stop it reporting Sue Gray is paid £3,000 more than Starmer?

    Bloody stupid, perhaps. If you care that much, why not have given her a smaller pay increase, say £3,001 less?

    And besides newspaper editors, who does Starmer imagine gives a damn about yet another "X gets more than the Prime Minister" story?

    This is a story about the Prime Minister's lack of political judgement but not hypocrisy.
    Because Starmer slagged off the Tories about leaning on the BBC about Lineker.

    It absolutely is hypocritical behaviour, the poor judgement is a given.. in appointing her ...and subsequently trying to hush up the salary.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,074
    edited February 9
    Andy_JS said:

    I get the impression another explanation for the rise of populism is that a lot of people feel like governments over the last 20 years or so didn't do enough to stop this sort of thing when it was first happening. They just sat back and let the scammers do almost whatever they wanted.
    The Trump administration is removing consumer protection rights, while Republicans in the states crack down on pornographic sites instead. If people voted for populism to solve the problem of online scammers, they will be disappointed at the results.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,883

    Because Starmer slagged off the Tories about leaning on the BBC about Lineker.

    It absolutely is hypocritical behaviour, the poor judgement is a given.. in appointing her ...and subsequently trying to hush up the salary.
    This whole Gray mess gives off an absolute stink of corruption. It may not have been corrupt, or even dodgy, but it sure as heck stinks like it is.

    And that's a sign of people who have zero political instinct.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,935
    Andy_JS said:

    I get the impression another explanation for the rise of populism is that a lot of people feel like governments over the last 20 years or so didn't do enough to stop this sort of thing when it was first happening. They just sat back and let the scammers do almost whatever they wanted.
    I suppose on one level it makes sense that if scammers are allowed to rip us and deceive the public with no regard to the laws of the land or accountability then perhaps Presidents and Prime Ministers should be allowed to do the same.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,976
    Driver said:

    I wasn't sure how I was going to vote until I was walking to the polling station. What was always clear to me was that, whichever of leaving and voting to remain was better, the worst of all worlds by far would be to vote to leave but be forced by the politicians to remain anyway.
    Otoh I feel my country voting to stay but forced by the politicians to leave has turned out just fine.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,671
    WRT Gwynne, the Guardian online doesn't want to big up this story at the moment, various bits of trivia being ahead of it.

    Gorton joins Runcorn as a seat neither Tories nor Labour will want a by-election in. Gorton and Denton is interesting. Labour gets 50%. C, LD, G and R all figure in the fight for the other half of the vote, with R just in second place on 14%.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,976

    Trump has fired the National Archivist.

    Everyone knows historical records are Woke.
    Plus who wants evidence of their shithousery preserved.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,834
    The Sunday Rawnsley, more or less on topic, nice and early today (probably just before an NT):

    Voters indicating that they are backing Reform are telling us that they don’t like either Labour or the Tories. That is not the same as saying that they all want Nigel Farage to be the next prime minister.

    “Reform is not great for Labour, but it is an existential threat to the Tories,” remarks one Labour strategist, noting that last week’s YouGov poll reported that one in five of Tory voters in 2024 said they would now back Reform. [But] one Labour veteran, usually a phlegmatic sort, recently remarked to me that both his party and the Conservatives “are living in the last chance saloon”.

    Labour staffers and campaign groups are now spending a lot of time trying to devise strategies to combat Reform. The topic was on the agenda of the cabinet when it met for a six-hour “away day” at Lancaster House on Friday. One minister present told me afterwards that there was no single “killer” tactic that will do the trick. “I don’t think we’ve figured this out yet, if I’m being entirely honest.”

    One school of thought within Sir Keir’s ranks argues that Labour should present itself as the more authentic enemy of the status quo and project the government as the insurgents. The snag with trying to be an “insurgent government” is that it is really hard not to look like the establishment when you are in power and the prime minister is a knighted lawyer who used to run the crown prosecution service.

