Just how low can Badenoch’s Tories go? – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Montie on TV saying that Tories are seriously considering bringing back BoZo
They are so done...1 -
The Kinabalu Oracle, available from all good newsagents.kinabalu said:
Yes, let's get going on that. You can edit, I'll do the accounts.WhisperingOracle said:
Also as a second distraction from the effects of the post-Thatcher settlement, just like the left version can sometimes be, too. The UK needskinabalu said:
Trouble is, the antiwoke tendency (as exemplified on UnHerd) is not noticeably supportive of egalitarian policies. My suspicion is they use the "immigration damages the working class" argument as cover for the real objection to it - a belief the west should stay white.Cookie said:
The Unherd lot will tell you that (paraphrasing wildly) identity politics is a tool for the corporate west to distract from economic inequality. I'm not necessarily bought into this as a conspiracy, but it certainly has this effect. And thus, the working classes turn away from the left, because the left deals with issues of increasing irrelevance to them.kinabalu said:
Yes the left is (sadly from my pov) in the doldrums. Eg in all of the mainstream discourse about policies, priorities, problems etc there is hardly a mention these days of what is and always has been my biggest political interest - the reduction of inequality. Nobody seems bothered about it. Or if they are it's just accepted there's no appetite or realistic possibility of doing anything serious in that space. It's afflicted me too if I'm honest. I don't care as much as I used to. If something is not happening it seems a bit pointless to stay invested in it. Then again, tell that to a lifelong Crystal Palace supporter.Sean_F said:Things come to an end.
The Conservatives relied upon persuading the elites that they could protect their property; persuading centrists that they could keep the right in check; and persuading the right that they were their least bad option.
But, nobody really believes that radical socialists now threaten property; centrists are furious about the EU, and the right view the Conservatives as being as bad as the rest.
a publication, media space, or platform that isn't afraid to reveal the entire scene.
1 -
There is an element of luck throughout the system. Luck about being caught, luck about the consequences of what a person did, luck about being convicted or not, luck about what the CPS decides to charge and what they can manage to prove beyond reasonable doubt.isam said:
I see what you mean, but I think there is a decent argument that driving after having a skinful and getting away with it should be punished as if you’d hit and killed someone. The person who did the latter is no worse than the formerkinabalu said:
Yep you can argue that. It's logical. But think where it goes. Eg I have a skinful and drive my car. Scenario A, the cops stop me and I get done for DUI. Scenario B, I hit and kill someone. My behaviour is equally bad in both scenarios, isn't it, but would we want to see the same punishment?isam said:
Seems completely crazy, and would be ludicrously frustrating, on top of a load of other frustrations, for the innocent prisonerkinabalu said:
That is a fiendish conundrum, isn't it. You get early release by admitting guilt. But you won't want to do that if you're innocent.Dopermean said:
No the fundamental difference is this "Malkinson could have been released after 6½ years but was not due to his maintaining his innocence.[15] He was released in 2020 for good behaviour."eek said:
Tommy many names was jailed for 18 monthsDopermean said:
Two tier justiceisam said:Tommy Robinson is being released from prison next week. That's eleven months early I think
Robinson, a multiple offender who has shown no contrition for his offending gets parole
Malkinson and others wrongly convicted serve their full tariff despite being model prisoners, only being released when their convictions are overturned
Malkinson was jailed for 31 months.
That's the fundamental difference as even if both were given identical treatment and released after 40% of their sentence was served Tommy is going to be out 4 to 5 months earlier.
Robinson is a recidivist who has shown no contrition for his offending but is being released after serving a 1/3 of reduced sentence, Malkinson, and others who maintain their innocence, are not eligible for early parole regardless of their risk of reoffending or behaviour in prison, solely because they contest their conviction.
The latter is institutionalized spite by the Criminal Justice system for questioning the process and safety of the conviction.
I am sure I have mentioned this before, but another crazy thing for me is the lesser sentence for attempted murder than murder. If a person who has been stabbed is saved by a passing medic while another a street away dies because no one sees him, why should the two assailants be treated any differently? They both had a desire to kill someone, and acted on it. The intention should be judged, not the outcome
Every person who goes over 30 in a residential area, and everyone who jumps a red light can end up unlawfully killing the child who runs into the road.
That's the way it is. If Thomas Cashman, now serving life, minimum 40+ years IIRC (Liverpool, the Olivia aged 9 case) had fired his shot at another house and missed the victim etc the endless work would not have gone into proving the case against him, and at least one crucial witness would have remained silent. It is unlikely he would have been caught. Luck. And bad luck.0 -
Doesn't he work for the other side now?Scott_xP said:Montie on TV saying that Tories are seriously considering bringing back BoZo
They are so done...0 -
Hooray ! We're going to get the organ-grinder, monkey and 1922 spring fair again.Scott_xP said:Montie on TV saying that Tories are seriously considering bringing back BoZo
They are so done...
I love these local Tory fayres.0 -
Again you confuse free-thinking with a lack of discipline.Leon said:
Observing your tiny mind at work is like staring in a rock pool, watching the anemones and minnowskinabalu said:
Totally. Although the Trump shooting is explained and LabLeak is not commonly accepted.Leon said:
The Trump sassytempt is one of the weirdest “narrative loose ends” of recent times. If I were - god forbid - a thriller writer, there’s no way I’d get away with such an insane plot twist, that comes and goes without explanationCookie said:
This reminds me vaguely of a theory: the more ridiculous a thing looks, the more likely it is that it was put in place by time travellers coming back from the future to fix things which would have otherwise caused an apocalypse. The stranger things get, the more apocalypses we have been through and had averted by time travellers putting in place bodge jobs. I wish I could remember more of this theory.Leon said:
Ditto lab leak. For two years almost illegal to mention. Now commonly accepted. But the reaction is “oh well shit happens, move on”. 20 million people died and we just *move on*
I’ve decided the only sane response is to *chuckle knowingly*0 -
There is no reason at all not to take a liberal market solution to Thames Water.dixiedean said:Thames Water is bringing out my inner Bolshevik.
Oh you're out of money? That's sad, goodbye.
Shareholders and bond holders wiped out. Buyer beware, should have done better due diligence.
Assets go to highest bidder, and if no bidders then a newco, to ensure continuity of supplies.
Customers don't lose out. Services aren't interrupted.
Privatise the gains, privatise the losses. There is zero reason for the taxpayer or consumer to foot private losses.9 -
Afternoon all
We forget @MoonRabbit is the other Conservative...
It's one poll and means nothing in isolation. Opinium had a 5-point gap at the weekend. Perhaps of more significance, apart from More In Common, the Conservatives have been below 20% in every poll conducted since the local elections.
The only answer I think is the old cobbler saying "time wounds all heels". While we witter on about what happened 10-15 years ago as though it were still of vital importance, most voters don't. The memory of the Conservatives in office will fade with time and they will then have the opportunity (as in 2005) to go back to the public with a new slate, new faces and new thinking.
Anyone and everyone associated with the 2010-24 period such as Boris, JRM and Badenoch - all of them need to walk away and clear the field for the next generation whoever that may be.2 -
Nothing is surprising about the Tories. The first test for Boris, to prove whether he still has what it takes, would be the challenge of winning some random seat. There is now not a a single seat in the entire country which could be taken for granted by any Tory. If he took it on and succeeded he would be 30% of the way to a position from which political change could occur. It would not be good news, but it would be box office; all PBers would at least secretly rejoice.Scott_xP said:Montie on TV saying that Tories are seriously considering bringing back BoZo
They are so done...
(The nearest thing, though not very near, to a safe seat would be Richmond, IMHO. Not impossible....)0 -
Trouble with that is that whilst I'm against drink driving, I'd want to distinguish between "had one pint too many, then drove a mile home home in a steady and careful manner" and "downed 15 pints and was then pulled over after been seen driving at 100mph on the wrong side of the road in 30 limit".isam said:
I see what you mean, but I think there is a decent argument that driving after having a skinful and getting away with it should be punished as if you’d hit and killed someone. The person who did the latter is no worse than the formerkinabalu said:
Yep you can argue that. It's logical. But think where it goes. Eg I have a skinful and drive my car. Scenario A, the cops stop me and I get done for DUI. Scenario B, I hit and kill someone. My behaviour is equally bad in both scenarios, isn't it, but would we want to see the same punishment?isam said:
Seems completely crazy, and would be ludicrously frustrating, on top of a load of other frustrations, for the innocent prisonerkinabalu said:
That is a fiendish conundrum, isn't it. You get early release by admitting guilt. But you won't want to do that if you're innocent.Dopermean said:
No the fundamental difference is this "Malkinson could have been released after 6½ years but was not due to his maintaining his innocence.[15] He was released in 2020 for good behaviour."eek said:
Tommy many names was jailed for 18 monthsDopermean said:
Two tier justiceisam said:Tommy Robinson is being released from prison next week. That's eleven months early I think
Robinson, a multiple offender who has shown no contrition for his offending gets parole
Malkinson and others wrongly convicted serve their full tariff despite being model prisoners, only being released when their convictions are overturned
Malkinson was jailed for 31 months.
That's the fundamental difference as even if both were given identical treatment and released after 40% of their sentence was served Tommy is going to be out 4 to 5 months earlier.
Robinson is a recidivist who has shown no contrition for his offending but is being released after serving a 1/3 of reduced sentence, Malkinson, and others who maintain their innocence, are not eligible for early parole regardless of their risk of reoffending or behaviour in prison, solely because they contest their conviction.
The latter is institutionalized spite by the Criminal Justice system for questioning the process and safety of the conviction.
I am sure I have mentioned this before, but another crazy thing for me is the lesser sentence for attempted murder than murder. If a person who has been stabbed is saved by a passing medic while another a street away dies because no one sees him, why should the two assailants be treated any differently? They both had a desire to kill someone, and acted on it. The intention should be judged, not the outcome
Both are wrong. Both have an elevated risk of killing someone, but the second guy is obviously far more of a danger to life than the first. It seems profoundly unfair if we treat them both the same, because their actions *might* have killed someone.0 -
Re the header article: so are we seeing a fundamental re-alignment of British politics along a Reform / LibDem axis?0
-
This. This. A million times this.theProle said:
I still don't understand why either the tax payers or bill payers need to be even slightly on the hook for this.Nigelb said:
It's a blatant lie that customers won't end up paying for any of this.dixiedean said:Thames Water is bringing out my inner Bolshevik.
And there is fuck all reason for a monopoly utility to be paying this sort of cost for a loan - other than that the company is effectively bankrupt.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/may/20/thames-water-chair-mps-bonuses-sir-adrian-montague
..The UK’s largest water company is in a desperate race to raise funds and persuade the water regulator to let it off hundreds of millions of pounds of fines or risk being renationalised. The company won a court battle which allowed it to accept the loan, which comes with an expensive 9.75% interest rate and fees...
Which do you think will cost us more in the long run ?
Taking it into public ownership - or handing it over to yet another bunch of foreign venture capitalists ?
..The company, which serves about a quarter of the country’s population, is loaded with £20bn in debt and is now in exclusive discussions with the private equity group KKR over a potential purchase of the business...
The reality is that the taxpayer and the bill payers are largely one and the same. Saving the taxpayer the cost if bailing the company out - at the expense of making customers pay that saving, plus whatever exorbitant dividends the next set of owners award themselves - is the falsest of economies.
Some idiots lent a bunch of vultures a load of money, who took the money and ran off with it. This money was secured against the assets of a business. The core business itself is profitable, just not sufficiently profitable to keep up the loan repayments.
The idiots now want the customers of the business and/or the taxpayers to pay them back. In any normal business in this situation you'd summon some administrators, sell the business, and give the idiots pennies in the £ of their back. Or alternatively they could do a debt - equity swap and end up the proud owners.
There is literally zero reason why this can't happen with Thames Water, other than the government and regulator both apparently having decided to bale out the idiots instead.
We have a process for resolving situations around bankruptcy.
Let Thames slide into administration. Its neither the taxpayers, nor the consumers, responsibility.5 -
As I am on Johnson at a range of prices from 6 to 11, my wallet is all in favour. But I know Richmondshire well and wouldn't want the place ruined in this way.algarkirk said:
Nothing is surprising about the Tories. The first test for Boris, to prove whether he still has what it takes, would be the challenge of winning some random seat. There is now not a a single seat in the entire country which could be taken for granted by any Tory. If he took it on and succeeded he would be 30% of the way to a position from which political change could occur. It would not be good news, but it would be box office; all PBers would at least secretly rejoice.Scott_xP said:Montie on TV saying that Tories are seriously considering bringing back BoZo
They are so done...
(The nearest thing, though not very near, to a safe seat would be Richmond, IMHO. Not impossible....)0 -
They could hand Rishi an Action Man sized revolver and one of those little bottles of whiskey you get in hotel minibars. Promise him a peerage and High Commissioner to India. His Mrs would like that as it's something money can't buy.algarkirk said:
Nothing is surprising about the Tories. The first test for Boris, to prove whether he still has what it takes, would be the challenge of winning some random seat. There is now not a a single seat in the entire country which could be taken for granted by any Tory. If he took it on and succeeded he would be 30% of the way to a position from which political change could occur. It would not be good news, but it would be box office; all PBers would at least secretly rejoice.Scott_xP said:Montie on TV saying that Tories are seriously considering bringing back BoZo
They are so done...
(The nearest thing, though not very near, to a safe seat would be Richmond, IMHO. Not impossible....)
