The Liberal Democrats are a supremely cynical and disingenuous party.
They promised an EU referendum in 2005 on democratic grounds and, indeed, staged a walkout of parliament when they didn't get it but this was entirely in bad faith.
Their expectation was that they smash it 60-70%+ and could reap the plaudits for it.
When one was actually held, and they lost, they then tried everything possible to stop it and then Revoke it, without a referendum, with some fantastic dissemblement to attempt to justify it.
They are the little shits of politics.
The LDs were right though.
If Labour had held an EU referendum in 2005, as demanded by the LDs, Remain would have won and put Farage in his box forever. The LDs were ahead of the curve. New Labour dropped that ball.
They were right, if you take a purely tactical and cynical view of politics.
My objection is that they pretend to have a principled one.
The Liberal Democrats are a supremely cynical and disingenuous party.
They promised an EU referendum in 2005 on democratic grounds and, indeed, staged a walkout of parliament when they didn't get it but this was entirely in bad faith.
Their expectation was that they smash it 60-70%+ and could reap the plaudits for it.
When one was actually held, and they lost, they then tried everything possible to stop it and then Revoke it, without a referendum, with some fantastic dissemblement to attempt to justify it.
They are the little shits of politics.
@Casino_Royale I totally agree with your 2nd and 3rd paragraph and not something I am proud of as a LD and didn't agree with at the time. I believe one of the motives was to get the leaver vote as well by being the party to offer a referendum.
I’m not convinced this rates as the worst example of Man’s inhumanity to Man.
On the other hand, am I aware of several friends where both parents earn six figure salaries, who have large five bedroom houses, don't send any of their kids to private school, and are consequently able to go on four to five holidays each year, and luxury ones at that.
They don't attract anything like the same opprobrium.
Would you favour higher property taxes on more expensive homes, instead of VAT on schools/education ? I would make that trade.
I’m not convinced this rates as the worst example of Man’s inhumanity to Man.
On the other hand, am I aware of several friends where both parents earn six figure salaries, who have large five bedroom houses, don't send any of their kids to private school, and are consequently able to go on four to five holidays each year, and luxury ones at that.
They don't attract anything like the same opprobrium.
Would you favour higher property taxes on more expensive homes, instead of VAT on schools/education ? I would make that trade.
Yes
Good. The political divide isn't always as deep as we pretend.
The Liberal Democrats are a supremely cynical and disingenuous party.
They promised an EU referendum in 2005 on democratic grounds and, indeed, staged a walkout of parliament when they didn't get it but this was entirely in bad faith.
Their expectation was that they smash it 60-70%+ and could reap the plaudits for it.
When one was actually held, and they lost, they then tried everything possible to stop it and then Revoke it, without a referendum, with some fantastic dissemblement to attempt to justify it.
They are the little shits of politics.
First, all of that is ancient history.
Second, other parties said they would hold a referendum and didn't.
Third, it's been your beloved Conservatives who have spent much of the last decade botching the implementation to such an extent they suffered the worst defeat in their history last year and are still going backward.
You think brexit was the primary cause of the tory defeat?
There are quite a few reasons why the Tories are flirting with obliteration, but as Irish Home Rule once was for the Liberal Party, so Brexit is for the Tories. Reform and the Liberal Democrats are doing to the Conservatives what the Labour Party and Liberal Unionists did to the Liberals. History might not repeat itself, but you can certainly see the rhyme.
U.S. Justice Department pardon lawyer pledges 'hard look' at plot to kidnap Michigan governor https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/23/justice-department-michigan-governor-whitmer-kidnapping-plot/83825764007/ The U.S. Justice Department's new pardon attorney said he is going to take a “hard look” at two men who are serving long prison terms for leading a conspiracy to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. “On the pardon front, we can't leave these guys behind,” Ed Martin Jr. said this week on “The Breanna Morello Show.” “In my opinion these are victims just like January 6,” Martin said, referring to 1,500 people pardoned by President Donald Trump for crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol...
The Liberal Democrats are a supremely cynical and disingenuous party.
They promised an EU referendum in 2005 on democratic grounds and, indeed, staged a walkout of parliament when they didn't get it but this was entirely in bad faith.
Their expectation was that they smash it 60-70%+ and could reap the plaudits for it.
When one was actually held, and they lost, they then tried everything possible to stop it and then Revoke it, without a referendum, with some fantastic dissemblement to attempt to justify it.
They are the little shits of politics.
The LDs were right though.
If Labour had held an EU referendum in 2005, as demanded by the LDs, Remain would have won and put Farage in his box forever. The LDs were ahead of the curve. New Labour dropped that ball.
They were right, if you take a purely tactical and cynical view of politics.
My objection is that they pretend to have a principled one.
Well, what's your comparison? I don't exactly see the Tory benches overflowing with Cincinnatus or Cato figures. Relative to the late and unlamented Tory regime, Ed Davey and his team look pretty good to me.
The Liberal Democrats are a supremely cynical and disingenuous party.
They promised an EU referendum in 2005 on democratic grounds and, indeed, staged a walkout of parliament when they didn't get it but this was entirely in bad faith.
Their expectation was that they smash it 60-70%+ and could reap the plaudits for it.
When one was actually held, and they lost, they then tried everything possible to stop it and then Revoke it, without a referendum, with some fantastic dissemblement to attempt to justify it.
They are the little shits of politics.
The LDs were right though.
If Labour had held an EU referendum in 2005, as demanded by the LDs, Remain would have won and put Farage in his box forever. The LDs were ahead of the curve. New Labour dropped that ball.
They were right, if you take a purely tactical and cynical view of politics.
My objection is that they pretend to have a principled one.
Well, what's your comparison? I don't exactly see the Tory benches overflowing with Cincinnatus or Cato figures. Relative to the late and unlamented Tory regime, Ed Davey and his team look pretty good to me.
Hmmm conservative members Liz truss and her team looked pretty curdling Momentum members thought Corbyn and his team looked pretty good to them National socialists thought Hitler and his team looked pretty good to them Lib dem thinks Ed Davey and his team looks pretty good to them
The Liberal Democrats are a supremely cynical and disingenuous party.
They promised an EU referendum in 2005 on democratic grounds and, indeed, staged a walkout of parliament when they didn't get it but this was entirely in bad faith.
Their expectation was that they smash it 60-70%+ and could reap the plaudits for it.
When one was actually held, and they lost, they then tried everything possible to stop it and then Revoke it, without a referendum, with some fantastic dissemblement to attempt to justify it.
They are the little shits of politics.
First, all of that is ancient history.
Second, other parties said they would hold a referendum and didn't.
Third, it's been your beloved Conservatives who have spent much of the last decade botching the implementation to such an extent they suffered the worst defeat in their history last year and are still going backward.
You think brexit was the primary cause of the tory defeat?
There are quite a few reasons why the Tories are flirting with obliteration, but as Irish Home Rule once was for the Liberal Party, so Brexit is for the Tories. Reform and the Liberal Democrats are doing to the Conservatives what the Labour Party and Liberal Unionists did to the Liberals. History might not repeat itself, but you can certainly see the rhyme.
Reform though are also winning most of the white working class voters who used to vote Labour, just the public sector and union vote and BME vote give Labour more of a base than the middle class pro current Brexit deal voters who currently make up the Tory base.
Of course the Liberals are still here, even they weren't obliterated in the 19th century but now hold 72 MPs as the LDs
I’m not convinced this rates as the worst example of Man’s inhumanity to Man.
On the other hand, am I aware of several friends where both parents earn six figure salaries, who have large five bedroom houses, don't send any of their kids to private school, and are consequently able to go on four to five holidays each year, and luxury ones at that.
They don't attract anything like the same opprobrium.
Because those families aren't whining about their lifestyle being affected by tax. A company I was working at in the late 80's had a letter published one of the senior people working there earning 50k ( a huge amount late 80's) that was moaning about some change and how he and his wife had to cut back to only dining out 5 nights a week. Luckily we had internal company mail and so many mailed him a penny to help out with his living costs
Many people who pay for their kids to go to private school make sacrifices. The fees are high enough that you have to have quite a high income to afford them in the first place, and there's no getting round that: independent schools can't do it for free and so they have to charge a fee. Meanwhile, parents who opt for that are donating the free state school places for their own kids to someone else, and increasing the funds going into the education sector as a whole.
I view this as being altruistic and noble, rather than selfish and indulgent, and I find it fascinating that politically it's viewed the other way round - but that's where notions of envy and class war do their work.
A lot of people make sacrifices to give their children a decent couple of meals a day. I have every sympathy for people wanting the best for their kids - private school or not - but I find the whining about having to cut back on skiing holidays to pay the school fees a bit grating.
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why? Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for* reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
(*Aka 'making up')
Politicians have a tendency to be authoritarian and want power, which is why too many want to remove hard won freedoms. They also want money to spend on their priorities, hence taxes.
Many people do too. A lot of people have a dislike to others doing things they disapprove of and are quite happy to see rights taken away.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Now having said that the way to fight those who wish to abuse climate concerns to further their agenda, watermelon greens as I call them, which is a group which definitely exists, is not to deny climate change. It is to decouple concerns about the climate from their agenda. Embracing clean technologies and clean power means we can have as much consumption as we want, without damaging the environment.
If we can have a grid powered by renewables and batteries etc then there is no need to cut consumption and the watermelon greens lose the ability to abuse the environment to further their agenda.
Except that eg building far fewer windmills and battery parks throughout the country is a huge benefit in a smallish country, so using as little power as we need and being highly efficient is positive. I'm on with a mixture of renewables and mainly SMR backup.
Well you're standing with Luckyguy in opposition to windmills and batteries then.
I don't consider building less of anything is of any benefit, we have plenty of space, and the overwhelming majority of the country is undeveloped - windmills and batteries don't take much space either.
Take Runcorn and Widnes as an example, in the not very distant past if I used to drive back to Merseyside to visit my family I would get my car covered in soot from Fiddlers Ferry Power Station, which can't be too healthy for the people living there either.
Now the power station is decommissioned as we don't need the coal power anymore and instead if you drive down the M56 you're greeted with the sight of many windmills providing the power instead.
Those windmills are a lot more beautiful in my eyes than Fiddlers Ferry ever was and don't cover everything in soot.
Saving energy where it isn't a sacrifice, eg using efficient bulbs, is only sensible. But would I rather sacrifice by not using power, rely upon soot-based power, or rely upon windmills and batteries? Easily the latter. Especially given the latter is increasingly considerably cheaper too.
Mmmm no. I'm standing in support of the extent necessary, and not being profligate for it's own sake, or for our vanity. Two existing models are in major reductions we have made in household energy use, whilst making dwellings more comfortable, and also in transport, and in the energy intensity of GDP.
I was so unbelievably saddened to read your news this morning. I wanted to wait until I had a moment to write a response.
It all must have been such a shock. I have always read your articles. sometimes skimming through them, but often in full, and always admired your prose and unshakeable commitment to your beliefs.
I would classify you as one of those people who is just too intelligent to mess around with. A razor sharp mind and intellect, and someone who carries themselves with such integrity.
I will miss your presence on pbCOM. You added something that noone else did.
I really do hope that you find some peace, tranquility and real happiness in your days ahead. I also know that you will. You are one of life's formidables Cyclefree.
I rather wish the mods would open another thread, because every time I come back here and see @Cyclefree's wise, extraordinary and quite distressing threader and it is.... challenging
One of the peculiarities of the modern world is that you can become oddly close and attached to people you have never physically met. Has that ever before been true in the history of humanity? I guess a few people had passionate exhanges of letters, but nowadays this experience is common to all of us
Belated due to a reasonably sunny day and gardening, today's Rawnsley:
At Sir Keir Starmer’s recent encounter with morose Labour MPs...the prime minister told them that “the Conservatives are not our principal opponent. Reform are our main rivals for power.”
In terms of parliament, it isn’t. When the next election doesn’t have to happen before 2029, it is reckless to draw firm conclusions, but this is not deterring ministers from rushing to judgement.
There are tactical incentives for Sir Keir to talk up Reform. While its surge troubles Labour, it poses a potentially existential menace to the Conservatives. Sir Keir’s strategists also think Mr Farage is a potent bogeyman to instil fear and quell division in Labour’s ranks.
Starmer loyalists will say that acknowledging the rise of Reform is embracing reality and preparing Labour for a new kind of struggle. Others think it dangerous to give a helping hand to Mr Farage’s mission to obliterate the Tories. One cabinet member calls it “a risky bet on the roulette wheel” to depict Reform not as a protest party, but as a contender for power. Building him up in the hope of knocking him down is quite a gamble. Perhaps a bigger one than they yet know.
Interesting. It seems to me that Labour, as things appear now, could probably beat an opposition consisting of strong Reform and strong Tories, and they can certainly beat the Tories, but they can't beat Reform once the Tories are not seriously splitting the vote.
Reform have, for now, decided that facing WWC/poorer/pensioner voters they are old Labour promising that nothing is too good for them, and facing the materialist middle class that Reform are the Singaporian small state low tax buccaneer party.
As all their policies are fantasy, and most supporters just protesting, this won't get examined much except by anoraks.
I think one of two things happens:
1. Reform consistently poll 30%+, and as the next election approaches, they gradually draw in support from remaining Conservatives, moving up to 35%+.
