To understand Reform's appeal, I think it's important to focus less on the immigration and more on their very effective messaging on economics & pocketbook issues:
Asked for one of the party’s flagship stances ahead of the vote in May of next year, Mr Tice pointed to support for oil and gas.
“Drill Scotland, drill,” he said.
“Let’s use the oil and gas treasure, let’s issue more licences, let’s encourage investment offshore and onshore. Because we’ve got all this energy treasure, we should use it, it’s ours and that’s the way to create highly skilled, highly paid jobs.”
Asked about the reserve nature of what he said was one of his party’s key policies, Mr Tice said: “People know that if we do well in Scotland, it will terrify Labour, it’ll terrify the SNP, it’ll terrify the eco-zealots. Then when we win, the people of Scotland have the opportunity to send a message to Westminster – we want oil, we want gas, we want more money in our pockets.”
I'm so clever that only I understand how clever I am
Inter alia, this explains the last twenty years of conversation on PB
I'm not even joking. I asked the cleverest person I know (me) how clever I am, and that person confirmed it
I can speak the following languages.
English, Latin, Greek, German, French, Urdu, Punjabi, and American.
That is the sign of true intelligence.
And yet, you live in..... Sheffield
Yeah, I could be one of those sad Londoners who live in a million pound shoe box or I can live in a very nice house.
Tough choice.
There are many markers of high intelligence. "Living in Sheffield" is, I fear, not one of them
There is a story of Queen Victoria on the royal train heading north to Balmoral. Apparently she loved all the varying views. However as the train pulled into Sheffield she would ask her equerry to close the curtains, and not open them until the regal train had entirely exited Sheffield
It depends where you live. Dore & Totley is staggeringly opulent.
Yes on Dore & Totley; it's where the nobs and the Cleggs live.
I don't want to be too rude about that house, but it's cookie cutters 2010s footballer in a leafy bit of Cheshire with Peak District wallpaper - no character.
Leon's just wibbling from his own lack of experience !
I've been to Sheffield several times. It's a shithole. Most northern English post industrial citiies are, I am afraid. Grotty, ugly, declining (again), riven with new racial divides, vape shops, despair. Indeed the decline and grot is spreading south (and the south has shit-holes of its own). And the weather sucks
I really really really wish this wasn't true, but it is. Hopefully down the line a new government can at least improve the economic sitch, and the architectural nightmare, even if they can't improve the weather
@Cookie gives us hopeful posts from Manc, so we shall see
There are a few acceptable places to live in the UK. Central and central ish London. The nicer suburbs of London. Posh cathedral cities (but not all of them). Cornwall and Devon in general, the nicest parts of the Home Counties and Welsh Marches, wilder bits of Scotland if you can cope with the winters and the midges. Er, Southwold?
I hesitate to say you need to get out more, but perhaps get out different. You have missed out the whole of: Lincolnshire (have you never been to Stamford?), Cumberland and Westmorland, Yorkshire, Edinburgh, Norfolk and almost all of Suffolk, Sussex, Northumberland, the entire of the Scottish side of the borders, Wiltshire and Doset, Northamptonshire. And Yorkshire.
Apart from that you are on the right lines.
I did say I was being provocative
However, you also forget I have travelled the entire world, pretty much. So I can compare multiple places in a way 99% of PBers cannot. Half of you barely go over the Channel
Britain, as a place to live, is falling behind quite badly, in terms of quality of life, beauty of surroundings, urban architecture
I'm a patriot. I wish this wasn't true. But it is
The UK has always been a crap place to live if you like nice weather. However we made up for that with quite handsome cities, free speech, a high trust society, social homogeneity, low crime, political stability, notably high incomes, lush green countryside, and clean bracing coastlines etc
One by one we have lost and are losing all of these, which makes the UK, steadily, much less attractive
I've noticed the scuzziness of my town worsening over the last 5-10 years.
Lots of Turkish/Albanian barbers all over the place, lots of carers from overseas (usually sub-saharan Africa), some people with serious addiction and mental problems walking round, and a noticeable number of hijabs, which were once non-existent. And, in general, young men (in particular) in their twenties being noticeably fatter with bad beards and really shit tattoos.
This is a market town in rural Hampshire.
Liberal society chose abortion over adoption. The 12m immigrants since 1997 more than replacing the 10.7m aborted since 1967.
Birth rates have collapsed even in countries where abortion is illegal. I guess you could make contraception illegal, or perhaps make it so a woman is not allowed to resist a man, but I'm not 100% sure those policies would be popular.
Wages went down and rents went up. Hungary is giving a lifetime 25% tax cut to women who have children. Abortions are down 50% and divorce rates are lower. Liberal societies are declining while conservative societies prosper.
Hungary spends 5% of GDP on measures to try and get its birthrate up.
Its TFR is ... 1.52
It's an utter failure.
2010 to 2023 abortion in Hungary fell from 40,449 to 21,136. Source abort-report.eu via grok.
Non-sequitar of the day.
I had to look that up not having a degree in philosophy! Abortion is lower in Hungary when adjusted by population size compared with the U.K.
1. You claim that liberal democracies have had to import people (immigrants) because of liberal abortion laws. 2. I point out that fertility rates have collapsed everywhere, irrespective of the legal status of abortion. 3. You point out that Hungary has enacted pro-natal policies. 4. I point out that Hungary's fertility rate - despite extremely expensive pro-natal policies - is still shit. 5. You point out that Hungary's abortion rate is relatively low. 6. I point out that that is a non-sequitar.
I don't think this is too complicated. But then again, I do have a philosophy degree.
Fertility rates haven't collapsed in Africa and abortion is mostly illegal there
Fertility rates have collapsed in Africa. In fact the biggest declines in fertility in the last 20 years are all in Africa.
I will admit, that fertility rates are higher in Africa than elsewhere, but that is because they started at a higher level.
Also: if you think fertility rates are higher in Africa because of a lack of access to abortion, then I have a bridge to sell you.
One of the lowest fertility rates in Africa is South Africa which is one of the few African nations where abortion is fully legal.
Fertility rates in Africa are also generally higher than the rest of the world because Africa is the most religious continent in the world now and the more religious you are generally the more children you have.
Hence globally Muslims have the most children, then evangelical Christians, then Orthodox Jews, then Roman Catholics, then Eastern Orthodox, then Hindus, then mainline Protestants and mainline Jews, then Buddhists and last atheists and agnostics
And yet the proportion of people who are agnostic and/or atheist keeps on growing.
It's a mystery.
This literally isn’t true. It is a falsehood
UK 2011 = 25.2% irreligious UK 2021 = 37.2% irreligious
Two issues there.
1) The UK isn't the world 2) There's been a steep decline in the numbers of the nominally religious, but not nearly as steep a decline (indeed possibly a growth) in the numbers who are seriously religious.
The second effect is very noticeable in the Church of England. Overall attendance is dropping like a stone, and has been for donkeys years. The only parts of the CofE which aren't in free fall are the conservative evangelicals, and to a certain extent the more conservative anglo-catholics.
In my local context, my conservative evangelical church (currently on its way out of the Church of England over a mixture of women bishops and gay marriage) has grown fairly consistently over the last 20 years, meanwhile the local liberal parish churches (we're an oddity outside the parish system) have been combined and reorganised umpteen times covering a larger and larger area to get round the fact that there are increasingly few worshippers and even fewer clergy.
The evangelical churches are always growing, until they don't. Regular worshippers go to the same church for years, but evangelicals just look for the new thing, churches go from the dozens to the hundreds very quickly, then the pastor moves on or something new opens and the worshippers go elsewhere. My old church in Southampton says it's booming and maybe it is if you baseline to 2020, but the Sunday service attendance is less than it was in the late 80s.
The number of the religiously affiliated is in decline everywhere - even in places like Africa.
Let's look at the UK: in the 2001 census, the proportion people reporting no religion was 23.2%. By 2021, it was 37.8%. That's a massive shift in just 20 years.
There's been a similar - albeit smaller - move in the US. In 2000, just 14% identified with "none" for their religion. By 2020, it was 26%.
Other people have posted the numbers for other developed countries: and they pretty much all show the same trends.
If you dive into the numbers, they look even worse. Large chunks of people who identify with a religion, will also answer that they are unsure if god exists, or indeed (as is surprisingly common with Jews) actively actively atheist.
If you go to the developing world, you see a similar story - albeit from much lower levels of irreligiosity:
A comprehensive study by the World Values Survey found that from 2007 to 2019, 43 out of 49 countries surveyed became less religious. This decline wasn't limited to affluent nations; it also encompassed many developing countries. Factors contributing to this shift include rising education levels, urbanization, and increased access to information, which collectively reduce the reliance on religion for meaning and social cohesion.
I'm sorry but that is easily the worst eurovision winning song of my lifetime.
FFS.
The standard was awful apart from a couple of songs notably Austria which I really liked .
Eh? Austria won. And it is the worst winning song of all time.
I cannot believe how this song won.
There's two things at play IMO, juries are voting for the song that best represents the gay/transgender agenda and the public are voting for Israel because by and large European people support Israel not terrorists. Next year the votes for Israel among the juries will be much lower to balance this out and I expect the jury votes will be even higher for whatever bloke in a dress turns up.
Conspiracy theory nonsense. Israel won in 2018 and hosted in 2019. In all, Israel has won four times, despite only competing since 1973. Israel came second this year, fifth last year and third the year before, so clearly no-one is putting the fix in to downvote Israel.
Austria came a close second in the poll I just posted.
Leaving aside your take on geopolitics, what you are saying is you are out-of-touch with Eurovision. So am I, which is why I never watch it. This means I do not need to explain why the songs I liked best flopped, and those I hated won. I've not heard any of them.
From the video, I *think* there's people standing on the masts (either that or they are weird supports for the lighting). I hope there was no-one on the gallant or royal masts.
It might seem unusual for a party elected less than a year ago to be debating its next leader – but then Labour is an unusually unpopular government ... In this climate, MPs are growing increasingly recalcitrant. “Fear of losing your seat is greater than getting bollocked by the whips,” observes one rebel.