The tories could probably hold on to Richmond on a Boris In Wellies campaign.1 -
FWIW I think there is a 20%+ chance of that being the basic configuration by the next GE. The current direction of travel is to eat up Parties of Government.Phil said:Re the header article: so are we seeing a fundamental re-alignment of British politics along a Reform / LibDem axis?
But more likely is an unacknowledged Reform/Lab-LD axis, replacing the Tory/Lab-LD axis in most of England now.0 -
The problem is Boris did his utmost to kill the Conservatives, as leader.algarkirk said:
Nothing is surprising about the Tories. The first test for Boris, to prove whether he still has what it takes, would be the challenge of winning some random seat. There is now not a a single seat in the entire country which could be taken for granted by any Tory. If he took it on and succeeded he would be 30% of the way to a position from which political change could occur. It would not be good news, but it would be box office; all PBers would at least secretly rejoice.Scott_xP said:Montie on TV saying that Tories are seriously considering bringing back BoZo
They are so done...
(The nearest thing, though not very near, to a safe seat would be Richmond, IMHO. Not impossible....)1 -
Not saying it will or should happen but is there, constitutionally, anything preventing the Leader of the Opposition (or opposition party) from being someone not in Parliament?
In Canada, Carney wasn't an MP when he became PM, let alone Liberal Party leader.
Presumably if not an MP, would need someone to deputise for PMQs, answering the Budget etc0 -
Give him an other shot at finishing them off. The Dr Shipman of politics!Sean_F said:
The problem is Boris did his utmost to kill the Conservatives, as leader.algarkirk said:
Nothing is surprising about the Tories. The first test for Boris, to prove whether he still has what it takes, would be the challenge of winning some random seat. There is now not a a single seat in the entire country which could be taken for granted by any Tory. If he took it on and succeeded he would be 30% of the way to a position from which political change could occur. It would not be good news, but it would be box office; all PBers would at least secretly rejoice.Scott_xP said:Montie on TV saying that Tories are seriously considering bringing back BoZo
They are so done...
(The nearest thing, though not very near, to a safe seat would be Richmond, IMHO. Not impossible....)0 -
If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot.theProle said:
Trouble with that is that whilst I'm against drink driving, I'd want to distinguish between "had one pint too many, then drove a mile home home in a steady and careful manner" and "downed 15 pints and was then pulled over after been seen driving at 100mph on the wrong side of the road in 30 limit".isam said:
I see what you mean, but I think there is a decent argument that driving after having a skinful and getting away with it should be punished as if you’d hit and killed someone. The person who did the latter is no worse than the formerkinabalu said:
Yep you can argue that. It's logical. But think where it goes. Eg I have a skinful and drive my car. Scenario A, the cops stop me and I get done for DUI. Scenario B, I hit and kill someone. My behaviour is equally bad in both scenarios, isn't it, but would we want to see the same punishment?isam said:
Seems completely crazy, and would be ludicrously frustrating, on top of a load of other frustrations, for the innocent prisonerkinabalu said:
That is a fiendish conundrum, isn't it. You get early release by admitting guilt. But you won't want to do that if you're innocent.Dopermean said:
No the fundamental difference is this "Malkinson could have been released after 6½ years but was not due to his maintaining his innocence.[15] He was released in 2020 for good behaviour."eek said:
Tommy many names was jailed for 18 monthsDopermean said:
Two tier justiceisam said:Tommy Robinson is being released from prison next week. That's eleven months early I think
Robinson, a multiple offender who has shown no contrition for his offending gets parole
Malkinson and others wrongly convicted serve their full tariff despite being model prisoners, only being released when their convictions are overturned
Malkinson was jailed for 31 months.
That's the fundamental difference as even if both were given identical treatment and released after 40% of their sentence was served Tommy is going to be out 4 to 5 months earlier.
Robinson is a recidivist who has shown no contrition for his offending but is being released after serving a 1/3 of reduced sentence, Malkinson, and others who maintain their innocence, are not eligible for early parole regardless of their risk of reoffending or behaviour in prison, solely because they contest their conviction.
The latter is institutionalized spite by the Criminal Justice system for questioning the process and safety of the conviction.
I am sure I have mentioned this before, but another crazy thing for me is the lesser sentence for attempted murder than murder. If a person who has been stabbed is saved by a passing medic while another a street away dies because no one sees him, why should the two assailants be treated any differently? They both had a desire to kill someone, and acted on it. The intention should be judged, not the outcome
Both are wrong. Both have an elevated risk of killing someone, but the second guy is obviously far more of a danger to life than the first. It seems profoundly unfair if we treat them both the same, because their actions *might* have killed someone.0 -
Nothing constitutionally, no. But party rules tend to require the leader to be an MP.BartholomewRoberts said:Not saying it will or should happen but is there, constitutionally, anything preventing the Leader of the Opposition (or opposition party) from being someone not in Parliament?
In Canada, Carney wasn't an MP when he became PM, let alone Liberal Party leader.
Presumably if not an MP, would need someone to deputise for PMQs, answering the Budget etc0 -
I have a standing bet with another PBer that Boris will return in time for the next election.
But I can’t remember which PBer.
Think it was £100.0 -
I'd say recent polling is pointing towards a very strong and persistent Lab leak.kinabalu said:
Totally. Although the Trump shooting is explained and LabLeak is not commonly accepted.Leon said:
The Trump sassytempt is one of the weirdest “narrative loose ends” of recent times. If I were - god forbid - a thriller writer, there’s no way I’d get away with such an insane plot twist, that comes and goes without explanationCookie said:
This reminds me vaguely of a theory: the more ridiculous a thing looks, the more likely it is that it was put in place by time travellers coming back from the future to fix things which would have otherwise caused an apocalypse. The stranger things get, the more apocalypses we have been through and had averted by time travellers putting in place bodge jobs. I wish I could remember more of this theory.Leon said:
Ditto lab leak. For two years almost illegal to mention. Now commonly accepted. But the reaction is “oh well shit happens, move on”. 20 million people died and we just *move on*
I’ve decided the only sane response is to *chuckle knowingly*1 -
Don't worry, my attention doesn't last for long. After a while the rockpool of your tiny mind begins to bore. I prod the anenome to see if it will move. I throw in a pebble to disturb the sticklebacks. They do what they always do, because they cannot do anything elsekinabalu said:
Again you confuse free-thinking with a lack of discipline.Leon said:
Observing your tiny mind at work is like staring in a rock pool, watching the anemones and minnowskinabalu said:
Totally. Although the Trump shooting is explained and LabLeak is not commonly accepted.Leon said:
The Trump sassytempt is one of the weirdest “narrative loose ends” of recent times. If I were - god forbid - a thriller writer, there’s no way I’d get away with such an insane plot twist, that comes and goes without explanationCookie said:
This reminds me vaguely of a theory: the more ridiculous a thing looks, the more likely it is that it was put in place by time travellers coming back from the future to fix things which would have otherwise caused an apocalypse. The stranger things get, the more apocalypses we have been through and had averted by time travellers putting in place bodge jobs. I wish I could remember more of this theory.Leon said:
Ditto lab leak. For two years almost illegal to mention. Now commonly accepted. But the reaction is “oh well shit happens, move on”. 20 million people died and we just *move on*
I’ve decided the only sane response is to *chuckle knowingly*
Then I yawn and run on, down the beach-1 -
Not in terms of British constitution. The issue is Conservative internal rules, and there are pretty powerful people who'd fight a change that would open the door to Johnson.BartholomewRoberts said:Not saying it will or should happen but is there, constitutionally, anything preventing the Leader of the Opposition (or opposition party) from being someone not in Parliament?
In Canada, Carney wasn't an MP when he became PM, let alone Liberal Party leader.
Presumably if not an MP, would need someone to deputise for PMQs, answering the Budget etc
I think it's all a bit fanciful.0 -
Having said that, the path does look v narrow.
Personally, I don’t want him back in any form.
Not even for entertainment value.
The man has been entirely destructive to British public life.3 -
Deputy Leader Jenrick would do all that in chamber for out of commons Boris. You can see it happening.BartholomewRoberts said:Not saying it will or should happen but is there, constitutionally, anything preventing the Leader of the Opposition (or opposition party) from being someone not in Parliament?
In Canada, Carney wasn't an MP when he became PM, let alone Liberal Party leader.
Presumably if not an MP, would need someone to deputise for PMQs, answering the Budget etc0 -
Definitely. That doesn't mean there aren't different degrees of idiocy, and I'm not sure it would be wise or helpful to band them together in a one size fit all sort of a way.BartholomewRoberts said:
If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot.theProle said:
Trouble with that is that whilst I'm against drink driving, I'd want to distinguish between "had one pint too many, then drove a mile home home in a steady and careful manner" and "downed 15 pints and was then pulled over after been seen driving at 100mph on the wrong side of the road in 30 limit".isam said:
I see what you mean, but I think there is a decent argument that driving after having a skinful and getting away with it should be punished as if you’d hit and killed someone. The person who did the latter is no worse than the formerkinabalu said:
Yep you can argue that. It's logical. But think where it goes. Eg I have a skinful and drive my car. Scenario A, the cops stop me and I get done for DUI. Scenario B, I hit and kill someone. My behaviour is equally bad in both scenarios, isn't it, but would we want to see the same punishment?isam said:
Seems completely crazy, and would be ludicrously frustrating, on top of a load of other frustrations, for the innocent prisonerkinabalu said:
That is a fiendish conundrum, isn't it. You get early release by admitting guilt. But you won't want to do that if you're innocent.Dopermean said:
No the fundamental difference is this "Malkinson could have been released after 6½ years but was not due to his maintaining his innocence.[15] He was released in 2020 for good behaviour."eek said:
Tommy many names was jailed for 18 monthsDopermean said:
Two tier justiceisam said:Tommy Robinson is being released from prison next week. That's eleven months early I think
Robinson, a multiple offender who has shown no contrition for his offending gets parole
Malkinson and others wrongly convicted serve their full tariff despite being model prisoners, only being released when their convictions are overturned
Malkinson was jailed for 31 months.
That's the fundamental difference as even if both were given identical treatment and released after 40% of their sentence was served Tommy is going to be out 4 to 5 months earlier.
Robinson is a recidivist who has shown no contrition for his offending but is being released after serving a 1/3 of reduced sentence, Malkinson, and others who maintain their innocence, are not eligible for early parole regardless of their risk of reoffending or behaviour in prison, solely because they contest their conviction.
The latter is institutionalized spite by the Criminal Justice system for questioning the process and safety of the conviction.
I am sure I have mentioned this before, but another crazy thing for me is the lesser sentence for attempted murder than murder. If a person who has been stabbed is saved by a passing medic while another a street away dies because no one sees him, why should the two assailants be treated any differently? They both had a desire to kill someone, and acted on it. The intention should be judged, not the outcome
Both are wrong. Both have an elevated risk of killing someone, but the second guy is obviously far more of a danger to life than the first. It seems profoundly unfair if we treat them both the same, because their actions *might* have killed someone.0 -
I bet it is something that money can buy.Dura_Ace said:
They could hand Rishi an Action Man sized revolver and one of those little bottles of whiskey you get in hotel minibars. Promise him a peerage and High Commissioner to India. His Mrs would like that as it's something money can't buy.algarkirk said:
Nothing is surprising about the Tories. The first test for Boris, to prove whether he still has what it takes, would be the challenge of winning some random seat. There is now not a a single seat in the entire country which could be taken for granted by any Tory. If he took it on and succeeded he would be 30% of the way to a position from which political change could occur. It would not be good news, but it would be box office; all PBers would at least secretly rejoice.Scott_xP said:Montie on TV saying that Tories are seriously considering bringing back BoZo
They are so done...
(The nearest thing, though not very near, to a safe seat would be Richmond, IMHO. Not impossible....)
The tories could probably hold on to Richmond on a Boris In Wellies campaign.
I think it's more realistic he becomes the candidate for London Mayor. The reasons are numerous. Londoners don't particularly like Brexit, but the provinces don't particularly like the Boriswave, so he starts with a handicap in both.
If he gets a meaningful amount more votes than angry Susan did, they can count it as something of a victory - enough for a tilt at becoming an MP. And if Labour are stupid enough to select James Corden, and Reform have the SAS man, suddently Boris starts looking like the serious option.0 -
Yes, a soft Lab / LD coalition vs Reform does seem likely to be the main event at the next GE.algarkirk said:
FWIW I think there is a 20%+ chance of that being the basic configuration by the next GE. The current direction of travel is to eat up Parties of Government.Phil said:Re the header article: so are we seeing a fundamental re-alignment of British politics along a Reform / LibDem axis?
But more likely is an unacknowledged Reform/Lab-LD axis, replacing the Tory/Lab-LD axis in most of England now.0 -
How would the Tories plan to make him High Commissioner exactly?Dura_Ace said:
They could hand Rishi an Action Man sized revolver and one of those little bottles of whiskey you get in hotel minibars. Promise him a peerage and High Commissioner to India. His Mrs would like that as it's something money can't buy.algarkirk said:
Nothing is surprising about the Tories. The first test for Boris, to prove whether he still has what it takes, would be the challenge of winning some random seat. There is now not a a single seat in the entire country which could be taken for granted by any Tory. If he took it on and succeeded he would be 30% of the way to a position from which political change could occur. It would not be good news, but it would be box office; all PBers would at least secretly rejoice.Scott_xP said:Montie on TV saying that Tories are seriously considering bringing back BoZo
They are so done...