The main centre-left party (probably Labours), starts to cannibalise centre-left support in turn. The Greens, in particular, get squeezed right back to 2-3%.
2. The mainstream parties simply introduce PR. Reform are the biggest party, but get shut out of negotiations for the next government, which is some form of traffic light coalition.
Good points all. I think there is a small but possible chance of the LDs firming up substantially, especially if Labour continue being both useless and Reformlite, perhaps to the point of being dangerous and shifting beyond the 100 or so posh seats where they contest things with the Tories.
The Lib Dem's success is almost always simultaneous with Labour's success. That was even true of the last election, so it would take some convincing for me to see the Lib Dems as the big beneficiaries of Labour's demise.
Not so in 1983, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010, 2017, 2019...
In every one of those general elections the LD vote share went in the opposite direction to Labour's.
Otherwise, very good point.
The Liberal Democrats didn't exist as a party in either 1983 or 1987, so that's your "argument" off to a cracking start.
Vote share is interesting but success is measured in seats, not votes, as small parties will tell you.
In 1992, Labour and the Lib Dems both rose in votes and seats. In 1997 they both rose significantly in seats. In 2001 they both remained at high points. In 2007, they both decreased in seat count - though I will still give you this one as a counter-argument, because I think the Lib Dems really did get votes at the expense of Labour due to their principled stance against the Iraq War. 2015 both went down. 2017 they both gained - again, wtf are you basing your arguments on? 2019 they both went down. 2024 they both went up.
Apart from that, great argument petal.
So back to my point, the Lib Dem's success is almost always simultaneous with Labour's success, with a major reason to my mind being that they usually both benefit from anti-Tory sentiment and a shared soft-left voter base that is pretty good at voting for whoever is best placed to beat a Tory.
Divergent results to this appear to have come about when the Lib Dems benefited from Labour's disastrous Iraq War policy, and when the Lib Dems did badly after being in the coalition. Both of these broke the soft-left coalition, once in the Lib Dem's favour, once against it.
Currently, the Lib Dems are polling quite well, but I don't see that they have a clear ideological separation from Labour with the Lib Dems on the more popular side, as with Iraq. Therefore I predict that the Daveygasm is somewhat illusory. Hey, I could be wrong.
You are on most things.
1992 GE - Lab up 3.6%, 42 seats; LDs down 4.8%, 2 seats.
As I said, in every one or those elections the LD vote share went in the opposite direction to Labour's.
Your argument's a duffer. Still you can always fall back on the fact I have extrapolated the LDs back to include the Alliance...
The Liberal Democrats are a supremely cynical and disingenuous party.
They promised an EU referendum in 2005 on democratic grounds and, indeed, staged a walkout of parliament when they didn't get it but this was entirely in bad faith.
Their expectation was that they smash it 60-70%+ and could reap the plaudits for it.
When one was actually held, and they lost, they then tried everything possible to stop it and then Revoke it, without a referendum, with some fantastic dissemblement to attempt to justify it.
They are the little shits of politics.
First, all of that is ancient history.
Second, other parties said they would hold a referendum and didn't.
Third, it's been your beloved Conservatives who have spent much of the last decade botching the implementation to such an extent they suffered the worst defeat in their history last year and are still going backward.
You think brexit was the primary cause of the tory defeat?
There are quite a few reasons why the Tories are flirting with obliteration, but as Irish Home Rule once was for the Liberal Party, so Brexit is for the Tories. Reform and the Liberal Democrats are doing to the Conservatives what the Labour Party and Liberal Unionists did to the Liberals. History might not repeat itself, but you can certainly see the rhyme.
The same process might have happened faster if we'd voted Remain.
If it has been 52-48 the other way, it would have meant there were potentially 16 million votes up for grabs for a pro-Brexit party and could have done for a Farage vehicle what the 2014 referendum did for the SNP.
I’m not convinced this rates as the worst example of Man’s inhumanity to Man.
On the other hand, am I aware of several friends where both parents earn six figure salaries, who have large five bedroom houses, don't send any of their kids to private school, and are consequently able to go on four to five holidays each year, and luxury ones at that.
They don't attract anything like the same opprobrium.
Because those families aren't whining about their lifestyle being affected by tax. A company I was working at in the late 80's had a letter published one of the senior people working there earning 50k ( a huge amount late 80's) that was moaning about some change and how he and his wife had to cut back to only dining out 5 nights a week. Luckily we had internal company mail and so many mailed him a penny to help out with his living costs
Many people who pay for their kids to go to private school make sacrifices. The fees are high enough that you have to have quite a high income to afford them in the first place, and there's no getting round that: independent schools can't do it for free and so they have to charge a fee. Meanwhile, parents who opt for that are donating the free state school places for their own kids to someone else, and increasing the funds going into the education sector as a whole.
I view this as being altruistic and noble, rather than selfish and indulgent, and I find it fascinating that politically it's viewed the other way round - but that's where notions of envy and class war do their work.
A lot of people make sacrifices to give their children a decent couple of meals a day. I have every sympathy for people wanting the best for their kids - private school or not - but I find the whining about having to cut back on skiing holidays to pay the school fees a bit grating.
Update: Telegraph have removed that story from their website.
Something something Prime Minister in thirty years' time.
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why? Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for* reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
(*Aka 'making up')
Politicians have a tendency to be authoritarian and want power, which is why too many want to remove hard won freedoms. They also want money to spend on their priorities, hence taxes.
Many people do too. A lot of people have a dislike to others doing things they disapprove of and are quite happy to see rights taken away.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Now having said that the way to fight those who wish to abuse climate concerns to further their agenda, watermelon greens as I call them, which is a group which definitely exists, is not to deny climate change. It is to decouple concerns about the climate from their agenda. Embracing clean technologies and clean power means we can have as much consumption as we want, without damaging the environment.
If we can have a grid powered by renewables and batteries etc then there is no need to cut consumption and the watermelon greens lose the ability to abuse the environment to further their agenda.
Except that eg building far fewer windmills and battery parks throughout the country is a huge benefit in a smallish country, so using as little power as we need and being highly efficient is positive. I'm on with a mixture of renewables and mainly SMR backup.
Well you're standing with Luckyguy in opposition to windmills and batteries then.
I don't consider building less of anything is of any benefit, we have plenty of space, and the overwhelming majority of the country is undeveloped - windmills and batteries don't take much space either.
Take Runcorn and Widnes as an example, in the not very distant past if I used to drive back to Merseyside to visit my family I would get my car covered in soot from Fiddlers Ferry Power Station, which can't be too healthy for the people living there either.
Now the power station is decommissioned as we don't need the coal power anymore and instead if you drive down the M56 you're greeted with the sight of many windmills providing the power instead.
Those windmills are a lot more beautiful in my eyes than Fiddlers Ferry ever was and don't cover everything in soot.
Saving energy where it isn't a sacrifice, eg using efficient bulbs, is only sensible. But would I rather sacrifice by not using power, rely upon soot-based power, or rely upon windmills and batteries? Easily the latter. Especially given the latter is increasingly considerably cheaper too.
Mmmm no. I'm standing in support of the extent necessary, and not being profligate for it's own sake, or for our vanity. Two existing models are in major reductions we have made in household energy use, whilst making dwellings more comfortable, and also in transport, and in the energy intensity of GDP.
Modus omnibus in rebus.
Just look at EVs - about 5x as energy efficient as an ICE. That means our optimal energy consumption in the transport sector will be much lower than it is today, even after taking into account how much cheaper that energy is.
(It did occur to me that the transition to EVs is happening quite a bit faster than we realise - every bus and taxi I have taken over the last week has been electric, in addition to the train to Glasgow. The rest has been pedal power.)
I’m not convinced this rates as the worst example of Man’s inhumanity to Man.
On the other hand, am I aware of several friends where both parents earn six figure salaries, who have large five bedroom houses, don't send any of their kids to private school, and are consequently able to go on four to five holidays each year, and luxury ones at that.
They don't attract anything like the same opprobrium.
Because those families aren't whining about their lifestyle being affected by tax. A company I was working at in the late 80's had a letter published one of the senior people working there earning 50k ( a huge amount late 80's) that was moaning about some change and how he and his wife had to cut back to only dining out 5 nights a week. Luckily we had internal company mail and so many mailed him a penny to help out with his living costs
Many people who pay for their kids to go to private school make sacrifices. The fees are high enough that you have to have quite a high income to afford them in the first place, and there's no getting round that: independent schools can't do it for free and so they have to charge a fee. Meanwhile, parents who opt for that are donating the free state school places for their own kids to someone else, and increasing the funds going into the education sector as a whole.
I view this as being altruistic and noble, rather than selfish and indulgent, and I find it fascinating that politically it's viewed the other way round - but that's where notions of envy and class war do their work.
A lot of people make sacrifices to give their children a decent couple of meals a day. I have every sympathy for people wanting the best for their kids - private school or not - but I find the whining about having to cut back on skiing holidays to pay the school fees a bit grating.
Update: Telegraph have removed that story from their website.
Something something Prime Minister in thirty years' time.
Not even corrections & clarifications, straight-up black holed.
I have always been rather against taxing the rich just because some of them are a bit disgusting and obnoxious but I am starting to change my mind.
I know some people with that sort of income, who quietly bring up their children, don't complain, don't talk about money and how poor they are, have lots of middle income friends, are interested in the welfare of not well off people, give lots of money away and think they are very fortunate.
On a rough post tax income estimate (pensions ignored) he is £225k pre down to £140k post, and she is £120k pre down to £70k post. So post £55k now £70k school fees, it is £155k post tax household income down to £140k post tax household income.
I'm not sure who the Telegraph are trying to make rage.
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
Farage saying he will end the 2 child benefit cap is a massive mistake. It will just incentivize the sort of people we dont want reproducing to reproduce. Many of our current problems are due to the decline in the avetage quality of the uk population. Politics cant fix this.
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
I’m not convinced this rates as the worst example of Man’s inhumanity to Man.
On the other hand, am I aware of several friends where both parents earn six figure salaries, who have large five bedroom houses, don't send any of their kids to private school, and are consequently able to go on four to five holidays each year, and luxury ones at that.
They don't attract anything like the same opprobrium.
Because those families aren't whining about their lifestyle being affected by tax. A company I was working at in the late 80's had a letter published one of the senior people working there earning 50k ( a huge amount late 80's) that was moaning about some change and how he and his wife had to cut back to only dining out 5 nights a week. Luckily we had internal company mail and so many mailed him a penny to help out with his living costs
Many people who pay for their kids to go to private school make sacrifices. The fees are high enough that you have to have quite a high income to afford them in the first place, and there's no getting round that: independent schools can't do it for free and so they have to charge a fee. Meanwhile, parents who opt for that are donating the free state school places for their own kids to someone else, and increasing the funds going into the education sector as a whole.
I view this as being altruistic and noble, rather than selfish and indulgent, and I find it fascinating that politically it's viewed the other way round - but that's where notions of envy and class war do their work.
A lot of people make sacrifices to give their children a decent couple of meals a day. I have every sympathy for people wanting the best for their kids - private school or not - but I find the whining about having to cut back on skiing holidays to pay the school fees a bit grating.
Update: Telegraph have removed that story from their website.
Something something Prime Minister in thirty years' time.
Not even corrections & clarifications, straight-up black holed.
What was all that about? Some sort of hoax they let slip through?
I’m not convinced this rates as the worst example of Man’s inhumanity to Man.
On the other hand, am I aware of several friends where both parents earn six figure salaries, who have large five bedroom houses, don't send any of their kids to private school, and are consequently able to go on four to five holidays each year, and luxury ones at that.
They don't attract anything like the same opprobrium.
Because those families aren't whining about their lifestyle being affected by tax. A company I was working at in the late 80's had a letter published one of the senior people working there earning 50k ( a huge amount late 80's) that was moaning about some change and how he and his wife had to cut back to only dining out 5 nights a week. Luckily we had internal company mail and so many mailed him a penny to help out with his living costs
Many people who pay for their kids to go to private school make sacrifices. The fees are high enough that you have to have quite a high income to afford them in the first place, and there's no getting round that: independent schools can't do it for free and so they have to charge a fee. Meanwhile, parents who opt for that are donating the free state school places for their own kids to someone else, and increasing the funds going into the education sector as a whole.
I view this as being altruistic and noble, rather than selfish and indulgent, and I find it fascinating that politically it's viewed the other way round - but that's where notions of envy and class war do their work.
A lot of people make sacrifices to give their children a decent couple of meals a day. I have every sympathy for people wanting the best for their kids - private school or not - but I find the whining about having to cut back on skiing holidays to pay the school fees a bit grating.
Yep - and as someone who can afford 6 holidays a year (heck I’m on one at the moment) It’s a is that the best example you could find story - because it really isn’t the story the Telegraph thinks it is
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why? Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for* reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
(*Aka 'making up')
Politicians have a tendency to be authoritarian and want power, which is why too many want to remove hard won freedoms. They also want money to spend on their priorities, hence taxes.
Many people do too. A lot of people have a dislike to others doing things they disapprove of and are quite happy to see rights taken away.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Now having said that the way to fight those who wish to abuse climate concerns to further their agenda, watermelon greens as I call them, which is a group which definitely exists, is not to deny climate change. It is to decouple concerns about the climate from their agenda. Embracing clean technologies and clean power means we can have as much consumption as we want, without damaging the environment.
