Brown believed his own genius - hence 'ending (Tory) boom and bust'. The reality is that he inherited a booming economy and then decided to open the taps for reasons. Of course the sale of the gold is more complicated than it is sometimes portrayed, but his financial negligence around his OWN fiscal rules was shocking. And then you have the vast expansion of PFI (yes the Tories started it, but Brown went BIG). PFI took spending off the annual returns and inter the perpetual future. All those lightbulbs changed for 300 quid...
On PFI I’m not fully behind the consensus that it was a disaster. A lot of the money spent was capex. If not for PFI, it would either have never been spent at all (and our public realm would be even more crumbling) or it would have been spent by necessity years later, at several times the price.
There are plenty of examples of poor PFI deals, but there are always plenty of examples of poor infrastructure projects. We know from the story of HS2, nuclear power and multiple other infrastructure fails in recent decades that a problem postponed is a problem doubled. PFI was a rare example of JFDI.
It got things done, this is true, but at an inflated cost.
To me it illustrates well one of the golden rules of trading. If you can deal with a counterparty who is doing the trade for reasons other than pure £££ you're likely to be the winner.
In this case the counterparty driven by non £££ considerations (being to keep debt off the books) was the government. So the other side - the private sector providers - were able to make hay.
The replies from across the spectrum on this show how far PFI-as-failure has become embedded in the political mind. As with all things it contains some truth, but loses nuance.
1. A number of PFI contractors went bust. They didn’t negotiate a very good deal with government 2. The super-profits attributable to some of them came from a wheeze - a bad wheeze in hindsight - that had nothing to do with government contracting, but was a benefit of falling interest rates and refinancing 3. Sure, we didn’t PFI some of our most pressing infrastructure projects, but nor did we build them, which brings me on to 4. Those decrying PFI need to describe the realistic alternative history. And that alternative history is that the investment wasn’t made. Precisely because of the Treasury accounting that PFI circumvented.
To have a credible alternative path for PFI you have to argue that government would have thrown out the usual bean counting orthodoxy and thought “to hell with it, let’s build those things”.
Reeves is starting to throw out the orthodoxy but we should go much further and ahould bever have been in this position. We should count the value of houses and infrastructure we build not just the cost. Doing something inefficiently just so that it looks better on a treasury spreadsheet is daft.
New Labour were too timid/infected with Thatcher mind virus that state could not and should not build, should contract everything out. As a result we underinvest.
A handsome guy on here yesterday said something like this..... Some won't care but those that hate this deal REALLY hate it. Exactly what this poll shows. Support is more likely lukewarm, opposition much fiercer with overall opposition more likely. Polling on issues does not of course give the full picture. In the aftermath of Truss budget the measures were almost all more supported than opposed and within a week and a half the Tories were 35 points adrift in the polls. After a day of coverage 1 in 5 strongly oppose the deal. Another scab to be picked at. One of many. Harman briefing openly against Starmer/WFA U turn, the Lab MP supporting Rupert over Lucy C, the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff. His desperate bonfire of deals, u turns, press releases, begging for support....... It's coming to a head. He's out soon. He'll make a year as PM (just)
Labour's majority is 150-odd, maybe more, Labour has always had more backbench independence, and Labour does not have the mechanism Conservatives do to oust leaders, so that is three reasons Starmer is going nowhere. But I do think Starmer will choose to retire early à la Wilson.
Oh indeed, the ousting is very tricky but he's clearly already desperate. Its not backbenchers/usual suspects, it's big beast ex front benchers like Harman, well loved characters within Labour like Diane, his own Chief of Staff. It smacks of a Brown 2009 mood and the McBride, Balls, Draper farrago and the later Purnell abortive coup. If they want him gone they will find the way. I fancy a surfeit of skeletons are available.
I have been wrong before. This afternoon actually. Lolz
Jonathan Chait, Atlantic, tells Bulwark that Dems have real cultural problem in the party around old age and elected office holders hanging on into very old age and then frankly dying in office leaving vacancies. Seems the Trump bill might have been lost otherwise.
Another old, cancer ridden Dem congressman died earlier this week.
That's at least three so far this year.
I always said I'd retire from full-time work at 65, and from part-time at 70. And I did, in spite of offers, pressure etc to go on. And I'm glad I did because, as well as having 5 years when I worked to my schedule, not anyone else's, I had about a dozen years where I was beholden to no-one, except of course, my wife.
I always said I would retire at 65, which I did, and have had 16 years also beholden to no-one other than my wife of 61 years who has been amazingly patient
In fact it was 16 years ago next week on the 31st May 2009
Starmer's claque of Matrix Chambers lawyer pals - Hermer and Sands - cooked up the Chagos fiasco
Yes but because of the way barristers' chambers are organised, being quite small and tending to specialise, that's not necessarily the gotcha it first appears. You'd quite often see both sides in a criminal trial or planning case from the same chambers, for instance.
Why should you think it's meant to be a gotcha? The point is that Starmer has other m'learned friends trumping the national interest with faux legalism
Brown believed his own genius - hence 'ending (Tory) boom and bust'. The reality is that he inherited a booming economy and then decided to open the taps for reasons. Of course the sale of the gold is more complicated than it is sometimes portrayed, but his financial negligence around his OWN fiscal rules was shocking. And then you have the vast expansion of PFI (yes the Tories started it, but Brown went BIG). PFI took spending off the annual returns and inter the perpetual future. All those lightbulbs changed for 300 quid...
On PFI I’m not fully behind the consensus that it was a disaster. A lot of the money spent was capex. If not for PFI, it would either have never been spent at all (and our public realm would be even more crumbling) or it would have been spent by necessity years later, at several times the price.
There are plenty of examples of poor PFI deals, but there are always plenty of examples of poor infrastructure projects. We know from the story of HS2, nuclear power and multiple other infrastructure fails in recent decades that a problem postponed is a problem doubled. PFI was a rare example of JFDI.
There was undoubtedly an overwhelming need for infrastructure investment. PFI was, in many instances, an unnecessary and expensive complication. That's not hindsight; it was clear at the time.
And we failed on the big infrastructure stuff - nuclear and rail, for example - where putting off decisions cost an immense amount of money, and in the case of HS2, complete failure.
Yes, there was a big row at the time with Ken Livingstone about how to pay for TfL investment. As Ken pointed out, governments can borrow more cheaply than the private sector.
But private sector borrowing does not appear on the government's books.
A handsome guy on here yesterday said something like this..... Some won't care but those that hate this deal REALLY hate it. Exactly what this poll shows. Support is more likely lukewarm, opposition much fiercer with overall opposition more likely. Polling on issues does not of course give the full picture. In the aftermath of Truss budget the measures were almost all more supported than opposed and within a week and a half the Tories were 35 points adrift in the polls. After a day of coverage 1 in 5 strongly oppose the deal. Another scab to be picked at. One of many. Harman briefing openly against Starmer/WFA U turn, the Lab MP supporting Rupert over Lucy C, the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff. His desperate bonfire of deals, u turns, press releases, begging for support....... It's coming to a head. He's out soon. He'll make a year as PM (just)
Labour's majority is 150-odd, maybe more, Labour has always had more backbench independence, and Labour does not have the mechanism Conservatives do to oust leaders, so that is three reasons Starmer is going nowhere. But I do think Starmer will choose to retire early à la Wilson.
Oh indeed, the ousting is very tricky but he's clearly already desperate. Its not backbenchers/usual suspects, it's big beast ex front benchers like Harman, well loved characters within Labour like Diane, his own Chief of Staff. It smacks of a Brown 2009 mood and the McBride, Balls, Draper farrago and the later Purnell abortive coup. If they want him gone they will find the way. I fancy a surfeit of skeletons are available.
