So many villages, towns and schools have pulled the bonfire- what it's actually about, due to insurance and liability concerns - that kids now will have absolutely no idea of the significance of the fireworks or understanding of our history.
I found it fascinating how the English were always having bonfires at that point in history. Any sort of celebration or protest - bonfire. They were mad for them.
The Irish remember. I'm sure that explains why garden fires are illegal in Ireland.
We don't even have a Bonfire of the Quangos any more.
Village bonfires - just something else that's gone up in smoke.
Blimey, I'm sorry to hear your village has gone up. Does that affect your new house? (How is that going by the way?)
Tsk - a deliberate misreading of my extremely witty post. I can only assume you were laughing so much your eyes lost their focus ;-)
But thanks for your enquiry - our build is still going well thanks: plasterers are currently in for the next few weeks, then we'll be on the home run.
Prince Andrew tried to smear his teenage sex abuse accuser by passing her confidential information to police, it has been claimed.
The Prince asked his taxpayer-funded police bodyguard to investigate Virginia Giuffre and passed him her date of birth and social security number, a leaked email revealed.
Or, two adults over the age of consent freely engaged in intercourse. The lack of consent seems to be vague. Dirty old man, clearly, but teenage sex abuser seems a stretch.
The issue with that suggestion is that however we look at it, Giuffre had been trafficked. Which changes the equation with regard to consent.
It also said abuse accuser, as opposed to abuser. Making it clear it was an accusation not a fact.
Oh, the Creepy Old Duke of York He had ten thousand women He marched them up to the top of his hill And he marched them down again
And while they were there he was up And when they were gone he was down. And when he was only halfway up He sent for a teenage girl because he was a fucking clown.
Prince Andrew tried to smear his teenage sex abuse accuser by passing her confidential information to police, it has been claimed.
The Prince asked his taxpayer-funded police bodyguard to investigate Virginia Giuffre and passed him her date of birth and social security number, a leaked email revealed.
Or, two adults over the age of consent freely engaged in intercourse. The lack of consent seems to be vague. Dirty old man, clearly, but teenage sex abuser seems a stretch.
The issue with that suggestion is that however we look at it, Giuffre had been trafficked. Which changes the equation with regard to consent.
It also said abuse accuser, as opposed to abuser. Making it clear it was an accusation not a fact.
Oh, the Creepy Old Duke of York He had ten thousand women He marched them up to the top of his hill And he marched them down again
And while they were there he was up And when they were gone he was down. And when he was only halfway up He sent for a teenage girl because he was a fucking clown.
The Grand Old Duke of York He said he didn’t sweat, So, why did he pay 12 million quid, To a girl he’d never met!
So many villages, towns and schools have pulled the bonfire- what it's actually about, due to insurance and liability concerns - that kids now will have absolutely no idea of the significance of the fireworks or understanding of our history.
Is it insurance/liability, or other changes in society?
A lot of council events have, I suspect, been cut by austerity. And community events need someone to organise them- and such people seem to grow scarcer every year. That's not unique to fireworks, either.
The Trump team’s grown up response to No Kings, Trump flying a military jet whilst wearing a crown bombing the protesters with shit. It’s funny how they can rant about Zelensky not wearing a suit being an affront to the dignity of the President when the President and his team have no concept of dignity.
The Trump team’s grown up response to No Kings, Trump flying a military jet whilst wearing a crown bombing the protesters with shit. It’s funny how they can rant about Zelensky not wearing a suit being an affront to the dignity of the President when the President and his team have no concept of dignity.
The Trump team’s grown up response to No Kings, Trump flying a military jet whilst wearing a crown bombing the protesters with shit. It’s funny how they can rant about Zelensky not wearing a suit being an affront to the dignity of the President when the President and his team have no concept of dignity.
Clive Lewis is who I would like to see leading the Labour party. He’s considered, has ideas which could coalesce into a vision, is a good communicator and understands the need to unite as much of the left as is possible.
With all due respect,Corbyn united the left and look how that ended up. Throughout my lifetime whenever the left has controlled the Labour Party it has led to the electoral abyss
With all due respect, you have to accept that the natural vote for a centrist labour party is about 20-25%. We live in an age of retail politics. You either build alliances or you accept electoral doom. During the Corbyn era neither Corbyn and his mob nor the Southam Observer tendency were prepared to make compromises. And whilst the SO tendency ultimately won the battle, it now appears they may have lost the war. Lewis or possibly someone else of the soft left (for Lewis is no Corbynite) would be the best route to a degree of unity.