(The nearest thing, though not very near, to a safe seat would be Richmond, IMHO. Not impossible....)
The tories could probably hold on to Richmond on a Boris In Wellies campaign.
They could make him a peer, but it'd be a major slap in the face not to give an ex-PM a peerage if they wanted it (some haven't wanted to be a working peer and Truss is Truss).0 -
I don't have my copy of the Brandreth diaries to hand, so I'm paraphrasing here. But after telling his wife that he was going for the Chester nomination:Dura_Ace said:
They could hand Rishi an Action Man sized revolver and one of those little bottles of whiskey you get in hotel minibars. Promise him a peerage and High Commissioner to India. His Mrs would like that as it's something money can't buy.algarkirk said:
Nothing is surprising about the Tories. The first test for Boris, to prove whether he still has what it takes, would be the challenge of winning some random seat. There is now not a a single seat in the entire country which could be taken for granted by any Tory. If he took it on and succeeded he would be 30% of the way to a position from which political change could occur. It would not be good news, but it would be box office; all PBers would at least secretly rejoice.Scott_xP said:Montie on TV saying that Tories are seriously considering bringing back BoZo
They are so done...
(The nearest thing, though not very near, to a safe seat would be Richmond, IMHO. Not impossible....)
The tories could probably hold on to Richmond on a Boris In Wellies campaign.
Her first response was to say 'That's f&#@ing miles away'. There hasn't been a second response.
Carrie, I suspect, will be of similar mind.0 -
tbh I'm not sure Starmer actually is saying the FA Cup Final and Eurovision are always on the same day or that Eurovision comes first, just that they do this year. The only doubt is whether he watches them, and as a season ticket holder, we can assume he watches the FA Cup. So the only question is whether Starmer's claim to watch Eurovision is more convincing than his predecessors wandering into Greggs.kinabalu said:
Thing is, to be Mr Integrity after Boris Johnson you only need to tell the truth sometimes.isam said:
You just don't expect this kind of casual relationship with the truth from Mr Integritykinabalu said:
I noticed that. But it needs a probe. What does the data say? If Eurovision is usually a week or two *after* the cup final then SKS has a viable defence. Because he doesn't actually say they watch them on the same day, does he? He could have meant they always sit down and watch the cup final (as a family) and then on a subsequent Saturday they come together for Eurovision. That works. He deserves (and should get) the benefit of the doubt there. Otoh, if Eurovision is often before the cup final, that's damning and we might have a genuine 'gate' on our hands.isam said:More Starmer fibs!
Apparently the FA Cup final and Eurovision Song Contest have only been on the same day twice in the last decade or so
Sir Keir Starmer is looking forward to Eurovision. Having just returned from a European summit in Albania, the prime minister will sit down on Saturday with his family for what has become something of a tradition. “That will be a must,” he says. “It’s always the same, the FA Cup, then Eurovision. All the family watch it.”
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-brexit-eu-deal-eurovision-wqx0ld3jd?msockid=1aae0b29d86069d029621e1ed9ff6889
Anyway, what about this data dive to see which of the cup final and eurovision usually comes first? Do people want me to do it?1 -
There are the Conservative Party rules.BartholomewRoberts said:Not saying it will or should happen but is there, constitutionally, anything preventing the Leader of the Opposition (or opposition party) from being someone not in Parliament?
In Canada, Carney wasn't an MP when he became PM, let alone Liberal Party leader.
Presumably if not an MP, would need someone to deputise for PMQs, answering the Budget etc0 -
The *obvious* seat for Bozza is Richmond. Sadly for Alex he will quickly realise that its Richmond *Yorkshire* and not Richmond London. Cripes!
The Bozza schtick would be fascinating to see in 2025. Two obvious policy directions:
After the Starmer Gimp comment yesterday he'd clearly be banging a Defend Brexit drum. There's a problem. He thinks his Brexit deal was brilliant. The country has seen the opposite and besides which Farage can outflank him on every issue.
His other obvious play is the return of Levelling Up. We're going to spend £400 billion in YOUR town. Again the problem is that he didn't spend the promised cash last time and won't be able to show where it would come from this time. And besides which Farage would promise to actually sort your town by rounding up the forrin AND sticking a lick of paint on things with money saved from asylum bills.
Its insanity for the Tories to consider it. But when you are desperate and stupid, why not.
Unless Kemi wants to grow a spine and bar him?0 -
It's a good option for the tories if they can engineer it. It's only a matter of not very much time before they lead KB off to the headsman's block. Who the fuck else have they got? Nobody's Gonna Break My Stride? Fucking Rat Eyes? Bobby J would be an upgrade on Kemi but he doesn't have Johnson's kavorka. Possible Argos Vance to Johnson's Home Bargains Trump.Gardenwalker said:I have a standing bet with another PBer that Boris will return in time for the next election.
But I can’t remember which PBer.
Think it was £100.0 -
Voters still remember when Conservative governments managed the economy well - less than a decade ago - is why to peel away from the Conservative Party to Reform right now, is hasty and stupid. Reform have zero credibility for being trusted with the UK economy.stodge said:Afternoon all
We forget @MoonRabbit is the other Conservative...
It's one poll and means nothing in isolation. Opinium had a 5-point gap at the weekend. Perhaps of more significance, apart from More In Common, the Conservatives have been below 20% in every poll conducted since the local elections.
The only answer I think is the old cobbler saying "time wounds all heels". While we witter on about what happened 10-15 years ago as though it were still of vital importance, most voters don't. The memory of the Conservatives in office will fade with time and they will then have the opportunity (as in 2005) to go back to the public with a new slate, new faces and new thinking.
Anyone and everyone associated with the 2010-24 period such as Boris, JRM and Badenoch - all of them need to walk away and clear the field for the next generation whoever that may be.
“Vote Conservative for strong economy and looking after the pounds in your pocket. Labour, for all their good intentions will wreck the economy, they have huge black holes in their economic plans they can’t explain.” < this is exactly how the Conservative Party had so many more years in office over the last century,
Exactly like Labour struggled in 20th century, Reform will have a huge problem rebutting this. Kemi will absolutely shred Reform at the next General Election. Conservatives have pragmatism and real economic credibility - Reform are ideological purists with nothing but £100B+ black hole in their economic credibility.0 -
Is there any "Unherd lot"?Cookie said:
The Unherd lot will tell you that (paraphrasing wildly) identity politics is a tool for the corporate west to distract from economic inequality. I'm not necessarily bought into this as a conspiracy, but it certainly has this effect. And thus, the working classes turn away from the left, because the left deals with issues of increasing irrelevance to them.kinabalu said:
Yes the left is (sadly from my pov) in the doldrums. Eg in all of the mainstream discourse about policies, priorities, problems etc there is hardly a mention these days of what is and always has been my biggest political interest - the reduction of inequality. Nobody seems bothered about it. Or if they are it's just accepted there's no appetite or realistic possibility of doing anything serious in that space. It's afflicted me too if I'm honest. I don't care as much as I used to. If something is not happening it seems a bit pointless to stay invested in it. Then again, tell that to a lifelong Crystal Palace supporter.Sean_F said:Things come to an end.
The Conservatives relied upon persuading the elites that they could protect their property; persuading centrists that they could keep the right in check; and persuading the right that they were their least bad option.
But, nobody really believes that radical socialists now threaten property; centrists are furious about the EU, and the right view the Conservatives as being as bad as the rest.
They have been suffering, but still have a diversish bunch of writers.
0 -
LibDem / Green electoral pact needed.Phil said:Re the header article: so are we seeing a fundamental re-alignment of British politics along a Reform / LibDem axis?
0 -
Re Boris: I think it was Max Hastings that said that the more you got to know Boris, the less you liked him. (With the implication that Johnson was /very/ good at making that positive first impression & that it was all downhill from there onwards.)
Now that the country has had extensive experience of Borisness, are they more or less likely to vote for him? Reform will point (justifiably) to the Boriswave, Lab/LDs to the terrible Brexit deal. It seems he has nothing to offer any voting group except for the diehard Tory one, which current polls suggest isn’t large enough to carry the day, even in a five way contest.3 -
“NIMBYs of the world unite - you have nothing to lose but your economic growth.” ?logical_song said:
LibDem / Green electoral pact needed.Phil said:Re the header article: so are we seeing a fundamental re-alignment of British politics along a Reform / LibDem axis?
4 -
It won't bring him down but he does say he watches the cup final then eurovision. I think that's what the storm is about.DecrepiterJohnL said:
tbh I'm not sure Starmer actually is saying the FA Cup Final and Eurovision are always on the same day or that Eurovision comes first, just that they do this year. The only doubt is whether he watches them, and as a season ticket holder, we can assume he watches the FA Cup. So the only question is whether Starmer's claim to watch Eurovision is more convincing than his predecessors wandering into Greggs.kinabalu said:
Thing is, to be Mr Integrity after Boris Johnson you only need to tell the truth sometimes.isam said:
You just don't expect this kind of casual relationship with the truth from Mr Integritykinabalu said:
I noticed that. But it needs a probe. What does the data say? If Eurovision is usually a week or two *after* the cup final then SKS has a viable defence. Because he doesn't actually say they watch them on the same day, does he? He could have meant they always sit down and watch the cup final (as a family) and then on a subsequent Saturday they come together for Eurovision. That works. He deserves (and should get) the benefit of the doubt there. Otoh, if Eurovision is often before the cup final, that's damning and we might have a genuine 'gate' on our hands.isam said:More Starmer fibs!
Apparently the FA Cup final and Eurovision Song Contest have only been on the same day twice in the last decade or so
Sir Keir Starmer is looking forward to Eurovision. Having just returned from a European summit in Albania, the prime minister will sit down on Saturday with his family for what has become something of a tradition. “That will be a must,” he says. “It’s always the same, the FA Cup, then Eurovision. All the family watch it.”
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-brexit-eu-deal-eurovision-wqx0ld3jd?msockid=1aae0b29d86069d029621e1ed9ff6889
Anyway, what about this data dive to see which of the cup final and eurovision usually comes first? Do people want me to do it?
I was going to deep dive and see which one has normally come first in (say) the last 20 years, but I sense a general waning of interest on the board.0 -
This is wishful thinking. Populism is resurgent across the West right now & Farage knows how to ride that train.MoonRabbit said:
Voters still remember when Conservative governments managed the economy well - less than a decade ago - is why to peel away from the Conservative Party to Reform right now, is hasty and stupid. Reform have zero credibility for being trusted with the UK economy.stodge said:Afternoon all
We forget @MoonRabbit is the other Conservative...
It's one poll and means nothing in isolation. Opinium had a 5-point gap at the weekend. Perhaps of more significance, apart from More In Common, the Conservatives have been below 20% in every poll conducted since the local elections.
The only answer I think is the old cobbler saying "time wounds all heels". While we witter on about what happened 10-15 years ago as though it were still of vital importance, most voters don't. The memory of the Conservatives in office will fade with time and they will then have the opportunity (as in 2005) to go back to the public with a new slate, new faces and new thinking.
Anyone and everyone associated with the 2010-24 period such as Boris, JRM and Badenoch - all of them need to walk away and clear the field for the next generation whoever that may be.
“Vote Conservative for strong economy and looking after the pounds in your pocket. Labour, for all their good intentions will wreck the economy, they have huge black holes in their economic plans they can’t explain.” < this is exactly how the Conservative Party had so many more years in office over the last century,
Exactly like Labour struggled in 20th century, Reform will have a huge problem rebutting this. Kemi will absolutely shred Reform at the next General Election. Conservatives have pragmatism and real economic credibility - Reform are ideological purists with nothing but £100B+ black hole in their economic credibility.
The voters gave the Conservatives a fair shake & were disappointed, so they turned to Labour who (so far) have not covered themselves in glory. Current polling suggests that they‘re far more likely to turn to Farage/Reform than they are to give the current Conservatives another chance.
2-party FPTP systems are ruthless engines of destruction for parties that fall out of favour.1 -
I agree with the point you are making, but to be pedantic someone who is so drunk they can't or can barely drive is probably less dangerous than someone who has had 3 or 4 pints and thinks they are Sterling Moss.theProle said:
Definitely. That doesn't mean there aren't different degrees of idiocy, and I'm not sure it would be wise or helpful to band them together in a one size fit all sort of a way.BartholomewRoberts said:
If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot.theProle said:
Trouble with that is that whilst I'm against drink driving, I'd want to distinguish between "had one pint too many, then drove a mile home home in a steady and careful manner" and "downed 15 pints and was then pulled over after been seen driving at 100mph on the wrong side of the road in 30 limit".isam said:
I see what you mean, but I think there is a decent argument that driving after having a skinful and getting away with it should be punished as if you’d hit and killed someone. The person who did the latter is no worse than the formerkinabalu said:
Yep you can argue that. It's logical. But think where it goes. Eg I have a skinful and drive my car. Scenario A, the cops stop me and I get done for DUI. Scenario B, I hit and kill someone. My behaviour is equally bad in both scenarios, isn't it, but would we want to see the same punishment?isam said:
Seems completely crazy, and would be ludicrously frustrating, on top of a load of other frustrations, for the innocent prisonerkinabalu said:
That is a fiendish conundrum, isn't it. You get early release by admitting guilt. But you won't want to do that if you're innocent.Dopermean said:
No the fundamental difference is this "Malkinson could have been released after 6½ years but was not due to his maintaining his innocence.[15] He was released in 2020 for good behaviour."eek said:
Tommy many names was jailed for 18 monthsDopermean said:
Two tier justiceisam said:Tommy Robinson is being released from prison next week. That's eleven months early I think
Robinson, a multiple offender who has shown no contrition for his offending gets parole
Malkinson and others wrongly convicted serve their full tariff despite being model prisoners, only being released when their convictions are overturned
Malkinson was jailed for 31 months.