Even cabinet ministers privately question whether Starmer will still be leader by the time of the next election. Next year could see Labour defeated in Scotland and Wales and bruised in London. Faced with the insurgent Farage, Rayner’s admirers believe that the plain-speaking deputy could be the party’s “Heineken candidate” – reaching the alienated voters who others can’t.
It might seem unusual for a party elected less than a year ago to be debating its next leader – but then Labour is an unusually unpopular government ... In this climate, MPs are growing increasingly recalcitrant. “Fear of losing your seat is greater than getting bollocked by the whips,” observes one rebel.
Even cabinet ministers privately question whether Starmer will still be leader by the time of the next election. Next year could see Labour defeated in Scotland and Wales and bruised in London. Faced with the insurgent Farage, Rayner’s admirers believe that the plain-speaking deputy could be the party’s “Heineken candidate” – reaching the alienated voters who others can’t.
F1: bit sleepy but will start perusing the markets. Surprised how well Aston Martin did. I'll cover this more in the next podcast, but this is excellent news, for 2026 (indicates good correlation between new wind tunnel and real world data, which means the next car's design should work in reality as testing facilities indicate).
As we’re headed for another sunny day, here’s the Rawnsley nice and early:
Licking the wounds of their lacerating encounters with disgruntled voters during the May Day elections, Sir Keir Starmer’s footsoldiers report that the most toxic source of discontent…is the decision to remove the winter fuel payment from 90% of pensioners. You can say – and with this argument I have some sympathy – that a universal payment of up to £300 regardless of means was a badly targeted Gordon Brown gimmick and ripe for reform. But the cut…also hits much less affluent pensioners, and at a time when energy bills are inflated.
There’s not much else that unites Farage, Badenoch, Davey and Corbyn, but opposition to this cut does. Rarely in the field of politics has so much electoral damage been wreaked for such a relatively meagre cash saving to the exchequer. Most of the cabinet grasped months ago that the chancellor made an egregious blunder.
It is clear that backing off would be politically smart, but it is also obvious that they won’t do that anytime soon. There’s growing expectation of a palliative tweak in the budget, but that event lies many months ahead, in the mists of the autumn. “I guess they’re scared of looking weak,” says one senior Labour MP.
It is true that many of the government’s money problems are down to its inheritance. Ministers are not wrong when they say that Labour was thrown a fiscal hospital pass by the Conservatives. That combination has been the more poisonous because Sir Keir failed to prepare the public for what his government would face. “We didn’t have out the big arguments about tax-and-spend before the election,” says one former cabinet minister. “We are now paying the price.” Indeed they are.
As we’re headed for another sunny day, here’s the Rawnsley nice and early:
Licking the wounds of their lacerating encounters with disgruntled voters during the May Day elections, Sir Keir Starmer’s footsoldiers report that the most toxic source of discontent…is the decision to remove the winter fuel payment from 90% of pensioners. You can say – and with this argument I have some sympathy – that a universal payment of up to £300 regardless of means was a badly targeted Gordon Brown gimmick and ripe for reform. But the cut…also hits much less affluent pensioners, and at a time when energy bills are inflated.
There’s not much else that unites Farage, Badenoch, Davey and Corbyn, but opposition to this cut does. Rarely in the field of politics has so much electoral damage been wreaked for such a relatively meagre cash saving to the exchequer. Most of the cabinet grasped months ago that the chancellor made an egregious blunder.
It is clear that backing off would be politically smart, but it is also obvious that they won’t do that anytime soon. There’s growing expectation of a palliative tweak in the budget, but that event lies many months ahead, in the mists of the autumn. “I guess they’re scared of looking weak,” says one senior Labour MP.
It is true that many of the government’s money problems are down to its inheritance. Ministers are not wrong when they say that Labour was thrown a fiscal hospital pass by the Conservatives. That combination has been the more poisonous because Sir Keir failed to prepare the public for what his government would face. “We didn’t have out the big arguments about tax-and-spend before the election,” says one former cabinet minister. “We are now paying the price.” Indeed they are.
Firing the Chancellor for an "egregious blunder" would signal strength.
Three Iranian former asylum seekers have appeared in court accused of spying for Tehran.
The three men, who had been granted leave to remain after arriving in Britain in lorries and small boats, were charged with engaging in conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service following an investigation by counter-terror police.
To understand Reform's appeal, I think it's important to focus less on the immigration and more on their very effective messaging on economics & pocketbook issues:
Asked for one of the party’s flagship stances ahead of the vote in May of next year, Mr Tice pointed to support for oil and gas.
“Drill Scotland, drill,” he said.
“Let’s use the oil and gas treasure, let’s issue more licences, let’s encourage investment offshore and onshore. Because we’ve got all this energy treasure, we should use it, it’s ours and that’s the way to create highly skilled, highly paid jobs.”
Asked about the reserve nature of what he said was one of his party’s key policies, Mr Tice said: “People know that if we do well in Scotland, it will terrify Labour, it’ll terrify the SNP, it’ll terrify the eco-zealots. Then when we win, the people of Scotland have the opportunity to send a message to Westminster – we want oil, we want gas, we want more money in our pockets.”
Alonso's evens (2.05 boosted) to beat Hamilton, but his car was way faster in qualifying and he starts 8 places higher.
I've also backed Alonso to beat the Williams/Ferraris (at 6, 6.5 boosted) in group 2. Williams are a threat but he does start ahead of them. Stroll to beat Hadjar, Gasly, and Antonelli in group 3 is my last bet, I've split a stake between the two group bets for roughly equal payout. That's 4, 4.1 with boost. Stroll isn't a good qualifier but still starts ahead of all the others in the group, and he's been solid in races for the most part this year.
The number of the religiously affiliated is in decline everywhere - even in places like Africa.
Let's look at the UK: in the 2001 census, the proportion people reporting no religion was 23.2%. By 2021, it was 37.8%. That's a massive shift in just 20 years.
There's been a similar - albeit smaller - move in the US. In 2000, just 14% identified with "none" for their religion. By 2020, it was 26%.
Other people have posted the numbers for other developed countries: and they pretty much all show the same trends.
If you dive into the numbers, they look even worse. Large chunks of people who identify with a religion, will also answer that they are unsure if god exists, or indeed (as is surprisingly common with Jews) actively actively atheist.
If you go to the developing world, you see a similar story - albeit from much lower levels of irreligiosity: Stop A comprehensive study by the World Values Survey found that from 2007 to 2019, 43 out of 49 countries surveyed became less religious. This decline wasn't limited to affluent nations; it also encompassed many developing countries. Factors contributing to this shift include rising education levels, urbanization, and increased access to information, which collectively reduce the reliance on religion for meaning and social cohesion.
Stop pushing your ideological atheist agenda.
The West's population is collapsing as a percentage of a global population which is becoming ever more African.
Hence the global Muslim population is surging as I posted percentage wise, the Christian population holding steady and percentage wise the global atheist population in decline.
To understand Reform's appeal, I think it's important to focus less on the immigration and more on their very effective messaging on economics & pocketbook issues:
Asked for one of the party’s flagship stances ahead of the vote in May of next year, Mr Tice pointed to support for oil and gas.
“Drill Scotland, drill,” he said.
“Let’s use the oil and gas treasure, let’s issue more licences, let’s encourage investment offshore and onshore. Because we’ve got all this energy treasure, we should use it, it’s ours and that’s the way to create highly skilled, highly paid jobs.”
Asked about the reserve nature of what he said was one of his party’s key policies, Mr Tice said: “People know that if we do well in Scotland, it will terrify Labour, it’ll terrify the SNP, it’ll terrify the eco-zealots. Then when we win, the people of Scotland have the opportunity to send a message to Westminster – we want oil, we want gas, we want more money in our pockets.”
I'm sorry but that is easily the worst eurovision winning song of my lifetime.
FFS.
I thought our entry was really strong this year. A big improvement on last years horrible, seedy entry.
It deserved to do better.
Nope. It was a terrible mish-mash of styles and content. Feel sorry for the lasses, but everybody who has anything to do with our Eurovision song selection for the past 20 years should never again be allowed anywhere near it.
Having watched both semi-finals, Austria got my vote. More importantly, Austria got my wife's vote.
I'm so clever that only I understand how clever I am
Inter alia, this explains the last twenty years of conversation on PB
I'm not even joking. I asked the cleverest person I know (me) how clever I am, and that person confirmed it
I can speak the following languages.
English, Latin, Greek, German, French, Urdu, Punjabi, and American.
That is the sign of true intelligence.
And yet, you live in..... Sheffield
Yeah, I could be one of those sad Londoners who live in a million pound shoe box or I can live in a very nice house.
Tough choice.
There are many markers of high intelligence. "Living in Sheffield" is, I fear, not one of them
There is a story of Queen Victoria on the royal train heading north to Balmoral. Apparently she loved all the varying views. However as the train pulled into Sheffield she would ask her equerry to close the curtains, and not open them until the regal train had entirely exited Sheffield
It depends where you live. Dore & Totley is staggeringly opulent.
Yes on Dore & Totley; it's where the nobs and the Cleggs live.
I don't want to be too rude about that house, but it's cookie cutters 2010s footballer in a leafy bit of Cheshire with Peak District wallpaper - no character.
Leon's just wibbling from his own lack of experience !
I've been to Sheffield several times. It's a shithole. Most northern English post industrial citiies are, I am afraid. Grotty, ugly, declining (again), riven with new racial divides, vape shops, despair. Indeed the decline and grot is spreading south (and the south has shit-holes of its own). And the weather sucks
I really really really wish this wasn't true, but it is. Hopefully down the line a new government can at least improve the economic sitch, and the architectural nightmare, even if they can't improve the weather
@Cookie gives us hopeful posts from Manc, so we shall see
There are a few acceptable places to live in the UK. Central and central ish London. The nicer suburbs of London. Posh cathedral cities (but not all of them). Cornwall and Devon in general, the nicest parts of the Home Counties and Welsh Marches, wilder bits of Scotland if you can cope with the winters and the midges. Er, Southwold?