I have been wrong before. This afternoon actually. Lolz
I checked the betting on a 25 exit for SKS. It's shorter than I expected. 4/1.
A handsome guy on here yesterday said something like this..... Some won't care but those that hate this deal REALLY hate it. Exactly what this poll shows. Support is more likely lukewarm, opposition much fiercer with overall opposition more likely. Polling on issues does not of course give the full picture. In the aftermath of Truss budget the measures were almost all more supported than opposed and within a week and a half the Tories were 35 points adrift in the polls. After a day of coverage 1 in 5 strongly oppose the deal. Another scab to be picked at. One of many. Harman briefing openly against Starmer/WFA U turn, the Lab MP supporting Rupert over Lucy C, the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff. His desperate bonfire of deals, u turns, press releases, begging for support....... It's coming to a head. He's out soon. He'll make a year as PM (just)
Labour's majority is 150-odd, maybe more, Labour has always had more backbench independence, and Labour does not have the mechanism Conservatives do to oust leaders, so that is three reasons Starmer is going nowhere. But I do think Starmer will choose to retire early à la Wilson.
Oh indeed, the ousting is very tricky but he's clearly already desperate. Its not backbenchers/usual suspects, it's big beast ex front benchers like Harman, well loved characters within Labour like Diane, his own Chief of Staff. It smacks of a Brown 2009 mood and the McBride, Balls, Draper farrago and the later Purnell abortive coup. If they want him gone they will find the way. I fancy a surfeit of skeletons are available.
I have been wrong before. This afternoon actually. Lolz
I checked the betting on a 25 exit for SKS. It's shorter than I expected. 4/1.
Brown believed his own genius - hence 'ending (Tory) boom and bust'. The reality is that he inherited a booming economy and then decided to open the taps for reasons. Of course the sale of the gold is more complicated than it is sometimes portrayed, but his financial negligence around his OWN fiscal rules was shocking. And then you have the vast expansion of PFI (yes the Tories started it, but Brown went BIG). PFI took spending off the annual returns and inter the perpetual future. All those lightbulbs changed for 300 quid...
On PFI I’m not fully behind the consensus that it was a disaster. A lot of the money spent was capex. If not for PFI, it would either have never been spent at all (and our public realm would be even more crumbling) or it would have been spent by necessity years later, at several times the price.
There are plenty of examples of poor PFI deals, but there are always plenty of examples of poor infrastructure projects. We know from the story of HS2, nuclear power and multiple other infrastructure fails in recent decades that a problem postponed is a problem doubled. PFI was a rare example of JFDI.
It got things done, this is true, but at an inflated cost.
To me it illustrates well one of the golden rules of trading. If you can deal with a counterparty who is doing the trade for reasons other than pure £££ you're likely to be the winner.
In this case the counterparty driven by non £££ considerations (being to keep debt off the books) was the government. So the other side - the private sector providers - were able to make hay.
The replies from across the spectrum on this show how far PFI-as-failure has become embedded in the political mind. As with all things it contains some truth, but loses nuance.
1. A number of PFI contractors went bust. They didn’t negotiate a very good deal with government 2. The super-profits attributable to some of them came from a wheeze - a bad wheeze in hindsight - that had nothing to do with government contracting, but was a benefit of falling interest rates and refinancing 3. Sure, we didn’t PFI some of our most pressing infrastructure projects, but nor did we build them, which brings me on to 4. Those decrying PFI need to describe the realistic alternative history. And that alternative history is that the investment wasn’t made. Precisely because of the Treasury accounting that PFI circumvented.
To have a credible alternative path for PFI you have to argue that government would have thrown out the usual bean counting orthodoxy and thought “to hell with it, let’s build those things”.
To have a credible alternative path for PFI you have to argue that government would have thrown out the usual bean counting orthodoxy and thought “to hell with it, let’s build those things”.
This. But the the would needs to be should. If you decide something requires to be built you have to find the money for it from somewhere and there needs to be honesty about where it comes from. Don't disguise the cost in wasteful funding schemes but be transparent that improvements need to be paid for and this will come out of taxes.
A handsome guy on here yesterday said something like this..... Some won't care but those that hate this deal REALLY hate it. Exactly what this poll shows. Support is more likely lukewarm, opposition much fiercer with overall opposition more likely. Polling on issues does not of course give the full picture. In the aftermath of Truss budget the measures were almost all more supported than opposed and within a week and a half the Tories were 35 points adrift in the polls. After a day of coverage 1 in 5 strongly oppose the deal. Another scab to be picked at. One of many. Harman briefing openly against Starmer/WFA U turn, the Lab MP supporting Rupert over Lucy C, the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff. His desperate bonfire of deals, u turns, press releases, begging for support....... It's coming to a head. He's out soon. He'll make a year as PM (just)
Labour's majority is 150-odd, maybe more, Labour has always had more backbench independence, and Labour does not have the mechanism Conservatives do to oust leaders, so that is three reasons Starmer is going nowhere. But I do think Starmer will choose to retire early à la Wilson.
Oh indeed, the ousting is very tricky but he's clearly already desperate. Its not backbenchers/usual suspects, it's big beast ex front benchers like Harman, well loved characters within Labour like Diane, his own Chief of Staff. It smacks of a Brown 2009 mood and the McBride, Balls, Draper farrago and the later Purnell abortive coup. If they want him gone they will find the way. I fancy a surfeit of skeletons are available.
I have been wrong before. This afternoon actually. Lolz
I checked the betting on a 25 exit for SKS. It's shorter than I expected. 4/1.
Teetering on the rim like a teetery thing
I don't get that impression. I'd more lay than back at that price. But let's see. If it happens I'll remember you predicted it.
It's up to the Tories to get it widely known that this going to cost taxpayers £30-50bn and our taxes will rise, 29% opposing will get a lot higher if they can do that.
You're supposed to be good with numbers, Max. Don't exaggerate.
All the Tories need to do is put it at a cost per household and extra tax for the next 99 years.
In fact, it's astonishing they haven't already done it.
A handsome guy on here yesterday said something like this..... Some won't care but those that hate this deal REALLY hate it. Exactly what this poll shows. Support is more likely lukewarm, opposition much fiercer with overall opposition more likely. Polling on issues does not of course give the full picture. In the aftermath of Truss budget the measures were almost all more supported than opposed and within a week and a half the Tories were 35 points adrift in the polls. After a day of coverage 1 in 5 strongly oppose the deal. Another scab to be picked at. One of many. Harman briefing openly against Starmer/WFA U turn, the Lab MP supporting Rupert over Lucy C, the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff. His desperate bonfire of deals, u turns, press releases, begging for support....... It's coming to a head. He's out soon. He'll make a year as PM (just)
Labour's majority is 150-odd, maybe more, Labour has always had more backbench independence, and Labour does not have the mechanism Conservatives do to oust leaders, so that is three reasons Starmer is going nowhere. But I do think Starmer will choose to retire early à la Wilson.
Oh indeed, the ousting is very tricky but he's clearly already desperate. Its not backbenchers/usual suspects, it's big beast ex front benchers like Harman, well loved characters within Labour like Diane, his own Chief of Staff. It smacks of a Brown 2009 mood and the McBride, Balls, Draper farrago and the later Purnell abortive coup. If they want him gone they will find the way. I fancy a surfeit of skeletons are available.
I have been wrong before. This afternoon actually. Lolz
I checked the betting on a 25 exit for SKS. It's shorter than I expected. 4/1.