That's the fundamental difference as even if both were given identical treatment and released after 40% of their sentence was served Tommy is going to be out 4 to 5 months earlier.
Robinson is a recidivist who has shown no contrition for his offending but is being released after serving a 1/3 of reduced sentence, Malkinson, and others who maintain their innocence, are not eligible for early parole regardless of their risk of reoffending or behaviour in prison, solely because they contest their conviction.
The latter is institutionalized spite by the Criminal Justice system for questioning the process and safety of the conviction.
I am sure I have mentioned this before, but another crazy thing for me is the lesser sentence for attempted murder than murder. If a person who has been stabbed is saved by a passing medic while another a street away dies because no one sees him, why should the two assailants be treated any differently? They both had a desire to kill someone, and acted on it. The intention should be judged, not the outcome
Both are wrong. Both have an elevated risk of killing someone, but the second guy is obviously far more of a danger to life than the first. It seems profoundly unfair if we treat them both the same, because their actions *might* have killed someone.
I like the analogy from the Big Bang Theory where someone said there was no difference between levels of wrongness to which the response was it was less wrong to say a tomato was a vegetable than to say the Golden Gate bridge was a vegetable.0 -
That versus "Better off after Brexit? Love Trump? You'll love Reform!"Phil said:
“NIMBYs of the world unite - you have nothing to lose but your economic growth.” ?logical_song said:
LibDem / Green electoral pact needed.Phil said:Re the header article: so are we seeing a fundamental re-alignment of British politics along a Reform / LibDem axis?
0 -
I think the proposition (isam) was more that if you're stopped and found to be pie-eyed at the wheel, ie totally blotto not just a bit tipsy, the punishment should be similar to if you'd hit and killed somebody, because it's only pure luck that you didn't.theProle said:
Definitely. That doesn't mean there aren't different degrees of idiocy, and I'm not sure it would be wise or helpful to band them together in a one size fit all sort of a way.BartholomewRoberts said:
If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot.theProle said:
Trouble with that is that whilst I'm against drink driving, I'd want to distinguish between "had one pint too many, then drove a mile home home in a steady and careful manner" and "downed 15 pints and was then pulled over after been seen driving at 100mph on the wrong side of the road in 30 limit".isam said:
I see what you mean, but I think there is a decent argument that driving after having a skinful and getting away with it should be punished as if you’d hit and killed someone. The person who did the latter is no worse than the formerkinabalu said:
Yep you can argue that. It's logical. But think where it goes. Eg I have a skinful and drive my car. Scenario A, the cops stop me and I get done for DUI. Scenario B, I hit and kill someone. My behaviour is equally bad in both scenarios, isn't it, but would we want to see the same punishment?isam said:
Seems completely crazy, and would be ludicrously frustrating, on top of a load of other frustrations, for the innocent prisonerkinabalu said:
That is a fiendish conundrum, isn't it. You get early release by admitting guilt. But you won't want to do that if you're innocent.Dopermean said:
No the fundamental difference is this "Malkinson could have been released after 6½ years but was not due to his maintaining his innocence.[15] He was released in 2020 for good behaviour."eek said:
Tommy many names was jailed for 18 monthsDopermean said:
Two tier justiceisam said:Tommy Robinson is being released from prison next week. That's eleven months early I think
Robinson, a multiple offender who has shown no contrition for his offending gets parole
Malkinson and others wrongly convicted serve their full tariff despite being model prisoners, only being released when their convictions are overturned
Malkinson was jailed for 31 months.
That's the fundamental difference as even if both were given identical treatment and released after 40% of their sentence was served Tommy is going to be out 4 to 5 months earlier.
Robinson is a recidivist who has shown no contrition for his offending but is being released after serving a 1/3 of reduced sentence, Malkinson, and others who maintain their innocence, are not eligible for early parole regardless of their risk of reoffending or behaviour in prison, solely because they contest their conviction.
The latter is institutionalized spite by the Criminal Justice system for questioning the process and safety of the conviction.
I am sure I have mentioned this before, but another crazy thing for me is the lesser sentence for attempted murder than murder. If a person who has been stabbed is saved by a passing medic while another a street away dies because no one sees him, why should the two assailants be treated any differently? They both had a desire to kill someone, and acted on it. The intention should be judged, not the outcome
Both are wrong. Both have an elevated risk of killing someone, but the second guy is obviously far more of a danger to life than the first. It seems profoundly unfair if we treat them both the same, because their actions *might* have killed someone.1 -
I truly respect the gargantuan levels of hopium on display in this post.MoonRabbit said:
Voters still remember when Conservative governments managed the economy well - less than a decade ago - is why to peel away from the Conservative Party to Reform right now, is hasty and stupid. Reform have zero credibility for being trusted with the UK economy.stodge said:Afternoon all
We forget @MoonRabbit is the other Conservative...
It's one poll and means nothing in isolation. Opinium had a 5-point gap at the weekend. Perhaps of more significance, apart from More In Common, the Conservatives have been below 20% in every poll conducted since the local elections.
The only answer I think is the old cobbler saying "time wounds all heels". While we witter on about what happened 10-15 years ago as though it were still of vital importance, most voters don't. The memory of the Conservatives in office will fade with time and they will then have the opportunity (as in 2005) to go back to the public with a new slate, new faces and new thinking.
Anyone and everyone associated with the 2010-24 period such as Boris, JRM and Badenoch - all of them need to walk away and clear the field for the next generation whoever that may be.
“Vote Conservative for strong economy and looking after the pounds in your pocket. Labour, for all their good intentions will wreck the economy, they have huge black holes in their economic plans they can’t explain.” < this is exactly how the Conservative Party had so many more years in office over the last century,
Exactly like Labour struggled in 20th century, Reform will have a huge problem rebutting this. Kemi will absolutely shred Reform at the next General Election. Conservatives have pragmatism and real economic credibility - Reform are ideological purists with nothing but £100B+ black hole in their economic credibility.
Voters do not remember the Tories managing the economy well. Brexit then Boris then Starmer then the Nigel surge - all demonstrates that people are absolutely sick of being told they are actually well off in a well managed economy actually. Its broken, they're broke, and they're demanding action.
Tories can't credibly claim looking after the pound in our pocket. Truss trashed the remaining shreds of credibility, and can I also refer you to the debt mountain you added post Brexit?
Kemi won't be leader at the next GE. But I'll indulge you so assume for a minute she is - as a politician she is brittle, narrow and argumentative. She is not going to shred Farage.
Reform are ideological purists? Farage is calling for the renationalisation of steel and wants PR. That's flexibility. Your lot? Did you hear Kemi yesterday? Or indeed any day?
Sorry MoonRabbit, you're clinging onto an imagined version of reality. In the real world your party is sinking into the abyss. And you are to blame - until you can identify reality you have zero hope of turning things around.2 -
How do you drive home "in a steady and careful" manner after one pint, never mind "one pint too many"?theProle said:
Trouble with that is that whilst I'm against drink driving, I'd want to distinguish between "had one pint too many, then drove a mile home home in a steady and careful manner" and "downed 15 pints and was then pulled over after been seen driving at 100mph on the wrong side of the road in 30 limit".isam said:
I see what you mean, but I think there is a decent argument that driving after having a skinful and getting away with it should be punished as if you’d hit and killed someone. The person who did the latter is no worse than the formerkinabalu said:
Yep you can argue that. It's logical. But think where it goes. Eg I have a skinful and drive my car. Scenario A, the cops stop me and I get done for DUI. Scenario B, I hit and kill someone. My behaviour is equally bad in both scenarios, isn't it, but would we want to see the same punishment?isam said:
Seems completely crazy, and would be ludicrously frustrating, on top of a load of other frustrations, for the innocent prisonerkinabalu said:
That is a fiendish conundrum, isn't it. You get early release by admitting guilt. But you won't want to do that if you're innocent.Dopermean said:
No the fundamental difference is this "Malkinson could have been released after 6½ years but was not due to his maintaining his innocence.[15] He was released in 2020 for good behaviour."eek said:
Tommy many names was jailed for 18 monthsDopermean said:
Two tier justiceisam said:Tommy Robinson is being released from prison next week. That's eleven months early I think
Robinson, a multiple offender who has shown no contrition for his offending gets parole
Malkinson and others wrongly convicted serve their full tariff despite being model prisoners, only being released when their convictions are overturned
Malkinson was jailed for 31 months.
That's the fundamental difference as even if both were given identical treatment and released after 40% of their sentence was served Tommy is going to be out 4 to 5 months earlier.
Robinson is a recidivist who has shown no contrition for his offending but is being released after serving a 1/3 of reduced sentence, Malkinson, and others who maintain their innocence, are not eligible for early parole regardless of their risk of reoffending or behaviour in prison, solely because they contest their conviction.
The latter is institutionalized spite by the Criminal Justice system for questioning the process and safety of the conviction.
I am sure I have mentioned this before, but another crazy thing for me is the lesser sentence for attempted murder than murder. If a person who has been stabbed is saved by a passing medic while another a street away dies because no one sees him, why should the two assailants be treated any differently? They both had a desire to kill someone, and acted on it. The intention should be judged, not the outcome
Both are wrong. Both have an elevated risk of killing someone, but the second guy is obviously far more of a danger to life than the first. It seems profoundly unfair if we treat them both the same, because their actions *might* have killed someone.
The research data shows that you are "6x more likely to be involved in a fatal crash, if you have 50-80 mg alcohol per 100ml blood, compared to 0ml".
That is, below the legal limit, which is 80mg/ml.
https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/drink-driving
0 -
Cornwall Council's AGM voted in a new Liberal Democrat Chairman.
He got 53 of the 87 votes - all the LDs, Independents, Labour, all bar one Conservative (who didn't vote), Labour and Green backed him.
The MK councillors abstained as did 22 of the Reform Group while two other Reform members didn't vote.
Nine Councillors were absent.1 -
"Conservatives have ... real economic credibility"MoonRabbit said:
Voters still remember when Conservative governments managed the economy well - less than a decade ago - is why to peel away from the Conservative Party to Reform right now, is hasty and stupid. Reform have zero credibility for being trusted with the UK economy.stodge said:Afternoon all
We forget @MoonRabbit is the other Conservative...
It's one poll and means nothing in isolation. Opinium had a 5-point gap at the weekend. Perhaps of more significance, apart from More In Common, the Conservatives have been below 20% in every poll conducted since the local elections.
The only answer I think is the old cobbler saying "time wounds all heels". While we witter on about what happened 10-15 years ago as though it were still of vital importance, most voters don't. The memory of the Conservatives in office will fade with time and they will then have the opportunity (as in 2005) to go back to the public with a new slate, new faces and new thinking.
Anyone and everyone associated with the 2010-24 period such as Boris, JRM and Badenoch - all of them need to walk away and clear the field for the next generation whoever that may be.
“Vote Conservative for strong economy and looking after the pounds in your pocket. Labour, for all their good intentions will wreck the economy, they have huge black holes in their economic plans they can’t explain.” < this is exactly how the Conservative Party had so many more years in office over the last century,
Exactly like Labour struggled in 20th century, Reform will have a huge problem rebutting this. Kemi will absolutely shred Reform at the next General Election. Conservatives have pragmatism and real economic credibility - Reform are ideological purists with nothing but £100B+ black hole in their economic credibility.
Really?3 -
I missed this. Apols.Leon said:
Don't worry, my attention doesn't last for long. After a while the rockpool of your tiny mind begins to bore. I prod the anenome to see if it will move. I throw in a pebble to disturb the sticklebacks. They do what they always do, because they cannot do anything elsekinabalu said:
Again you confuse free-thinking with a lack of discipline.Leon said:
Observing your tiny mind at work is like staring in a rock pool, watching the anemones and minnowskinabalu said:
Totally. Although the Trump shooting is explained and LabLeak is not commonly accepted.Leon said:
The Trump sassytempt is one of the weirdest “narrative loose ends” of recent times. If I were - god forbid - a thriller writer, there’s no way I’d get away with such an insane plot twist, that comes and goes without explanationCookie said:
This reminds me vaguely of a theory: the more ridiculous a thing looks, the more likely it is that it was put in place by time travellers coming back from the future to fix things which would have otherwise caused an apocalypse. The stranger things get, the more apocalypses we have been through and had averted by time travellers putting in place bodge jobs. I wish I could remember more of this theory.Leon said:
Ditto lab leak. For two years almost illegal to mention. Now commonly accepted. But the reaction is “oh well shit happens, move on”. 20 million people died and we just *move on*
I’ve decided the only sane response is to *chuckle knowingly*
Then I yawn and run on, down the beach0 -
I'd say archetypically, they are leftish economically (sometimes extremely so), rightish culturally. But like any group of writers there is a diversity of opinion and of clarity of thought.MattW said:
Is there any "Unherd lot"?Cookie said:
The Unherd lot will tell you that (paraphrasing wildly) identity politics is a tool for the corporate west to distract from economic inequality. I'm not necessarily bought into this as a conspiracy, but it certainly has this effect. And thus, the working classes turn away from the left, because the left deals with issues of increasing irrelevance to them.kinabalu said:
Yes the left is (sadly from my pov) in the doldrums. Eg in all of the mainstream discourse about policies, priorities, problems etc there is hardly a mention these days of what is and always has been my biggest political interest - the reduction of inequality. Nobody seems bothered about it. Or if they are it's just accepted there's no appetite or realistic possibility of doing anything serious in that space. It's afflicted me too if I'm honest. I don't care as much as I used to. If something is not happening it seems a bit pointless to stay invested in it. Then again, tell that to a lifelong Crystal Palace supporter.Sean_F said:Things come to an end.