If we can have a grid powered by renewables and batteries etc then there is no need to cut consumption and the watermelon greens lose the ability to abuse the environment to further their agenda.
Except that eg building far fewer windmills and battery parks throughout the country is a huge benefit in a smallish country, so using as little power as we need and being highly efficient is positive. I'm on with a mixture of renewables and mainly SMR backup.
Well you're standing with Luckyguy in opposition to windmills and batteries then.
I don't consider building less of anything is of any benefit, we have plenty of space, and the overwhelming majority of the country is undeveloped - windmills and batteries don't take much space either.
Take Runcorn and Widnes as an example, in the not very distant past if I used to drive back to Merseyside to visit my family I would get my car covered in soot from Fiddlers Ferry Power Station, which can't be too healthy for the people living there either.
Now the power station is decommissioned as we don't need the coal power anymore and instead if you drive down the M56 you're greeted with the sight of many windmills providing the power instead.
Those windmills are a lot more beautiful in my eyes than Fiddlers Ferry ever was and don't cover everything in soot.
Saving energy where it isn't a sacrifice, eg using efficient bulbs, is only sensible. But would I rather sacrifice by not using power, rely upon soot-based power, or rely upon windmills and batteries? Easily the latter. Especially given the latter is increasingly considerably cheaper too.
Mmmm no. I'm standing in support of the extent necessary, and not being profligate for it's own sake, or for our vanity. Two existing models are in major reductions we have made in household energy use, whilst making dwellings more comfortable, and also in transport, and in the energy intensity of GDP.
Modus omnibus in rebus.
Just look at EVs - about 5x as energy efficient as an ICE. That means our optimal energy consumption in the transport sector will be much lower than it is today, even after taking into account how much cheaper that energy is.
(It did occur to me that the transition to EVs is happening quite a bit faster than we realise - every bus and taxi I have taken over the last week has been electric, in addition to the train to Glasgow. The rest has been pedal power.)
EVs, particularly in countries with good all year round insolation (like the US) are an absolute no brainer use case for solar power. EVs come with their own storage, so they improve the economics of renewables too.
That the US and Europe allowed China to dominate both industries was immensely shortsighted. That the US is now actively hampering them is quite mad.
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
I loathe him but not yet to Blair level. And nobody will ever be more loathsome than Mandelson or Alistair Campbell
I’m not convinced this rates as the worst example of Man’s inhumanity to Man.
On the other hand, am I aware of several friends where both parents earn six figure salaries, who have large five bedroom houses, don't send any of their kids to private school, and are consequently able to go on four to five holidays each year, and luxury ones at that.
They don't attract anything like the same opprobrium.
Because those families aren't whining about their lifestyle being affected by tax. A company I was working at in the late 80's had a letter published one of the senior people working there earning 50k ( a huge amount late 80's) that was moaning about some change and how he and his wife had to cut back to only dining out 5 nights a week. Luckily we had internal company mail and so many mailed him a penny to help out with his living costs
Many people who pay for their kids to go to private school make sacrifices. The fees are high enough that you have to have quite a high income to afford them in the first place, and there's no getting round that: independent schools can't do it for free and so they have to charge a fee. Meanwhile, parents who opt for that are donating the free state school places for their own kids to someone else, and increasing the funds going into the education sector as a whole.
I view this as being altruistic and noble, rather than selfish and indulgent, and I find it fascinating that politically it's viewed the other way round - but that's where notions of envy and class war do their work.
A lot of people make sacrifices to give their children a decent couple of meals a day. I have every sympathy for people wanting the best for their kids - private school or not - but I find the whining about having to cut back on skiing holidays to pay the school fees a bit grating.
Update: Telegraph have removed that story from their website.
Something something Prime Minister in thirty years' time.
Not even corrections & clarifications, straight-up black holed.
What was all that about? Some sort of hoax they let slip through?
It was obviously fake - all the images were stock pictures from 10 years ago.
AI generated is my guess. Online editor off for the weekend?
Farage saying he will end the 2 child benefit cap is a massive mistake. It will just incentivize the sort of people we dont want reproducing to reproduce. Many of our current problems are due to the decline in the avetage quality of the uk population. Politics cant fix this.
Farage saying he will end the 2 child benefit cap is a massive mistake. It will just incentivize the sort of people we dont want reproducing to reproduce. Many of our current problems are due to the decline in the avetage quality of the uk population. Politics cant fix this.
It’s gives Farage votes from people who won’t understand the impact of his other (destroy NHS) policies. Hence it’s a good policy for reform in getting votes from the hard to think constituency
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why? Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for* reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
(*Aka 'making up')
Politicians have a tendency to be authoritarian and want power, which is why too many want to remove hard won freedoms. They also want money to spend on their priorities, hence taxes.
Many people do too. A lot of people have a dislike to others doing things they disapprove of and are quite happy to see rights taken away.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Now having said that the way to fight those who wish to abuse climate concerns to further their agenda, watermelon greens as I call them, which is a group which definitely exists, is not to deny climate change. It is to decouple concerns about the climate from their agenda. Embracing clean technologies and clean power means we can have as much consumption as we want, without damaging the environment.
If we can have a grid powered by renewables and batteries etc then there is no need to cut consumption and the watermelon greens lose the ability to abuse the environment to further their agenda.
Except that eg building far fewer windmills and battery parks throughout the country is a huge benefit in a smallish country, so using as little power as we need and being highly efficient is positive. I'm on with a mixture of renewables and mainly SMR backup.
Well you're standing with Luckyguy in opposition to windmills and batteries then.
I don't consider building less of anything is of any benefit, we have plenty of space, and the overwhelming majority of the country is undeveloped - windmills and batteries don't take much space either.
Take Runcorn and Widnes as an example, in the not very distant past if I used to drive back to Merseyside to visit my family I would get my car covered in soot from Fiddlers Ferry Power Station, which can't be too healthy for the people living there either.
Now the power station is decommissioned as we don't need the coal power anymore and instead if you drive down the M56 you're greeted with the sight of many windmills providing the power instead.
Those windmills are a lot more beautiful in my eyes than Fiddlers Ferry ever was and don't cover everything in soot.
Saving energy where it isn't a sacrifice, eg using efficient bulbs, is only sensible. But would I rather sacrifice by not using power, rely upon soot-based power, or rely upon windmills and batteries? Easily the latter. Especially given the latter is increasingly considerably cheaper too.
Mmmm no. I'm standing in support of the extent necessary, and not being profligate for it's own sake, or for our vanity. Two existing models are in major reductions we have made in household energy use, whilst making dwellings more comfortable, and also in transport, and in the energy intensity of GDP.
Modus omnibus in rebus.
Just look at EVs - about 5x as energy efficient as an ICE. That means our optimal energy consumption in the transport sector will be much lower than it is today, even after taking into account how much cheaper that energy is.
(It did occur to me that the transition to EVs is happening quite a bit faster than we realise - every bus and taxi I have taken over the last week has been electric, in addition to the train to Glasgow. The rest has been pedal power.)
EVs, particularly in countries with good all year round insolation (like the US) are an absolute no brainer use case for solar power. EVs come with their own storage, so they improve the economics of renewables too.
That the US and Europe allowed China to dominate both industries was immensely shortsighted. That the US is now actively hampering them is quite mad.
It is.
There are very few more extraordinary examples of monumental self harm. (I coined a term for it: oppositionalism - if they're for it, I must be against it.)
There are very few more extraordinary examples of monumental self harm. (I coined a term for it: oppositionalism - if they're for it, I must be against it.)
Farage saying he will end the 2 child benefit cap is a massive mistake. It will just incentivize the sort of people we dont want reproducing to reproduce. Many of our current problems are due to the decline in the avetage quality of the uk population. Politics cant fix this.
I thought it was Sunday today. Maybe I am mistaken.
Heres a pondering...... If a GE was held today on current polling, how close would Reform get to Labour in the Liverpool city seats?
According to Electoral Calculus and using the latest Techne poll with Ref on 39%, - none.
Looking wider at the 17 Merseyside constituencies, one. Southport.
Oh i dont expect them to win, but will they make Liverpool faintly interesting or marginal? Think8ng really only of the totemic seats - West Derby, Riverside, Garston, Wavertree, Bootle, Knowsley. Are labour going to have to actually campaign in them or will they just remain monolithically Labour
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why? Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for* reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
(*Aka 'making up')
Politicians have a tendency to be authoritarian and want power, which is why too many want to remove hard won freedoms. They also want money to spend on their priorities, hence taxes.
Many people do too. A lot of people have a dislike to others doing things they disapprove of and are quite happy to see rights taken away.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Now having said that the way to fight those who wish to abuse climate concerns to further their agenda, watermelon greens as I call them, which is a group which definitely exists, is not to deny climate change. It is to decouple concerns about the climate from their agenda. Embracing clean technologies and clean power means we can have as much consumption as we want, without damaging the environment.
If we can have a grid powered by renewables and batteries etc then there is no need to cut consumption and the watermelon greens lose the ability to abuse the environment to further their agenda.
Except that eg building far fewer windmills and battery parks throughout the country is a huge benefit in a smallish country, so using as little power as we need and being highly efficient is positive. I'm on with a mixture of renewables and mainly SMR backup.
Well you're standing with Luckyguy in opposition to windmills and batteries then.
I don't consider building less of anything is of any benefit, we have plenty of space, and the overwhelming majority of the country is undeveloped - windmills and batteries don't take much space either.
Take Runcorn and Widnes as an example, in the not very distant past if I used to drive back to Merseyside to visit my family I would get my car covered in soot from Fiddlers Ferry Power Station, which can't be too healthy for the people living there either.
Now the power station is decommissioned as we don't need the coal power anymore and instead if you drive down the M56 you're greeted with the sight of many windmills providing the power instead.
Those windmills are a lot more beautiful in my eyes than Fiddlers Ferry ever was and don't cover everything in soot.
Saving energy where it isn't a sacrifice, eg using efficient bulbs, is only sensible. But would I rather sacrifice by not using power, rely upon soot-based power, or rely upon windmills and batteries? Easily the latter. Especially given the latter is increasingly considerably cheaper too.
Mmmm no. I'm standing in support of the extent necessary, and not being profligate for it's own sake, or for our vanity. Two existing models are in major reductions we have made in household energy use, whilst making dwellings more comfortable, and also in transport, and in the energy intensity of GDP.
Modus omnibus in rebus.
Just look at EVs - about 5x as energy efficient as an ICE. That means our optimal energy consumption in the transport sector will be much lower than it is today, even after taking into account how much cheaper that energy is.
(It did occur to me that the transition to EVs is happening quite a bit faster than we realise - every bus and taxi I have taken over the last week has been electric, in addition to the train to Glasgow. The rest has been pedal power.)
EVs, particularly in countries with good all year round insolation (like the US) are an absolute no brainer use case for solar power. EVs come with their own storage, so they improve the economics of renewables too.
That the US and Europe allowed China to dominate both industries was immensely shortsighted. That the US is now actively hampering them is quite mad.
It is.
There are very few more extraordinary examples of monumental self harm. (I coined a term for it: oppositionalism - if they're for it, I must be against it.)
Trump year-to-date cuts in scientific fields at the NSF
Mathematical sciences: -72% Physics: -85% Chemistry: -57% Astronomy: -53% Biotech, energy, and health sciences: -9% Earth sciences: -80%
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I’m not convinced this rates as the worst example of Man’s inhumanity to Man.
On the other hand, am I aware of several friends where both parents earn six figure salaries, who have large five bedroom houses, don't send any of their kids to private school, and are consequently able to go on four to five holidays each year, and luxury ones at that.
They don't attract anything like the same opprobrium.
Because those families aren't whining about their lifestyle being affected by tax. A company I was working at in the late 80's had a letter published one of the senior people working there earning 50k ( a huge amount late 80's) that was moaning about some change and how he and his wife had to cut back to only dining out 5 nights a week. Luckily we had internal company mail and so many mailed him a penny to help out with his living costs
Many people who pay for their kids to go to private school make sacrifices. The fees are high enough that you have to have quite a high income to afford them in the first place, and there's no getting round that: independent schools can't do it for free and so they have to charge a fee. Meanwhile, parents who opt for that are donating the free state school places for their own kids to someone else, and increasing the funds going into the education sector as a whole.
I view this as being altruistic and noble, rather than selfish and indulgent, and I find it fascinating that politically it's viewed the other way round - but that's where notions of envy and class war do their work.
A lot of people make sacrifices to give their children a decent couple of meals a day. I have every sympathy for people wanting the best for their kids - private school or not - but I find the whining about having to cut back on skiing holidays to pay the school fees a bit grating.
Update: Telegraph have removed that story from their website.
Something something Prime Minister in thirty years' time.
I am hoping the new owners of the Telegraph will replace the current rabid editorial team with a less eye-swivelled bunch.
Heres a pondering...... If a GE was held today on current polling, how close would Reform get to Labour in the Liverpool city seats?
According to Electoral Calculus and using the latest Techne poll with Ref on 39%, - none.
Looking wider at the 17 Merseyside constituencies, one. Southport.