I hesitate to say you need to get out more, but perhaps get out different. You have missed out the whole of: Lincolnshire (have you never been to Stamford?), Cumberland and Westmorland, Yorkshire, Edinburgh, Norfolk and almost all of Suffolk, Sussex, Northumberland, the entire of the Scottish side of the borders, Wiltshire and Doset, Northamptonshire. And Yorkshire.
Apart from that you are on the right lines.
I did say I was being provocative
However, you also forget I have travelled the entire world, pretty much. So I can compare multiple places in a way 99% of PBers cannot. Half of you barely go over the Channel
Britain, as a place to live, is falling behind quite badly, in terms of quality of life, beauty of surroundings, urban architecture
I'm a patriot. I wish this wasn't true. But it is
The UK has always been a crap place to live if you like nice weather. However we made up for that with quite handsome cities, free speech, a high trust society, social homogeneity, low crime, political stability, notably high incomes, lush green countryside, and clean bracing coastlines etc
One by one we have lost and are losing all of these, which makes the UK, steadily, much less attractive
I've noticed the scuzziness of my town worsening over the last 5-10 years.
Lots of Turkish/Albanian barbers all over the place, lots of carers from overseas (usually sub-saharan Africa), some people with serious addiction and mental problems walking round, and a noticeable number of hijabs, which were once non-existent. And, in general, young men (in particular) in their twenties being noticeably fatter with bad beards and really shit tattoos.
This is a market town in rural Hampshire.
Liberal society chose abortion over adoption. The 12m immigrants since 1997 more than replacing the 10.7m aborted since 1967.
Birth rates have collapsed even in countries where abortion is illegal. I guess you could make contraception illegal, or perhaps make it so a woman is not allowed to resist a man, but I'm not 100% sure those policies would be popular.
Wages went down and rents went up. Hungary is giving a lifetime 25% tax cut to women who have children. Abortions are down 50% and divorce rates are lower. Liberal societies are declining while conservative societies prosper.
Hungary spends 5% of GDP on measures to try and get its birthrate up.
Its TFR is ... 1.52
It's an utter failure.
2010 to 2023 abortion in Hungary fell from 40,449 to 21,136. Source abort-report.eu via grok.
Non-sequitar of the day.
I had to look that up not having a degree in philosophy! Abortion is lower in Hungary when adjusted by population size compared with the U.K.
1. You claim that liberal democracies have had to import people (immigrants) because of liberal abortion laws. 2. I point out that fertility rates have collapsed everywhere, irrespective of the legal status of abortion. 3. You point out that Hungary has enacted pro-natal policies. 4. I point out that Hungary's fertility rate - despite extremely expensive pro-natal policies - is still shit. 5. You point out that Hungary's abortion rate is relatively low. 6. I point out that that is a non-sequitar.
I don't think this is too complicated. But then again, I do have a philosophy degree.
Fertility rates haven't collapsed in Africa and abortion is mostly illegal there
Fertility rates have collapsed in Africa. In fact the biggest declines in fertility in the last 20 years are all in Africa.
I will admit, that fertility rates are higher in Africa than elsewhere, but that is because they started at a higher level.
Also: if you think fertility rates are higher in Africa because of a lack of access to abortion, then I have a bridge to sell you.
One of the lowest fertility rates in Africa is South Africa which is one of the few African nations where abortion is fully legal.
Fertility rates in Africa are also generally higher than the rest of the world because Africa is the most religious continent in the world now and the more religious you are generally the more children you have.
Hence globally Muslims have the most children, then evangelical Christians, then Orthodox Jews, then Roman Catholics, then Eastern Orthodox, then Hindus, then mainline Protestants and mainline Jews, then Buddhists and last atheists and agnostics
And yet the proportion of people who are agnostic and/or atheist keeps on growing.
It's a mystery.
This literally isn’t true. It is a falsehood
UK 2011 = 25.2% irreligious UK 2021 = 37.2% irreligious
Two issues there.
1) The UK isn't the world 2) There's been a steep decline in the numbers of the nominally religious, but not nearly as steep a decline (indeed possibly a growth) in the numbers who are seriously religious.
The second effect is very noticeable in the Church of England. Overall attendance is dropping like a stone, and has been for donkeys years. The only parts of the CofE which aren't in free fall are the conservative evangelicals, and to a certain extent the more conservative anglo-catholics.
In my local context, my conservative evangelical church (currently on its way out of the Church of England over a mixture of women bishops and gay marriage) has grown fairly consistently over the last 20 years, meanwhile the local liberal parish churches (we're an oddity outside the parish system) have been combined and reorganised umpteen times covering a larger and larger area to get round the fact that there are increasingly few worshippers and even fewer clergy.
And evangelicals tend to have more children than the UK average birthrate.
Though our rural churches still get reasonable attendance, including Catholics and evangelicals and the C of E has billions in assets it should invest in its parishes
I stopped watching a few years ago. The year some bearded bloke in a dress sang a dirge and won to beat the Polish milkmaids. A total travesty. It never was a test of musical excellence.
As we’re headed for another sunny day, here’s the Rawnsley nice and early:
Licking the wounds of their lacerating encounters with disgruntled voters during the May Day elections, Sir Keir Starmer’s footsoldiers report that the most toxic source of discontent…is the decision to remove the winter fuel payment from 90% of pensioners. You can say – and with this argument I have some sympathy – that a universal payment of up to £300 regardless of means was a badly targeted Gordon Brown gimmick and ripe for reform. But the cut…also hits much less affluent pensioners, and at a time when energy bills are inflated.
There’s not much else that unites Farage, Badenoch, Davey and Corbyn, but opposition to this cut does. Rarely in the field of politics has so much electoral damage been wreaked for such a relatively meagre cash saving to the exchequer. Most of the cabinet grasped months ago that the chancellor made an egregious blunder.
It is clear that backing off would be politically smart, but it is also obvious that they won’t do that anytime soon. There’s growing expectation of a palliative tweak in the budget, but that event lies many months ahead, in the mists of the autumn. “I guess they’re scared of looking weak,” says one senior Labour MP.
It is true that many of the government’s money problems are down to its inheritance. Ministers are not wrong when they say that Labour was thrown a fiscal hospital pass by the Conservatives. That combination has been the more poisonous because Sir Keir failed to prepare the public for what his government would face. “We didn’t have out the big arguments about tax-and-spend before the election,” says one former cabinet minister. “We are now paying the price.” Indeed they are.
Firing the Chancellor for an "egregious blunder" would signal strength.
Even looking weak will pass.
Looking wrong will haunt them to the election.
Firing the Chancellor to signal strength worked for Liz Truss. Oh, hold on...
I'm so clever that only I understand how clever I am
Inter alia, this explains the last twenty years of conversation on PB
I'm not even joking. I asked the cleverest person I know (me) how clever I am, and that person confirmed it
I can speak the following languages.
English, Latin, Greek, German, French, Urdu, Punjabi, and American.
That is the sign of true intelligence.
And yet, you live in..... Sheffield
Yeah, I could be one of those sad Londoners who live in a million pound shoe box or I can live in a very nice house.
Tough choice.
There are many markers of high intelligence. "Living in Sheffield" is, I fear, not one of them
There is a story of Queen Victoria on the royal train heading north to Balmoral. Apparently she loved all the varying views. However as the train pulled into Sheffield she would ask her equerry to close the curtains, and not open them until the regal train had entirely exited Sheffield
It depends where you live. Dore & Totley is staggeringly opulent.
Yes on Dore & Totley; it's where the nobs and the Cleggs live.
I don't want to be too rude about that house, but it's cookie cutters 2010s footballer in a leafy bit of Cheshire with Peak District wallpaper - no character.
Leon's just wibbling from his own lack of experience !
I've been to Sheffield several times. It's a shithole. Most northern English post industrial citiies are, I am afraid. Grotty, ugly, declining (again), riven with new racial divides, vape shops, despair. Indeed the decline and grot is spreading south (and the south has shit-holes of its own). And the weather sucks
I really really really wish this wasn't true, but it is. Hopefully down the line a new government can at least improve the economic sitch, and the architectural nightmare, even if they can't improve the weather
@Cookie gives us hopeful posts from Manc, so we shall see
There are a few acceptable places to live in the UK. Central and central ish London. The nicer suburbs of London. Posh cathedral cities (but not all of them). Cornwall and Devon in general, the nicest parts of the Home Counties and Welsh Marches, wilder bits of Scotland if you can cope with the winters and the midges. Er, Southwold?
I hesitate to say you need to get out more, but perhaps get out different. You have missed out the whole of: Lincolnshire (have you never been to Stamford?), Cumberland and Westmorland, Yorkshire, Edinburgh, Norfolk and almost all of Suffolk, Sussex, Northumberland, the entire of the Scottish side of the borders, Wiltshire and Doset, Northamptonshire. And Yorkshire.
Apart from that you are on the right lines.
I did say I was being provocative
However, you also forget I have travelled the entire world, pretty much. So I can compare multiple places in a way 99% of PBers cannot. Half of you barely go over the Channel
Britain, as a place to live, is falling behind quite badly, in terms of quality of life, beauty of surroundings, urban architecture
I'm a patriot. I wish this wasn't true. But it is
The UK has always been a crap place to live if you like nice weather. However we made up for that with quite handsome cities, free speech, a high trust society, social homogeneity, low crime, political stability, notably high incomes, lush green countryside, and clean bracing coastlines etc
One by one we have lost and are losing all of these, which makes the UK, steadily, much less attractive
I've noticed the scuzziness of my town worsening over the last 5-10 years.
Lots of Turkish/Albanian barbers all over the place, lots of carers from overseas (usually sub-saharan Africa), some people with serious addiction and mental problems walking round, and a noticeable number of hijabs, which were once non-existent. And, in general, young men (in particular) in their twenties being noticeably fatter with bad beards and really shit tattoos.
This is a market town in rural Hampshire.
Liberal society chose abortion over adoption. The 12m immigrants since 1997 more than replacing the 10.7m aborted since 1967.
Birth rates have collapsed even in countries where abortion is illegal. I guess you could make contraception illegal, or perhaps make it so a woman is not allowed to resist a man, but I'm not 100% sure those policies would be popular.