The Conservatives relied upon persuading the elites that they could protect their property; persuading centrists that they could keep the right in check; and persuading the right that they were their least bad option.
But, nobody really believes that radical socialists now threaten property; centrists are furious about the EU, and the right view the Conservatives as being as bad as the rest.
They have been suffering, but still have a diversish bunch of writers.
Hard to know what the readership is, but extrapolating from comments I would say there is rather less enthusiasm for socialism among the readers than among the writers.
1 -
Hang on: not all writers have clarity of thought.Cookie said:
I'd say archetypically, they are leftish economically (sometimes extremely so), rightish culturally. But like any group of writers there is a diversity of opinion and of clarity of thought.MattW said:
Is there any "Unherd lot"?Cookie said:
The Unherd lot will tell you that (paraphrasing wildly) identity politics is a tool for the corporate west to distract from economic inequality. I'm not necessarily bought into this as a conspiracy, but it certainly has this effect. And thus, the working classes turn away from the left, because the left deals with issues of increasing irrelevance to them.kinabalu said:
Yes the left is (sadly from my pov) in the doldrums. Eg in all of the mainstream discourse about policies, priorities, problems etc there is hardly a mention these days of what is and always has been my biggest political interest - the reduction of inequality. Nobody seems bothered about it. Or if they are it's just accepted there's no appetite or realistic possibility of doing anything serious in that space. It's afflicted me too if I'm honest. I don't care as much as I used to. If something is not happening it seems a bit pointless to stay invested in it. Then again, tell that to a lifelong Crystal Palace supporter.Sean_F said:Things come to an end.
The Conservatives relied upon persuading the elites that they could protect their property; persuading centrists that they could keep the right in check; and persuading the right that they were their least bad option.
But, nobody really believes that radical socialists now threaten property; centrists are furious about the EU, and the right view the Conservatives as being as bad as the rest.
They have been suffering, but still have a diversish bunch of writers.
Hard to know what the readership is, but extrapolating from comments I would say there is rather less enthusiasm for socialism among the readers than among the writers.
I mean, have you read the latest John Gray0 -
That's a good point on the driving. Devil in the detail here as usual. If we're to punish the DUI driver for what could have happened (ie for the behaviour not the result of it) it becomes quite a complex assessment. So although it has a certain moral logic it's probably not practical.kjh said:
I agree with the point you are making, but to be pedantic someone who is so drunk they can't or can barely drive is probably less dangerous than someone who has had 3 or 4 pints and thinks they are Sterling Moss.theProle said:
Definitely. That doesn't mean there aren't different degrees of idiocy, and I'm not sure it would be wise or helpful to band them together in a one size fit all sort of a way.BartholomewRoberts said:
If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot.theProle said:
Trouble with that is that whilst I'm against drink driving, I'd want to distinguish between "had one pint too many, then drove a mile home home in a steady and careful manner" and "downed 15 pints and was then pulled over after been seen driving at 100mph on the wrong side of the road in 30 limit".isam said:
I see what you mean, but I think there is a decent argument that driving after having a skinful and getting away with it should be punished as if you’d hit and killed someone. The person who did the latter is no worse than the formerkinabalu said:
Yep you can argue that. It's logical. But think where it goes. Eg I have a skinful and drive my car. Scenario A, the cops stop me and I get done for DUI. Scenario B, I hit and kill someone. My behaviour is equally bad in both scenarios, isn't it, but would we want to see the same punishment?isam said:
Seems completely crazy, and would be ludicrously frustrating, on top of a load of other frustrations, for the innocent prisonerkinabalu said:
That is a fiendish conundrum, isn't it. You get early release by admitting guilt. But you won't want to do that if you're innocent.Dopermean said:
No the fundamental difference is this "Malkinson could have been released after 6½ years but was not due to his maintaining his innocence.[15] He was released in 2020 for good behaviour."eek said:
Tommy many names was jailed for 18 monthsDopermean said:
Two tier justiceisam said:Tommy Robinson is being released from prison next week. That's eleven months early I think
Robinson, a multiple offender who has shown no contrition for his offending gets parole
Malkinson and others wrongly convicted serve their full tariff despite being model prisoners, only being released when their convictions are overturned
Malkinson was jailed for 31 months.
That's the fundamental difference as even if both were given identical treatment and released after 40% of their sentence was served Tommy is going to be out 4 to 5 months earlier.
Robinson is a recidivist who has shown no contrition for his offending but is being released after serving a 1/3 of reduced sentence, Malkinson, and others who maintain their innocence, are not eligible for early parole regardless of their risk of reoffending or behaviour in prison, solely because they contest their conviction.
The latter is institutionalized spite by the Criminal Justice system for questioning the process and safety of the conviction.
I am sure I have mentioned this before, but another crazy thing for me is the lesser sentence for attempted murder than murder. If a person who has been stabbed is saved by a passing medic while another a street away dies because no one sees him, why should the two assailants be treated any differently? They both had a desire to kill someone, and acted on it. The intention should be judged, not the outcome
Both are wrong. Both have an elevated risk of killing someone, but the second guy is obviously far more of a danger to life than the first. It seems profoundly unfair if we treat them both the same, because their actions *might* have killed someone.
I like the analogy from the Big Bang Theory where someone said there was no difference between levels of wrongness to which the response was it was less wrong to say a tomato was a vegetable than to say the Golden Gate bridge was a vegetable.0 -
I reject your analysis. The polls say as much about the shake down end of this race, as a horse leading by a few lengths one fifth into a race.Phil said:
This is wishful thinking. Populism is resurgent across the West right now & Farage knows how to ride that train.MoonRabbit said:
Voters still remember when Conservative governments managed the economy well - less than a decade ago - is why to peel away from the Conservative Party to Reform right now, is hasty and stupid. Reform have zero credibility for being trusted with the UK economy.stodge said:Afternoon all
We forget @MoonRabbit is the other Conservative...
It's one poll and means nothing in isolation. Opinium had a 5-point gap at the weekend. Perhaps of more significance, apart from More In Common, the Conservatives have been below 20% in every poll conducted since the local elections.
The only answer I think is the old cobbler saying "time wounds all heels". While we witter on about what happened 10-15 years ago as though it were still of vital importance, most voters don't. The memory of the Conservatives in office will fade with time and they will then have the opportunity (as in 2005) to go back to the public with a new slate, new faces and new thinking.
Anyone and everyone associated with the 2010-24 period such as Boris, JRM and Badenoch - all of them need to walk away and clear the field for the next generation whoever that may be.
“Vote Conservative for strong economy and looking after the pounds in your pocket. Labour, for all their good intentions will wreck the economy, they have huge black holes in their economic plans they can’t explain.” < this is exactly how the Conservative Party had so many more years in office over the last century,
Exactly like Labour struggled in 20th century, Reform will have a huge problem rebutting this. Kemi will absolutely shred Reform at the next General Election. Conservatives have pragmatism and real economic credibility - Reform are ideological purists with nothing but £100B+ black hole in their economic credibility.
The voters gave the Conservatives a fair shake & were disappointed, so they turned to Labour who (so far) have not covered themselves in glory. Current polling suggests that they‘re far more likely to turn to Farage/Reform than they are to give the current Conservatives another chance.
2-party FPTP systems are ruthless engines of destruction for parties that fall out of favour.
When it comes to the run in, lack of any economic credibility, hundreds of billions of pounds of black hole, is a total Achilles heel torpedoing chances of Reform adding much to their current number of MPs. Conservative Partys economic pragmatism and historical credibility at running the economy will see them shred Reform in a General Election campaign.0 -
I've never been a fan of his, I'm afraid. What's his latest thesis ?rcs1000 said:
Hang on: not all writers have clarity of thought.Cookie said:
I'd say archetypically, they are leftish economically (sometimes extremely so), rightish culturally. But like any group of writers there is a diversity of opinion and of clarity of thought.MattW said:
Is there any "Unherd lot"?Cookie said:
The Unherd lot will tell you that (paraphrasing wildly) identity politics is a tool for the corporate west to distract from economic inequality. I'm not necessarily bought into this as a conspiracy, but it certainly has this effect. And thus, the working classes turn away from the left, because the left deals with issues of increasing irrelevance to them.kinabalu said:
Yes the left is (sadly from my pov) in the doldrums. Eg in all of the mainstream discourse about policies, priorities, problems etc there is hardly a mention these days of what is and always has been my biggest political interest - the reduction of inequality. Nobody seems bothered about it. Or if they are it's just accepted there's no appetite or realistic possibility of doing anything serious in that space. It's afflicted me too if I'm honest. I don't care as much as I used to. If something is not happening it seems a bit pointless to stay invested in it. Then again, tell that to a lifelong Crystal Palace supporter.Sean_F said:Things come to an end.
The Conservatives relied upon persuading the elites that they could protect their property; persuading centrists that they could keep the right in check; and persuading the right that they were their least bad option.
But, nobody really believes that radical socialists now threaten property; centrists are furious about the EU, and the right view the Conservatives as being as bad as the rest.
They have been suffering, but still have a diversish bunch of writers.
Hard to know what the readership is, but extrapolating from comments I would say there is rather less enthusiasm for socialism among the readers than among the writers.
I mean, have you read the latest John Gray0 -
FPTP systems usually force the median voter to vote for their second least favourite option. Looks like we might be being given a choice between zero economic growth due to rampant NIMBYism /or/ a government of all the talents led by Farage.logical_song said:
That versus "Better off after Brexit? Love Trump? You'll love Reform!"Phil said:
“NIMBYs of the world unite - you have nothing to lose but your economic growth.” ?logical_song said:
LibDem / Green electoral pact needed.Phil said:Re the header article: so are we seeing a fundamental re-alignment of British politics along a Reform / LibDem axis?
Really not looking forward to that one personally.3 -
Less than one week after telling Liz Savile Roberts that an opinion he holds for more than a week is that she talks rubbish, Slalom swerves and apologises..2
-
Yes, BTL on there is alt.right central. Lots of racists-with-a-vocab.Cookie said:
I'd say archetypically, they are leftish economically (sometimes extremely so), rightish culturally. But like any group of writers there is a diversity of opinion and of clarity of thought.MattW said:
Is there any "Unherd lot"?Cookie said:
The Unherd lot will tell you that (paraphrasing wildly) identity politics is a tool for the corporate west to distract from economic inequality. I'm not necessarily bought into this as a conspiracy, but it certainly has this effect. And thus, the working classes turn away from the left, because the left deals with issues of increasing irrelevance to them.kinabalu said:
Yes the left is (sadly from my pov) in the doldrums. Eg in all of the mainstream discourse about policies, priorities, problems etc there is hardly a mention these days of what is and always has been my biggest political interest - the reduction of inequality. Nobody seems bothered about it. Or if they are it's just accepted there's no appetite or realistic possibility of doing anything serious in that space. It's afflicted me too if I'm honest. I don't care as much as I used to. If something is not happening it seems a bit pointless to stay invested in it. Then again, tell that to a lifelong Crystal Palace supporter.Sean_F said:Things come to an end.
The Conservatives relied upon persuading the elites that they could protect their property; persuading centrists that they could keep the right in check; and persuading the right that they were their least bad option.
But, nobody really believes that radical socialists now threaten property; centrists are furious about the EU, and the right view the Conservatives as being as bad as the rest.
They have been suffering, but still have a diversish bunch of writers.
Hard to know what the readership is, but extrapolating from comments I would say there is rather less enthusiasm for socialism among the readers than among the writers.0 -
A looooong time ago, myself and a friend were out on the lash with some colleagues. Our boss - heavily drunk - tried to drive home. We took his keys off him and called him a taxi, returning his keys the next morning. He called us into his office and give us the bollocking from Hell.
My contract was not renewed...3 -
That’s the ‘assisted’ suicide bill. Dr S would be proud, a pioneer.Foxy said:
Give him an other shot at finishing them off. The Dr Shipman of politics!Sean_F said:
The problem is Boris did his utmost to kill the Conservatives, as leader.algarkirk said:
Nothing is surprising about the Tories. The first test for Boris, to prove whether he still has what it takes, would be the challenge of winning some random seat. There is now not a a single seat in the entire country which could be taken for granted by any Tory. If he took it on and succeeded he would be 30% of the way to a position from which political change could occur. It would not be good news, but it would be box office; all PBers would at least secretly rejoice.Scott_xP said:Montie on TV saying that Tories are seriously considering bringing back BoZo
They are so done...
(The nearest thing, though not very near, to a safe seat would be Richmond, IMHO. Not impossible....)0 -
Possibly. But it's hard to see what future Reform have beyond Farage, so presumably the Tories will languish and then rise again at some point or another? Or a new right-wing party that isn't the Farage Party will appear after Nigel has left the stage?Phil said:Re the header article: so are we seeing a fundamental re-alignment of British politics along a Reform / LibDem axis?