Oh i dont expect them to win, but will they make Liverpool faintly interesting or marginal? Think8ng really only of the totemic seats - West Derby, Riverside, Garston, Wavertree, Bootle, Knowsley. Are labour going to have to actually campaign in them or will they just remain monolithically Labour
Good question. I think they'll have to campaign. If they don't, well ...
Heres a pondering...... If a GE was held today on current polling, how close would Reform get to Labour in the Liverpool city seats?
According to Electoral Calculus and using the latest Techne poll with Ref on 39%, - none.
Looking wider at the 17 Merseyside constituencies, one. Southport.
Oh i dont expect them to win, but will they make Liverpool faintly interesting or marginal? Think8ng really only of the totemic seats - West Derby, Riverside, Garston, Wavertree, Bootle, Knowsley. Are labour going to have to actually campaign in them or will they just remain monolithically Labour
Good question. I think they'll have to campaign. If they don't, well ...
Yeah, that was my thought. I wonder how up to date their doorknocking data is?!
Belated due to a reasonably sunny day and gardening, today's Rawnsley:
At Sir Keir Starmer’s recent encounter with morose Labour MPs...the prime minister told them that “the Conservatives are not our principal opponent. Reform are our main rivals for power.”
In terms of parliament, it isn’t. When the next election doesn’t have to happen before 2029, it is reckless to draw firm conclusions, but this is not deterring ministers from rushing to judgement.
There are tactical incentives for Sir Keir to talk up Reform. While its surge troubles Labour, it poses a potentially existential menace to the Conservatives. Sir Keir’s strategists also think Mr Farage is a potent bogeyman to instil fear and quell division in Labour’s ranks.
Starmer loyalists will say that acknowledging the rise of Reform is embracing reality and preparing Labour for a new kind of struggle. Others think it dangerous to give a helping hand to Mr Farage’s mission to obliterate the Tories. One cabinet member calls it “a risky bet on the roulette wheel” to depict Reform not as a protest party, but as a contender for power. Building him up in the hope of knocking him down is quite a gamble. Perhaps a bigger one than they yet know.
The Runcorn byelection already shows the new reality for Labour - Reform is their main opposition in most of their seats.
And the Tories have a different issues - in most of their seats they won it’s the Lib Dems who are their opposition not Labour and not Reform. They need to destroy Reform to hit 200 seats but if they don’t attack the lib dems they may be on 40 seats or less at the next election
Belated due to a reasonably sunny day and gardening, today's Rawnsley:
At Sir Keir Starmer’s recent encounter with morose Labour MPs...the prime minister told them that “the Conservatives are not our principal opponent. Reform are our main rivals for power.”
In terms of parliament, it isn’t. When the next election doesn’t have to happen before 2029, it is reckless to draw firm conclusions, but this is not deterring ministers from rushing to judgement.
There are tactical incentives for Sir Keir to talk up Reform. While its surge troubles Labour, it poses a potentially existential menace to the Conservatives. Sir Keir’s strategists also think Mr Farage is a potent bogeyman to instil fear and quell division in Labour’s ranks.
Starmer loyalists will say that acknowledging the rise of Reform is embracing reality and preparing Labour for a new kind of struggle. Others think it dangerous to give a helping hand to Mr Farage’s mission to obliterate the Tories. One cabinet member calls it “a risky bet on the roulette wheel” to depict Reform not as a protest party, but as a contender for power. Building him up in the hope of knocking him down is quite a gamble. Perhaps a bigger one than they yet know.
The Runcorn byelection already shows the new reality for Labour - Reform is their main opposition in most of their seats.
And the Tories have a different issues - in most of their seats they won it’s the Lib Dems who are their opposition not Labour and not Reform. They need to destroy Reform to hit 200 seats but if they don’t attack the lib dems they may be on 40 seats or less at the next election
Indeed: the Tories are stuck between the bearded sandles and the fruitcakes and loons.
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
Fair enough. I feel similar about Farage tbh.
Starmer has been underwhelming but I think he'll survive. We'll see.
Meanwhile, you can't get rid of Starmer, only the Labour Party or the electorate can do that so my advice is chill, focus on the things you can change.
Belated due to a reasonably sunny day and gardening, today's Rawnsley:
At Sir Keir Starmer’s recent encounter with morose Labour MPs...the prime minister told them that “the Conservatives are not our principal opponent. Reform are our main rivals for power.”
In terms of parliament, it isn’t. When the next election doesn’t have to happen before 2029, it is reckless to draw firm conclusions, but this is not deterring ministers from rushing to judgement.
There are tactical incentives for Sir Keir to talk up Reform. While its surge troubles Labour, it poses a potentially existential menace to the Conservatives. Sir Keir’s strategists also think Mr Farage is a potent bogeyman to instil fear and quell division in Labour’s ranks.
Starmer loyalists will say that acknowledging the rise of Reform is embracing reality and preparing Labour for a new kind of struggle. Others think it dangerous to give a helping hand to Mr Farage’s mission to obliterate the Tories. One cabinet member calls it “a risky bet on the roulette wheel” to depict Reform not as a protest party, but as a contender for power. Building him up in the hope of knocking him down is quite a gamble. Perhaps a bigger one than they yet know.
The Runcorn byelection already shows the new reality for Labour - Reform is their main opposition in most of their seats.
And the Tories have a different issues - in most of their seats they won it’s the Lib Dems who are their opposition not Labour and not Reform. They need to destroy Reform to hit 200 seats but if they don’t attack the lib dems they may be on 40 seats or less at the next election
Indeed: the Tories are stuck between the bearded sandles and the fruitcakes and loons.
And there is not as much space between them as you would think.
Farage saying he will end the 2 child benefit cap is a massive mistake. It will just incentivize the sort of people we dont want reproducing to reproduce. Many of our current problems are due to the decline in the avetage quality of the uk population. Politics cant fix this.
Farage throwing all his small state, small government, low public spending principles to the wind to become sine die Fuhrer seems a worthy compromise.
Belated due to a reasonably sunny day and gardening, today's Rawnsley:
At Sir Keir Starmer’s recent encounter with morose Labour MPs...the prime minister told them that “the Conservatives are not our principal opponent. Reform are our main rivals for power.”
In terms of parliament, it isn’t. When the next election doesn’t have to happen before 2029, it is reckless to draw firm conclusions, but this is not deterring ministers from rushing to judgement.
There are tactical incentives for Sir Keir to talk up Reform. While its surge troubles Labour, it poses a potentially existential menace to the Conservatives. Sir Keir’s strategists also think Mr Farage is a potent bogeyman to instil fear and quell division in Labour’s ranks.
Starmer loyalists will say that acknowledging the rise of Reform is embracing reality and preparing Labour for a new kind of struggle. Others think it dangerous to give a helping hand to Mr Farage’s mission to obliterate the Tories. One cabinet member calls it “a risky bet on the roulette wheel” to depict Reform not as a protest party, but as a contender for power. Building him up in the hope of knocking him down is quite a gamble. Perhaps a bigger one than they yet know.
The Runcorn byelection already shows the new reality for Labour - Reform is their main opposition in most of their seats.
And the Tories have a different issues - in most of their seats they won it’s the Lib Dems who are their opposition not Labour and not Reform. They need to destroy Reform to hit 200 seats but if they don’t attack the lib dems they may be on 40 seats or less at the next election
Indeed: the Tories are stuck between the bearded sandles and the fruitcakes and loons.
If Farage survives to 2028 the Tories' best bet is becoming junior partners in a merger or some kind of deal
So many people I know who were once solid Tories are now Reform, without question, from posh to poor, from north to south, from old to young. LOTS of young people
Voters want a radical change and the Tories simply cannot offer that, because of 2010-2024. Labour, lol, Starmer & Reeves
Heres a pondering...... If a GE was held today on current polling, how close would Reform get to Labour in the Liverpool city seats?
According to Electoral Calculus and using the latest Techne poll with Ref on 39%, - none.
Looking wider at the 17 Merseyside constituencies, one. Southport.
Oh i dont expect them to win, but will they make Liverpool faintly interesting or marginal? Think8ng really only of the totemic seats - West Derby, Riverside, Garston, Wavertree, Bootle, Knowsley. Are labour going to have to actually campaign in them or will they just remain monolithically Labour
Good question. I think they'll have to campaign. If they don't, well ...
I remember meeting the Tory MP for Garston in the early 80s.
Malcolm Thornton if I remember rightly.
What happened? Demographics? Still a hangover from the Thatcher government?
Heres a pondering...... If a GE was held today on current polling, how close would Reform get to Labour in the Liverpool city seats?
According to Electoral Calculus and using the latest Techne poll with Ref on 39%, - none.
Looking wider at the 17 Merseyside constituencies, one. Southport.
Oh i dont expect them to win, but will they make Liverpool faintly interesting or marginal? Think8ng really only of the totemic seats - West Derby, Riverside, Garston, Wavertree, Bootle, Knowsley. Are labour going to have to actually campaign in them or will they just remain monolithically Labour
I have a feeling Farage goes down like a bucket of cold sick in places like Liverpool.
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
Belated due to a reasonably sunny day and gardening, today's Rawnsley:
At Sir Keir Starmer’s recent encounter with morose Labour MPs...the prime minister told them that “the Conservatives are not our principal opponent. Reform are our main rivals for power.”
In terms of parliament, it isn’t. When the next election doesn’t have to happen before 2029, it is reckless to draw firm conclusions, but this is not deterring ministers from rushing to judgement.
There are tactical incentives for Sir Keir to talk up Reform. While its surge troubles Labour, it poses a potentially existential menace to the Conservatives. Sir Keir’s strategists also think Mr Farage is a potent bogeyman to instil fear and quell division in Labour’s ranks.
Starmer loyalists will say that acknowledging the rise of Reform is embracing reality and preparing Labour for a new kind of struggle. Others think it dangerous to give a helping hand to Mr Farage’s mission to obliterate the Tories. One cabinet member calls it “a risky bet on the roulette wheel” to depict Reform not as a protest party, but as a contender for power. Building him up in the hope of knocking him down is quite a gamble. Perhaps a bigger one than they yet know.
The Runcorn byelection already shows the new reality for Labour - Reform is their main opposition in most of their seats.
And the Tories have a different issues - in most of their seats they won it’s the Lib Dems who are their opposition not Labour and not Reform. They need to destroy Reform to hit 200 seats but if they don’t attack the lib dems they may be on 40 seats or less at the next election
They need to fight the LDs in the south hard and try to regain the Maidenheads and Witneys etc which might ameliorate some of the carnage elsewhere. Here in Norfolk they fight the LDs in North Norfolk but NW, SW, Mid, Broadland and South will all be straight Tory/ Reform fights (Labour will drop ftom holdimg to 3rd in South Norfolk) Great Yarmouth will be Reform vs Rupert Lowe, Waveney Valley likely a rare Green vs Tory scrap. (Norwich N and S will be Lab Reform fights)
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
Fair enough. I feel similar about Farage tbh.
Starmer has been underwhelming but I think he'll survive. We'll see.
Meanwhile, you can't get rid of Starmer, only the Labour Party or the electorate can do that so my advice is chill, focus on the things you can change.
Well yes, I have scolded myself, so it won't get to me
But it might cast useful light on future betting. Starmer rubs people up the wrong way, big time, and he has zero upsides
Even if you hated Thatcher, she was effective and intelligent
Even if you hated Boris, he could be funny and was a great campaigner
Even if you hate Farage, he is undeniably skilful and good on TV
What is the positive on Starmer? What are the upsides to compensate for the massive downsides? I see none
I know Labour don't replace leaders but if the polls in late 2026 are this bad, I am sure they will make an exception
Farage saying he will end the 2 child benefit cap is a massive mistake. It will just incentivize the sort of people we dont want reproducing to reproduce. Many of our current problems are due to the decline in the avetage quality of the uk population. Politics cant fix this.
You mean like not being able to spell or punctuate?
Farage saying he will end the 2 child benefit cap is a massive mistake. It will just incentivize the sort of people we dont want reproducing to reproduce. Many of our current problems are due to the decline in the avetage quality of the uk population. Politics cant fix this.
I thought it was Sunday today. Maybe I am mistaken.
Bank holiday must be throwing the shift patterns in Vladivostok.
Heres a pondering...... If a GE was held today on current polling, how close would Reform get to Labour in the Liverpool city seats?
According to Electoral Calculus and using the latest Techne poll with Ref on 39%, - none.
Looking wider at the 17 Merseyside constituencies, one. Southport.
Oh i dont expect them to win, but will they make Liverpool faintly interesting or marginal? Think8ng really only of the totemic seats - West Derby, Riverside, Garston, Wavertree, Bootle, Knowsley. Are labour going to have to actually campaign in them or will they just remain monolithically Labour
I have a feeling Farage goes down like a bucket of cold sick in places like Liverpool.
Wishful thinking on my part, maybe.
I think they dont have time to hate him for all the hating Tories
Belated due to a reasonably sunny day and gardening, today's Rawnsley:
At Sir Keir Starmer’s recent encounter with morose Labour MPs...the prime minister told them that “the Conservatives are not our principal opponent. Reform are our main rivals for power.”
In terms of parliament, it isn’t. When the next election doesn’t have to happen before 2029, it is reckless to draw firm conclusions, but this is not deterring ministers from rushing to judgement.