Teetering on the rim like a teetery thing
I don't get that impression. I'd more lay than back at that price. But let's see. If it happens I'll remember you predicted it.
If it doesn't please feel free to forget I predicted it. I won't be offended 😉
A handsome guy on here yesterday said something like this..... Some won't care but those that hate this deal REALLY hate it. Exactly what this poll shows. Support is more likely lukewarm, opposition much fiercer with overall opposition more likely. Polling on issues does not of course give the full picture. In the aftermath of Truss budget the measures were almost all more supported than opposed and within a week and a half the Tories were 35 points adrift in the polls. After a day of coverage 1 in 5 strongly oppose the deal. Another scab to be picked at. One of many. Harman briefing openly against Starmer/WFA U turn, the Lab MP supporting Rupert over Lucy C, the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff. His desperate bonfire of deals, u turns, press releases, begging for support....... It's coming to a head. He's out soon. He'll make a year as PM (just)
Labour's majority is 150-odd, maybe more, Labour has always had more backbench independence, and Labour does not have the mechanism Conservatives do to oust leaders, so that is three reasons Starmer is going nowhere. But I do think Starmer will choose to retire early à la Wilson.
Oh indeed, the ousting is very tricky but he's clearly already desperate. Its not backbenchers/usual suspects, it's big beast ex front benchers like Harman, well loved characters within Labour like Diane, his own Chief of Staff. It smacks of a Brown 2009 mood and the McBride, Balls, Draper farrago and the later Purnell abortive coup. If they want him gone they will find the way. I fancy a surfeit of skeletons are available.
I have been wrong before. This afternoon actually. Lolz
I checked the betting on a 25 exit for SKS. It's shorter than I expected. 4/1.
Teetering on the rim like a teetery thing
I don't get that impression. I'd more lay than back at that price. But let's see. If it happens I'll remember you predicted it.
If it doesn't please feel free to forget I predicted it. I won't be offended 😉
I'll try. But I forget almost nothing on here. My gift, my curse.
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
I mean WTAF?
Yes, that would be taking 'down to earth' a bit far.
Brown believed his own genius - hence 'ending (Tory) boom and bust'. The reality is that he inherited a booming economy and then decided to open the taps for reasons. Of course the sale of the gold is more complicated than it is sometimes portrayed, but his financial negligence around his OWN fiscal rules was shocking. And then you have the vast expansion of PFI (yes the Tories started it, but Brown went BIG). PFI took spending off the annual returns and inter the perpetual future. All those lightbulbs changed for 300 quid...
On PFI I’m not fully behind the consensus that it was a disaster. A lot of the money spent was capex. If not for PFI, it would either have never been spent at all (and our public realm would be even more crumbling) or it would have been spent by necessity years later, at several times the price.
There are plenty of examples of poor PFI deals, but there are always plenty of examples of poor infrastructure projects. We know from the story of HS2, nuclear power and multiple other infrastructure fails in recent decades that a problem postponed is a problem doubled. PFI was a rare example of JFDI.
It got things done, this is true, but at an inflated cost.
To me it illustrates well one of the golden rules of trading. If you can deal with a counterparty who is doing the trade for reasons other than pure £££ you're likely to be the winner.
In this case the counterparty driven by non £££ considerations (being to keep debt off the books) was the government. So the other side - the private sector providers - were able to make hay.
The replies from across the spectrum on this show how far PFI-as-failure has become embedded in the political mind. As with all things it contains some truth, but loses nuance.
1. A number of PFI contractors went bust. They didn’t negotiate a very good deal with government 2. The super-profits attributable to some of them came from a wheeze - a bad wheeze in hindsight - that had nothing to do with government contracting, but was a benefit of falling interest rates and refinancing 3. Sure, we didn’t PFI some of our most pressing infrastructure projects, but nor did we build them, which brings me on to 4. Those decrying PFI need to describe the realistic alternative history. And that alternative history is that the investment wasn’t made. Precisely because of the Treasury accounting that PFI circumvented.
To have a credible alternative path for PFI you have to argue that government would have thrown out the usual bean counting orthodoxy and thought “to hell with it, let’s build those things”.
To have a credible alternative path for PFI you have to argue that government would have thrown out the usual bean counting orthodoxy and thought “to hell with it, let’s build those things”.
This. But the the would needs to be should. If you decide something requires to be built you have to find the money for it from somewhere and there needs to be honesty about where it comes from. Don't disguise the cost in wasteful funding schemes but be transparent that improvements need to be paid for and this will come out of taxes.
Which was the argument at the time. Brown's dishonesty really annoyed me back then; still does.
Make the case for investment transparently. FFS.
The same shit is still going on with the water companies. It costs us dear.
Apparently David Cameron is going to work for DLA Piper I mean come on. It’s almost as bad as the Hill Dickinson Stadium.
You should see Lord Cameron's fee on the lecture circuit.
It'll be worth every penny that DLA Piper pay him.
Lord Cameron opposed and tried to stop this terrible deal.
Do you want to know what else David Cameron tried to oppose?
Do you support this deal and disagree with Dave then?
I think the deal is terrible, just I thought the Brexit deal was terrible, but like Boris Johnson I think Keir Starmer is a terrible politician but neither of them are traitors which is the ridiculous hyperbole coming from you and others.
It's up to the Tories to get it widely known that this going to cost taxpayers £30-50bn and our taxes will rise, 29% opposing will get a lot higher if they can do that.
You're supposed to be good with numbers, Max. Don't exaggerate.
All the Tories need to do is put it at a cost per household and extra tax for the next 99 years.
In fact, it's astonishing they haven't already done it.
I'd be astonished if they do because that's a way to illustrate how grand scheme tiny it is.
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
I mean WTAF?
“Would you shag someone in a Greggs? I mean would you? If you were pissed?”
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
I mean WTAF?
That's the sort of classy place the West has become. 'So I pulled out and finished all over her steak bake'
The public should be allowed not to care about certain things.
But this isn’t one of them. The financial cost is bearable, but the direction of travel is not.
As I've said before, there is a training process whereby the British public is being gaslit not to expect anything better. That is the Starmer administration. We have had dodgy and self-serving acts many times in the past, but this is a wilful, full-frontal attack on the national interest by the Government, and sadly there are a lot of nice people who will accept it like an abused partner accepts it. BigG gave us an example of that yesterday. The project of the right is not just to achieve power and govern well, but to re-moralise a demoralised public.
David Cameron has lost a lot of weight. I hope that's because he's going for the Tory leadership again rather than something even worse.
Can't be leader if not in the Commons. Otherwise Penny Mordaunt would be in the betting. The crisis for the Tories is really poor quality of the Parliamentary party overall.
It's up to the Tories to get it widely known that this going to cost taxpayers £30-50bn and our taxes will rise, 29% opposing will get a lot higher if they can do that.
You're supposed to be good with numbers, Max. Don't exaggerate.
All the Tories need to do is put it at a cost per household and extra tax for the next 99 years.
In fact, it's astonishing they haven't already done it.
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
I mean WTAF?
“Would you shag someone in a Greggs? I mean would you? If you were pissed?”
Should be on the UK citizenship test.
The low grade behaviour of people is why the fad for naming your kid after where they were conceived has ended. Taking little Bins Out The Back Of Greggs to the park just doesn't work
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
I mean WTAF?
“Would you shag someone in a Greggs? I mean would you? If you were pissed?”
Should be on the UK citizenship test.
Reminds me when I was a good and innocent Muslim and I had my first date and she told me she liked it rough so I took her to Blackpool.