    A potentially promising approach is to subject [Farage's] beliefs and policies to the scrutiny that he is unaccustomed to. Labour has belatedly started to draw attention to his view that we should move to an insurance-based system of healthcare. Sir Keir won a lusty cheer from his MPs at the most recent session of PMQs when he took on the leader of Reform by walloping him for wanting “to charge them (his constituents) for using the NHS”. [Farage's] signature theme is hostility to immigration and this raises the most vexed questions about the lengths to which Labour should go. A new pressure group of Labour MPs, drawn from those 89 seats that are potentially most vulnerable, is urging Sir Keir to toughen up the government’s stance on immigration and be noisy about it.

    If Labour is to beat back Reform, the job won’t be done simply by coming up with some sharper attack lines. Mr Farage is thriving now, just as he did in the years running up to the Brexit referendum, because he is tapping into high levels of voter discontent about the quality of their lives in a country with a stagnant economy and dilapidated public services. Immigration is one of the factors, but so is the cost of living and the condition of the health service. Sorting that is critical to seeing him off. It is not enough to say that Reform has bad ideas. Labour must demonstrate that it can deliver good results.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,845

    Everyone knows historical records are Woke.
    Plus who wants evidence of their shithousery preserved.
    I remember seeing her confirmation hearings and there were doubts raised about her impartiality given her social media activities which were pretty clearly partial.

    Everyone is entitled to have their opinions but posting them openly may not be the best choice if you want a job like this in the public sector.

    So it doesn't surprise me that this action was taken.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,563

    I suppose on one level it makes sense that if scammers are allowed to rip us and deceive the public with no regard to the laws of the land or accountability then perhaps Presidents and Prime Ministers should be allowed to do the same.
    Or the politicians employ the scammers as special advisors.
  • NEW THREAD

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,976

    I remember seeing her confirmation hearings and there were doubts raised about her impartiality given her social media activities which were pretty clearly partial.

    Everyone is entitled to have their opinions but posting them openly may not be the best choice if you want a job like this in the public sector.

    So it doesn't surprise me that this action was taken.
    Wait till you hear about the social media output of the unelected head of DOGE.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    kle4 said:

    The only surprise would be that it took this long for more people to start saying it.

    You can see from the front page of Reform's website that they really do want to be friends.

    Yet not one poll, even FindOutNow, is forecasting a Reform majority even as most polls forecast a hung parliament. So the political reality for Farage is without a deal with the Tories he has near zero chance of becoming PM or getting into government
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 5,173
    More on the smart meters débâcle today:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/09/a-mess-energy-suppliers-face-scramble-to-install-smart-meters-in-uk-homes

    40% of all households still don't have them, six years after the rollout was originally meant to have been completed. Mine is one of them. Wouldn't touch one of those things with a ten foot bargepole, and nothing short of compulsion by law will make me change my mind. Malfunctioning pieces of junk that crap energy companies can use to remotely disconnect you on a whim if they make a bureaucratic cock-up, and which they won't replace when they go wrong.

    Yet another example of something important in this country that doesn't work properly. Is there anything left that does?
  • So what would be the betting if there were a by-election in Morecambe and Lunesdale ?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,212
    edited February 9
    Regarding bat tunnels, jumping spiders and European Union Law, there are two main pieces of UK legislation that govern the protection of species, The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981, and more importantly in a recent context (because we were still able to build things in the 80s and 90s), The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations of 2017.

    Both were implemented in order to enshrine EU law, despite the fact that in 2017, we'd already voted to leave.

    The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 enshrined the Birds Directive and the Bern Convention into UK law. It was enacted primarily to implement these European Council Directives 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds and the Bern Convention, which focuses on the conservation of wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats in Europe and some African countries.

    The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 implements guidelines from the European Union's Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and the Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) specifically within the UK context.

    This regulation applies to anyone planning land or property development projects and requires compliance with strict parameters, such as conducting appropriate ecology surveys and obtaining a European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) when necessary.

    It also mandates that any plan or project proposal affecting a European site must undergo a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) to ensure it does not significantly harm the designated features of the site.

    The regulation is enforced by various organisations including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), and Natural England, among others.

    Hopefully this helps some PBers who have been in denial over this issue.
This discussion has been closed.