The Trump team’s grown up response to No Kings, Trump flying a military jet whilst wearing a crown bombing the protesters with shit. It’s funny how they can rant about Zelensky not wearing a suit being an affront to the dignity of the President when the President and his team have no concept of dignity.
Sequence: 1. Ukrainian drones fly to attack a Russian fuel depot in occupied Crimea. 2. Russian Su-30 fighter jet dispatched to shoot down the Ukrainian drones. 3. Russian air defense shoots down the Russian aircraft. 💥 4. Ukrainian drones strike the Russian fuel depot. 💥
Just think what they could do if Mushroom Shaped gave them Tomahawks...(although it should be noted Biden didn't either).
We wouldn’t be in the mess we’re now in if Biden had been a little less timid in his response to the 2022 invasion. Drip feeding stuff to Ukraine when a bigger commitment was needed.
Sequence: 1. Ukrainian drones fly to attack a Russian fuel depot in occupied Crimea. 2. Russian Su-30 fighter jet dispatched to shoot down the Ukrainian drones. 3. Russian air defense shoots down the Russian aircraft. 💥 4. Ukrainian drones strike the Russian fuel depot. 💥
Just think what they could do if Mushroom Shaped gave them Tomahawks...(although it should be noted Biden didn't either).
We wouldn’t be in the mess we’re now in if Biden had been a little less timid in his response to the 2022 invasion. Drip feeding stuff to Ukraine when a bigger commitment was needed.
We wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now if Trump hadn’t been re-elected.
Clive Lewis is who I would like to see leading the Labour party. He’s considered, has ideas which could coalesce into a vision, is a good communicator and understands the need to unite as much of the left as is possible.
With all due respect,Corbyn united the left and look how that ended up. Throughout my lifetime whenever the left has controlled the Labour Party it has led to the electoral abyss
With all due respect, you have to accept that the natural vote for a centrist labour party is about 20-25%. We live in an age of retail politics. You either build alliances or you accept electoral doom. During the Corbyn era neither Corbyn and his mob nor the Southam Observer tendency were prepared to make compromises. And whilst the SO tendency ultimately won the battle, it now appears they may have lost the war. Lewis or possibly someone else of the soft left (for Lewis is no Corbynite) would be the best route to a degree of unity.
The Trump team’s grown up response to No Kings, Trump flying a military jet whilst wearing a crown bombing the protesters with shit. It’s funny how they can rant about Zelensky not wearing a suit being an affront to the dignity of the President when the President and his team have no concept of dignity.
It’s like all the frat boys and jocks and idiot sorority girls from every American film suddenly got put into power.
I really couldn't believe it when I saw it. I thought it had to be a fake post, but it seems Trump really did post it.
How much lower can Trump go?
I think the time for surprise was over some time ago. Trump and Trumpism is making no effort to hide its brutal, anti democratic, contemptuous and violent nature, and history tells us there is a lot more of this story to come.
It is also no surprise that our government and politics generally is perplexed as to how to approach it. More odd is the BBC's very light touch about it. Try Simon Marks of LBC for realistic coverage.
Prince Andrew tried to smear his teenage sex abuse accuser by passing her confidential information to police, it has been claimed.
The Prince asked his taxpayer-funded police bodyguard to investigate Virginia Giuffre and passed him her date of birth and social security number, a leaked email revealed.
Or, two adults over the age of consent freely engaged in intercourse. The lack of consent seems to be vague. Dirty old man, clearly, but teenage sex abuser seems a stretch.
The issue with that suggestion is that however we look at it, Giuffre had been trafficked. Which changes the equation with regard to consent.
It also said abuse accuser, as opposed to abuser. Making it clear it was an accusation not a fact.
Oh, the Creepy Old Duke of York He had ten thousand women He marched them up to the top of his hill And he marched them down again
And while they were there he was up And when they were gone he was down. And when he was only halfway up He sent for a teenage girl because he was a fucking clown.
The Grand Old Duke of York He said he didn’t sweat, So, why did he pay 12 million quid, To a girl he’d never met!
Sequence: 1. Ukrainian drones fly to attack a Russian fuel depot in occupied Crimea. 2. Russian Su-30 fighter jet dispatched to shoot down the Ukrainian drones. 3. Russian air defense shoots down the Russian aircraft. 💥 4. Ukrainian drones strike the Russian fuel depot. 💥
Just think what they could do if Mushroom Shaped gave them Tomahawks...(although it should be noted Biden didn't either).
We wouldn’t be in the mess we’re now in if Biden had been a little less timid in his response to the 2022 invasion. Drip feeding stuff to Ukraine when a bigger commitment was needed.