Apparently David Cameron is going to work for DLA Piper I mean come on. It’s almost as bad as the Hill Dickinson Stadium.
You should see Lord Cameron's fee on the lecture circuit.
It'll be worth every penny that DLA Piper pay him.
Lord Cameron opposed and tried to stop this terrible deal.
Do you want to know what else David Cameron tried to oppose?
Greensill?
If speaking fees are the measure then Cameron is ~60% of a Johnson, so why are DLA Piper shopping in the 2nd division? He lectures on Brexit apparently. "So I was talking to Angela and Francois, and they said "David, we really don't think it's a good idea to hold a referendum, there's a strong chance you'll lose" but I ... Oh!
So given he's a duffer at compliance, ethics, fraud and money laundering what field is he advising them on?
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
I mean WTAF?
“Would you shag someone in a Greggs? I mean would you? If you were pissed?”
Should be on the UK citizenship test.
The low grade behaviour of people is why the fad for naming your kid after where they were conceived has ended. Taking little Bins Out The Back Of Greggs to the park just doesn't work
The public should be allowed not to care about certain things.
But this isn’t one of them. The financial cost is bearable, but the direction of travel is not.
As I've said before, there is a training process whereby the British public is being gaslit not to expect anything better. That is the Starmer administration. We have had dodgy and self-serving acts many times in the past, but this is a wilful, full-frontal attack on the national interest by the Government, and sadly there are a lot of nice people who will accept it like an abused partner accepts it. BigG gave us an example of that yesterday. The project of the right is not just to achieve power and govern well, but to re-moralise a demoralised public.
The demoralised public will never fight back is their hope. The utterly constant attack on anything resembling pride in history, tradition or culture has been going on for 40 years and intensifying. Classic Soviet anti west playbook
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
It's up to the Tories to get it widely known that this going to cost taxpayers £30-50bn and our taxes will rise, 29% opposing will get a lot higher if they can do that.
You're supposed to be good with numbers, Max. Don't exaggerate.
All the Tories need to do is put it at a cost per household and extra tax for the next 99 years.
In fact, it's astonishing they haven't already done it.
Carney's Liberals have failed to overturn Windsor in the recount so he will now have to find NDP support whatever happens in the remaining recount and the disputed Terrebonne '1 vote' riding, the sole Green isn't enough to get him to 172. Means it's possible he could get no confidenced immediately when he finally faces parliament many many weeks into his premiership.
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
It won't happen, because Bezos owns it now and is a twat, but the next James Bond - I think - needs to go more in the Roger Moore direction.
We need fun. It needs to be extremely fun. Sexy opening scenes. A bit of humour. Big Union Jack's on parachutes, balloons, submarines and cars. Sex appeal. Gorgeous women. Amazing food. Great locations. Maybe a bit less of the ooft uhft! punch scenes and eyebrow raising, though.
We need to feel good about being British again and being the good guys.
I voted Labour and now I hate them. I’m more likely to vote Monster Fucking Raving Loony.
And I like our MP. He’s a decent bloke. I meet him reasonably often. Nevertheless. Labour are not just fucking over the old and infirm, they now have it in for swifts. (As well as the 3% of planning applications with bats and newts mentioned and needing management.)
66million years swifts have been part of our ecosystems. They are very vulnerable to change. If we block a viable nest they don’t breed, they die.
They never land except in their nest. When we upgrade our insulation or build new homes without provision they die.
A swift brick costs £50. Put one in every new home and we protect a seriously loved and venerable companion species.
Labour just voted it down.
WTF. Who is their enemy, is it the environment?
I’m so angry. Pointless destruction of a 66million year old and glorious species. Everyone loves to see them wheeling in the sky.
We’ve fuck all else like that and a brick costs £50 and less than half a hour of a brickie’s time per home.
I could weep for our lost hopes.
Why? I mean why? Why fuck up the little stuff too?
Carney's Liberals have failed to overturn Windsor in the recount so he will now have to find NDP support whatever happens in the remaining recount and the disputed Terrebonne '1 vote' riding, the sole Green isn't enough to get him to 172. Means it's possible he could get no confidenced immediately when he finally faces parliament many many weeks into his premiership.
The public should be allowed not to care about certain things.
But this isn’t one of them. The financial cost is bearable, but the direction of travel is not.
As I've said before, there is a training process whereby the British public is being gaslit not to expect anything better. That is the Starmer administration. We have had dodgy and self-serving acts many times in the past, but this is a wilful, full-frontal attack on the national interest by the Government, and sadly there are a lot of nice people who will accept it like an abused partner accepts it. BigG gave us an example of that yesterday. The project of the right is not just to achieve power and govern well, but to re-moralise a demoralised public.
The problem is this is all abject nonsense - full frontal attack on the national interest by a government as an abusive partner. I fear the right might achieve power but in that case we'll just end up with a Trump like figure who absolutely isn't governing well or re-moralising a demoralised public.
It won't happen, because Bezos owns it now and is a twat, but the next James Bond - I think - needs to go more in the Roger Moore direction.
We need fun. It needs to be extremely fun. Sexy opening scenes. A bit of humour. Big Union Jack's on parachutes, balloons, submarines and cars. Sex appeal. Gorgeous women. Amazing food. Great locations. Maybe a bit less of the ooft uhft! punch scenes and eyebrow raising, though.
We need to feel good about being British again and being the good guys.
They shouldn't bother.
It's a tired franchise that needs to be put out of its misery.
You can only rip off your own movie so many times before the formula goes beyond stale.
Brown believed his own genius - hence 'ending (Tory) boom and bust'. The reality is that he inherited a booming economy and then decided to open the taps for reasons. Of course the sale of the gold is more complicated than it is sometimes portrayed, but his financial negligence around his OWN fiscal rules was shocking. And then you have the vast expansion of PFI (yes the Tories started it, but Brown went BIG). PFI took spending off the annual returns and inter the perpetual future. All those lightbulbs changed for 300 quid...
On PFI I’m not fully behind the consensus that it was a disaster. A lot of the money spent was capex. If not for PFI, it would either have never been spent at all (and our public realm would be even more crumbling) or it would have been spent by necessity years later, at several times the price.
There are plenty of examples of poor PFI deals, but there are always plenty of examples of poor infrastructure projects. We know from the story of HS2, nuclear power and multiple other infrastructure fails in recent decades that a problem postponed is a problem doubled. PFI was a rare example of JFDI.
It got things done, this is true, but at an inflated cost.
To me it illustrates well one of the golden rules of trading. If you can deal with a counterparty who is doing the trade for reasons other than pure £££ you're likely to be the winner.
In this case the counterparty driven by non £££ considerations (being to keep debt off the books) was the government. So the other side - the private sector providers - were able to make hay.
The replies from across the spectrum on this show how far PFI-as-failure has become embedded in the political mind. As with all things it contains some truth, but loses nuance.
1. A number of PFI contractors went bust. They didn’t negotiate a very good deal with government 2. The super-profits attributable to some of them came from a wheeze - a bad wheeze in hindsight - that had nothing to do with government contracting, but was a benefit of falling interest rates and refinancing 3. Sure, we didn’t PFI some of our most pressing infrastructure projects, but nor did we build them, which brings me on to 4. Those decrying PFI need to describe the realistic alternative history. And that alternative history is that the investment wasn’t made. Precisely because of the Treasury accounting that PFI circumvented.
To have a credible alternative path for PFI you have to argue that government would have thrown out the usual bean counting orthodoxy and thought “to hell with it, let’s build those things”.
To have a credible alternative path for PFI you have to argue that government would have thrown out the usual bean counting orthodoxy and thought “to hell with it, let’s build those things”.