Wages went down and rents went up. Hungary is giving a lifetime 25% tax cut to women who have children. Abortions are down 50% and divorce rates are lower. Liberal societies are declining while conservative societies prosper.
Hungary spends 5% of GDP on measures to try and get its birthrate up.
Its TFR is ... 1.52
It's an utter failure.
2010 to 2023 abortion in Hungary fell from 40,449 to 21,136. Source abort-report.eu via grok.
Non-sequitar of the day.
I had to look that up not having a degree in philosophy! Abortion is lower in Hungary when adjusted by population size compared with the U.K.
1. You claim that liberal democracies have had to import people (immigrants) because of liberal abortion laws. 2. I point out that fertility rates have collapsed everywhere, irrespective of the legal status of abortion. 3. You point out that Hungary has enacted pro-natal policies. 4. I point out that Hungary's fertility rate - despite extremely expensive pro-natal policies - is still shit. 5. You point out that Hungary's abortion rate is relatively low. 6. I point out that that is a non-sequitar.
I don't think this is too complicated. But then again, I do have a philosophy degree.
Fertility rates haven't collapsed in Africa and abortion is mostly illegal there
Fertility rates have collapsed in Africa. In fact the biggest declines in fertility in the last 20 years are all in Africa.
I will admit, that fertility rates are higher in Africa than elsewhere, but that is because they started at a higher level.
Also: if you think fertility rates are higher in Africa because of a lack of access to abortion, then I have a bridge to sell you.
One of the lowest fertility rates in Africa is South Africa which is one of the few African nations where abortion is fully legal.
Fertility rates in Africa are also generally higher than the rest of the world because Africa is the most religious continent in the world now and the more religious you are generally the more children you have.
Hence globally Muslims have the most children, then evangelical Christians, then Orthodox Jews, then Roman Catholics, then Eastern Orthodox, then Hindus, then mainline Protestants and mainline Jews, then Buddhists and last atheists and agnostics
And yet the proportion of people who are agnostic and/or atheist keeps on growing.
It's a mystery.
This literally isn’t true. It is a falsehood
UK 2011 = 25.2% irreligious UK 2021 = 37.2% irreligious
Two issues there.
1) The UK isn't the world 2) There's been a steep decline in the numbers of the nominally religious, but not nearly as steep a decline (indeed possibly a growth) in the numbers who are seriously religious.
The second effect is very noticeable in the Church of England. Overall attendance is dropping like a stone, and has been for donkeys years. The only parts of the CofE which aren't in free fall are the conservative evangelicals, and to a certain extent the more conservative anglo-catholics.
In my local context, my conservative evangelical church (currently on its way out of the Church of England over a mixture of women bishops and gay marriage) has grown fairly consistently over the last 20 years, meanwhile the local liberal parish churches (we're an oddity outside the parish system) have been combined and reorganised umpteen times covering a larger and larger area to get round the fact that there are increasingly few worshippers and even fewer clergy.
And evangelicals tend to have more children than the UK average birthrate.
Though our rural churches still get reasonable attendance, including Catholics and evangelicals and the C of E has billions in assets it should invest in its parishes
You know the problem there. You're using "invest" largely in the Gordon Brown sense, and proposing to spend capital as revenue.
It's a hefty chunk of why the British State is in the state it's in.
(I'm not keen on the process or outcomes when the church commissioners allocate fixed dollops of cash to specific projects. But that's different to spending assets that are mostly there to cover liabilities we know about.)
The Eurovisionworld poll, which invariably has the winner in its top three, this year had:- Sweden 17 per cent Austria 15% Albania & Finland 6% each.
Betting Saturday morning had Sweden evens favourite and Austria 100/30 second-favourite.
Apparently this is a Europe-wide poll taken after the semi-finals, so everyone has seen all the acts, and respondents vote for the best foreign act, ie not from their own country.
The anti-abortion movement can be quite anti-IVF too, for reasons that escape me. Vance subscribes to that view, being a rather radical type of Christian, and had some weird attacks on Walz about the type of fertility treatment he and his wife had.
The anti-abortion movement can be quite anti-IVF too, for reasons that escape me. Vance subscribes to that view, being a rather radical type of Christian, and had some weird attacks on Walz about the type of fertility treatment he and his wife had.
It’s about the belief that all embryos are people, from the moment of conception. IVF involves discarding embryos.
Plenty of navies around the world have training ships like that. Being an island nation, it should be a rite of passage for British young adults to spend a few months developing their calluses on one.
Plenty of navies around the world have training ships like that. Being an island nation, it should be a rite of passage for British young adults to spend a few months developing their calluses on one.
The Royal Navy decided that mass sail training ships were a poor idea after losing a couple in the late 19th - hundreds died. The idea kinda staggered on - there was a massive resistance to getting rid of them.
I *think* there are various schemes for cadets and the like to go on existing tall ships. In very small numbers.
"Way back in 2016 when journalists/pundits/blue-checks (2016 version) were going crazy with "How did Trump possibly win" and offering up all sorts of crazy atavistic explanations, a few of us who had actually talked to voters before this, and so were not surprised, said, "Well, a whole lot of the country thinks the system is corrupt and you elites now screaming are who they think are the most corrupted," and they thought about that for a moment and said, "Naaaaaaah, American voters are dirty racist idiots and we don't need to change a bit,"
"And then they go and pull off the whole Biden isn't senile thing—which is more and more looking like they covered for a deeply detached and mentally incompetent president while a cadre of unelected bureaucrats could run stuff the way they wanted to run stuff and then they kept trying to do this telling whoever pointed it out that Biden sure looked out of it that no, don't believe your eyes, no you instead were lying misinformation spreaders who needed more education and were fascists as well, which because Biden was now so clearly a zombie that no amount of their usual big word lying could hide they got caught, and the result is the very person they hate the most, Trump, got elected again.
It really boggles the mind that a group could be lacking this much self awareness, this incompetent, and keep on stepping on rakes they way they do, all without suffering any consequences or moral reflection"
I think it's fair to say that the Dems had the worst of all possible worlds in 2016; a poor, or at least dreadfully advised, candidate and a poor campaign. They had a better campaign in 2020 but really should have had a younger candidate; surely somewhere there was a Governor or other prominent Dem who could have run?
Had Biden been Democratic nominee in 2016, as by rights historically he should have been as incumbent VP, he probably would have beaten Trump narrowly.
However the Democratic establishment insisted it had to be Hillary and she was the ideal candidate for Trump to beat and so Biden had to be called out of retirement to run in 2020 when he should have been running for his second term not his first, in which case win or lose he would not have been running last year when he was too old anyway
If Biden (or Hillary) had won in 2016, then Trump would have done the same thing he did in 2020. He would have claimed that the election was stolen.
Biden would have faced a hostile Senate and Congress, and would be unable to to anything. This would have caused increased disillusionment among Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans would get angrier and angier after 12 years of rule by Democratic Presidents.
In 2020, Covid would happen, and Congressional Republicans would do their best to crash the economy so that Biden lost the upcoming election. Republicans would be even angrier if a Democratic President tried to impose Covid restrictions, and there would be mass civil unrest by Republicans protesting against these restrictions.
Trump would have kept his second candidacy viable by continuing to claim that the 2016 election had been rigged against him. In an atmosphere of intense Republican anger, he would have won the 2020 nomination and then because of the crashing Covid economy, he would have won the 2020 election in a landslide.
He would have been a lot better than Biden at claiming credit for the post-Covid recovery, and wouldn't have lost control of the border, and would have easily won re-election in 2024.
Had Trump lost in 2016 the GOP may well have picked Cruz or Rubio in 2020 instead
As long as Trump ran again, and he would have, he would have easily dispatched Cruz and Rubio, and anyone else who ran against him in the primaries.
He has immense charisma because of his TV career, he is amazingly good at communicating on social media, and most importantly he is able to effectively channel the visceral anger that the Republican base feels towards liberals and Democrats.
He would have spent the entire 4 years from 2016 to 2020 stoking the anger of the Republicans against all the things that Biden was doing, and all of Biden's communist Covid restrictions, and how the 2016 election was stolen. He would easily won the 2020 Republican nomination.
To that extent true, like Boris who was the most charismatic Conservative leader since Thatcher, Trump is the most charismatic Republican leader since Reagan.
However Trump cannot run again which does not bode well for the GOP given next in line are the likes of deathly dull Vance and given Tory electoral fortunes since they got rid of Boris
Yes, it's an unpopular opinion on this site, but I agree with you that Boris can defeat both Starmer and Farage, and the Conservatives should go on bended knee to him & make him leader.
Boris is able to very effectively project sunny optimism and make voters feel good about the future of the country. Starmer is hated because he makes voters feel miserable & hopeless about the future.
Given a choice between a PM who is making them miserable, an Opposition leader who is able to make them feel optimistic, and a 3rd Party leader who is untested & potentially risky, I think they will choose the Opposition leader Boris.
A Tory split in some form - between One Nationers and ToryReformers has to happen at some point, whether decided by the voters or the party. Boris in charge would speed it up and take on Reform. The rest is unpredictable, as Boris is a change maker and an uncertainty maker.
Plenty of navies around the world have training ships like that. Being an island nation, it should be a rite of passage for British young adults to spend a few months developing their calluses on one.
The RN don't have a sailing ship like the America Constitution or the Russian Kruzenshtern. The money pit Victory doesn't count because she hasn't been to sea since the 1920s and won't be going to sea even again after her 50m quid refit.
The anti-abortion movement can be quite anti-IVF too, for reasons that escape me. Vance subscribes to that view, being a rather radical type of Christian, and had some weird attacks on Walz about the type of fertility treatment he and his wife had.
The joint beliefs (not held by me) arise from principles of natural law. which underlies Roman Catholic moral teaching. They are logical but wrong. Sadly nature isn't nice enough to be the sole foundation of our conduct. Though natural law is a useful starting point for thinking about hard issues.
How many times do certain starry-eyed fanboys have to be reminded that by the end of his career Johnson was anything but a vote winner?
He might have ridden out his various crimes - repeat, crimes - if he hadn't been absolutely thumped in two by-elections in formerly Conservative seats at the same time.