That is arguably true. That being said, one of the reasons we're in the current situation is that Putin was expecting a very easy victory and so was far too slow to actually commit all his forces, dispersing them piecemeal where they were fairly easily picked off (e.g. Kyiv Airport). If he had known he was facing full American weaponry he might have acted rather differently.
And perhaps we should also remember that while Trump's vacillation and ineptitude are not a good look, whatever the outcome from here on in Russia has already suffered a significant strategic defeat entirely of their own making. Having drained their reserves, damaged their overseas reputation and lost markets, killed hundreds of thousands of young men and caused hundreds of thousands more to flee into exile, and had their overseas assets seized, they have wrecked themselves as a great power. It will take them a long time to rebuild, although given their size and natural resources with good leadership (if they can find any, perhaps with Putin's government having ratnered its reputation inside the cities that is slightly more possible) that should be possible.
A bigger problem, and one the Poles at least are obviously alert to, is that in trying to compensate Putin might look to attack other states as well. But if he can't take on Ukraine, good luck taking on Poland.
Some consistent problems for Farage- questionable funding. Doubt we'll see a GBN investigation on this any time soon. However NF has quite the form here, who knows if it were to come out, at an inconvenient moment...
Sequence: 1. Ukrainian drones fly to attack a Russian fuel depot in occupied Crimea. 2. Russian Su-30 fighter jet dispatched to shoot down the Ukrainian drones. 3. Russian air defense shoots down the Russian aircraft. 💥 4. Ukrainian drones strike the Russian fuel depot. 💥
Just think what they could do if Mushroom Shaped gave them Tomahawks...(although it should be noted Biden didn't either).
We wouldn’t be in the mess we’re now in if Biden had been a little less timid in his response to the 2022 invasion. Drip feeding stuff to Ukraine when a bigger commitment was needed.
That is arguably true. That being said, one of the reasons we're in the current situation is that Putin was expecting a very easy victory and so was far too slow to actually commit all his forces, dispersing them piecemeal where they were fairly easily picked off (e.g. Kyiv Airport). If he had known he was facing full American weaponry he might have acted rather differently.
And perhaps we should also remember that while Trump's vacillation and ineptitude are not a good look, whatever the outcome from here on in Russia has already suffered a significant strategic defeat entirely of their own making. Having drained their reserves, damaged their overseas reputation and lost markets, killed hundreds of thousands of young men and caused hundreds of thousands more to flee into exile, and had their overseas assets seized, they have wrecked themselves as a great power. It will take them a long time to rebuild, although given their size and natural resources with good leadership (if they can find any, perhaps with Putin's government having ratnered its reputation inside the cities that is slightly more possible) that should be possible.
A bigger problem, and one the Poles at least are obviously alert to, is that in trying to compensate Putin might look to attack other states as well. But if he can't take on Ukraine, good luck taking on Poland.
Putin won't go for Poland. He'll, potentially, go for Georgia (yet again) or the Baltic states. He might overrun the latter before reinforcements can arrive.
Some consistent problems for Farage- questionable funding. Doubt we'll see a GBN investigation on this any time soon. However NF has quite the form here, who knows if it were to come out, at an inconvenient moment...
Betting positions should be factoring in the What Happens If of Farage not being a political figure by the next election. It could be health, it could be his back story. 5 and 6 will both have chunky dossiers, accessible by the Government.
Anyone really think Tice is going to inherit his mantle? If not and by the election Reform is on 3% rather than 30%, the world of domestic politics is almost unfathomable this far out.
Sequence: 1. Ukrainian drones fly to attack a Russian fuel depot in occupied Crimea. 2. Russian Su-30 fighter jet dispatched to shoot down the Ukrainian drones. 3. Russian air defense shoots down the Russian aircraft. 💥 4. Ukrainian drones strike the Russian fuel depot. 💥
Well, this time debris from a downed drone Su-30 probably could have started some, er, grass fires....
Some consistent problems for Farage- questionable funding. Doubt we'll see a GBN investigation on this any time soon. However NF has quite the form here, who knows if it were to come out, at an inconvenient moment...
Betting positions should be factoring in the What Happens If of Farage not being a political figure by the next election. It could be health, it could be his back story. 5 and 6 will both have chunky dossiers, accessible by the Government.
Anyone really think Tice is going to inherit his mantle? If not and by the election Reform is on 3% rather than 30%, the world of domestic politics is almost unfathomable this far out.