This. But the the would needs to be should. If you decide something requires to be built you have to find the money for it from somewhere and there needs to be honesty about where it comes from. Don't disguise the cost in wasteful funding schemes but be transparent that improvements need to be paid for and this will come out of taxes.
Well the other schemes also need to be paid for out of taxes too, not saving a penny of taxpayers money by "keeping it off the books".
The Government makes its own rules that it needs to follow and it can change the rules as it deems appropriate.
Cheap, or not so cheap, accounting tricks fool nobody and achieve nothing.
Carney's Liberals have failed to overturn Windsor in the recount so he will now have to find NDP support whatever happens in the remaining recount and the disputed Terrebonne '1 vote' riding, the sole Green isn't enough to get him to 172. Means it's possible he could get no confidenced immediately when he finally faces parliament many many weeks into his premiership.
The Canadians are still counting???
Who do they think they are? American???
It's especially annoying since its prevented Ladbrokes paying out on Liberal Minority.
He'll be fine with 170 seats, and just two short. He'll be able to govern for years.
Carney's Liberals have failed to overturn Windsor in the recount so he will now have to find NDP support whatever happens in the remaining recount and the disputed Terrebonne '1 vote' riding, the sole Green isn't enough to get him to 172. Means it's possible he could get no confidenced immediately when he finally faces parliament many many weeks into his premiership.
There’s no chance the NDP will no confidence Carney , indeed I doubt even the Cons would do that at this time as they would get eviscerated by the public for collapsing the government when they’re trying to negotiate a new deal with the manchild. Any dramas aren’t likely to happen until a new deal has been agreed , at that point if the opposition don’t like it they might act then .
David Cameron has lost a lot of weight. I hope that's because he's going for the Tory leadership again rather than something even worse.
What could be worse than the Tory leadership?
The Reform one?
OK, it's a photo finish...
And the Labour one? Angela bloody Rayner, David useless Lammy, Rachel from Accounts and Two-Tier, Free Gear Sir Kneel? What a mob.
Face it, with minor, isolated exceptions, our whole political class is a parody of dismal, arrogant incompetence. Few of them seem to be outright pscychopaths like Trump, Putin or Xi, but that's where the consolation ends.
Carney's Liberals have failed to overturn Windsor in the recount so he will now have to find NDP support whatever happens in the remaining recount and the disputed Terrebonne '1 vote' riding, the sole Green isn't enough to get him to 172. Means it's possible he could get no confidenced immediately when he finally faces parliament many many weeks into his premiership.
The Canadians are still counting???
Who do they think they are? American???
It's especially annoying since its prevented Ladbrokes paying out on Liberal Minority.
He'll be fine with 170 seats, and just two short. He'll be able to govern for years.
He will be able to govern until the NDP recover in the polls and suddenly fancy a GE Or until everyone realises what an absolutely useless prick he is
A handsome guy on here yesterday said something like this..... Some won't care but those that hate this deal REALLY hate it. Exactly what this poll shows. Support is more likely lukewarm, opposition much fiercer with overall opposition more likely. Polling on issues does not of course give the full picture. In the aftermath of Truss budget the measures were almost all more supported than opposed and within a week and a half the Tories were 35 points adrift in the polls. After a day of coverage 1 in 5 strongly oppose the deal. Another scab to be picked at. One of many. Harman briefing openly against Starmer/WFA U turn, the Lab MP supporting Rupert over Lucy C, the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff. His desperate bonfire of deals, u turns, press releases, begging for support....... It's coming to a head. He's out soon. He'll make a year as PM (just)
"the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff"
Its far tougher to remove a Labour leader that doesn't want to go than a Conservative one so I was expecting Starmer to keep limping on this year. But I did have a wee flutter on the possibility of Starmer throwing in the towel next year on the assumption that things could only get worse for him and his government after the Autumn budget. And despite that large Labour majority, its now looking increasingly likely that there is going to be a lot of one term MPs if they don't find a spine and start rebelling against the leadership and some of their most unpopular policies.
Carney's Liberals have failed to overturn Windsor in the recount so he will now have to find NDP support whatever happens in the remaining recount and the disputed Terrebonne '1 vote' riding, the sole Green isn't enough to get him to 172. Means it's possible he could get no confidenced immediately when he finally faces parliament many many weeks into his premiership.
There’s no chance the NDP will no confidence Carney , indeed I doubt even the Cons would do that at this time as they would get eviscerated by the public for collapsing the government when they’re trying to negotiate a new deal with the manchild. Any dramas aren’t likely to happen until a new deal has been agreed , at that point if the opposition don’t like it they might act then .
I agree generally with the proviso that the boomers that got Carney over the line are quickly realising 'elbows up' was utter nonsense/gaslighting
A handsome guy on here yesterday said something like this..... Some won't care but those that hate this deal REALLY hate it. Exactly what this poll shows. Support is more likely lukewarm, opposition much fiercer with overall opposition more likely. Polling on issues does not of course give the full picture. In the aftermath of Truss budget the measures were almost all more supported than opposed and within a week and a half the Tories were 35 points adrift in the polls. After a day of coverage 1 in 5 strongly oppose the deal. Another scab to be picked at. One of many. Harman briefing openly against Starmer/WFA U turn, the Lab MP supporting Rupert over Lucy C, the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff. His desperate bonfire of deals, u turns, press releases, begging for support....... It's coming to a head. He's out soon. He'll make a year as PM (just)
"the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff"
Its far tougher to remove a Labour leader that doesn't want to go than a Conservative one so I was expecting Starmer to keep limping on this year. But I did have a wee flutter on the possibility of Starmer throwing in the towel next year on the assumption that things could only get worse for him and his government after the Autumn budget. And despite that large Labour majority, its now looking increasingly likely that there is going to be a lot of one term MPs if they don't find a spine and start rebelling against the leadership and some of their most unpopular policies.
If Red Queen doesn't go for it, what happens over Disability may still be relevant here. There are dozens prepared to vote against and if Starmer tries to hold the line and three line whip it he will have to remove the whip on potentially a few dozen MPs. Now they won't bring the whole government down but they sure as hell might bring him down if 'someone' is in the wings waiting to readmit them. That notwithstanding a massive rebellion weakens him severely and a defeated disability Bill probably finishes him as PM
A handsome guy on here yesterday said something like this..... Some won't care but those that hate this deal REALLY hate it. Exactly what this poll shows. Support is more likely lukewarm, opposition much fiercer with overall opposition more likely. Polling on issues does not of course give the full picture. In the aftermath of Truss budget the measures were almost all more supported than opposed and within a week and a half the Tories were 35 points adrift in the polls. After a day of coverage 1 in 5 strongly oppose the deal. Another scab to be picked at. One of many. Harman briefing openly against Starmer/WFA U turn, the Lab MP supporting Rupert over Lucy C, the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff. His desperate bonfire of deals, u turns, press releases, begging for support....... It's coming to a head. He's out soon. He'll make a year as PM (just)
"the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff"
Its far tougher to remove a Labour leader that doesn't want to go than a Conservative one so I was expecting Starmer to keep limping on this year. But I did have a wee flutter on the possibility of Starmer throwing in the towel next year on the assumption that things could only get worse for him and his government after the Autumn budget. And despite that large Labour majority, its now looking increasingly likely that there is going to be a lot of one term MPs if they don't find a spine and start rebelling against the leadership and some of their most unpopular policies.