0 -
Only very old voters. I'm in my mid-50s and I don't remember the Tories ever managing the economy well. Late Major perhaps - but they were recovering from their own previous screw-up. Only Labour has managed the economy well in my adult lifetime (in 1997-2007). The only period when the Conservatives were not a liability was the Coalition, which was not exactly glorious, and ruling alone since then was a continuous shit show.MoonRabbit said:
Voters still remember when Conservative governments managed the economy well - less than a decade ago - is why to peel away from the Conservative Party to Reform right now, is hasty and stupid. Reform have zero credibility for being trusted with the UK economy.stodge said:Afternoon all
We forget @MoonRabbit is the other Conservative...
It's one poll and means nothing in isolation. Opinium had a 5-point gap at the weekend. Perhaps of more significance, apart from More In Common, the Conservatives have been below 20% in every poll conducted since the local elections.
The only answer I think is the old cobbler saying "time wounds all heels". While we witter on about what happened 10-15 years ago as though it were still of vital importance, most voters don't. The memory of the Conservatives in office will fade with time and they will then have the opportunity (as in 2005) to go back to the public with a new slate, new faces and new thinking.
Anyone and everyone associated with the 2010-24 period such as Boris, JRM and Badenoch - all of them need to walk away and clear the field for the next generation whoever that may be.
“Vote Conservative for strong economy and looking after the pounds in your pocket. Labour, for all their good intentions will wreck the economy, they have huge black holes in their economic plans they can’t explain.” < this is exactly how the Conservative Party had so many more years in office over the last century,
Exactly like Labour struggled in 20th century, Reform will have a huge problem rebutting this. Kemi will absolutely shred Reform at the next General Election. Conservatives have pragmatism and real economic credibility - Reform are ideological purists with nothing but £100B+ black hole in their economic credibility.1 -
No, that's what I mean - there is diversity of clarity of thought: some writers manage to tell an interesting and coherent story, others, er, don't.rcs1000 said:
Hang on: not all writers have clarity of thought.Cookie said:
I'd say archetypically, they are leftish economically (sometimes extremely so), rightish culturally. But like any group of writers there is a diversity of opinion and of clarity of thought.MattW said:
Is there any "Unherd lot"?Cookie said:
The Unherd lot will tell you that (paraphrasing wildly) identity politics is a tool for the corporate west to distract from economic inequality. I'm not necessarily bought into this as a conspiracy, but it certainly has this effect. And thus, the working classes turn away from the left, because the left deals with issues of increasing irrelevance to them.kinabalu said:
Yes the left is (sadly from my pov) in the doldrums. Eg in all of the mainstream discourse about policies, priorities, problems etc there is hardly a mention these days of what is and always has been my biggest political interest - the reduction of inequality. Nobody seems bothered about it. Or if they are it's just accepted there's no appetite or realistic possibility of doing anything serious in that space. It's afflicted me too if I'm honest. I don't care as much as I used to. If something is not happening it seems a bit pointless to stay invested in it. Then again, tell that to a lifelong Crystal Palace supporter.Sean_F said:Things come to an end.
The Conservatives relied upon persuading the elites that they could protect their property; persuading centrists that they could keep the right in check; and persuading the right that they were their least bad option.
But, nobody really believes that radical socialists now threaten property; centrists are furious about the EU, and the right view the Conservatives as being as bad as the rest.
They have been suffering, but still have a diversish bunch of writers.
Hard to know what the readership is, but extrapolating from comments I would say there is rather less enthusiasm for socialism among the readers than among the writers.
I mean, have you read the latest John Gray0 -
This is what Remain thought about the Leave campaign.MoonRabbit said:
I reject your analysis. The polls say as much about the shake down end of this race, as a horse leading by a few lengths one fifth into a race.Phil said:
This is wishful thinking. Populism is resurgent across the West right now & Farage knows how to ride that train.MoonRabbit said:
Voters still remember when Conservative governments managed the economy well - less than a decade ago - is why to peel away from the Conservative Party to Reform right now, is hasty and stupid. Reform have zero credibility for being trusted with the UK economy.stodge said:Afternoon all
We forget @MoonRabbit is the other Conservative...
It's one poll and means nothing in isolation. Opinium had a 5-point gap at the weekend. Perhaps of more significance, apart from More In Common, the Conservatives have been below 20% in every poll conducted since the local elections.
The only answer I think is the old cobbler saying "time wounds all heels". While we witter on about what happened 10-15 years ago as though it were still of vital importance, most voters don't. The memory of the Conservatives in office will fade with time and they will then have the opportunity (as in 2005) to go back to the public with a new slate, new faces and new thinking.
Anyone and everyone associated with the 2010-24 period such as Boris, JRM and Badenoch - all of them need to walk away and clear the field for the next generation whoever that may be.
“Vote Conservative for strong economy and looking after the pounds in your pocket. Labour, for all their good intentions will wreck the economy, they have huge black holes in their economic plans they can’t explain.” < this is exactly how the Conservative Party had so many more years in office over the last century,
Exactly like Labour struggled in 20th century, Reform will have a huge problem rebutting this. Kemi will absolutely shred Reform at the next General Election. Conservatives have pragmatism and real economic credibility - Reform are ideological purists with nothing but £100B+ black hole in their economic credibility.
The voters gave the Conservatives a fair shake & were disappointed, so they turned to Labour who (so far) have not covered themselves in glory. Current polling suggests that they‘re far more likely to turn to Farage/Reform than they are to give the current Conservatives another chance.
2-party FPTP systems are ruthless engines of destruction for parties that fall out of favour.
When it comes to the run in, lack of any economic credibility, hundreds of billions of pounds of black hole, is a total Achilles heel torpedoing chances of Reform adding much to their current number of MPs. Conservative Partys economic pragmatism and historical credibility at running the economy will see them shred Reform in a General Election campaign.
An angry population will vote for whomever offers a combination of the most attractive sweeteners combined with giving them someone to blame; populist movements are good at exactly that thing & Reform could well ride that wave into government.
If we see Reform led councils collapsing early & often then people might open their eyes to the likely economic competence of a future Reform government, but without that concrete example I suspect the voters will weigh such warnings about as heavily as they did “project fear”. You can be right, but it doesn’t mean the voters will listen to you.0 -
Hope you told your boss he was a stupid, selfish bastard on the way out of the door?JosiasJessop said:A looooong time ago, myself and a friend were out on the lash with some colleagues. Our boss - heavily drunk - tried to drive home. We took his keys off him and called him a taxi, returning his keys the next morning. He called us into his office and give us the bollocking from Hell.
My contract was not renewed...0 -
The key point in the tweet in the title is that the Tories are in 4th place "for the first time since 2019".
Does anybody remember what happened in the final month of that turbulent year?
Polling fluctuations at the start of a Parliament mean f-all in predicting the outcome of the next election to anybody except a few political obsessives, especially the case now when it is almost certain that we are in for a >4 year Parliament.
I realise that undermines about 70% of the comments on here over the next few years, no doubt including some of my own, but it's a key point and can't be stated often enough.
Or at any rate it isn't being stated nearly often enough.1 -
A non too inspired choice and for a large portion of the country a result that would be the polar opposite of what they want. How does the winning party reconcile that ?Phil said:
FPTP systems usually force the median voter to vote for their second least favourite option. Looks like we might be being given a choice between zero economic growth due to rampant NIMBYism /or/ a government of all the talents led by Farage.logical_song said:
That versus "Better off after Brexit? Love Trump? You'll love Reform!"Phil said:
“NIMBYs of the world unite - you have nothing to lose but your economic growth.” ?logical_song said:
LibDem / Green electoral pact needed.Phil said:Re the header article: so are we seeing a fundamental re-alignment of British politics along a Reform / LibDem axis?
Really not looking forward to that one personally.
If the Lib Dem’s were sensible (a big ask, admittedly) they’d be looking at how they can expand their offer to appeal to other parts of the country as well. What can they offer the North East, or Lincolnshire, or other Reform friendly areas. These are not areas, in my view, that are diehard Reform. It is just NOTA and part of the appeal of Reform is, at least, Reform talk to these areas.
The Lib Dem’s will also benefit from more donations as power starts to look likely, if the trajectory continues and Farage is equally loved and loathed. I’d vote Reform at a local level but I’d never vote for PM Farage. I suspect I’m not alone.0 -
Nah. Never burn bridges. The contract was not renewed a few weeks after, and the company had a weird thing that contractors who worked for them for a set period became permanent - and my time was approaching that limit. So the incident and non-renewal might not be connected.GIN1138 said:
Hope you told your boss he was a stupid, selfish bastard on the way out of the door?JosiasJessop said:A looooong time ago, myself and a friend were out on the lash with some colleagues. Our boss - heavily drunk - tried to drive home. We took his keys off him and called him a taxi, returning his keys the next morning. He called us into his office and give us the bollocking from Hell.
My contract was not renewed...
What got me was the dressing-down he gave us. As if we had been in the wrong, not him.
I had not even been particularly drunk, as I was on painkillers at the time. I was the sober one.0 -
It was founded by Tim Montgomerie, as a vehicle after he left ConHome iirc, and Monty started as a colleague of IDS around the socially-aware Conservative beat and the Centre for Social Justice think tank.Cookie said:
I'd say archetypically, they are leftish economically (sometimes extremely so), rightish culturally. But like any group of writers there is a diversity of opinion and of clarity of thought.MattW said:
Is there any "Unherd lot"?Cookie said:
The Unherd lot will tell you that (paraphrasing wildly) identity politics is a tool for the corporate west to distract from economic inequality. I'm not necessarily bought into this as a conspiracy, but it certainly has this effect. And thus, the working classes turn away from the left, because the left deals with issues of increasing irrelevance to them.kinabalu said:
Yes the left is (sadly from my pov) in the doldrums. Eg in all of the mainstream discourse about policies, priorities, problems etc there is hardly a mention these days of what is and always has been my biggest political interest - the reduction of inequality. Nobody seems bothered about it. Or if they are it's just accepted there's no appetite or realistic possibility of doing anything serious in that space. It's afflicted me too if I'm honest. I don't care as much as I used to. If something is not happening it seems a bit pointless to stay invested in it. Then again, tell that to a lifelong Crystal Palace supporter.Sean_F said:Things come to an end.
The Conservatives relied upon persuading the elites that they could protect their property; persuading centrists that they could keep the right in check; and persuading the right that they were their least bad option.
But, nobody really believes that radical socialists now threaten property; centrists are furious about the EU, and the right view the Conservatives as being as bad as the rest.
They have been suffering, but still have a diversish bunch of writers.
Hard to know what the readership is, but extrapolating from comments I would say there is rather less enthusiasm for socialism among the readers than among the writers.
But Monty left in 2018, and it is now owned - like the Spectator and GB News - by Sir Paul Roderick Clucas Marshall (brilliant name - Clucas must have a story).
As we know, Monty has gone Reform, and IDS is rather more crusty than he was.
To me they seem to have a bit more US-Right related content, but have not lost a lot of writers, and do have writers from other streams.1 -
Why ? It did nothing for them before and why would supporters of one party be told by that party to vote for another.logical_song said:
LibDem / Green electoral pact needed.Phil said:Re the header article: so are we seeing a fundamental re-alignment of British politics along a Reform / LibDem axis?
If the Corbynites win the leadership election I doubt it would be viable.0 -
If Bozo returns I could foresee a situation where all four major parties including Reform are near the 20% mark.
The calls for PR may get louder abd louder.2 -
A less effective, but potentially less personally costly, Plan B, is call 999, and tell them the number plate and where he is going. Sometimes people listen to cops more.JosiasJessop said:
Nah. Never burn bridges. The contract was not renewed a few weeks after, and the company had a weird thing that contractors who worked for them for a set period became permanent - and my time was approaching that limit. So the incident and non-renewal might not be connected.GIN1138 said:
Hope you told your boss he was a stupid, selfish bastard on the way out of the door?JosiasJessop said:A looooong time ago, myself and a friend were out on the lash with some colleagues. Our boss - heavily drunk - tried to drive home. We took his keys off him and called him a taxi, returning his keys the next morning. He called us into his office and give us the bollocking from Hell.
My contract was not renewed...
What got me was the dressing-down he gave us. As if we had been in the wrong, not him.
I had not even been particularly drunk, as I was on painkillers at the time. I was the sober one.
I don't normally talk to people, but when I mentioned to somebody that he had blocked the mobility aid hospital entrance with his car, and that all the people would have to go back 100m+ down the pavement and come back up the main driveway road, I got a right mouthful.2 -
I 100% follow the principle of never burning bridges, but if there ever was a time to do so, your story seems like it.JosiasJessop said:
Nah. Never burn bridges. The contract was not renewed a few weeks after, and the company had a weird thing that contractors who worked for them for a set period became permanent - and my time was approaching that limit. So the incident and non-renewal might not be connected.GIN1138 said:
Hope you told your boss he was a stupid, selfish bastard on the way out of the door?JosiasJessop said:A looooong time ago, myself and a friend were out on the lash with some colleagues. Our boss - heavily drunk - tried to drive home. We took his keys off him and called him a taxi, returning his keys the next morning. He called us into his office and give us the bollocking from Hell.
My contract was not renewed...