Moreover, he simply doesn't have the necessary qualities for leader of the opposition. He can turn phrases, given time, but he's easily flummoxed and he has the organisational skills of an Admiral of the Imperial Russian Navy after happy hour at a vodka bar.
The issue the Conservatives have is there is no easy, obvious or quick way out of this mess. They would be well advised to start with a major overhaul of the party system (which is why Badenoch was not the right candidate) including candidate selection, fundraising and membership. At that point, they can start thinking about policy again. And if they get those right, find a leader that can sell things.
That may well be three different leaders and ten years off, particularly if they go on another orgy of self-indulgence by picking Jenrick as leader at some point.
"Way back in 2016 when journalists/pundits/blue-checks (2016 version) were going crazy with "How did Trump possibly win" and offering up all sorts of crazy atavistic explanations, a few of us who had actually talked to voters before this, and so were not surprised, said, "Well, a whole lot of the country thinks the system is corrupt and you elites now screaming are who they think are the most corrupted," and they thought about that for a moment and said, "Naaaaaaah, American voters are dirty racist idiots and we don't need to change a bit,"
"And then they go and pull off the whole Biden isn't senile thing—which is more and more looking like they covered for a deeply detached and mentally incompetent president while a cadre of unelected bureaucrats could run stuff the way they wanted to run stuff and then they kept trying to do this telling whoever pointed it out that Biden sure looked out of it that no, don't believe your eyes, no you instead were lying misinformation spreaders who needed more education and were fascists as well, which because Biden was now so clearly a zombie that no amount of their usual big word lying could hide they got caught, and the result is the very person they hate the most, Trump, got elected again.
It really boggles the mind that a group could be lacking this much self awareness, this incompetent, and keep on stepping on rakes they way they do, all without suffering any consequences or moral reflection"
I think it's fair to say that the Dems had the worst of all possible worlds in 2016; a poor, or at least dreadfully advised, candidate and a poor campaign. They had a better campaign in 2020 but really should have had a younger candidate; surely somewhere there was a Governor or other prominent Dem who could have run?
Had Biden been Democratic nominee in 2016, as by rights historically he should have been as incumbent VP, he probably would have beaten Trump narrowly.
However the Democratic establishment insisted it had to be Hillary and she was the ideal candidate for Trump to beat and so Biden had to be called out of retirement to run in 2020 when he should have been running for his second term not his first, in which case win or lose he would not have been running last year when he was too old anyway
If Biden (or Hillary) had won in 2016, then Trump would have done the same thing he did in 2020. He would have claimed that the election was stolen.
Biden would have faced a hostile Senate and Congress, and would be unable to to anything. This would have caused increased disillusionment among Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans would get angrier and angier after 12 years of rule by Democratic Presidents.
In 2020, Covid would happen, and Congressional Republicans would do their best to crash the economy so that Biden lost the upcoming election. Republicans would be even angrier if a Democratic President tried to impose Covid restrictions, and there would be mass civil unrest by Republicans protesting against these restrictions.
Trump would have kept his second candidacy viable by continuing to claim that the 2016 election had been rigged against him. In an atmosphere of intense Republican anger, he would have won the 2020 nomination and then because of the crashing Covid economy, he would have won the 2020 election in a landslide.
He would have been a lot better than Biden at claiming credit for the post-Covid recovery, and wouldn't have lost control of the border, and would have easily won re-election in 2024.
Had Trump lost in 2016 the GOP may well have picked Cruz or Rubio in 2020 instead
As long as Trump ran again, and he would have, he would have easily dispatched Cruz and Rubio, and anyone else who ran against him in the primaries.
He has immense charisma because of his TV career, he is amazingly good at communicating on social media, and most importantly he is able to effectively channel the visceral anger that the Republican base feels towards liberals and Democrats.
He would have spent the entire 4 years from 2016 to 2020 stoking the anger of the Republicans against all the things that Biden was doing, and all of Biden's communist Covid restrictions, and how the 2016 election was stolen. He would easily won the 2020 Republican nomination.
To that extent true, like Boris who was the most charismatic Conservative leader since Thatcher, Trump is the most charismatic Republican leader since Reagan.
However Trump cannot run again which does not bode well for the GOP given next in line are the likes of deathly dull Vance and given Tory electoral fortunes since they got rid of Boris
Yes, it's an unpopular opinion on this site, but I agree with you that Boris can defeat both Starmer and Farage, and the Conservatives should go on bended knee to him & make him leader.
Boris is able to very effectively project sunny optimism and make voters feel good about the future of the country. Starmer is hated because he makes voters feel miserable & hopeless about the future.
Given a choice between a PM who is making them miserable, an Opposition leader who is able to make them feel optimistic, and a 3rd Party leader who is untested & potentially risky, I think they will choose the Opposition leader Boris.
A Tory split in some form - between One Nationers and ToryReformers has to happen at some point, whether decided by the voters or the party. Boris in charge would speed it up and take on Reform. The rest is unpredictable, as Boris is a change maker and an uncertainty maker.
To a significant extent, it already has happened. Once you discount those who have to say they are Conservatives because it's still their job, and those who knew Churchill's mother, there's not much left.
(There is a difference, in that the Conservative right have gone to Reform pretty much as a block, and the Conservative left seem to have scattered all over the place. I'd love to see a Sankey diagram of what has happened to the Conservative voters from, say, 2015.)
Plenty of navies around the world have training ships like that. Being an island nation, it should be a rite of passage for British young adults to spend a few months developing their calluses on one.
The Royal Navy decided that mass sail training ships were a poor idea after losing a couple in the late 19th - hundreds died. The idea kinda staggered on - there was a massive resistance to getting rid of them.
I *think* there are various schemes for cadets and the like to go on existing tall ships. In very small numbers.
Oh Christ, they had half the crew stood up on the yards before they reversed it into the bridge.
A Tory split in some form - between One Nationers and ToryReformers has to happen at some point, whether decided by the voters or the party. Boris in charge would speed it up and take on Reform. The rest is unpredictable, as Boris is a change maker and an uncertainty maker.
The tories are going to have to get Johnson back somehow or some way. Otherwise they are going to get ridden harder than Mountbatten's aide-de-camp.
I think it's do-able. The British people, in contrast with the Americans, love a redemption story. Philip Schofield on that island, Alan Partridge Bouncing Back, whatever the fuck Paul Ross is doing now, Gazza at the Huns and now Boris 2.0: thinner, wiser but as full of shit as ever.
How many times do certain starry-eyed fanboys have to be reminded that by the end of his career Johnson was anything but a vote winner?
He might have ridden out his various crimes - repeat, crimes - if he hadn't been absolutely thumped in two by-elections in formerly Conservative seats at the same time.
Moreover, he simply doesn't have the necessary qualities for leader of the opposition. He can turn phrases, given time, but he's easily flummoxed and he has the organisational skills of an Admiral of the Imperial Russian Navy after happy hour at a vodka bar.
The issue the Conservatives have is there is no easy, obvious or quick way out of this mess. They would be well advised to start with a major overhaul of the party system (which is why Badenoch was not the right candidate) including candidate selection, fundraising and membership. At that point, they can start thinking about policy again. And if they get those right, find a leader that can sell things.
That may well be three different leaders and ten years off, particularly if they go on another orgy of self-indulgence by picking Jenrick as leader at some point.
This is politics; Boris could both be a disaster and the best available option if the Tories want to be challengers in the next election when at the moment they are going to come fourth (or even fifth in seats). That he won't get our votes is not the point.
How many times do certain starry-eyed fanboys have to be reminded that by the end of his career Johnson was anything but a vote winner?
He might have ridden out his various crimes - repeat, crimes - if he hadn't been absolutely thumped in two by-elections in formerly Conservative seats at the same time.
Moreover, he simply doesn't have the necessary qualities for leader of the opposition. He can turn phrases, given time, but he's easily flummoxed and he has the organisational skills of an Admiral of the Imperial Russian Navy after happy hour at a vodka bar.
The issue the Conservatives have is there is no easy, obvious or quick way out of this mess. They would be well advised to start with a major overhaul of the party system (which is why Badenoch was not the right candidate) including candidate selection, fundraising and membership. At that point, they can start thinking about policy again. And if they get those right, find a leader that can sell things.
That may well be three different leaders and ten years off, particularly if they go on another orgy of self-indulgence by picking Jenrick as leader at some point.
This is politics; Boris could both be a disaster and the best available option if the Tories want to be challengers in the next election when at the moment they are going to come fourth (or even fifth in seats). That he won't get our votes is not the point.
No, you're right. The point is that he won't get *any* votes.
The anti-abortion movement can be quite anti-IVF too, for reasons that escape me. Vance subscribes to that view, being a rather radical type of Christian, and had some weird attacks on Walz about the type of fertility treatment he and his wife had.
It’s about the belief that all embryos are people, from the moment of conception. IVF involves discarding embryos.
So why then burn down the clinic, destroying the embryos?
Plenty of navies around the world have training ships like that. Being an island nation, it should be a rite of passage for British young adults to spend a few months developing their calluses on one.
The Royal Navy decided that mass sail training ships were a poor idea after losing a couple in the late 19th - hundreds died. The idea kinda staggered on - there was a massive resistance to getting rid of them.
I *think* there are various schemes for cadets and the like to go on existing tall ships. In very small numbers.
Oh Christ, they had half the crew stood up on the yards before they reversed it into the bridge.
Manning the yards….
Lost power* some say, and going under the bridge wasn’t the plan. Plus they may or may not have been using a tug. Lots of confusion.
How many times do certain starry-eyed fanboys have to be reminded that by the end of his career Johnson was anything but a vote winner?
He might have ridden out his various crimes - repeat, crimes - if he hadn't been absolutely thumped in two by-elections in formerly Conservative seats at the same time.
Moreover, he simply doesn't have the necessary qualities for leader of the opposition. He can turn phrases, given time, but he's easily flummoxed and he has the organisational skills of an Admiral of the Imperial Russian Navy after happy hour at a vodka bar.
The issue the Conservatives have is there is no easy, obvious or quick way out of this mess. They would be well advised to start with a major overhaul of the party system (which is why Badenoch was not the right candidate) including candidate selection, fundraising and membership. At that point, they can start thinking about policy again. And if they get those right, find a leader that can sell things.