If Red Queen doesn't go for it, what happens over Disability may still be relevant here. There are dozens prepared to vote against and if Starmer tries to hold the line and three line whip it he will have to remove the whip on potentially a few dozen MPs. Now they won't bring the whole government down but they sure as hell might bring him down if 'someone' is in the wings waiting to readmit them. That notwithstanding a massive rebellion weakens him severely and a defeated disability Bill probably finishes him as PM
Are the tories expected to vote with the government on this?
Brown believed his own genius - hence 'ending (Tory) boom and bust'. The reality is that he inherited a booming economy and then decided to open the taps for reasons. Of course the sale of the gold is more complicated than it is sometimes portrayed, but his financial negligence around his OWN fiscal rules was shocking. And then you have the vast expansion of PFI (yes the Tories started it, but Brown went BIG). PFI took spending off the annual returns and inter the perpetual future. All those lightbulbs changed for 300 quid...
On PFI I’m not fully behind the consensus that it was a disaster. A lot of the money spent was capex. If not for PFI, it would either have never been spent at all (and our public realm would be even more crumbling) or it would have been spent by necessity years later, at several times the price.
There are plenty of examples of poor PFI deals, but there are always plenty of examples of poor infrastructure projects. We know from the story of HS2, nuclear power and multiple other infrastructure fails in recent decades that a problem postponed is a problem doubled. PFI was a rare example of JFDI.
It got things done, this is true, but at an inflated cost.
To me it illustrates well one of the golden rules of trading. If you can deal with a counterparty who is doing the trade for reasons other than pure £££ you're likely to be the winner.
In this case the counterparty driven by non £££ considerations (being to keep debt off the books) was the government. So the other side - the private sector providers - were able to make hay.
The replies from across the spectrum on this show how far PFI-as-failure has become embedded in the political mind. As with all things it contains some truth, but loses nuance.
1. A number of PFI contractors went bust. They didn’t negotiate a very good deal with government 2. The super-profits attributable to some of them came from a wheeze - a bad wheeze in hindsight - that had nothing to do with government contracting, but was a benefit of falling interest rates and refinancing 3. Sure, we didn’t PFI some of our most pressing infrastructure projects, but nor did we build them, which brings me on to 4. Those decrying PFI need to describe the realistic alternative history. And that alternative history is that the investment wasn’t made. Precisely because of the Treasury accounting that PFI circumvented.
To have a credible alternative path for PFI you have to argue that government would have thrown out the usual bean counting orthodoxy and thought “to hell with it, let’s build those things”.
To have a credible alternative path for PFI you have to argue that government would have thrown out the usual bean counting orthodoxy and thought “to hell with it, let’s build those things”.
This. But the the would needs to be should. If you decide something requires to be built you have to find the money for it from somewhere and there needs to be honesty about where it comes from. Don't disguise the cost in wasteful funding schemes but be transparent that improvements need to be paid for and this will come out of taxes.
Well the other schemes also need to be paid for out of taxes too, not saving a penny of taxpayers money by "keeping it off the books".
The Government makes its own rules that it needs to follow and it can change the rules as it deems appropriate.
Cheap, or not so cheap, accounting tricks fool nobody and achieve nothing.
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
I strongly doubt more than 10% of the UK population know a damn thing about the Chagos Islands.
They know Starmer sold them up the river.
Yeah, Labour will still get 250+:seats so aot of hyperbole about nothing..🤨
They aren't getting 250 seats unless they can squeeze the LD and Green vote to buggery. They've always held on to that sort of figure because the LDs and Tories were totally uncompetitive in vast parts of the red wall and London. That's all changed with the indies and Reform. They have nowhere safe left and if their vote share starts with 2, their seat total will be starting with 1 (at best) If it becomes a Lab Ref or Lab Con head to head and everyone else is squeezed out then yes, for sure, but I can't see anyone rowing in behind Starmer to stop anyone - the very people that historically would have are now Reformers
A handsome guy on here yesterday said something like this..... Some won't care but those that hate this deal REALLY hate it. Exactly what this poll shows. Support is more likely lukewarm, opposition much fiercer with overall opposition more likely. Polling on issues does not of course give the full picture. In the aftermath of Truss budget the measures were almost all more supported than opposed and within a week and a half the Tories were 35 points adrift in the polls. After a day of coverage 1 in 5 strongly oppose the deal. Another scab to be picked at. One of many. Harman briefing openly against Starmer/WFA U turn, the Lab MP supporting Rupert over Lucy C, the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff. His desperate bonfire of deals, u turns, press releases, begging for support....... It's coming to a head. He's out soon. He'll make a year as PM (just)
"the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff"
Its far tougher to remove a Labour leader that doesn't want to go than a Conservative one so I was expecting Starmer to keep limping on this year. But I did have a wee flutter on the possibility of Starmer throwing in the towel next year on the assumption that things could only get worse for him and his government after the Autumn budget. And despite that large Labour majority, its now looking increasingly likely that there is going to be a lot of one term MPs if they don't find a spine and start rebelling against the leadership and some of their most unpopular policies.
If Red Queen doesn't go for it, what happens over Disability may still be relevant here. There are dozens prepared to vote against and if Starmer tries to hold the line and three line whip it he will have to remove the whip on potentially a few dozen MPs. Now they won't bring the whole government down but they sure as hell might bring him down if 'someone' is in the wings waiting to readmit them. That notwithstanding a massive rebellion weakens him severely and a defeated disability Bill probably finishes him as PM
Are the tories expected to vote with the government on this?
Maybe. Reform will everyone else will vote against. If there is any chance of defeat Kemi needs to construct a reason to vote against- 'not drastic enough cuts' would do.
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
I mean WTAF?
Gregg's the sandwich shop? That Greggs?
I just asked my youngest son if he would take someone to Greggs for a first date and the response was not if I was hoping for a second date...
A handsome guy on here yesterday said something like this..... Some won't care but those that hate this deal REALLY hate it. Exactly what this poll shows. Support is more likely lukewarm, opposition much fiercer with overall opposition more likely. Polling on issues does not of course give the full picture. In the aftermath of Truss budget the measures were almost all more supported than opposed and within a week and a half the Tories were 35 points adrift in the polls. After a day of coverage 1 in 5 strongly oppose the deal. Another scab to be picked at. One of many. Harman briefing openly against Starmer/WFA U turn, the Lab MP supporting Rupert over Lucy C, the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff. His desperate bonfire of deals, u turns, press releases, begging for support....... It's coming to a head. He's out soon. He'll make a year as PM (just)
"the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff"
Its far tougher to remove a Labour leader that doesn't want to go than a Conservative one so I was expecting Starmer to keep limping on this year. But I did have a wee flutter on the possibility of Starmer throwing in the towel next year on the assumption that things could only get worse for him and his government after the Autumn budget. And despite that large Labour majority, its now looking increasingly likely that there is going to be a lot of one term MPs if they don't find a spine and start rebelling against the leadership and some of their most unpopular policies.
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
I mean WTAF?
Gregg's the sandwich shop? That Greggs?
I just asked my youngest son if he would take someone to Greggs for a first date and the response was not if I was hoping for a second date...
Greggs is best for a second date, for a bacon butty the morning after the first one.
Carney's Liberals have failed to overturn Windsor in the recount so he will now have to find NDP support whatever happens in the remaining recount and the disputed Terrebonne '1 vote' riding, the sole Green isn't enough to get him to 172. Means it's possible he could get no confidenced immediately when he finally faces parliament many many weeks into his premiership.
The Canadians are still counting???
Who do they think they are? American???
It's especially annoying since its prevented Ladbrokes paying out on Liberal Minority.
He'll be fine with 170 seats, and just two short. He'll be able to govern for years.