While Reform is Farage and Farage is Reform, have a look at how the LibDems organise. If they lost Ed Davey (and one can only hope) the LD ground game will continue as they are very effective locally. Reform's success or failure will depend on what kind of organisation they can build locally and all eyes should be on how they cope with the 11 Counties they have under their control. Don't write them off yet.
Half of LibDem MP's have seats in the top decile (IMD measure). They dominate that decile having as many MP's as the other parties put together. That's incredible targeting.
"No Kings" is a really stupid slogan, because as you say it completely ignores the existence of constitutional monarchies, and anyway Trump has never claimed to be a king. Presidential systems tend naturally towards dictatorships, and America (or France for that matters) would actually be better as a constitutional monarchy with a Parliamentary system, but then they'd basically be Canada or Australia, and have to question the whole revolution thing.
What they actually mean is "No Dictators", which I think we can all sign up to. Trump has actually said he'd be a dictator, albeit only on Day One, which was a transparent lie, so I think it makes much more sense as a slogan, even though it has a three syllable word, which is probably at the limits of most Americans' comprehension.
'Sir Tony Blair believes the top rate of income tax should be cut to below 40 per cent, putting him at odds with Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves.
As the Chancellor prepares to increase taxes yet again in next month’s Budget, the former Labour prime minister has argued that she should do the opposite.
Sir Tony told the authors of a new book on economic policy that direct taxes, such as income tax and National Insurance, were extremely high in historical terms and that the state was not making good use of taxpayers’ money.
I agree with him but he is so far out of contact with his former party now that I don't believe that they will give a damn what he thinks.
I agree with him too.
We spend a lot of time on here (well I do anyway) lamenting the paucity of talent in our political leadership of any stripe. For me, pretty much the only people who I see who could hope to lead us out of this hole are Tony Blair and George Osborne. Neither of whom are showing any interest in getting back to front line politics.
Remarkable lack of ambition for the country. Tony Blair's 'reforms' have made Britain ungovernable. George Osborne was instrumental in the Government that failed to overturn Blair's toxic legacy. What would either of them do to address the problems the country faces?
It's centrist article of faith that if only someone reasonable, centrist, 'in' with the rich and powerful, and with the gift of the gab, gets in, all will be well. The endless quest for 'the grown ups back in the room'. The recent results of that search are Sunak, and now Starmer. It's the same mentality that thinks Mandelson was a genius pick for US Ambassador. Centrist hires will keep being as shit as that, and centrists will keep thinking they need to just kiss a few more frogs. It will not be long before there are calls for Mark Carney to be our PM - I can see it now.
We don't have anyone actively involved in politics in this country that is even close to having the skills, intelligence and judgment of Mark Carney. I wish we did.
"No Kings" is a really stupid slogan, because as you say it completely ignores the existence of constitutional monarchies, and anyway Trump has never claimed to be a king. Presidential systems tend naturally towards dictatorships, and America (or France for that matters) would actually be better as a constitutional monarchy with a Parliamentary system, but then they'd basically be Canada or Australia, and have to question the whole revolution thing.
What they actually mean is "No Dictators", which I think we can all sign up to. Trump has actually said he'd be a dictator, albeit only on Day One, which was a transparent lie, so I think it makes much more sense as a slogan, even though it has a three syllable word, which is probably at the limits of most Americans' comprehension.
Some consistent problems for Farage- questionable funding. Doubt we'll see a GBN investigation on this any time soon. However NF has quite the form here, who knows if it were to come out, at an inconvenient moment...
Betting positions should be factoring in the What Happens If of Farage not being a political figure by the next election. It could be health, it could be his back story. 5 and 6 will both have chunky dossiers, accessible by the Government.
Anyone really think Tice is going to inherit his mantle? If not and by the election Reform is on 3% rather than 30%, the world of domestic politics is almost unfathomable this far out.
Tice won't, but I doubt that Jenrick will either.
Most likely, the non-voters will go go back to not voting.
Some consistent problems for Farage- questionable funding. Doubt we'll see a GBN investigation on this any time soon. However NF has quite the form here, who knows if it were to come out, at an inconvenient moment...
Betting positions should be factoring in the What Happens If of Farage not being a political figure by the next election. It could be health, it could be his back story. 5 and 6 will both have chunky dossiers, accessible by the Government.
Anyone really think Tice is going to inherit his mantle? If not and by the election Reform is on 3% rather than 30%, the world of domestic politics is almost unfathomable this far out.