What got me was the dressing-down he gave us. As if we had been in the wrong, not him.
I had not even been particularly drunk, as I was on painkillers at the time. I was the sober one.1 -
I'm not aware of a PBer with the user name £100.Gardenwalker said:I have a standing bet with another PBer that Boris will return in time for the next election.
But I can’t remember which PBer.
Think it was £100.4 -
The Tories could win in 2029 - if Reform are bankrupted by Lowe, Labour massively screw up, and new Tory leader Tugenhat finds a vibe shift that actually looks stable.Fishing said:The key point in the tweet in the title is that the Tories are in 4th place "for the first time since 2019".
Does anybody remember what happened in the final month of that turbulent year?
Polling fluctuations at the start of a Parliament mean f-all in predicting the outcome of the next election to anybody except a few political obsessives, especially the case now when it is almost certain that we are in for a >4 year Parliament.
I realise that undermines about 70% of the comments on here over the next few years, no doubt including some of my own, but it's a key point and can't be stated often enough.
Or at any rate it isn't being stated nearly often enough.
Those things are very unlikely to happen but of course its possible.
The point about 2019 is that there was a burning platform at the start of the year due to collapse which would propel a populist government with an exciting and charismatic leader into office. In 2025 the platform is on fire under the Tories and the exciting and charismatic leader is Farage...0 -
A lot of drunks and drunk/drugged drivers think they're doing nothing wrong as it's like second nature to them.JosiasJessop said:
Nah. Never burn bridges. The contract was not renewed a few weeks after, and the company had a weird thing that contractors who worked for them for a set period became permanent - and my time was approaching that limit. So the incident and non-renewal might not be connected.GIN1138 said:
Hope you told your boss he was a stupid, selfish bastard on the way out of the door?JosiasJessop said:A looooong time ago, myself and a friend were out on the lash with some colleagues. Our boss - heavily drunk - tried to drive home. We took his keys off him and called him a taxi, returning his keys the next morning. He called us into his office and give us the bollocking from Hell.
My contract was not renewed...
What got me was the dressing-down he gave us. As if we had been in the wrong, not him.
My attitude is, who cares if the idiot killed himself, but suppose he took a family out with him?
I knew someone who crashed his car while drunk driving and killed himself (that's his problem) but also took out an innocent woman who was driving on safely and doing nothing wrong.0 -
Probably as they used to be known as £73 until Truss caused inflation to soar.SandyRentool said:
I'm not aware of a PBer with the user name £100.Gardenwalker said:I have a standing bet with another PBer that Boris will return in time for the next election.
But I can’t remember which PBer.
Think it was £100.0 -
I meant if both drivers had drunk the same amount. But I do think that zero tolerance for drink driving, as far as is possible, should be the way. I occasionally used to drive to the pub on a Sat night and have three lager shandies over three hours then drive home, but I still felt a bit looser than when I drove completely sober.theProle said:
Trouble with that is that whilst I'm against drink driving, I'd want to distinguish between "had one pint too many, then drove a mile home home in a steady and careful manner" and "downed 15 pints and was then pulled over after been seen driving at 100mph on the wrong side of the road in 30 limit".isam said:
I see what you mean, but I think there is a decent argument that driving after having a skinful and getting away with it should be punished as if you’d hit and killed someone. The person who did the latter is no worse than the formerkinabalu said:
Yep you can argue that. It's logical. But think where it goes. Eg I have a skinful and drive my car. Scenario A, the cops stop me and I get done for DUI. Scenario B, I hit and kill someone. My behaviour is equally bad in both scenarios, isn't it, but would we want to see the same punishment?isam said:
Seems completely crazy, and would be ludicrously frustrating, on top of a load of other frustrations, for the innocent prisonerkinabalu said:
That is a fiendish conundrum, isn't it. You get early release by admitting guilt. But you won't want to do that if you're innocent.Dopermean said:
No the fundamental difference is this "Malkinson could have been released after 6½ years but was not due to his maintaining his innocence.[15] He was released in 2020 for good behaviour."eek said:
Tommy many names was jailed for 18 monthsDopermean said:
Two tier justiceisam said:Tommy Robinson is being released from prison next week. That's eleven months early I think
Robinson, a multiple offender who has shown no contrition for his offending gets parole
Malkinson and others wrongly convicted serve their full tariff despite being model prisoners, only being released when their convictions are overturned
Malkinson was jailed for 31 months.
That's the fundamental difference as even if both were given identical treatment and released after 40% of their sentence was served Tommy is going to be out 4 to 5 months earlier.
Robinson is a recidivist who has shown no contrition for his offending but is being released after serving a 1/3 of reduced sentence, Malkinson, and others who maintain their innocence, are not eligible for early parole regardless of their risk of reoffending or behaviour in prison, solely because they contest their conviction.
The latter is institutionalized spite by the Criminal Justice system for questioning the process and safety of the conviction.
I am sure I have mentioned this before, but another crazy thing for me is the lesser sentence for attempted murder than murder. If a person who has been stabbed is saved by a passing medic while another a street away dies because no one sees him, why should the two assailants be treated any differently? They both had a desire to kill someone, and acted on it. The intention should be judged, not the outcome
Both are wrong. Both have an elevated risk of killing someone, but the second guy is obviously far more of a danger to life than the first. It seems profoundly unfair if we treat them both the same, because their actions *might* have killed someone.0 -
Labour's management of the economy was absolutely disastrous right from the get-go in 1997.PJH said:
Only very old voters. I'm in my mid-50s and I don't remember the Tories ever managing the economy well. Late Major perhaps - but they were recovering from their own previous screw-up. Only Labour has managed the economy well in my adult lifetime (in 1997-2007). The only period when the Conservatives were not a liability was the Coalition, which was not exactly glorious, and ruling alone since then was a continuous shit show.MoonRabbit said:
Voters still remember when Conservative governments managed the economy well - less than a decade ago - is why to peel away from the Conservative Party to Reform right now, is hasty and stupid. Reform have zero credibility for being trusted with the UK economy.stodge said:Afternoon all
We forget @MoonRabbit is the other Conservative...
It's one poll and means nothing in isolation. Opinium had a 5-point gap at the weekend. Perhaps of more significance, apart from More In Common, the Conservatives have been below 20% in every poll conducted since the local elections.
The only answer I think is the old cobbler saying "time wounds all heels". While we witter on about what happened 10-15 years ago as though it were still of vital importance, most voters don't. The memory of the Conservatives in office will fade with time and they will then have the opportunity (as in 2005) to go back to the public with a new slate, new faces and new thinking.
Anyone and everyone associated with the 2010-24 period such as Boris, JRM and Badenoch - all of them need to walk away and clear the field for the next generation whoever that may be.
“Vote Conservative for strong economy and looking after the pounds in your pocket. Labour, for all their good intentions will wreck the economy, they have huge black holes in their economic plans they can’t explain.” < this is exactly how the Conservative Party had so many more years in office over the last century,
Exactly like Labour struggled in 20th century, Reform will have a huge problem rebutting this. Kemi will absolutely shred Reform at the next General Election. Conservatives have pragmatism and real economic credibility - Reform are ideological purists with nothing but £100B+ black hole in their economic credibility.2 -
I think DUI is one of those that got past the "don't shop your friends" point, which is very good. I think there's some slippage - remembering for example the Cardiff 2023 (?) "lost VW" crash where the driver and passengers were all drunk, and we now have the issue alongside that drugging and driving is acceptable in some circles and demographics.GIN1138 said:
A lot of drunks and drunk/drugged drivers think they're doing nothing wrong as it's like second nature to them.JosiasJessop said:
Nah. Never burn bridges. The contract was not renewed a few weeks after, and the company had a weird thing that contractors who worked for them for a set period became permanent - and my time was approaching that limit. So the incident and non-renewal might not be connected.GIN1138 said:
Hope you told your boss he was a stupid, selfish bastard on the way out of the door?JosiasJessop said:A looooong time ago, myself and a friend were out on the lash with some colleagues. Our boss - heavily drunk - tried to drive home. We took his keys off him and called him a taxi, returning his keys the next morning. He called us into his office and give us the bollocking from Hell.
My contract was not renewed...
What got me was the dressing-down he gave us. As if we had been in the wrong, not him.
My attitude is, who cares if the idiot killed himself, but suppose he took a family out with him?
I knew someone who crashed his car while drunk driving and killed himself (that's his problem) but also took out an innocent woman who was driving on safely and doing nothing wrong.1 -
Yes, that is what I meant.kinabalu said:
I think the proposition (isam) was more that if you're stopped and found to be pie-eyed at the wheel, ie totally blotto not just a bit tipsy, the punishment should be similar to if you'd hit and killed somebody, because it's only pure luck that you didn't.theProle said:
Definitely. That doesn't mean there aren't different degrees of idiocy, and I'm not sure it would be wise or helpful to band them together in a one size fit all sort of a way.BartholomewRoberts said:
If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot.theProle said:
Trouble with that is that whilst I'm against drink driving, I'd want to distinguish between "had one pint too many, then drove a mile home home in a steady and careful manner" and "downed 15 pints and was then pulled over after been seen driving at 100mph on the wrong side of the road in 30 limit".isam said:
I see what you mean, but I think there is a decent argument that driving after having a skinful and getting away with it should be punished as if you’d hit and killed someone. The person who did the latter is no worse than the formerkinabalu said:
Yep you can argue that. It's logical. But think where it goes. Eg I have a skinful and drive my car. Scenario A, the cops stop me and I get done for DUI. Scenario B, I hit and kill someone. My behaviour is equally bad in both scenarios, isn't it, but would we want to see the same punishment?isam said:
Seems completely crazy, and would be ludicrously frustrating, on top of a load of other frustrations, for the innocent prisonerkinabalu said:
That is a fiendish conundrum, isn't it. You get early release by admitting guilt. But you won't want to do that if you're innocent.Dopermean said:
No the fundamental difference is this "Malkinson could have been released after 6½ years but was not due to his maintaining his innocence.[15] He was released in 2020 for good behaviour."eek said:
Tommy many names was jailed for 18 monthsDopermean said:
Two tier justiceisam said:Tommy Robinson is being released from prison next week. That's eleven months early I think
Robinson, a multiple offender who has shown no contrition for his offending gets parole
Malkinson and others wrongly convicted serve their full tariff despite being model prisoners, only being released when their convictions are overturned
Malkinson was jailed for 31 months.
That's the fundamental difference as even if both were given identical treatment and released after 40% of their sentence was served Tommy is going to be out 4 to 5 months earlier.
Robinson is a recidivist who has shown no contrition for his offending but is being released after serving a 1/3 of reduced sentence, Malkinson, and others who maintain their innocence, are not eligible for early parole regardless of their risk of reoffending or behaviour in prison, solely because they contest their conviction.
The latter is institutionalized spite by the Criminal Justice system for questioning the process and safety of the conviction.
I am sure I have mentioned this before, but another crazy thing for me is the lesser sentence for attempted murder than murder. If a person who has been stabbed is saved by a passing medic while another a street away dies because no one sees him, why should the two assailants be treated any differently? They both had a desire to kill someone, and acted on it. The intention should be judged, not the outcome
Both are wrong. Both have an elevated risk of killing someone, but the second guy is obviously far more of a danger to life than the first. It seems profoundly unfair if we treat them both the same, because their actions *might* have killed someone.1 -
https://www.newstatesman.com/author/john-grayrcs1000 said:
Hang on: not all writers have clarity of thought.Cookie said:
I'd say archetypically, they are leftish economically (sometimes extremely so), rightish culturally. But like any group of writers there is a diversity of opinion and of clarity of thought.MattW said:
Is there any "Unherd lot"?Cookie said:
The Unherd lot will tell you that (paraphrasing wildly) identity politics is a tool for the corporate west to distract from economic inequality. I'm not necessarily bought into this as a conspiracy, but it certainly has this effect. And thus, the working classes turn away from the left, because the left deals with issues of increasing irrelevance to them.kinabalu said:
Yes the left is (sadly from my pov) in the doldrums. Eg in all of the mainstream discourse about policies, priorities, problems etc there is hardly a mention these days of what is and always has been my biggest political interest - the reduction of inequality. Nobody seems bothered about it. Or if they are it's just accepted there's no appetite or realistic possibility of doing anything serious in that space. It's afflicted me too if I'm honest. I don't care as much as I used to. If something is not happening it seems a bit pointless to stay invested in it. Then again, tell that to a lifelong Crystal Palace supporter.Sean_F said:Things come to an end.
The Conservatives relied upon persuading the elites that they could protect their property; persuading centrists that they could keep the right in check; and persuading the right that they were their least bad option.
But, nobody really believes that radical socialists now threaten property; centrists are furious about the EU, and the right view the Conservatives as being as bad as the rest.
They have been suffering, but still have a diversish bunch of writers.
Hard to know what the readership is, but extrapolating from comments I would say there is rather less enthusiasm for socialism among the readers than among the writers.
I mean, have you read the latest John Gray
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/04/27/hyperliberalism/0 -
No one like people shouting "You're a taxi" at themJosiasJessop said:A looooong time ago, myself and a friend were out on the lash with some colleagues. Our boss - heavily drunk - tried to drive home. We took his keys off him and called him a taxi, returning his keys the next morning. He called us into his office and give us the bollocking from Hell.
My contract was not renewed...5 -
PS: Reading his responses on the thread, he's quite the knuckledragger.MattW said:
What's his point? He objects to Muslim Women not being kept in their place?isam said:The new Mayor of Rotherham, Rukhsana Ismail, is sworn in.