He will be able to govern until the NDP recover in the polls and suddenly fancy a GE Or until everyone realises what an absolutely useless prick he is
I like Mark Carney and he’s a lot better than the Trump wannabe Poilievre who desperately tried to soften his image once the polls started going against the CPC . He lost his seat and then some poor sucker had to stand down to give him a safe seat in Alberta , embarrassing is putting it mildly !
Carney's Liberals have failed to overturn Windsor in the recount so he will now have to find NDP support whatever happens in the remaining recount and the disputed Terrebonne '1 vote' riding, the sole Green isn't enough to get him to 172. Means it's possible he could get no confidenced immediately when he finally faces parliament many many weeks into his premiership.
The Canadians are still counting???
Who do they think they are? American???
It's especially annoying since its prevented Ladbrokes paying out on Liberal Minority.
He'll be fine with 170 seats, and just two short. He'll be able to govern for years.
He will be able to govern until the NDP recover in the polls and suddenly fancy a GE Or until everyone realises what an absolutely useless prick he is
I like Mark Carney and he’s a lot better than the Trump wannabe Poilievre who desperately tried to soften his image once the polls started going against the CPC . He lost his seat and then some poor sucker had to stand down to give him a safe seat in Alberta , embarrassing is putting it mildly !
I don't and he isn't. But that's opinions for you!
On topic, a meaningless poll. If almost half of respondents don't know enough to have an opinion one way or another then that is only a reflection of how poor our media and political leaders are at explaining things.
It says nothing about either the policy or its impact when it is properly explained.
And in the end surely the only opinion that should matter is that of the actual Chagosians - the one group who seem to have been entirely ignored by the whole process.
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
I mean WTAF?
Gregg's the sandwich shop? That Greggs?
Some of the small shops have (or had) seats, and they also do larger shops with lots of seats.
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
I mean WTAF?
Gregg's the sandwich shop? That Greggs?
I just asked my youngest son if he would take someone to Greggs for a first date and the response was not if I was hoping for a second date...
Greggs is best for a second date, for a bacon butty the morning after the first one.
Deliveroo and then you don't have to get out of bed...
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
I mean WTAF?
Gregg's the sandwich shop? That Greggs?
I just asked my youngest son if he would take someone to Greggs for a first date and the response was not if I was hoping for a second date...
Greggs is best for a second date, for a bacon butty the morning after the first one.
Deliveroo and then you don't have to get out of bed...
Your partner has to go answer the door? Lazy lover, lazzzzzzy
On topic, a meaningless poll. If almost half of respondents don't know enough to have an opinion one way or another then that is only a reflection of how poor our media and political leaders are at explaining things.
It says nothing about either the policy or its impact when it is properly explained.
And in the end surely the only opinion that should matter is that of the actual Chagosians - the one group who seem to have been entirely ignored by the whole process.
I can't verify this as it's just a random Tweet, but some have claimed Mauritius detests the Chagossian identity and punishes expressions of it with custodial sentences. They really seem like 'the baddies' to me.
Just took part in an Opinium poll and one of the questions they asked me if Greggs was somewhere where I consider taking somebody on a first date or romantic meal.
I mean WTAF?
Gregg's the sandwich shop? That Greggs?
Some of the small shops have (or had) seats, and they also do larger shops with lots of seats.
Oh, thanks, I didn't know that. Not much improvement but slightly better if you can at least sit down.
On topic, a meaningless poll. If almost half of respondents don't know enough to have an opinion one way or another then that is only a reflection of how poor our media and political leaders are at explaining things.
It says nothing about either the policy or its impact when it is properly explained.
And in the end surely the only opinion that should matter is that of the actual Chagosians - the one group who seem to have been entirely ignored by the whole process.
I can't verify this as it's just a random Tweet, but some have claimed Mauritius detests the Chagossian identity and punishes expressions of it with custodial sentences. They really seem like 'the baddies' to me.
I'm not sure of their view of the identity but they passed a law in 2021 criminalising misrepresenting it's sovereignty over any of its territory- that would include Chagossians referring to Chagos as anything other than Mauritian.
Max penalty is 10 years. So that's problematic for the Chagossian diaspora living in Mauritius
A handsome guy on here yesterday said something like this..... Some won't care but those that hate this deal REALLY hate it. Exactly what this poll shows. Support is more likely lukewarm, opposition much fiercer with overall opposition more likely. Polling on issues does not of course give the full picture. In the aftermath of Truss budget the measures were almost all more supported than opposed and within a week and a half the Tories were 35 points adrift in the polls. After a day of coverage 1 in 5 strongly oppose the deal. Another scab to be picked at. One of many. Harman briefing openly against Starmer/WFA U turn, the Lab MP supporting Rupert over Lucy C, the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff. His desperate bonfire of deals, u turns, press releases, begging for support....... It's coming to a head. He's out soon. He'll make a year as PM (just)
"the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff"
Its far tougher to remove a Labour leader that doesn't want to go than a Conservative one so I was expecting Starmer to keep limping on this year. But I did have a wee flutter on the possibility of Starmer throwing in the towel next year on the assumption that things could only get worse for him and his government after the Autumn budget. And despite that large Labour majority, its now looking increasingly likely that there is going to be a lot of one term MPs if they don't find a spine and start rebelling against the leadership and some of their most unpopular policies.
If Red Queen doesn't go for it, what happens over Disability may still be relevant here. There are dozens prepared to vote against and if Starmer tries to hold the line and three line whip it he will have to remove the whip on potentially a few dozen MPs. Now they won't bring the whole government down but they sure as hell might bring him down if 'someone' is in the wings waiting to readmit them. That notwithstanding a massive rebellion weakens him severely and a defeated disability Bill probably finishes him as PM
At present, Starmer is saved by Reform chiefly squeezing the Tory vote - their disastrous polling gives him a bit of a fig leaf in PMQs. His problems will start when Labour polling begins with a '1'. It would be very brave to bet against this happening in the next 3 months I feel.
The public should be allowed not to care about certain things.
But this isn’t one of them. The financial cost is bearable, but the direction of travel is not.
As I've said before, there is a training process whereby the British public is being gaslit not to expect anything better. That is the Starmer administration. We have had dodgy and self-serving acts many times in the past, but this is a wilful, full-frontal attack on the national interest by the Government, and sadly there are a lot of nice people who will accept it like an abused partner accepts it. BigG gave us an example of that yesterday. The project of the right is not just to achieve power and govern well, but to re-moralise a demoralised public.
What bollocks! The likes of Reform UK (and MAGA in the US) are constantly trying to demoralise us, tell us how terrible everything. You're even doing it here.
The public should be allowed not to care about certain things.
But this isn’t one of them. The financial cost is bearable, but the direction of travel is not.
As I've said before, there is a training process whereby the British public is being gaslit not to expect anything better. That is the Starmer administration. We have had dodgy and self-serving acts many times in the past, but this is a wilful, full-frontal attack on the national interest by the Government, and sadly there are a lot of nice people who will accept it like an abused partner accepts it. BigG gave us an example of that yesterday. The project of the right is not just to achieve power and govern well, but to re-moralise a demoralised public.
What bollocks! The likes of Reform UK (and MAGA in the US) are constantly trying to demoralise us, tell us how terrible everything. You're even doing it here.