That may well be three different leaders and ten years off, particularly if they go on another orgy of self-indulgence by picking Jenrick as leader at some point.
That's part of the Conservative problem. The other part is that they don't really have ten years to play with before the waves close over them. As of now, their most powerful political figures are the mayors of Tees Valley and Greater Cambridgeshire.
How many times do certain starry-eyed fanboys have to be reminded that by the end of his career Johnson was anything but a vote winner?
He might have ridden out his various crimes - repeat, crimes - if he hadn't been absolutely thumped in two by-elections in formerly Conservative seats at the same time.
Moreover, he simply doesn't have the necessary qualities for leader of the opposition. He can turn phrases, given time, but he's easily flummoxed and he has the organisational skills of an Admiral of the Imperial Russian Navy after happy hour at a vodka bar.
The issue the Conservatives have is there is no easy, obvious or quick way out of this mess. They would be well advised to start with a major overhaul of the party system (which is why Badenoch was not the right candidate) including candidate selection, fundraising and membership. At that point, they can start thinking about policy again. And if they get those right, find a leader that can sell things.
That may well be three different leaders and ten years off, particularly if they go on another orgy of self-indulgence by picking Jenrick as leader at some point.
That's part of the Conservative problem. The other part is that they don't really have ten years to play with before the waves close over them. As of now, their most powerful political figures are the mayors of Tees Valley and Greater Cambridgeshire.
We don't know that. Reform are riding high at the moment, but while Farage has had more comebacks than an opera singer riding on a boomerang his increasing age may tell against him, as may the fact that following the elections a fortnight ago we're actually going to see Reform running things and doing it very badly (this is inevitable, regardless of the quality of their candidates, due to the current crisis in local government). It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where the wheels come off and Reform collapse.
Whether the Tories are in a good position to profit if they do is another question entirely.
The anti-abortion movement can be quite anti-IVF too, for reasons that escape me. Vance subscribes to that view, being a rather radical type of Christian, and had some weird attacks on Walz about the type of fertility treatment he and his wife had.
It’s about the belief that all embryos are people, from the moment of conception. IVF involves discarding embryos.
So why then burn down the clinic, destroying the embryos?
We had to destroy the village to save it.
Sacrifices must be made on the Long Road To Perfection. We have decided you are some of them.
The anti-abortion movement can be quite anti-IVF too, for reasons that escape me. Vance subscribes to that view, being a rather radical type of Christian, and had some weird attacks on Walz about the type of fertility treatment he and his wife had.
It’s about the belief that all embryos are people, from the moment of conception. IVF involves discarding embryos.
So why then burn down the clinic, destroying the embryos?
We had to destroy the village to save it.
Sacrifices must be made on the Long Road To Perfection. We have decided you are some of them.
We must be prepared to give up, not just a part but if necessary, the whole of our constitution in order to preserve the remainder.
How many times do certain starry-eyed fanboys have to be reminded that by the end of his career Johnson was anything but a vote winner?
He might have ridden out his various crimes - repeat, crimes - if he hadn't been absolutely thumped in two by-elections in formerly Conservative seats at the same time.
Moreover, he simply doesn't have the necessary qualities for leader of the opposition. He can turn phrases, given time, but he's easily flummoxed and he has the organisational skills of an Admiral of the Imperial Russian Navy after happy hour at a vodka bar.
The issue the Conservatives have is there is no easy, obvious or quick way out of this mess. They would be well advised to start with a major overhaul of the party system (which is why Badenoch was not the right candidate) including candidate selection, fundraising and membership. At that point, they can start thinking about policy again. And if they get those right, find a leader that can sell things.
That may well be three different leaders and ten years off, particularly if they go on another orgy of self-indulgence by picking Jenrick as leader at some point.
This is politics; Boris could both be a disaster and the best available option if the Tories want to be challengers in the next election when at the moment they are going to come fourth (or even fifth in seats). That he won't get our votes is not the point.
Boriswave II. The return of Boris, he’d have that hung round his neck but other parties and would rapidly lost electoral support.
To understand Reform's appeal, I think it's important to focus less on the immigration and more on their very effective messaging on economics & pocketbook issues:
Asked for one of the party’s flagship stances ahead of the vote in May of next year, Mr Tice pointed to support for oil and gas.
“Drill Scotland, drill,” he said.
“Let’s use the oil and gas treasure, let’s issue more licences, let’s encourage investment offshore and onshore. Because we’ve got all this energy treasure, we should use it, it’s ours and that’s the way to create highly skilled, highly paid jobs.”
Asked about the reserve nature of what he said was one of his party’s key policies, Mr Tice said: “People know that if we do well in Scotland, it will terrify Labour, it’ll terrify the SNP, it’ll terrify the eco-zealots. Then when we win, the people of Scotland have the opportunity to send a message to Westminster – we want oil, we want gas, we want more money in our pockets.”
The problem the Tories face at the moment is one of relevance. They had that in the years of Blair's domination too as he controlled the middle ground and took his more left wing members for granted but its much worse this time.
Reform are setting the agenda not only for the opposition but even for a Labour government which seems to have no clear idea what it wants other than to be in power. If Reform were offering something coherent or even sane this would almost be tolerable but instead they are simply giving vent to the bigotry and deep sense of frustration that so many feel with the modern world.
We need to find a way to rebuild our society, our economy, our principles and then, I think, have a decent lunch.
The anti-abortion movement can be quite anti-IVF too, for reasons that escape me. Vance subscribes to that view, being a rather radical type of Christian, and had some weird attacks on Walz about the type of fertility treatment he and his wife had.
IMO JD Vance is not a radical anything, especially a "radical type of Christian". He's a Roman Catholic in the same way that Mussolini was a Roman Catholic - he wants a convenient badge that he can hang his reactionary values on, and which will play to his support base. He is also politically pragmatic because he is unhealthily obsessed with power (aka choose your word; I go with "Vicar of Bray"), and as his potential support moves, so will he.
He uses his religion to validate his reactionary values, which is entirely backwards.
I find it interesting how timid he is - as soon as anyone, whether a Conference of Bishops, or a Pope, or Rory Stewart, ask him a question or disagree, he puts out a couple of inane soundbites, then launches a personal attack.
That's the symptom of an individual who is a frightened little mouse; in Vance's case it's worse because he thinks he has a Colt 45, and that that counts. He's a mirror of the Trumpvangelical side; little thought but lots of shouting, followed by threats. What he does have is a Yale lawyer's polish, so he can blend in in a salon.
If you want me to position him on the religious spectrum, imo in type he's like one of the 'Judaizers' (Acts of the Apostles) who demanded that all converts be circumcised, as they struggled with the idea that any Gentiles should be accepted by their newly extended religion. Then St Paul came along and explained that it was bigger than just them. In Vance's case he was a religion that is domesticated under USA politics, like a pet canary.
There's always space for a politician to come along and go even further right- think Eric Zemmour to Marine le Pen. It doesn't destroy the Farage bubble, but it sucks some air out of it. And Reform don't have that much headroom to play with, even now.
The anti-abortion movement can be quite anti-IVF too, for reasons that escape me. Vance subscribes to that view, being a rather radical type of Christian, and had some weird attacks on Walz about the type of fertility treatment he and his wife had.
JD Vance is not radical anything, especially a "radical type of Christian". He's a Roman Catholic in the same way that Mussolini was a Roman Catholic - he wants a convenient badge that he can hang his reactionary values on, and which will play to his support base. If his potential support moves, so will he.
He uses his religion to validate his reactionary values, which is entirely backwards.
I find it interesting how timid he is - as soon as anyone, whether a Conference of Bishops, or a Pope, or Rory Stewart, ask him a question or disagree, he puts out a couple of inane soundbites, then launches a personal attack.
That's the symptom of an individual who is a frightened little mouse; in Vance's case it's worse because he thinks he has a Colt 45, and that that counts. He's a mirror of the Trumpvangelical side; little thought but lots of shouting, followed by threats.
If you want me to position him on the religious spectrum, imo in type he's like one of the 'Judaizers' (Acts of the Apostles) who demanded that all converts be circumcised, as they struggled with the idea that any Gentiles should be accepted by their newly extended religion. Then St Paul came along and explained that it was bigger than just them. In Vance's case he was a religion that is domesticated under Manifest Destiny.
I heard once that the difference between a believer and a zealot was that a believer thought he was on God's side, and a zealot thought that God was on his.
Three Iranian former asylum seekers have appeared in court accused of spying for Tehran.
The three men, who had been granted leave to remain after arriving in Britain in lorries and small boats, were charged with engaging in conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service following an investigation by counter-terror police.
How many times do certain starry-eyed fanboys have to be reminded that by the end of his career Johnson was anything but a vote winner?
He might have ridden out his various crimes - repeat, crimes - if he hadn't been absolutely thumped in two by-elections in formerly Conservative seats at the same time.
Moreover, he simply doesn't have the necessary qualities for leader of the opposition. He can turn phrases, given time, but he's easily flummoxed and he has the organisational skills of an Admiral of the Imperial Russian Navy after happy hour at a vodka bar.
The issue the Conservatives have is there is no easy, obvious or quick way out of this mess. They would be well advised to start with a major overhaul of the party system (which is why Badenoch was not the right candidate) including candidate selection, fundraising and membership. At that point, they can start thinking about policy again. And if they get those right, find a leader that can sell things.
That may well be three different leaders and ten years off, particularly if they go on another orgy of self-indulgence by picking Jenrick as leader at some point.
Of course you are right; especially in the para I have italicised. This requires a degree of patience and grownupness not really available in an age which constantly communicates on the basis of fixes being simple. Like the idea of Boris as leader.
it is interesting that the WFA is the issue the public all fix on. It combines simplicity and sentiment to perfection, and would be simple to fix. So the public and press focus on it.
Three Iranian former asylum seekers have appeared in court accused of spying for Tehran.
The three men, who had been granted leave to remain after arriving in Britain in lorries and small boats, were charged with engaging in conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service following an investigation by counter-terror police.