There are tactical incentives for Sir Keir to talk up Reform. While its surge troubles Labour, it poses a potentially existential menace to the Conservatives. Sir Keir’s strategists also think Mr Farage is a potent bogeyman to instil fear and quell division in Labour’s ranks.
Starmer loyalists will say that acknowledging the rise of Reform is embracing reality and preparing Labour for a new kind of struggle. Others think it dangerous to give a helping hand to Mr Farage’s mission to obliterate the Tories. One cabinet member calls it “a risky bet on the roulette wheel” to depict Reform not as a protest party, but as a contender for power. Building him up in the hope of knocking him down is quite a gamble. Perhaps a bigger one than they yet know.
The Runcorn byelection already shows the new reality for Labour - Reform is their main opposition in most of their seats.
And the Tories have a different issues - in most of their seats they won it’s the Lib Dems who are their opposition not Labour and not Reform. They need to destroy Reform to hit 200 seats but if they don’t attack the lib dems they may be on 40 seats or less at the next election
Indeed: the Tories are stuck between the bearded sandles and the fruitcakes and loons.
And there is not as much space between them as you would think.
I wouldnt say labour are anymore fruitcakes and loons than the tories tbh nor the bearded sandles either. All 3 seem to think more of the same that dug us into the hole is somehow after 50 years of trying going to suddenly work....clue its not. The only reason a lot support them here is they are still doing alright under these policies....most of the country is getting squeezed deeper into the hole though
Heres a pondering...... If a GE was held today on current polling, how close would Reform get to Labour in the Liverpool city seats?
According to Electoral Calculus and using the latest Techne poll with Ref on 39%, - none.
Looking wider at the 17 Merseyside constituencies, one. Southport.
Oh i dont expect them to win, but will they make Liverpool faintly interesting or marginal? Think8ng really only of the totemic seats - West Derby, Riverside, Garston, Wavertree, Bootle, Knowsley. Are labour going to have to actually campaign in them or will they just remain monolithically Labour
I have a feeling Farage goes down like a bucket of cold sick in places like Liverpool.
Wishful thinking on my part, maybe.
What Trump does over the next three and a half years could have a significant effect on Farage's prospects.
If Canada and Australia teach us anything it might be that the Trump effect could put voters off fash-lite parties, and on an industrial scale.
Heres a pondering...... If a GE was held today on current polling, how close would Reform get to Labour in the Liverpool city seats?
According to Electoral Calculus and using the latest Techne poll with Ref on 39%, - none.
Looking wider at the 17 Merseyside constituencies, one. Southport.
Oh i dont expect them to win, but will they make Liverpool faintly interesting or marginal? Think8ng really only of the totemic seats - West Derby, Riverside, Garston, Wavertree, Bootle, Knowsley. Are labour going to have to actually campaign in them or will they just remain monolithically Labour
Good question. I think they'll have to campaign. If they don't, well ...
I remember meeting the Tory MP for Garston in the early 80s.
Malcolm Thornton if I remember rightly.
What happened? Demographics? Still a hangover from the Thatcher government?
Farage saying he will end the 2 child benefit cap is a massive mistake. It will just incentivize the sort of people we dont want reproducing to reproduce. Many of our current problems are due to the decline in the avetage quality of the uk population. Politics cant fix this.
I thought it was Sunday today. Maybe I am mistaken.
Bank holiday must be throwing the shift patterns in Vladivostok.
Simon's from Woking. I wonder if he dines at the town's Pizza Express?
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
It is interesting and I reckon I have identifed it. Uncanny Valley
Scientists know that there is a weird zone of revulsion, in humans, when they are confronted by a robot/avatar/tech that "appears" human but doesn't quite make it to full human. A few gestures and tics give away that non-humanity and we react with unfiltered and violent rejection; it is probably Darwinian: an evolved reflex to detect the imposter, who is a potential danger
That's what Starmer evokes, in me, the disgust at the not-quite-human. He is a Woke robot pretending to be like the rest of us
Belated due to a reasonably sunny day and gardening, today's Rawnsley:
At Sir Keir Starmer’s recent encounter with morose Labour MPs...the prime minister told them that “the Conservatives are not our principal opponent. Reform are our main rivals for power.”
In terms of parliament, it isn’t. When the next election doesn’t have to happen before 2029, it is reckless to draw firm conclusions, but this is not deterring ministers from rushing to judgement.
There are tactical incentives for Sir Keir to talk up Reform. While its surge troubles Labour, it poses a potentially existential menace to the Conservatives. Sir Keir’s strategists also think Mr Farage is a potent bogeyman to instil fear and quell division in Labour’s ranks.
Starmer loyalists will say that acknowledging the rise of Reform is embracing reality and preparing Labour for a new kind of struggle. Others think it dangerous to give a helping hand to Mr Farage’s mission to obliterate the Tories. One cabinet member calls it “a risky bet on the roulette wheel” to depict Reform not as a protest party, but as a contender for power. Building him up in the hope of knocking him down is quite a gamble. Perhaps a bigger one than they yet know.
The Runcorn byelection already shows the new reality for Labour - Reform is their main opposition in most of their seats.
And the Tories have a different issues - in most of their seats they won it’s the Lib Dems who are their opposition not Labour and not Reform. They need to destroy Reform to hit 200 seats but if they don’t attack the lib dems they may be on 40 seats or less at the next election
Indeed: the Tories are stuck between the bearded sandles and the fruitcakes and loons.
(Ken Livingstone voice:) You know who else struggled to fight a war on two fronts?
(Normal voice again:) For now, Labour don't really have that problem. There are very few potential Lib/Lab battlegrounds. Yes, there are Greens and Gazans to Labour's left, but they are both occupying very specific niches. Bad if you are the Labour MP for one of those niches, but not with the broad (if baffling) appeal of Farage.
Belated due to a reasonably sunny day and gardening, today's Rawnsley:
At Sir Keir Starmer’s recent encounter with morose Labour MPs...the prime minister told them that “the Conservatives are not our principal opponent. Reform are our main rivals for power.”
In terms of parliament, it isn’t. When the next election doesn’t have to happen before 2029, it is reckless to draw firm conclusions, but this is not deterring ministers from rushing to judgement.
There are tactical incentives for Sir Keir to talk up Reform. While its surge troubles Labour, it poses a potentially existential menace to the Conservatives. Sir Keir’s strategists also think Mr Farage is a potent bogeyman to instil fear and quell division in Labour’s ranks.
Starmer loyalists will say that acknowledging the rise of Reform is embracing reality and preparing Labour for a new kind of struggle. Others think it dangerous to give a helping hand to Mr Farage’s mission to obliterate the Tories. One cabinet member calls it “a risky bet on the roulette wheel” to depict Reform not as a protest party, but as a contender for power. Building him up in the hope of knocking him down is quite a gamble. Perhaps a bigger one than they yet know.
The Runcorn byelection already shows the new reality for Labour - Reform is their main opposition in most of their seats.
And the Tories have a different issues - in most of their seats they won it’s the Lib Dems who are their opposition not Labour and not Reform. They need to destroy Reform to hit 200 seats but if they don’t attack the lib dems they may be on 40 seats or less at the next election
Indeed: the Tories are stuck between the bearded sandles and the fruitcakes and loons.
And there is not as much space between them as you would think.
Just to help out, of the Conservatives' top 50 targets, the LDs currently hold 9, the SNP 2, Plaid 1 and the remaining 38 are Labour so its Conservative progress against Labour which wins seats.
Of the top 50 Reform targets, 27 are held by Labour and 23 by the Conservatives.
I can not think of a single Starmer policy that has been good for me
I earn just enough to have not benefited from the NMW increase
My future pay rises have been stolen by his huge NIC hike
All of my bills have massively increased
And he promises again and again to go further and faster
'Further and faster' is the most horrible focus grouped nonsense. Some gimp nodded enthusiastically and they decided the words must have supernatural powers
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
Fair enough. I feel similar about Farage tbh.
Starmer has been underwhelming but I think he'll survive. We'll see.
Meanwhile, you can't get rid of Starmer, only the Labour Party or the electorate can do that so my advice is chill, focus on the things you can change.
Well yes, I have scolded myself, so it won't get to me
But it might cast useful light on future betting. Starmer rubs people up the wrong way, big time, and he has zero upsides
Even if you hated Thatcher, she was effective and intelligent
Even if you hated Boris, he could be funny and was a great campaigner
Even if you hate Farage, he is undeniably skilful and good on TV
What is the positive on Starmer? What are the upsides to compensate for the massive downsides? I see none
I know Labour don't replace leaders but if the polls in late 2026 are this bad, I am sure they will make an exception
You missed Liz off of your list, just saying.
We have been watching the Bombing of Pan Am 103 on iPlayer (very good btw). They use a few news clips from 1988/9 and I found myself watching Reagan speak, wistful for a time when the even the right-wing leaders were decent, compassionate people.
I was so unbelievably saddened to read your news this morning. I wanted to wait until I had a moment to write a response.
It all must have been such a shock. I have always read your articles. sometimes skimming through them, but often in full, and always admired your prose and unshakeable commitment to your beliefs.
I would classify you as one of those people who is just too intelligent to mess around with. A razor sharp mind and intellect, and someone who carries themselves with such integrity.
I will miss your presence on pbCOM. You added something that noone else did.
I really do hope that you find some peace, tranquility and real happiness in your days ahead. I also know that you will. You are one of life's formidables Cyclefree.
I rather wish the mods would open another thread, because every time I come back here and see @Cyclefree's wise, extraordinary and quite distressing threader and it is.... challenging
One of the peculiarities of the modern world is that you can become oddly close and attached to people you have never physically met. Has that ever before been true in the history of humanity? I guess a few people had passionate exhanges of letters, but nowadays this experience is common to all of us
Fairly common in the past for military heroes and some monarchs, I'd have thought, even before mass circulation newspapers.
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
I'm with you. He is indeed a nullity who has no idea what we wants other than to be in power, whose thinking (and I use the term loosely) is shaped by the last person to sit on him, who is utterly ineffectual, deeply boring and just plain dull. I struggle to have strong emotions about him because he is a walking void of emptiness. There is so little to get a grip of. Exasperation that someone so inept is in Number 10 at a somewhat difficult time is as close as I can get to.
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
It is interesting and I reckon I have identifed it. Uncanny Valley
Scientists know that there is a weird zone of revulsion, in humans, when they are confronted by a robot/avatar/tech that "appears" human but doesn't quite make it to full human. A few gestures and tics give away that non-humanity and we react with unfiltered and violent rejection; it is probably Darwinian: an evolved reflex to detect the imposter, who is a potential danger
That's what Starmer evokes, in me, the disgust at the not-quite-human. He is a Woke robot pretending to be like the rest of us
Yes! I can see that. I thought it was a lover spurned effect. I know you voted for him. But he is odd in the way you describe. I wonder how many people are picking up on this?
Just to help out, of the Conservatives' top 50 targets, the LDs currently hold 9, the SNP 2, Plaid 1 and the remaining 38 are Labour so its Conservative progress against Labour which wins seats.
Of the top 50 Reform targets, 27 are held by Labour and 23 by the Conservatives.
However of the LDs top 40 defences only one is not vs the Tories so the blues will certainly target team Davey
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
I'm with you. He is indeed a nullity who has no idea what we wants other than to be in power, whose thinking (and I use the term loosely) is shaped by the last person to sit on him, who is utterly ineffectual, deeply boring and just plain dull. I struggle to have strong emotions about him because he is a walking void of emptiness. There is so little to get a grip of. Exasperation that someone so inept is in Number 10 at a somewhat difficult time is as close as I can get to.
It seems odd to call someone ineffectual who managed to become leader of the Labour Party and PM, and this is his second career!
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
It is interesting and I reckon I have identifed it. Uncanny Valley
Scientists know that there is a weird zone of revulsion, in humans, when they are confronted by a robot/avatar/tech that "appears" human but doesn't quite make it to full human. A few gestures and tics give away that non-humanity and we react with unfiltered and violent rejection; it is probably Darwinian: an evolved reflex to detect the imposter, who is a potential danger
That's what Starmer evokes, in me, the disgust at the not-quite-human. He is a Woke robot pretending to be like the rest of us
Yes! I can see that. I thought it was a lover spurned effect. I know you voted for him. But he is odd in the way you describe. I wonder how many people are picking up on this?
An example of his repulsion. When giving his EU reset presser he twice kind of chuckled when he mentioned e gates. It REALLY pissed me off, like under the skin irritation. Why are you 'sort of' laughing? And at what? Whats wrong with you?!
Just to help out, of the Conservatives' top 50 targets, the LDs currently hold 9, the SNP 2, Plaid 1 and the remaining 38 are Labour so its Conservative progress against Labour which wins seats.
Of the top 50 Reform targets, 27 are held by Labour and 23 by the Conservatives.
However of the LDs top 40 defences only one is not vs the Tories so the blues will certainly target team Davey
The LDs are not the boggest problem for the Conservatives - it's Reform.
Indeed, as the polls show, the Conservatives could succeed in keeping all their seats aginst the LDs but lose so many to Reform they fall behind the LDs in the next Commons.
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
Fair enough. I feel similar about Farage tbh.
Starmer has been underwhelming but I think he'll survive. We'll see.