Allahu akbar!
🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
https://x.com/suffragent_/status/1924734041196024233?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
(He's a bit of a Rupert Lowe type, btw.)
He's doing the usual tactic - try and demonise all the Muslims, including in his case the women as he is anti-woman as well, by taking a particular allegation and smearing it more generally.
In this case the new female Muslim Mayor of Rotherham is a Magistrate, has a career working at a Domestic Violence charity, and is Chair of UNISON Sheffield.1 -
As if the Tories haven’t driven enough of their voters to UKIP and its subsequent SeanT-like later regenerations already?Andy_JS said:
Jenrick is the obvious candidate.WhisperingOracle said:I do enjoy the Tory changes of leader, that should say below there. But I can't see who would replace Kemi.
0 -
I hear you, I’ll do more threads on PR.WhisperingOracle said:If Bozo returns I could foresee a situation where all four major parties including Reform are near the 20% mark.
The calls for PR may get louder abd louder.1 -
Will Smithers Reeves apologise for her fake laugh?
Quite fitting that he apologised six days after snapping at the accusation that he never holds an opinion for longer than a week
Starmer says sorry to Plaid Cymru MP Liz Savile Roberts for saying a belief he holds for more than a week is "the belief that she talks rubbish."
https://x.com/guidofawkes/status/1924808027321901168?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q0 -
I think £100 may be right. Certainly l, figures like Tugendhat are too nice / bright for the more Tories, and figures like Badenoch and Jenrick are relatable enougb.SandyRentool said:
I'm not aware of a PBer with the user name £100.Gardenwalker said:I have a standing bet with another PBer that Boris will return in time for the next election.
But I can’t remember which PBer.
Think it was £100.
Full steam ahead, therefore, for more corruption with Boris.0 -
Another big difference with 2019 is incumbency. It is much harder to drift into irrelevance when you're running the show, providing the PM, and what you do is important and newsworthy simply because it's your hand on the tiller.RochdalePioneers said:
The Tories could win in 2029 - if Reform are bankrupted by Lowe, Labour massively screw up, and new Tory leader Tugenhat finds a vibe shift that actually looks stable.Fishing said:The key point in the tweet in the title is that the Tories are in 4th place "for the first time since 2019".
Does anybody remember what happened in the final month of that turbulent year?
Polling fluctuations at the start of a Parliament mean f-all in predicting the outcome of the next election to anybody except a few political obsessives, especially the case now when it is almost certain that we are in for a >4 year Parliament.
I realise that undermines about 70% of the comments on here over the next few years, no doubt including some of my own, but it's a key point and can't be stated often enough.
Or at any rate it isn't being stated nearly often enough.
Those things are very unlikely to happen but of course its possible.
The point about 2019 is that there was a burning platform at the start of the year due to collapse which would propel a populist government with an exciting and charismatic leader into office. In 2025 the platform is on fire under the Tories and the exciting and charismatic leader is Farage...
As you say, there are ways back - plenty that can happen over the coming years to put the Tories back in contention. They are a rounding error behind the Lib Dems in one poll, and that may well be an outlier. But if it starts being a regular thing, then the narrative gets terribly stuck with RefUK being the right wing choice, the Lib Dems the moderate alternative to the Government, and really what are the Tories bringing to the table?0 -
What a garbled mess below - figures like Tugendhat are too nice and bright for the modern Tories, and figures like Badenoch and Jenrick not relatable enough, that should say there.0
-
Something else also happened in 2019, very shortly after that poll with the Tories in 4th place.Fishing said:The key point in the tweet in the title is that the Tories are in 4th place "for the first time since 2019".
Does anybody remember what happened in the final month of that turbulent year?
Boris Johnson got elected leader of the Conservative Party.
The Conservative Party's recovery in the polls started immediately after he got elected leader.0 -
UK suspends trade talks with Israel . Too little too late . Europe should put sanctions on the country .3
-
Puerto Rico 🇵🇷TheScreamingEagles said:
I hear you, I’ll do more threads on PR.WhisperingOracle said:If Bozo returns I could foresee a situation where all four major parties including Reform are near the 20% mark.
The calls for PR may get louder abd louder.2 -
https://x.com/aaronbastani/status/1924821848673358022
A hell of a lot hinges on the Polanski-Corbyn-Sultana axis. There’s nothing else stopping Labour from hitting Tory style numbers.0 -
Latest from Slalom on his eGates "deal", which seems, to anyone with a brain, exactly like the status quo
"You know how it goes: all you want to do is start your holiday, but you get off the plane to never-ending queues at passport control.
My deal with the EU means more Brits will be able to sail through the e-Gates instead.
Getting you to the beach sooner."0 -
Firstly, you are comparing a Brexit referendum with a general election? Many voters skipped Brexit referendum, or voted leave on basis it wasn’t an election choosing a party to look after the economy. How leave areas returned MPs for hard left Corbyn in 2017 is substantial psephological evidence. That alone shredded your post.Phil said:
This is what Remain thought about the Leave campaign.MoonRabbit said:
I reject your analysis. The polls say as much about the shake down end of this race, as a horse leading by a few lengths one fifth into a race.Phil said:
This is wishful thinking. Populism is resurgent across the West right now & Farage knows how to ride that train.MoonRabbit said:
Voters still remember when Conservative governments managed the economy well - less than a decade ago - is why to peel away from the Conservative Party to Reform right now, is hasty and stupid. Reform have zero credibility for being trusted with the UK economy.stodge said:Afternoon all
We forget @MoonRabbit is the other Conservative...
It's one poll and means nothing in isolation. Opinium had a 5-point gap at the weekend. Perhaps of more significance, apart from More In Common, the Conservatives have been below 20% in every poll conducted since the local elections.
The only answer I think is the old cobbler saying "time wounds all heels". While we witter on about what happened 10-15 years ago as though it were still of vital importance, most voters don't. The memory of the Conservatives in office will fade with time and they will then have the opportunity (as in 2005) to go back to the public with a new slate, new faces and new thinking.
Anyone and everyone associated with the 2010-24 period such as Boris, JRM and Badenoch - all of them need to walk away and clear the field for the next generation whoever that may be.
“Vote Conservative for strong economy and looking after the pounds in your pocket. Labour, for all their good intentions will wreck the economy, they have huge black holes in their economic plans they can’t explain.” < this is exactly how the Conservative Party had so many more years in office over the last century,
Exactly like Labour struggled in 20th century, Reform will have a huge problem rebutting this. Kemi will absolutely shred Reform at the next General Election. Conservatives have pragmatism and real economic credibility - Reform are ideological purists with nothing but £100B+ black hole in their economic credibility.
The voters gave the Conservatives a fair shake & were disappointed, so they turned to Labour who (so far) have not covered themselves in glory. Current polling suggests that they‘re far more likely to turn to Farage/Reform than they are to give the current Conservatives another chance.
2-party FPTP systems are ruthless engines of destruction for parties that fall out of favour.
When it comes to the run in, lack of any economic credibility, hundreds of billions of pounds of black hole, is a total Achilles heel torpedoing chances of Reform adding much to their current number of MPs. Conservative Partys economic pragmatism and historical credibility at running the economy will see them shred Reform in a General Election campaign.
An angry population will vote for whomever offers a combination of the most attractive sweeteners combined with giving them someone to blame; populist movements are good at exactly that thing & Reform could well ride that wave into government.
If we see Reform led councils collapsing early & often then people might open their eyes to the likely economic competence of a future Reform government, but without that concrete example I suspect the voters will weigh such warnings about as heavily as they did “project fear”. You can be right, but it doesn’t mean the voters will listen to you.
But, secondly, this isn’t two party politics. It won’t be Labour and Conservative squabbling over whose manifesto is greatest threat with Black Holes in the budgets, at the March April campaign 2029, a lot of both main parties air time and budget will be spent pointing out to voters that, from migration, economics, health, education, through to foreign affairs, Reform do not have a sane, workable, non ruinous policy to take to serious UK voters.0 -
This is quite a take. Zarah Sultana is really more a student politician type. Polanski could galvanise rhe Corbynite left.williamglenn said:https://x.com/aaronbastani/status/1924821848673358022
A hell of a lot hinges on the Polanski-Corbyn-Sultana axis. There’s nothing else stopping Labour from hitting Tory style numbers.0 -
There needs to be some sort of public information campaign on drugs. They can stay in your system much longer. And that "certain demographic" is often the people doing the school run.MattW said:
I think DUI is one of those that got past the "don't shop your friends" point, which is very good. I think there's some slippage - remembering for example the Cardiff 2023 (?) "lost VW" crash where the driver and passengers were all drunk, and we now have the issue alongside that drugging and driving is acceptable in some circles and demographics.GIN1138 said:
A lot of drunks and drunk/drugged drivers think they're doing nothing wrong as it's like second nature to them.JosiasJessop said:
Nah. Never burn bridges. The contract was not renewed a few weeks after, and the company had a weird thing that contractors who worked for them for a set period became permanent - and my time was approaching that limit. So the incident and non-renewal might not be connected.GIN1138 said:
Hope you told your boss he was a stupid, selfish bastard on the way out of the door?JosiasJessop said:A looooong time ago, myself and a friend were out on the lash with some colleagues. Our boss - heavily drunk - tried to drive home. We took his keys off him and called him a taxi, returning his keys the next morning. He called us into his office and give us the bollocking from Hell.
My contract was not renewed...
What got me was the dressing-down he gave us. As if we had been in the wrong, not him.
My attitude is, who cares if the idiot killed himself, but suppose he took a family out with him?
I knew someone who crashed his car while drunk driving and killed himself (that's his problem) but also took out an innocent woman who was driving on safely and doing nothing wrong.
The other issue is that by doing drugs, you're already breaking the law. For some people, the driving on top isn't an escalation of the wrongdoing.1 -
What will be quite bizarre especially if Reform are still leading the polls in the run up to the GE, is the Labour and Tory parties not allowing Farage airtime on debates because Reform only have five seats in the HofC. They will surely try it thoughMoonRabbit said:
Firstly, you are comparing a Brexit referendum with a general election? Many voters skipped Brexit referendum, or voted leave on basis it wasn’t an election choosing a party to look after the economy. How leave areas returned MPs for hard left Corbyn in 2017 is substantial psephological evidence. That alone shredded your post.Phil said:
This is what Remain thought about the Leave campaign.MoonRabbit said:
I reject your analysis. The polls say as much about the shake down end of this race, as a horse leading by a few lengths one fifth into a race.Phil said:
This is wishful thinking. Populism is resurgent across the West right now & Farage knows how to ride that train.MoonRabbit said:
Voters still remember when Conservative governments managed the economy well - less than a decade ago - is why to peel away from the Conservative Party to Reform right now, is hasty and stupid. Reform have zero credibility for being trusted with the UK economy.stodge said:Afternoon all
We forget @MoonRabbit is the other Conservative...
It's one poll and means nothing in isolation. Opinium had a 5-point gap at the weekend. Perhaps of more significance, apart from More In Common, the Conservatives have been below 20% in every poll conducted since the local elections.
The only answer I think is the old cobbler saying "time wounds all heels". While we witter on about what happened 10-15 years ago as though it were still of vital importance, most voters don't. The memory of the Conservatives in office will fade with time and they will then have the opportunity (as in 2005) to go back to the public with a new slate, new faces and new thinking.
Anyone and everyone associated with the 2010-24 period such as Boris, JRM and Badenoch - all of them need to walk away and clear the field for the next generation whoever that may be.
“Vote Conservative for strong economy and looking after the pounds in your pocket. Labour, for all their good intentions will wreck the economy, they have huge black holes in their economic plans they can’t explain.” < this is exactly how the Conservative Party had so many more years in office over the last century,
Exactly like Labour struggled in 20th century, Reform will have a huge problem rebutting this. Kemi will absolutely shred Reform at the next General Election. Conservatives have pragmatism and real economic credibility - Reform are ideological purists with nothing but £100B+ black hole in their economic credibility.
The voters gave the Conservatives a fair shake & were disappointed, so they turned to Labour who (so far) have not covered themselves in glory. Current polling suggests that they‘re far more likely to turn to Farage/Reform than they are to give the current Conservatives another chance.
2-party FPTP systems are ruthless engines of destruction for parties that fall out of favour.
When it comes to the run in, lack of any economic credibility, hundreds of billions of pounds of black hole, is a total Achilles heel torpedoing chances of Reform adding much to their current number of MPs. Conservative Partys economic pragmatism and historical credibility at running the economy will see them shred Reform in a General Election campaign.
An angry population will vote for whomever offers a combination of the most attractive sweeteners combined with giving them someone to blame; populist movements are good at exactly that thing & Reform could well ride that wave into government.
If we see Reform led councils collapsing early & often then people might open their eyes to the likely economic competence of a future Reform government, but without that concrete example I suspect the voters will weigh such warnings about as heavily as they did “project fear”. You can be right, but it doesn’t mean the voters will listen to you.
But, secondly, this isn’t two party politics. It won’t be Labour and Conservative squabbling over whose manifesto is greatest threat with Black Holes in the budgets, at the March April campaign 2029, a lot of both main parties air time and budget will be spent pointing out to voters that, from migration, economics, health, education, through to foreign affairs, Reform do not have a sane, workable, non ruinous policy to take to serious UK voters.0