The anti-abortion movement can be quite anti-IVF too, for reasons that escape me. Vance subscribes to that view, being a rather radical type of Christian, and had some weird attacks on Walz about the type of fertility treatment he and his wife had.
JD Vance is not radical anything, especially a "radical type of Christian". He's a Roman Catholic in the same way that Mussolini was a Roman Catholic - he wants a convenient badge that he can hang his reactionary values on, and which will play to his support base. If his potential support moves, so will he.
He uses his religion to validate his reactionary values, which is entirely backwards.
I find it interesting how timid he is - as soon as anyone, whether a Conference of Bishops, or a Pope, or Rory Stewart, ask him a question or disagree, he puts out a couple of inane soundbites, then launches a personal attack.
That's the symptom of an individual who is a frightened little mouse; in Vance's case it's worse because he thinks he has a Colt 45, and that that counts. He's a mirror of the Trumpvangelical side; little thought but lots of shouting, followed by threats.
If you want me to position him on the religious spectrum, imo in type he's like one of the 'Judaizers' (Acts of the Apostles) who demanded that all converts be circumcised, as they struggled with the idea that any Gentiles should be accepted by their newly extended religion. Then St Paul came along and explained that it was bigger than just them. In Vance's case he was a religion that is domesticated under Manifest Destiny.
I heard once that the difference between a believer and a zealot was that a believer thought he was on God's side, and a zealot thought that God was on his.
The difference between God and a zealot is that God doesn’t think he is a zealot.
The anti-abortion movement can be quite anti-IVF too, for reasons that escape me. Vance subscribes to that view, being a rather radical type of Christian, and had some weird attacks on Walz about the type of fertility treatment he and his wife had.
IMO JD Vance is not a radical anything, especially a "radical type of Christian". He's a Roman Catholic in the same way that Mussolini was a Roman Catholic - he wants a convenient badge that he can hang his reactionary values on, and which will play to his support base. He is also politically pragmatic because he is unhealthily obsessed with power (aka choose your word; I go with "Vicar of Bray"), and as his potential support moves, so will he.
He uses his religion to validate his reactionary values, which is entirely backwards.
I find it interesting how timid he is - as soon as anyone, whether a Conference of Bishops, or a Pope, or Rory Stewart, ask him a question or disagree, he puts out a couple of inane soundbites, then launches a personal attack.
That's the symptom of an individual who is a frightened little mouse; in Vance's case it's worse because he thinks he has a Colt 45, and that that counts. He's a mirror of the Trumpvangelical side; little thought but lots of shouting, followed by threats. What he does have is a Yale lawyer's polish, so he can blend in in a salon.
If you want me to position him on the religious spectrum, imo in type he's like one of the 'Judaizers' (Acts of the Apostles) who demanded that all converts be circumcised, as they struggled with the idea that any Gentiles should be accepted by their newly extended religion. Then St Paul came along and explained that it was bigger than just them. In Vance's case he was a religion that is domesticated under USA politics, like a pet canary.
I didn't put quite as much thought into my post as you have in yours...
Three Iranian former asylum seekers have appeared in court accused of spying for Tehran.
The three men, who had been granted leave to remain after arriving in Britain in lorries and small boats, were charged with engaging in conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service following an investigation by counter-terror police.
No doubt they’ll be spared deportation because of their right to a family life.
They will suffer cruel and unusual punsihment at home, for failing in their mission to attack the Israeli embassy...
This feels like a great excuse for Starmer to invoke national security considerations on small boats. "We have evidence to suggest that foreign actors are subverting our generous refugee provisions in order to undermine UK democracy..."
Make a strong commitment to asylum from direct/neighbouring countries (e.g. Ukraine/Poland), and publish a draft revision to the 1951 Refugee Convention, ideally with support from the Nordics/France.
The anti-abortion movement can be quite anti-IVF too, for reasons that escape me. Vance subscribes to that view, being a rather radical type of Christian, and had some weird attacks on Walz about the type of fertility treatment he and his wife had.
JD Vance is not radical anything, especially a "radical type of Christian". He's a Roman Catholic in the same way that Mussolini was a Roman Catholic - he wants a convenient badge that he can hang his reactionary values on, and which will play to his support base. If his potential support moves, so will he.
He uses his religion to validate his reactionary values, which is entirely backwards.
I find it interesting how timid he is - as soon as anyone, whether a Conference of Bishops, or a Pope, or Rory Stewart, ask him a question or disagree, he puts out a couple of inane soundbites, then launches a personal attack.
That's the symptom of an individual who is a frightened little mouse; in Vance's case it's worse because he thinks he has a Colt 45, and that that counts. He's a mirror of the Trumpvangelical side; little thought but lots of shouting, followed by threats.
If you want me to position him on the religious spectrum, imo in type he's like one of the 'Judaizers' (Acts of the Apostles) who demanded that all converts be circumcised, as they struggled with the idea that any Gentiles should be accepted by their newly extended religion. Then St Paul came along and explained that it was bigger than just them. In Vance's case he was a religion that is domesticated under Manifest Destiny.
I heard once that the difference between a believer and a zealot was that a believer thought he was on God's side, and a zealot thought that God was on his.
The difference between God and a zealot is that God doesn’t think he is a zealot.
Don’t think most zealots think that they’re zealots.
‘Bombing a fertility clinic, a perfectly rational response to this crime against nature.’
According to the Sunday Times the UK will be re-joining the Erasmus scheme . Together with the youth mobility scheme it’s a step in the right direction for younger people to experience the wonderful cultures of Europe .
The anti-abortion movement can be quite anti-IVF too, for reasons that escape me. Vance subscribes to that view, being a rather radical type of Christian, and had some weird attacks on Walz about the type of fertility treatment he and his wife had.
JD Vance is not radical anything, especially a "radical type of Christian". He's a Roman Catholic in the same way that Mussolini was a Roman Catholic - he wants a convenient badge that he can hang his reactionary values on, and which will play to his support base. If his potential support moves, so will he.
He uses his religion to validate his reactionary values, which is entirely backwards.
I find it interesting how timid he is - as soon as anyone, whether a Conference of Bishops, or a Pope, or Rory Stewart, ask him a question or disagree, he puts out a couple of inane soundbites, then launches a personal attack.
That's the symptom of an individual who is a frightened little mouse; in Vance's case it's worse because he thinks he has a Colt 45, and that that counts. He's a mirror of the Trumpvangelical side; little thought but lots of shouting, followed by threats.
If you want me to position him on the religious spectrum, imo in type he's like one of the 'Judaizers' (Acts of the Apostles) who demanded that all converts be circumcised, as they struggled with the idea that any Gentiles should be accepted by their newly extended religion. Then St Paul came along and explained that it was bigger than just them. In Vance's case he was a religion that is domesticated under Manifest Destiny.
I heard once that the difference between a believer and a zealot was that a believer thought he was on God's side, and a zealot thought that God was on his.
The difference between God and a zealot is that God doesn’t think he is a zealot.
Don’t think most zealots think that they’re zealots.
‘Bombing a fertility clinic, a perfectly rational response to this crime against nature.’
The point being that a zealot believes in his/her ability to make perfect moral judgements. Which, then, enables any action, no matter how extreme.
In most religions moral perfection is reserved for God(s).
The problem the Tories face at the moment is one of relevance. They had that in the years of Blair's domination too as he controlled the middle ground and took his more left wing members for granted but its much worse this time.
Reform are setting the agenda not only for the opposition but even for a Labour government which seems to have no clear idea what it wants other than to be in power. If Reform were offering something coherent or even sane this would almost be tolerable but instead they are simply giving vent to the bigotry and deep sense of frustration that so many feel with the modern world.
We need to find a way to rebuild our society, our economy, our principles and then, I think, have a decent lunch.
The other parties are making Reform's job easier. If the last 10 years had been a record of consistency, transparency, humility, huge competence and attention to political principle Reform's opponents would have something solid to work with. As it is,'They are all the same so let's go with the new kid' can't be argued away. Except, and this may prove important, to some extent by the LDs.
Assuming what he said is true, why did it need four police officers to arrest him? And why were they armed?
Because he owns, legally, shotguns. He’s a collector.
But why did it need six police to arrest the two parents in Hertfordshire who upset a school by questioning it, or the former PCSO in Kent where they misunderstood a tweet ?
Assuming what he said is true, why did it need four police officers to arrest him? And why were they armed?
Because he owns, legally, shotguns. He’s a collector.
But why did it need six police to arrest the two parents in Hertfordshire who upset a school by questioning it, or the former PCSO in Kent where they misunderstood a tweet ?
Or twenty to break down the door of a Quaker meeting house?
Assuming what he said is true, why did it need four police officers to arrest him? And why were they armed?
Because he owns, legally, shotguns. He’s a collector.
But why did it need six police to arrest the two parents in Hertfordshire who upset a school by questioning it, or the former PCSO in Kent where they misunderstood a tweet ?
Because Bad Think is in the same Process box as terroristic incitements to violence.
A major feature of the Process State is a fear of making a judgement based on morality or common sense.
So they categorised both of the above as equal to the guy hosting beheading videos.
The problem the Tories face at the moment is one of relevance. They had that in the years of Blair's domination too as he controlled the middle ground and took his more left wing members for granted but its much worse this time.
Reform are setting the agenda not only for the opposition but even for a Labour government which seems to have no clear idea what it wants other than to be in power. If Reform were offering something coherent or even sane this would almost be tolerable but instead they are simply giving vent to the bigotry and deep sense of frustration that so many feel with the modern world.
We need to find a way to rebuild our society, our economy, our principles and then, I think, have a decent lunch.
The other parties are making Reform's job easier. If the last 10 years had been a record of consistency, transparency, humility, huge competence and attention to political principle Reform's opponents would have something solid to work with. As it is,'They are all the same so let's go with the new kid' can't be argued away. Except, and this may prove important, to some extent by the LDs.
Indeed: this is a historic opportunity for the LibDems, because they can point to the coalition years as one of the few moments of decent government in the last 20 years. (With the exception of criminal justice, the fuckup of which ... and which to be fair was not a LibDem area ... continue to have issues today.)
If there was someone running the LibDems who was intelligent, articulate, and full of vim and vigour, then 2028/9 could be LD v Reform.