Meanwhile, you can't get rid of Starmer, only the Labour Party or the electorate can do that so my advice is chill, focus on the things you can change.
Well yes, I have scolded myself, so it won't get to me
But it might cast useful light on future betting. Starmer rubs people up the wrong way, big time, and he has zero upsides
Even if you hated Thatcher, she was effective and intelligent
Even if you hated Boris, he could be funny and was a great campaigner
Even if you hate Farage, he is undeniably skilful and good on TV
What is the positive on Starmer? What are the upsides to compensate for the massive downsides? I see none
I know Labour don't replace leaders but if the polls in late 2026 are this bad, I am sure they will make an exception
I expect Starmer to retire early so obviously he will be replaced. I'm not sure of any mechanism to force him out though.
Starmer is already our oldest Prime Minister this millennium. He had no ambition to be Prime Minister and is a lawyer rather than a politician, suggesting there is no grand project he wants to oversee, and no heir he wants to anoint. And this is betting without any medical grounds like Wilson, whose example I expect him to follow, although Starmer will be conscious of Biden's decline which is currently in the news and will stay there as more memoirs are released (and if Trump starts an inquiry).
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
I'm with you. He is indeed a nullity who has no idea what we wants other than to be in power, whose thinking (and I use the term loosely) is shaped by the last person to sit on him, who is utterly ineffectual, deeply boring and just plain dull. I struggle to have strong emotions about him because he is a walking void of emptiness. There is so little to get a grip of. Exasperation that someone so inept is in Number 10 at a somewhat difficult time is as close as I can get to.
It seems odd to call someone ineffectual who managed to become leader of the Labour Party and PM, and this is his second career!
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
I'm with you. He is indeed a nullity who has no idea what we wants other than to be in power, whose thinking (and I use the term loosely) is shaped by the last person to sit on him, who is utterly ineffectual, deeply boring and just plain dull. I struggle to have strong emotions about him because he is a walking void of emptiness. There is so little to get a grip of. Exasperation that someone so inept is in Number 10 at a somewhat difficult time is as close as I can get to.
It seems odd to call someone ineffectual who managed to become leader of the Labour Party and PM, and this is his second career!
Have you looked at the Labour front bench?
Yes, but they are Starmers appointments!
The exception is Rayner who has her own powerbase as elected deputy leader.
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
I'm with you. He is indeed a nullity who has no idea what we wants other than to be in power, whose thinking (and I use the term loosely) is shaped by the last person to sit on him, who is utterly ineffectual, deeply boring and just plain dull. I struggle to have strong emotions about him because he is a walking void of emptiness. There is so little to get a grip of. Exasperation that someone so inept is in Number 10 at a somewhat difficult time is as close as I can get to.
It seems odd to call someone ineffectual who managed to become leader of the Labour Party and PM, and this is his second career!
You only have to be slightly less ineffectual than the second most ineffectual.....its not like labour is brimming to the gills with effective people, much the same as all are parties. To be clear this wasnt a party political point as I think all the major parties are full of non talented people who went into politics because they thought they would be rather good at it
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
It is interesting and I reckon I have identifed it. Uncanny Valley
Scientists know that there is a weird zone of revulsion, in humans, when they are confronted by a robot/avatar/tech that "appears" human but doesn't quite make it to full human. A few gestures and tics give away that non-humanity and we react with unfiltered and violent rejection; it is probably Darwinian: an evolved reflex to detect the imposter, who is a potential danger
That's what Starmer evokes, in me, the disgust at the not-quite-human. He is a Woke robot pretending to be like the rest of us
Yes! I can see that. I thought it was a lover spurned effect. I know you voted for him. But he is odd in the way you describe. I wonder how many people are picking up on this?
An example of his repulsion. When giving his EU reset presser he twice kind of chuckled when he mentioned e gates. It REALLY pissed me off, like under the skin irritation. Why are you 'sort of' laughing? And at what? Whats wrong with you?!
Many laugh nervously when they know they are lying
Just to help out, of the Conservatives' top 50 targets, the LDs currently hold 9, the SNP 2, Plaid 1 and the remaining 38 are Labour so its Conservative progress against Labour which wins seats.
Of the top 50 Reform targets, 27 are held by Labour and 23 by the Conservatives.
However of the LDs top 40 defences only one is not vs the Tories so the blues will certainly target team Davey
The LDs are not the boggest problem for the Conservatives - it's Reform.
Indeed, as the polls show, the Conservatives could succeed in keeping all their seats aginst the LDs but lose so many to Reform they fall behind the LDs in the next Commons.
They will be looking to keep a vote share low to mid 20s and do three things 1) gain from Labour via Labour vote collapse 2) hold as much as possible vs Reform 3) ameliorate losses in 2 by gaining back sears in the blue wall
LDs took ALL the low hanging fruit except Hunt in July so if the Tories hit their vote share target (standing still effectively) then they will be playing offense not defence versus the LDs
If they lose much vote share they are totally fucked on all fronts
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
Fair enough. I feel similar about Farage tbh.
Starmer has been underwhelming but I think he'll survive. We'll see.
Meanwhile, you can't get rid of Starmer, only the Labour Party or the electorate can do that so my advice is chill, focus on the things you can change.
Well yes, I have scolded myself, so it won't get to me
But it might cast useful light on future betting. Starmer rubs people up the wrong way, big time, and he has zero upsides
Even if you hated Thatcher, she was effective and intelligent
Even if you hated Boris, he could be funny and was a great campaigner
Even if you hate Farage, he is undeniably skilful and good on TV
What is the positive on Starmer? What are the upsides to compensate for the massive downsides? I see none
I know Labour don't replace leaders but if the polls in late 2026 are this bad, I am sure they will make an exception
I expect Starmer to retire early so obviously he will be replaced. I'm not sure of any mechanism to force him out though.
Starmer is already our oldest Prime Minister this millennium. He had no ambition to be Prime Minister and is a lawyer rather than a politician, suggesting there is no grand project he wants to oversee, and no heir he wants to anoint. And this is betting without any medical grounds like Wilson, whose example I expect him to follow, although Starmer will be conscious of Biden's decline which is currently in the news and will stay there as more memoirs are released (and if Trump starts an inquiry).
I don't expect Starmer to retire early. I think that is wishful thinking. He's enjoying the celebrity of acting with Macron and Barnier on the international stage. He's also decided to take on the Treasury (hurrah). This is not man who is going to retire soon. Betfair has got it right at 2029 or later.
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
I'm with you. He is indeed a nullity who has no idea what we wants other than to be in power, whose thinking (and I use the term loosely) is shaped by the last person to sit on him, who is utterly ineffectual, deeply boring and just plain dull. I struggle to have strong emotions about him because he is a walking void of emptiness. There is so little to get a grip of. Exasperation that someone so inept is in Number 10 at a somewhat difficult time is as close as I can get to.
It seems odd to call someone ineffectual who managed to become leader of the Labour Party and PM, and this is his second career!
You only have to be slightly less ineffectual than the second most ineffectual.....its not like labour is brimming to the gills with effective people, much the same as all are parties. To be clear this wasnt a party political point as I think all the major parties are full of non talented people who went into politics because they thought they would be rather good at it
I think if you rise to be PM (and last more than a Truss amount of time), then you are, by definition, good at politics. Whether he is or will be a great PM is another question.
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
It is interesting and I reckon I have identifed it. Uncanny Valley
Scientists know that there is a weird zone of revulsion, in humans, when they are confronted by a robot/avatar/tech that "appears" human but doesn't quite make it to full human. A few gestures and tics give away that non-humanity and we react with unfiltered and violent rejection; it is probably Darwinian: an evolved reflex to detect the imposter, who is a potential danger
That's what Starmer evokes, in me, the disgust at the not-quite-human. He is a Woke robot pretending to be like the rest of us
Yes! I can see that. I thought it was a lover spurned effect. I know you voted for him. But he is odd in the way you describe. I wonder how many people are picking up on this?
An example of his repulsion. When giving his EU reset presser he twice kind of chuckled when he mentioned e gates. It REALLY pissed me off, like under the skin irritation. Why are you 'sort of' laughing? And at what? Whats wrong with you?!
I don't think I've listened to more than a minute and a half of Starmer speaking since he became PM.
The "reset presser" passed me by completely, I'm afraid.
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
It is interesting and I reckon I have identifed it. Uncanny Valley
Scientists know that there is a weird zone of revulsion, in humans, when they are confronted by a robot/avatar/tech that "appears" human but doesn't quite make it to full human. A few gestures and tics give away that non-humanity and we react with unfiltered and violent rejection; it is probably Darwinian: an evolved reflex to detect the imposter, who is a potential danger
That's what Starmer evokes, in me, the disgust at the not-quite-human. He is a Woke robot pretending to be like the rest of us
Yes! I can see that. I thought it was a lover spurned effect. I know you voted for him. But he is odd in the way you describe. I wonder how many people are picking up on this?
An example of his repulsion. When giving his EU reset presser he twice kind of chuckled when he mentioned e gates. It REALLY pissed me off, like under the skin irritation. Why are you 'sort of' laughing? And at what? Whats wrong with you?!
Many laugh nervously when they know they are lying
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
Fair enough. I feel similar about Farage tbh.
Starmer has been underwhelming but I think he'll survive. We'll see.
Meanwhile, you can't get rid of Starmer, only the Labour Party or the electorate can do that so my advice is chill, focus on the things you can change.
Well yes, I have scolded myself, so it won't get to me
But it might cast useful light on future betting. Starmer rubs people up the wrong way, big time, and he has zero upsides
Even if you hated Thatcher, she was effective and intelligent
Even if you hated Boris, he could be funny and was a great campaigner
Even if you hate Farage, he is undeniably skilful and good on TV
What is the positive on Starmer? What are the upsides to compensate for the massive downsides? I see none
I know Labour don't replace leaders but if the polls in late 2026 are this bad, I am sure they will make an exception
I expect Starmer to retire early so obviously he will be replaced. I'm not sure of any mechanism to force him out though.
Starmer is already our oldest Prime Minister this millennium. He had no ambition to be Prime Minister and is a lawyer rather than a politician, suggesting there is no grand project he wants to oversee, and no heir he wants to anoint. And this is betting without any medical grounds like Wilson, whose example I expect him to follow, although Starmer will be conscious of Biden's decline which is currently in the news and will stay there as more memoirs are released (and if Trump starts an inquiry).
Wait what "He had no ambition to be Prime Minister" ? How can you claim this? If I have no ambition to do a job....guess what I don't apply for it like I suspect is the same for most people. Of course he had an ambition to be prime minister to think he didn't is risible
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
It is interesting and I reckon I have identifed it. Uncanny Valley
Scientists know that there is a weird zone of revulsion, in humans, when they are confronted by a robot/avatar/tech that "appears" human but doesn't quite make it to full human. A few gestures and tics give away that non-humanity and we react with unfiltered and violent rejection; it is probably Darwinian: an evolved reflex to detect the imposter, who is a potential danger
That's what Starmer evokes, in me, the disgust at the not-quite-human. He is a Woke robot pretending to be like the rest of us
Yes! I can see that. I thought it was a lover spurned effect. I know you voted for him. But he is odd in the way you describe. I wonder how many people are picking up on this?
An example of his repulsion. When giving his EU reset presser he twice kind of chuckled when he mentioned e gates. It REALLY pissed me off, like under the skin irritation. Why are you 'sort of' laughing? And at what? Whats wrong with you?!
I don't think I've listened to more than a minute and a half of Starmer speaking since he became PM.
The "reset presser" passed me by completely, I'm afraid.
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
I'm with you. He is indeed a nullity who has no idea what we wants other than to be in power, whose thinking (and I use the term loosely) is shaped by the last person to sit on him, who is utterly ineffectual, deeply boring and just plain dull. I struggle to have strong emotions about him because he is a walking void of emptiness. There is so little to get a grip of. Exasperation that someone so inept is in Number 10 at a somewhat difficult time is as close as I can get to.
It seems odd to call someone ineffectual who managed to become leader of the Labour Party and PM, and this is his second career!
Have you looked at the Labour front bench?
Yes, but they are Starmers appointments!
The exception is Rayner who has her own powerbase as elected deputy leader.
It is a time of a stunning lack of quality in our politics and that is what allowed a non entity such as Starmer to rise to the top of his party (well, that and his willingness to lie). And then he carefully carried a ming vase across the stage against a shambolic and tired government and was handed the premiership on a plate.
This paucity of talent is not just a Labour affliction. Davey, with all his ridiculous antics, appears a moral colossus at times in a shallow sea of mediocrity. Davey. That is what we are reduced to. It's deeply depressing.
I am struggling to see a way forward at the moment.