One side tells you it's awful but they can magically make it great, the other that it's awful, it's your fault and you deserve it because of your privilege
A handsome guy on here yesterday said something like this..... Some won't care but those that hate this deal REALLY hate it. Exactly what this poll shows. Support is more likely lukewarm, opposition much fiercer with overall opposition more likely. Polling on issues does not of course give the full picture. In the aftermath of Truss budget the measures were almost all more supported than opposed and within a week and a half the Tories were 35 points adrift in the polls. After a day of coverage 1 in 5 strongly oppose the deal. Another scab to be picked at. One of many. Harman briefing openly against Starmer/WFA U turn, the Lab MP supporting Rupert over Lucy C, the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff. His desperate bonfire of deals, u turns, press releases, begging for support....... It's coming to a head. He's out soon. He'll make a year as PM (just)
"the obvious briefing war between Starmer and his own Chief of Staff"
Its far tougher to remove a Labour leader that doesn't want to go than a Conservative one so I was expecting Starmer to keep limping on this year. But I did have a wee flutter on the possibility of Starmer throwing in the towel next year on the assumption that things could only get worse for him and his government after the Autumn budget. And despite that large Labour majority, its now looking increasingly likely that there is going to be a lot of one term MPs if they don't find a spine and start rebelling against the leadership and some of their most unpopular policies.
If Red Queen doesn't go for it, what happens over Disability may still be relevant here. There are dozens prepared to vote against and if Starmer tries to hold the line and three line whip it he will have to remove the whip on potentially a few dozen MPs. Now they won't bring the whole government down but they sure as hell might bring him down if 'someone' is in the wings waiting to readmit them. That notwithstanding a massive rebellion weakens him severely and a defeated disability Bill probably finishes him as PM
At present, Starmer is saved by Reform chiefly squeezing the Tory vote - their disastrous polling gives him a bit of a fig leaf in PMQs. His problems will start when Labour polling begins with a '1'. It would be very brave to bet against this happening in the next 3 months I feel.
I've made a polling projection - lowest ever Labour poll score in the next few weeks (their lowest ever poll score for a GE poll is 18, SKS Labour's lowest thus far is 20)
David Cameron has lost a lot of weight. I hope that's because he's going for the Tory leadership again rather than something even worse.
Can't be leader if not in the Commons. Otherwise Penny Mordaunt would be in the betting. The crisis for the Tories is really poor quality of the Parliamentary party overall.
Ah, Penny. The doomed-to-disappoint Tory leader we never got the chance to be disappointed in. Though to tie it in with some rather less disappointing Bond films - never say never. She did hold up the big metal sword with aplomb. And gave a decent 'the queen is dead' speech while Liz and Kwasi twitched in the background.
Comments
New Labour were too timid/infected with Thatcher mind virus that state could not and should not build, should contract everything out. As a result we underinvest.
Report on housing along these lines here:
https://bsky.app/profile/marleygmiller.bsky.social/post/3lptls4uvmk2m
I have been wrong before. This afternoon actually. Lolz
https://www.sporcle.com/games/chemist_jack/cabinet-minister-2010-present
I managed just over a third.
In fact it was 16 years ago next week on the 31st May 2009
This. But the the would needs to be should. If you decide something requires to be built you have to find the money for it from somewhere and there needs to be honesty about where it comes from. Don't disguise the cost in wasteful funding schemes but be transparent that improvements need to be paid for and this will come out of taxes.
131 for me, forgot some very obvious ones but got Shapps and Hancock in the last 10 secs lol
In fact, it's astonishing they haven't already done it.
I mean WTAF?
Brown's dishonesty really annoyed me back then; still does.
Make the case for investment transparently.
FFS.
The same shit is still going on with the water companies. It costs us dear.
Should be on the UK citizenship test.
As I've said before, there is a training process whereby the British public is being gaslit not to expect anything better. That is the Starmer administration. We have had dodgy and self-serving acts many times in the past, but this is a wilful, full-frontal attack on the national interest by the Government, and sadly there are a lot of nice people who will accept it like an abused partner accepts it. BigG gave us an example of that yesterday. The project of the right is not just to achieve power and govern well, but to re-moralise a demoralised public.
Astonishing.
Taking little Bins Out The Back Of Greggs to the park just doesn't work
OK, it's a photo finish...
He lectures on Brexit apparently.
"So I was talking to Angela and Francois, and they said "David, we really don't think it's a good idea to hold a referendum, there's a strong chance you'll lose" but I ... Oh!
So given he's a duffer at compliance, ethics, fraud and money laundering what field is he advising them on?
Classic Soviet anti west playbook
Means it's possible he could get no confidenced immediately when he finally faces parliament many many weeks into his premiership.
"I'll have what he's having!"
We need fun. It needs to be extremely fun. Sexy opening scenes. A bit of humour. Big Union Jack's on parachutes, balloons, submarines and cars. Sex appeal. Gorgeous women. Amazing food. Great locations. Maybe a bit less of the ooft uhft! punch scenes and eyebrow raising, though.
We need to feel good about being British again and being the good guys.
And I like our MP. He’s a decent bloke. I meet him reasonably often. Nevertheless. Labour are not just fucking over the old and infirm, they now have it in for swifts. (As well as the 3% of planning applications with bats and newts mentioned and needing management.)
66million years swifts have been part of our ecosystems. They are very vulnerable to change. If we block a viable nest they don’t breed, they die.
They never land except in their nest. When we upgrade our insulation or build new homes without provision they die.
A swift brick costs £50. Put one in every new home and we protect a seriously loved and venerable companion species.
Labour just voted it down.
WTF. Who is their enemy, is it the environment?
I’m so angry.
Pointless destruction of a 66million year old and glorious species. Everyone loves to see them wheeling in the sky.
We’ve fuck all else like that and a brick costs £50 and less than half a hour of a brickie’s time per home.
I could weep for our lost hopes.
Why? I mean why?
Why fuck up the little stuff too?
Who do they think they are? American???
It's a tired franchise that needs to be put out of its misery.
You can only rip off your own movie so many times before the formula goes beyond stale.
The Government makes its own rules that it needs to follow and it can change the rules as it deems appropriate.
Cheap, or not so cheap, accounting tricks fool nobody and achieve nothing.
He'll be fine with 170 seats, and just two short. He'll be able to govern for years.
Face it, with minor, isolated exceptions, our whole political class is a parody of dismal, arrogant incompetence. Few of them seem to be outright pscychopaths like Trump, Putin or Xi, but that's where the consolation ends.
Or until everyone realises what an absolutely useless prick he is
In the year ended November 2023, the social media platform generated $6.6 billion in revenue, up from $375 million in 2020
https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/onlyfans-owner-in-talks-to-sell-site-for-8bn-hz7w2xdxc
https://x.com/MattCartoonist/status/1925954384627654825
(Famously, of course, cartoonists address issues no-one has heard of nor cares about.)
Its far tougher to remove a Labour leader that doesn't want to go than a Conservative one so I was expecting Starmer to keep limping on this year. But I did have a wee flutter on the possibility of Starmer throwing in the towel next year on the assumption that things could only get worse for him and his government after the Autumn budget. And despite that large Labour majority, its now looking increasingly likely that there is going to be a lot of one term MPs if they don't find a spine and start rebelling against the leadership and some of their most unpopular policies.
At this rate it'll be generating 2 trillion dollars per annum within 2 years.
(well done on job)
If it becomes a Lab Ref or Lab Con head to head and everyone else is squeezed out then yes, for sure, but I can't see anyone rowing in behind Starmer to stop anyone - the very people that historically would have are now Reformers
It says nothing about either the policy or its impact when it is properly explained.
And in the end surely the only opinion that should matter is that of the actual Chagosians - the one group who seem to have been entirely ignored by the whole process.
But as a happy meat eater I have to say their vegan sausage rolls are lush.
Max penalty is 10 years. So that's problematic for the Chagossian diaspora living in Mauritius