However, they are run by Ed Davey, and while Daisy Cooper is perfectly fine, they aren't exactly stuffed with charisma-magnets.
Comments
Sweden 17 per cent
Austria 15%
Albania & Finland 6% each.
Betting Saturday morning had Sweden evens favourite and Austria 100/30 second-favourite.
Let's look at the UK: in the 2001 census, the proportion people reporting no religion was 23.2%. By 2021, it was 37.8%. That's a massive shift in just 20 years.
There's been a similar - albeit smaller - move in the US. In 2000, just 14% identified with "none" for their religion. By 2020, it was 26%.
Other people have posted the numbers for other developed countries: and they pretty much all show the same trends.
If you dive into the numbers, they look even worse. Large chunks of people who identify with a religion, will also answer that they are unsure if god exists, or indeed (as is surprisingly common with Jews) actively actively atheist.
If you go to the developing world, you see a similar story - albeit from much lower levels of irreligiosity:
A comprehensive study by the World Values Survey found that from 2007 to 2019, 43 out of 49 countries surveyed became less religious. This decline wasn't limited to affluent nations; it also encompassed many developing countries. Factors contributing to this shift include rising education levels, urbanization, and increased access to information, which collectively reduce the reliance on religion for meaning and social cohesion.
Austria came a close second in the poll I just posted.
Leaving aside your take on geopolitics, what you are saying is you are out-of-touch with Eurovision. So am I, which is why I never watch it. This means I do not need to explain why the songs I liked best flopped, and those I hated won. I've not heard any of them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c991n8p4pdyo
Even cabinet ministers privately question whether Starmer will still be leader by the time of the next election. Next year could see Labour defeated in Scotland and Wales and bruised in London. Faced with the insurgent Farage, Rayner’s admirers believe that the plain-speaking deputy could be the party’s “Heineken candidate” – reaching the alienated voters who others can’t.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/opinion-silent-race-labour-leadership-050024937.html?
F1: bit sleepy but will start perusing the markets. Surprised how well Aston Martin did. I'll cover this more in the next podcast, but this is excellent news, for 2026 (indicates good correlation between new wind tunnel and real world data, which means the next car's design should work in reality as testing facilities indicate).
Licking the wounds of their lacerating encounters with disgruntled voters during the May Day elections, Sir Keir Starmer’s footsoldiers report that the most toxic source of discontent…is the decision to remove the winter fuel payment from 90% of pensioners. You can say – and with this argument I have some sympathy – that a universal payment of up to £300 regardless of means was a badly targeted Gordon Brown gimmick and ripe for reform. But the cut…also hits much less affluent pensioners, and at a time when energy bills are inflated.
There’s not much else that unites Farage, Badenoch, Davey and Corbyn, but opposition to this cut does. Rarely in the field of politics has so much electoral damage been wreaked for such a relatively meagre cash saving to the exchequer. Most of the cabinet grasped months ago that the chancellor made an egregious blunder.
It is clear that backing off would be politically smart, but it is also obvious that they won’t do that anytime soon. There’s growing expectation of a palliative tweak in the budget, but that event lies many months ahead, in the mists of the autumn. “I guess they’re scared of looking weak,” says one senior Labour MP.
It is true that many of the government’s money problems are down to its inheritance. Ministers are not wrong when they say that Labour was thrown a fiscal hospital pass by the Conservatives. That combination has been the more poisonous because Sir Keir failed to prepare the public for what his government would face. “We didn’t have out the big arguments about tax-and-spend before the election,” says one former cabinet minister. “We are now paying the price.” Indeed they are.
Even looking weak will pass.
Looking wrong will haunt them to the election.
The three men, who had been granted leave to remain after arriving in Britain in lorries and small boats, were charged with engaging in conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service following an investigation by counter-terror police.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/17/iranians-charged-counter-terror/
SNP = NOTA with independence - but poorer
REFORM = NOTA without independence - but the promise of being better off
The SNP should be terrified.
Betting PostF1: backing Aston Martin in three markets.
Alonso's evens (2.05 boosted) to beat Hamilton, but his car was way faster in qualifying and he starts 8 places higher.
I've also backed Alonso to beat the Williams/Ferraris (at 6, 6.5 boosted) in group 2. Williams are a threat but he does start ahead of them. Stroll to beat Hadjar, Gasly, and Antonelli in group 3 is my last bet, I've split a stake between the two group bets for roughly equal payout. That's 4, 4.1 with boost. Stroll isn't a good qualifier but still starts ahead of all the others in the group, and he's been solid in races for the most part this year.
https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/05/imola-grand-prix-2025-pre-race.html
They do realise it's the 21st Century, right?
Despite a somewhat interesting history for sail training ships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Eurydice_(1843)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Juno_(1844)
Edit: the Irish navy lost their sail training ship in 2008, IIRC
The West's population is collapsing as a percentage of a global population which is becoming ever more African.
Hence the global Muslim population is surging as I posted percentage wise, the Christian population holding steady and percentage wise the global atheist population in decline.
Having watched both semi-finals, Austria got my vote. More importantly, Austria got my wife's vote.
Though our rural churches still get reasonable attendance, including Catholics and evangelicals and the C of E has billions in assets it should invest in its parishes
"The FBI is investigating the explosion at a California fertility clinic as an act of terrorism - ABC News" https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/fbi-investigating-explosion-california-fertility-clinic-act-terrorism-121910900
I stopped watching a few years ago. The year some bearded bloke in a dress sang a dirge and won to beat the Polish milkmaids. A total travesty. It never was a test of musical excellence.
It's a hefty chunk of why the British State is in the state it's in.
(I'm not keen on the process or outcomes when the church commissioners allocate fixed dollops of cash to specific projects. But that's different to spending assets that are mostly there to cover liabilities we know about.)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14722837/Tory-sex-accidentally-sending-photograph-dressed-dog-WhatsApp.html
I *think* there are various schemes for cadets and the like to go on existing tall ships. In very small numbers.
Words evocative of the days when newspapers mattered.
He might have ridden out his various crimes - repeat, crimes - if he hadn't been absolutely thumped in two by-elections in formerly Conservative seats at the same time.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61922077
Moreover, he simply doesn't have the necessary qualities for leader of the opposition. He can turn phrases, given time, but he's easily flummoxed and he has the organisational skills of an Admiral of the Imperial Russian Navy after happy hour at a vodka bar.
The issue the Conservatives have is there is no easy, obvious or quick way out of this mess. They would be well advised to start with a major overhaul of the party system (which is why Badenoch was not the right candidate) including candidate selection, fundraising and membership. At that point, they can start thinking about policy again. And if they get those right, find a leader that can sell things.
That may well be three different leaders and ten years off, particularly if they go on another orgy of self-indulgence by picking Jenrick as leader at some point.
(There is a difference, in that the Conservative right have gone to Reform pretty much as a block, and the Conservative left seem to have scattered all over the place. I'd love to see a Sankey diagram of what has happened to the Conservative voters from, say, 2015.)
I think it's do-able. The British people, in contrast with the Americans, love a redemption story. Philip Schofield on that island, Alan Partridge Bouncing Back, whatever the fuck Paul Ross is doing now, Gazza at the Huns and now Boris 2.0: thinner, wiser but as full of shit as ever.
Lost power* some say, and going under the bridge wasn’t the plan. Plus they may or may not have been using a tug. Lots of confusion.
*obviously not for the lighting.
Whether the Tories are in a good position to profit if they do is another question entirely.
Sacrifices must be made on the Long Road To Perfection. We have decided you are some of them.
Sir Boyle Roche.
https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1923988866085597482?s=61
If, however, he sues Farage for libel and wins, that might have a rather unfortunate effect on Refuk's finances.
*They've definitely chosen not to share, but to shaft.
Reform are setting the agenda not only for the opposition but even for a Labour government which seems to have no clear idea what it wants other than to be in power. If Reform were offering something coherent or even sane this would almost be tolerable but instead they are simply giving vent to the bigotry and deep sense of frustration that so many feel with the modern world.
We need to find a way to rebuild our society, our economy, our principles and then, I think, have a decent lunch.
He uses his religion to validate his reactionary values, which is entirely backwards.
I find it interesting how timid he is - as soon as anyone, whether a Conference of Bishops, or a Pope, or Rory Stewart, ask him a question or disagree, he puts out a couple of inane soundbites, then launches a personal attack.
That's the symptom of an individual who is a frightened little mouse; in Vance's case it's worse because he thinks he has a Colt 45, and that that counts. He's a mirror of the Trumpvangelical side; little thought but lots of shouting, followed by threats. What he does have is a Yale lawyer's polish, so he can blend in in a salon.
If you want me to position him on the religious spectrum, imo in type he's like one of the 'Judaizers' (Acts of the Apostles) who demanded that all converts be circumcised, as they struggled with the idea that any Gentiles should be accepted by their newly extended religion. Then St Paul came along and explained that it was bigger than just them. In Vance's case he was a religion that is domesticated under USA politics, like a pet canary.
it is interesting that the WFA is the issue the public all fix on. It combines simplicity and sentiment to perfection, and would be simple to fix. So the public and press focus on it.
Until it turns out that he can’t burst the Reform bubble. In which case he was always an asshole.
Make a strong commitment to asylum from direct/neighbouring countries (e.g. Ukraine/Poland), and publish a draft revision to the 1951 Refugee Convention, ideally with support from the Nordics/France.
Can Rupert Lowe really compete with that ?
‘Bombing a fertility clinic, a perfectly rational response to this crime against nature.’
NEW THREAD
In most religions moral perfection is reserved for God(s).
But why did it need six police to arrest the two parents in Hertfordshire who upset a school by questioning it, or the former PCSO in Kent where they misunderstood a tweet ?
A major feature of the Process State is a fear of making a judgement based on morality or common sense.
So they categorised both of the above as equal to the guy hosting beheading videos.
If there was someone running the LibDems who was intelligent, articulate, and full of vim and vigour, then 2028/9 could be LD v Reform.
However, they are run by Ed Davey, and while Daisy Cooper is perfectly fine, they aren't exactly stuffed with charisma-magnets.