As someone else wrote, what a way to start a Sunday morning! I wish Ms Cyclefree all the best; others in my circle are in a similar position and it's exceedingly worrying. However she is, compared with those in my circle, quite young and has therefore a reasonable chance of coming to a position where matters are going to admittedly deteriorate, but much more slowly. I was told, some three years ago, at the age of 84, that if I did not have an operation on my spine I would be, in a couple of years, paralysed and bed-bound. I had the operation and while I'm by no means as mobile as I was five years ago, when things started to go wrong, I am sitting in my study in front of a computer typing this. Not well, admittedly, but I am. I walked here from the breakfast table, admittedly again using a walking aid, but I can get about the house. I have to have help showering and so on but I'm by no means bed-bound. And I've bought an electric scooter on which I can do some shopping, go to social groups within a reasonable range and get into at least one of the local pubs, luckily my favourite. The point of this is to cry Nil Desperandum, and to encourage Ms Cyclefree to go for it and work towards recovery. The support post operation that I've had from physios, occupational therapists and the like has been encouraging; I am now having monthly appointments with a physio who thinks he can get me walking unaided, before too long. I've also had considerable support on here, notably from MattW. So while I am certain that when our colleague looks to the future it looks anything but rosy, with determination and support she can find a future which fulfilling and rewarding.
I don't do deadlifts; can't stand unaided at the moment but I do half an hour's 'physical jerks' every morning. I've often thought that if I could get to a gym I would.
Pure bodyweight exercises will get you a long way if you're starting from a low base: Most people start by lifting less than their own weight on a bar, after all. The main advantage of fixed weights is that you get to measure your progress easily, and increase easily by a fixed amount rather than letting yourself plateau.
It's something I've thought about, although pretty well all my problems are balance-related and weights alone are not much use there. If I could stand, or sit on a stool, unsupported then weights would be useful. It's amazing how much effective muscle can be lost as a result of the sort of surgery I had.
Or my basically 1-2 years of relatively limited inactivity - though there are other things in there such as lack of constant motivation. "But I (or 'you' from a friend) need to" doesn't help very much sometimes.
It's important that frail or disabled have far fewer options for exercise - travelling around using a traditional or handcycle type mobility aid is one of them, which is one reason I started howling into the void on such asphalt paths (there are a *lot*) as do exist being opened up. I know people who became happy to go out and about on their mobility aids during Covid or when LTNs or 20mph zones were created, but have become more frightened for their safety, and therefore more housebound again, where arrangements have reverted or do not exist.
For @OldKingCole, there *are* a surprising number of things you can do in a chair (where you won't overbalance) using things like lightweight (eg bag of sugar weight) kettlebells, bean bags or exercise balls. Or do shorter journeys using a trad manual wheelchair or clip-on manual or e-cycle for arms, or e-trike (sit-up or sit-back, one wheel at the back is more stable) or exercise bike for legs, which responds when you apply an effort.
(I have the advantage of part owning a gym, so I can get advice from a competitor-for-the-UK with an MSc in sports science.)
But the place to start is with an idea of where you want to go, and asking questions of your physio.
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
I'm with you. He is indeed a nullity who has no idea what we wants other than to be in power, whose thinking (and I use the term loosely) is shaped by the last person to sit on him, who is utterly ineffectual, deeply boring and just plain dull. I struggle to have strong emotions about him because he is a walking void of emptiness. There is so little to get a grip of. Exasperation that someone so inept is in Number 10 at a somewhat difficult time is as close as I can get to.
It seems odd to call someone ineffectual who managed to become leader of the Labour Party and PM, and this is his second career!
You only have to be slightly less ineffectual than the second most ineffectual.....its not like labour is brimming to the gills with effective people, much the same as all are parties. To be clear this wasnt a party political point as I think all the major parties are full of non talented people who went into politics because they thought they would be rather good at it
I think if you rise to be PM (and last more than a Truss amount of time), then you are, by definition, good at politics. Whether he is or will be a great PM is another question.
No he is good at internal labour party politics, his tenure as prime minister has shown a lack of being good at politics almost bad as a tadpoles tightrope walking skills
Belated due to a reasonably sunny day and gardening, today's Rawnsley:
At Sir Keir Starmer’s recent encounter with morose Labour MPs...the prime minister told them that “the Conservatives are not our principal opponent. Reform are our main rivals for power.”
In terms of parliament, it isn’t. When the next election doesn’t have to happen before 2029, it is reckless to draw firm conclusions, but this is not deterring ministers from rushing to judgement.
There are tactical incentives for Sir Keir to talk up Reform. While its surge troubles Labour, it poses a potentially existential menace to the Conservatives. Sir Keir’s strategists also think Mr Farage is a potent bogeyman to instil fear and quell division in Labour’s ranks.
Starmer loyalists will say that acknowledging the rise of Reform is embracing reality and preparing Labour for a new kind of struggle. Others think it dangerous to give a helping hand to Mr Farage’s mission to obliterate the Tories. One cabinet member calls it “a risky bet on the roulette wheel” to depict Reform not as a protest party, but as a contender for power. Building him up in the hope of knocking him down is quite a gamble. Perhaps a bigger one than they yet know.
Interesting. It seems to me that Labour, as things appear now, could probably beat an opposition consisting of strong Reform and strong Tories, and they can certainly beat the Tories, but they can't beat Reform once the Tories are not seriously splitting the vote.
Reform have, for now, decided that facing WWC/poorer/pensioner voters they are old Labour promising that nothing is too good for them, and facing the materialist middle class that Reform are the Singaporian small state low tax buccaneer party.
As all their policies are fantasy, and most supporters just protesting, this won't get examined much except by anoraks.
I think one of two things happens:
1. Reform consistently poll 30%+, and as the next election approaches, they gradually draw in support from remaining Conservatives, moving up to 35%+.
The main centre-left party (probably Labours), starts to cannibalise centre-left support in turn. The Greens, in particular, get squeezed right back to 2-3%.
2. The mainstream parties simply introduce PR. Reform are the biggest party, but get shut out of negotiations for the next government, which is some form of traffic light coalition.
Good points all. I think there is a small but possible chance of the LDs firming up substantially, especially if Labour continue being both useless and Reformlite, perhaps to the point of being dangerous and shifting beyond the 100 or so posh seats where they contest things with the Tories.
The Lib Dem's success is almost always simultaneous with Labour's success. That was even true of the last election, so it would take some convincing for me to see the Lib Dems as the big beneficiaries of Labour's demise.
Not so in 1983, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010, 2017, 2019...
In every one of those general elections the LD vote share went in the opposite direction to Labour's.
Otherwise, very good point.
The Liberal Democrats didn't exist as a party in either 1983 or 1987, so that's your "argument" off to a cracking start.
Vote share is interesting but success is measured in seats, not votes, as small parties will tell you.
In 1992, Labour and the Lib Dems both rose in votes and seats. In 1997 they both rose significantly in seats. In 2001 they both remained at high points. In 2007, they both decreased in seat count - though I will still give you this one as a counter-argument, because I think the Lib Dems really did get votes at the expense of Labour due to their principled stance against the Iraq War. 2015 both went down. 2017 they both gained - again, wtf are you basing your arguments on? 2019 they both went down. 2024 they both went up.
Apart from that, great argument petal.
So back to my point, the Lib Dem's success is almost always simultaneous with Labour's success, with a major reason to my mind being that they usually both benefit from anti-Tory sentiment and a shared soft-left voter base that is pretty good at voting for whoever is best placed to beat a Tory.
Divergent results to this appear to have come about when the Lib Dems benefited from Labour's disastrous Iraq War policy, and when the Lib Dems did badly after being in the coalition. Both of these broke the soft-left coalition, once in the Lib Dem's favour, once against it.
Currently, the Lib Dems are polling quite well, but I don't see that they have a clear ideological separation from Labour with the Lib Dems on the more popular side, as with Iraq. Therefore I predict that the Daveygasm is somewhat illusory. Hey, I could be wrong.
You are on most things.
1992 GE - Lab up 3.6%, 42 seats; LDs down 4.8%, 2 seats.
As I said, in every one or those elections the LD vote share went in the opposite direction to Labour's.
Your argument's a duffer. Still you can always fall back on the fact I have extrapolated the LDs back to include the Alliance...
Thanks for your note on 92. That makes exactly one election that did not align with the argument that I framed. And I said 'almost always'.
I said nothing about voteshare. You can argue with your own point if you like, but you don't need me for that.
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
It is interesting and I reckon I have identifed it. Uncanny Valley
Scientists know that there is a weird zone of revulsion, in humans, when they are confronted by a robot/avatar/tech that "appears" human but doesn't quite make it to full human. A few gestures and tics give away that non-humanity and we react with unfiltered and violent rejection; it is probably Darwinian: an evolved reflex to detect the imposter, who is a potential danger
That's what Starmer evokes, in me, the disgust at the not-quite-human. He is a Woke robot pretending to be like the rest of us
Yes! I can see that. I thought it was a lover spurned effect. I know you voted for him. But he is odd in the way you describe. I wonder how many people are picking up on this?
An example of his repulsion. When giving his EU reset presser he twice kind of chuckled when he mentioned e gates. It REALLY pissed me off, like under the skin irritation. Why are you 'sort of' laughing? And at what? Whats wrong with you?!
I think what you're probably sensing is simply lies.
Just to help out, of the Conservatives' top 50 targets, the LDs currently hold 9, the SNP 2, Plaid 1 and the remaining 38 are Labour so its Conservative progress against Labour which wins seats.
Of the top 50 Reform targets, 27 are held by Labour and 23 by the Conservatives.
However of the LDs top 40 defences only one is not vs the Tories so the blues will certainly target team Davey
The LDs are not the boggest problem for the Conservatives - it's Reform.
Indeed, as the polls show, the Conservatives could succeed in keeping all their seats aginst the LDs but lose so many to Reform they fall behind the LDs in the next Commons.
They will be looking to keep a vote share low to mid 20s and do three things 1) gain from Labour via Labour vote collapse 2) hold as much as possible vs Reform 3) ameliorate losses in 2 by gaining back sears in the blue wall
LDs took ALL the low hanging fruit except Hunt in July so if the Tories hit their vote share target (standing still effectively) then they will be playing offense not defence versus the LDs
If they lose much vote share they are totally fucked on all fronts
Depends on what places Labour are losing votes, and who they are losing them to.
Take somewhere like East Surrey. Shares last time were Con36 Lab20 LD18 Ref17. Or Hamble Valley: Con37 LD28 Lab16 Ref15. Both look pretty winnable by the Yellow Peril next time.
Farage saying he will end the 2 child benefit cap is a massive mistake. It will just incentivize the sort of people we dont want reproducing to reproduce. Many of our current problems are due to the decline in the avetage quality of the uk population. Politics cant fix this.
Translation: "although we need to have more babies, we don't want those awful poor people having babies"
On a more cheerful note, I think Sir Keir Traitor is now my most-hated-politician ever
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
You're not a fan of SKS? Who knew, eh..?
Indeed, but also I think of use to political wagerers
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
I agree he is a nullity and I note his political naivety. Useless. But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you. Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction? It's interesting.
I'm with you. He is indeed a nullity who has no idea what we wants other than to be in power, whose thinking (and I use the term loosely) is shaped by the last person to sit on him, who is utterly ineffectual, deeply boring and just plain dull. I struggle to have strong emotions about him because he is a walking void of emptiness. There is so little to get a grip of. Exasperation that someone so inept is in Number 10 at a somewhat difficult time is as close as I can get to.
It seems odd to call someone ineffectual who managed to become leader of the Labour Party and PM, and this is his second career!
Have you looked at the Labour front bench?
Yes, but they are Starmers appointments!
The exception is Rayner who has her own powerbase as elected deputy leader.
It is a time of a stunning lack of quality in our politics and that is what allowed a non entity such as Starmer to rise to the top of his party (well, that and his willingness to lie). And then he carefully carried a ming vase across the stage against a shambolic and tired government and was handed the premiership on a plate.
This paucity of talent is not just a Labour affliction. Davey, with all his ridiculous antics, appears a moral colossus at times in a shallow sea of mediocrity. Davey. That is what we are reduced to. It's deeply depressing.
I am struggling to see a way forward at the moment.
What do you think of Davey's general performance as a Cabinet Minister?
He did the Post Office error very early on, and he did significant things in addressing home efficiency - which is the one I noticed most, but there are a number of others. Plus he has an unusually broad experience of life.
In early career terms, he was remarkably similar to Katie Lam, who we discussed yesterday.
Farage saying he will end the 2 child benefit cap is a massive mistake. It will just incentivize the sort of people we dont want reproducing to reproduce. Many of our current problems are due to the decline in the avetage quality of the uk population. Politics cant fix this.
Translation: "although we need to have more babies, we don't want those awful poor people having babies"
Aren't we constantly seeing reports stating that poverty is a major driver of child underachievement? If so that implies we should discourage birthing children into poverty. Not defending the woking statement however which came across as you claim as poor people are the wrong sort of people.
However what we should do as a suggestion is to assist those in poverty out of it before they have children else those children will be likely to continue the cycle
Just to help out, of the Conservatives' top 50 targets, the LDs currently hold 9, the SNP 2, Plaid 1 and the remaining 38 are Labour so its Conservative progress against Labour which wins seats.
Of the top 50 Reform targets, 27 are held by Labour and 23 by the Conservatives.
However of the LDs top 40 defences only one is not vs the Tories so the blues will certainly target team Davey
The LDs are not the boggest problem for the Conservatives - it's Reform.
Indeed, as the polls show, the Conservatives could succeed in keeping all their seats aginst the LDs but lose so many to Reform they fall behind the LDs in the next Commons.
They will be looking to keep a vote share low to mid 20s and do three things 1) gain from Labour via Labour vote collapse 2) hold as much as possible vs Reform 3) ameliorate losses in 2 by gaining back sears in the blue wall
LDs took ALL the low hanging fruit except Hunt in July so if the Tories hit their vote share target (standing still effectively) then they will be playing offense not defence versus the LDs
If they lose much vote share they are totally fucked on all fronts
Not true re low hanging fruit. Farnham and Bordon immediately comes to mind as well. I would have no difficulty in finding another half dozen for you and the Tories have died in many of the seats the LDs took, so I don't think the Tories will be on the offensive in these seats. They also took many with decent majorities. The only caveat is 4 years is a long time, and a lot can change but it the LDs and Tories are both hanging around the 15 - 17% mark I expect a few more Tory seats will fall to the LDs.
Just to help out, of the Conservatives' top 50 targets, the LDs currently hold 9, the SNP 2, Plaid 1 and the remaining 38 are Labour so its Conservative progress against Labour which wins seats.
Of the top 50 Reform targets, 27 are held by Labour and 23 by the Conservatives.
However of the LDs top 40 defences only one is not vs the Tories so the blues will certainly target team Davey
The LDs are not the boggest problem for the Conservatives - it's Reform.
Indeed, as the polls show, the Conservatives could succeed in keeping all their seats aginst the LDs but lose so many to Reform they fall behind the LDs in the next Commons.
They will be looking to keep a vote share low to mid 20s and do three things 1) gain from Labour via Labour vote collapse 2) hold as much as possible vs Reform 3) ameliorate losses in 2 by gaining back sears in the blue wall
LDs took ALL the low hanging fruit except Hunt in July so if the Tories hit their vote share target (standing still effectively) then they will be playing offense not defence versus the LDs
If they lose much vote share they are totally fucked on all fronts
Depends on what places Labour are losing votes, and who they are losing them to.
Take somewhere like East Surrey. Shares last time were Con36 Lab20 LD18 Ref17. Or Hamble Valley: Con37 LD28 Lab16 Ref15. Both look pretty winnable by the Yellow Peril next time.
Oh they will have targets of course, but they won 72 seats on 12.6% - the most efficient the LD vote has ever been. Almost all of those are former Tory seats, some held with big majorities just a year ago. The idea the Tories arent going to try and win a chunk of those back is madness. The Tory vote in the red wall appears to be melting away like snow off a dyke so if they can cobble together 23% it would suggest a recovery in their blue wall vote to some extent which will mean chances of winning back yellow seats (especially if LD vote efficiency decreases).
They may win nothing back and be humped everywhere. But theyll be trying
Comments
My objection is that they pretend to have a principled one.
The political divide isn't always as deep as we pretend.
Reform and the Liberal Democrats are doing to the Conservatives what the Labour Party and Liberal Unionists did to the Liberals.
History might not repeat itself, but you can certainly see the rhyme.
U.S. Justice Department pardon lawyer pledges 'hard look' at plot to kidnap Michigan governor
https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/23/justice-department-michigan-governor-whitmer-kidnapping-plot/83825764007/
The U.S. Justice Department's new pardon attorney said he is going to take a “hard look” at two men who are serving long prison terms for leading a conspiracy to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
“On the pardon front, we can't leave these guys behind,” Ed Martin Jr. said this week on “The Breanna Morello Show.”
“In my opinion these are victims just like January 6,” Martin said, referring to 1,500 people pardoned by President Donald Trump for crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol...
Momentum members thought Corbyn and his team looked pretty good to them
National socialists thought Hitler and his team looked pretty good to them
Lib dem thinks Ed Davey and his team looks pretty good to them
Not sure its the argument you think it is
Of course the Liberals are still here, even they weren't obliterated in the 19th century but now hold 72 MPs as the LDs
Modus omnibus in rebus.
I rather wish the mods would open another thread, because every time I come back here and see @Cyclefree's wise, extraordinary and quite distressing threader and it is.... challenging
One of the peculiarities of the modern world is that you can become oddly close and attached to people you have never physically met. Has that ever before been true in the history of humanity? I guess a few people had passionate exhanges of letters, but nowadays this experience is common to all of us
1992 GE - Lab up 3.6%, 42 seats; LDs down 4.8%, 2 seats.
As I said, in every one or those elections the LD vote share went in the opposite direction to Labour's.
Your argument's a duffer. Still you can always fall back on the fact I have extrapolated the LDs back to include the Alliance...
If it has been 52-48 the other way, it would have meant there were potentially 16 million votes up for grabs for a pro-Brexit party and could have done for a Farage vehicle what the 2014 referendum did for the SNP.
Something something Prime Minister in thirty years' time.
If a GE was held today on current polling, how close would Reform get to Labour in the Liverpool city seats?
(It did occur to me that the transition to EVs is happening quite a bit faster than we realise - every bus and taxi I have taken over the last week has been electric, in addition to the train to Glasgow. The rest has been pedal power.)
I'm not sure who the Telegraph are trying to make rage.
Seriously. After Chagos (and on top of everything else) my loathing of him has reached Red Mist levels, far surpassing even my loathing for Sadiq Khan or Gareth Southgate. I find myself wishing for very unpleasant things to happen to this porcine prick of a prime minister. I want him REDACTED REDACTED
This is neither healthy nor wholesome. Nonetheless it is a thing, and a new thing for me. Is this what lefties felt as regards Thatcher in the 1980s? Consumed with disgust and abhorrence? If so, maybe it allows me to understand them
But it may alse be of note to bettors. Starmer has a unique ability to evoke revulsion, the polls show it. I do not see how he lasts until 2028, and I think Rayner will be the replacement
Looking wider at the 17 Merseyside constituencies, one. Southport.
EVs come with their own storage, so they improve the economics of renewables too.
That the US and Europe allowed China to dominate both industries was immensely shortsighted.
That the US is now actively hampering them is quite mad.
AI generated is my guess. Online editor off for the weekend?
There are very few more extraordinary examples of monumental self harm. (I coined a term for it: oppositionalism - if they're for it, I must be against it.)
Mathematical sciences: -72%
Physics: -85%
Chemistry: -57%
Astronomy: -53%
Biotech, energy, and health sciences: -9%
Earth sciences: -80%
I feel stupid for once talking about DEI threatening science.
https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1926301525825007851
I have NEVER felt this revulsion for any British politician, or indeed any foreign politcian. Not even Jeremy Corbyn - indeed Corbyn was nowhere close to this. Corbyn is, for all his faults, his honest self. A twattish, crusty old lefty with ridiculous views who hates the West and loathes Israel. I can deal with that. I know people like this. I have lefty friends who are a bit like this, We can still have a civilised drink. Corbyn is relativelty direct, at least
The desperate nullity that is Starmer, betraying the British and Britain at every opportunity, yet apparently without any ideology to guide this...? What is that? Who even is this? What does he really think? He is a fucking freak who doesn't dream, he is a vain and contemptible weirdo
I cannot imagine having a drink with Starmer without wanting to REDACTED. The idea of sitting next to him makes my skin crawl
And the Tories have a different issues - in most of their seats they won it’s the Lib Dems who are their opposition not Labour and not Reform. They need to destroy Reform to hit 200 seats but if they don’t attack the lib dems they may be on 40 seats or less at the next election
Starmer has been underwhelming but I think he'll survive. We'll see.
Meanwhile, you can't get rid of Starmer, only the Labour Party or the electorate can do that so my advice is chill, focus on the things you can change.
So many people I know who were once solid Tories are now Reform, without question, from posh to poor, from north to south, from old to young. LOTS of young people
Voters want a radical change and the Tories simply cannot offer that, because of 2010-2024. Labour, lol, Starmer & Reeves
Malcolm Thornton if I remember rightly.
What happened? Demographics? Still a hangover from the Thatcher government?
Things can always change.
Wishful thinking on my part, maybe.
But he doesn't stir my emotions at all.
So it is very interesting for a nullity to have this extreme effect on you.
Any idea of the underlying root cause of this reaction?
It's interesting.
Great Yarmouth will be Reform vs Rupert Lowe, Waveney Valley likely a rare Green vs Tory scrap.
(Norwich N and S will be Lab Reform fights)
But it might cast useful light on future betting. Starmer rubs people up the wrong way, big time, and he has zero upsides
Even if you hated Thatcher, she was effective and intelligent
Even if you hated Boris, he could be funny and was a great campaigner
Even if you hate Farage, he is undeniably skilful and good on TV
What is the positive on Starmer? What are the upsides to compensate for the massive downsides? I see none
I know Labour don't replace leaders but if the polls in late 2026 are this bad, I am sure they will make an exception
If Canada and Australia teach us anything it might be that the Trump effect could put voters off fash-lite parties, and on an industrial scale.
I earn just enough to have not benefited from the NMW increase
My future pay rises have been stolen by his huge NIC hike
All of my bills have massively increased
And he promises again and again to go further and faster
Scientists know that there is a weird zone of revulsion, in humans, when they are confronted by a robot/avatar/tech that "appears" human but doesn't quite make it to full human. A few gestures and tics give away that non-humanity and we react with unfiltered and violent rejection; it is probably Darwinian: an evolved reflex to detect the imposter, who is a potential danger
That's what Starmer evokes, in me, the disgust at the not-quite-human. He is a Woke robot pretending to be like the rest of us
You know who else struggled to fight a war on two fronts?
(Normal voice again:)
For now, Labour don't really have that problem. There are very few potential Lib/Lab battlegrounds. Yes, there are Greens and Gazans to Labour's left, but they are both occupying very specific niches. Bad if you are the Labour MP for one of those niches, but not with the broad (if baffling) appeal of Farage.
Of the top 50 Reform targets, 27 are held by Labour and 23 by the Conservatives.
Some gimp nodded enthusiastically and they decided the words must have supernatural powers
We have been watching the Bombing of Pan Am 103 on iPlayer (very good btw). They use a few news clips from 1988/9 and I found myself watching Reagan speak, wistful for a time when the even the right-wing leaders were decent, compassionate people.
Oh for a GOP president of Reagan's calibre now*.
(*Words I never thought I'd write.)
I thought it was a lover spurned effect. I know you voted for him.
But he is odd in the way you describe.
I wonder how many people are picking up on this?
Indeed, as the polls show, the Conservatives could succeed in keeping all their seats aginst the LDs but lose so many to Reform they fall behind the LDs in the next Commons.
Starmer is already our oldest Prime Minister this millennium. He had no ambition to be Prime Minister and is a lawyer rather than a politician, suggesting there is no grand project he wants to oversee, and no heir he wants to anoint. And this is betting without any medical grounds like Wilson, whose example I expect him to follow, although Starmer will be conscious of Biden's decline which is currently in the news and will stay there as more memoirs are released (and if Trump starts an inquiry).
The exception is Rayner who has her own powerbase as elected deputy leader.
1) gain from Labour via Labour vote collapse
2) hold as much as possible vs Reform
3) ameliorate losses in 2 by gaining back sears in the blue wall
LDs took ALL the low hanging fruit except Hunt in July so if the Tories hit their vote share target (standing still effectively) then they will be playing offense not defence versus the LDs
If they lose much vote share they are totally fucked on all fronts
He's enjoying the celebrity of acting with Macron and Barnier on the international stage. He's also decided to take on the Treasury (hurrah).
This is not man who is going to retire soon.
Betfair has got it right at 2029 or later.
The "reset presser" passed me by completely, I'm afraid.
This paucity of talent is not just a Labour affliction. Davey, with all his ridiculous antics, appears a moral colossus at times in a shallow sea of mediocrity. Davey. That is what we are reduced to. It's deeply depressing.
I am struggling to see a way forward at the moment.
It's important that frail or disabled have far fewer options for exercise - travelling around using a traditional or handcycle type mobility aid is one of them, which is one reason I started howling into the void on such asphalt paths (there are a *lot*) as do exist being opened up. I know people who became happy to go out and about on their mobility aids during Covid or when LTNs or 20mph zones were created, but have become more frightened for their safety, and therefore more housebound again, where arrangements have reverted or do not exist.
For @OldKingCole, there *are* a surprising number of things you can do in a chair (where you won't overbalance) using things like lightweight (eg bag of sugar weight) kettlebells, bean bags or exercise balls. Or do shorter journeys using a trad manual wheelchair or clip-on manual or e-cycle for arms, or e-trike (sit-up or sit-back, one wheel at the back is more stable) or exercise bike for legs, which responds when you apply an effort.
(I have the advantage of part owning a gym, so I can get advice from a competitor-for-the-UK with an MSc in sports science.)
But the place to start is with an idea of where you want to go, and asking questions of your physio.
I said nothing about voteshare. You can argue with your own point if you like, but you don't need me for that.
Take somewhere like East Surrey. Shares last time were Con36 Lab20 LD18 Ref17. Or Hamble Valley: Con37 LD28 Lab16 Ref15. Both look pretty winnable by the Yellow Peril next time.
He did the Post Office error very early on, and he did significant things in addressing home efficiency - which is the one I noticed most, but there are a number of others. Plus he has an unusually broad experience of life.
In early career terms, he was remarkably similar to Katie Lam, who we discussed yesterday.
However what we should do as a suggestion is to assist those in poverty out of it before they have children else those children will be likely to continue the cycle
They may win nothing back and be humped everywhere. But theyll be trying