Farage all but anointed Jenrick as his heir the other day, not Tice
Clive Lewis is who I would like to see leading the Labour party. He’s considered, has ideas which could coalesce into a vision, is a good communicator and understands the need to unite as much of the left as is possible.
With all due respect,Corbyn united the left and look how that ended up. Throughout my lifetime whenever the left has controlled the Labour Party it has led to the electoral abyss
With all due respect, you have to accept that the natural vote for a centrist labour party is about 20-25%. We live in an age of retail politics. You either build alliances or you accept electoral doom. During the Corbyn era neither Corbyn and his mob nor the Southam Observer tendency were prepared to make compromises. And whilst the SO tendency ultimately won the battle, it now appears they may have lost the war. Lewis or possibly someone else of the soft left (for Lewis is no Corbynite) would be the best route to a degree of unity.
What does Lewis offer which Polanski already isn't via the Greens? A Lewis leadership would send a number of voters who voted for Starmer last time to the LDs or even the Tories, on some cultural issues I would say Lewis is even left of Corbyn
On the "No Kings" protest: When the Loser came on the political scene, I quickly noticed that he was a monarchist at heart. He cozied up to the Saudis, to North Korea's Kim, and to the UK's monarchs. These three nations have little in common, but they are all monarchies of a sort.
And his promotion of his children is almost universal in monarchies.
So, by attacking him with "No Kings", they are attacking a central part of his thinking -- such as it is.
(Moreover, as your Walter Bagehot observed, monarchies are often attractive to low-information voters.)
Most kings are highly constrained and aren't nearly as despotic as Trump. But I guess "No tinpot dictators" lacks the resonance of "No Kings"
"No Kings" is a really stupid slogan, because as you say it completely ignores the existence of constitutional monarchies, and anyway Trump has never claimed to be a king. Presidential systems tend naturally towards dictatorships, and America (or France for that matters) would actually be better as a constitutional monarchy with a Parliamentary system, but then they'd basically be Canada or Australia, and have to question the whole revolution thing.
What they actually mean is "No Dictators", which I think we can all sign up to. Trump has actually said he'd be a dictator, albeit only on Day One, which was a transparent lie, so I think it makes much more sense as a slogan, even though it has a three syllable word, which is probably at the limits of most Americans' comprehension.
No Kings is an utterly brilliant slogan. It's a slogan not analysis, they don't need to worry about constitutional monarchies or whatever. The proof that it's doing it right is that they've just mobilized the biggest nationwide demonstration since the Vietnam War and kept it almost entirely peaceful.
1. It references the founding myth of the nation 2. It allows for fun fancy dress 3. It negatively polarizes the other side into saying "Yes, we want Trump to be King" which is a good thing to have out on the table
It must be particularly humiliating to Trump that for all the MAGA wanking about "Antifa mobs" there seems to have been minimal violence. In New York, for example, there were no protest related arrests at all.
On the "No Kings" protest: When the Loser came on the political scene, I quickly noticed that he was a monarchist at heart. He cozied up to the Saudis, to North Korea's Kim, and to the UK's monarchs. These three nations have little in common, but they are all monarchies of a sort.
And his promotion of his children is almost universal in monarchies.
So, by attacking him with "No Kings", they are attacking a central part of his thinking -- such as it is.
(Moreover, as your Walter Bagehot observed, monarchies are often attractive to low-information voters.)
Most kings are highly constrained and aren't nearly as despotic as Trump. But I guess "No tinpot dictators" lacks the resonance of "No Kings"
"No Kings" is a really stupid slogan, because as you say it completely ignores the existence of constitutional monarchies, and anyway Trump has never claimed to be a king. Presidential systems tend naturally towards dictatorships, and America (or France for that matters) would actually be better as a constitutional monarchy with a Parliamentary system, but then they'd basically be Canada or Australia, and have to question the whole revolution thing.
What they actually mean is "No Dictators", which I think we can all sign up to. Trump has actually said he'd be a dictator, albeit only on Day One, which was a transparent lie, so I think it makes much more sense as a slogan, even though it has a three syllable word, which is probably at the limits of most Americans' comprehension.
No Kings is an utterly brilliant slogan. It's a slogan not analysis, they don't need to worry about constitutional monarchies or whatever. The proof that it's doing it right is that they've just mobilized the biggest nationwide demonstration since the Vietnam War and kept it almost entirely peaceful.
1. It references the founding myth of the nation 2. It allows for fun fancy dress 3. It negatively polarizes the other side into saying "Yes, we want Trump to be King" which is a good thing to have out on the table
It must be particularly humiliating to Trump that for all the MAGA wanking about "Antifa mobs" there seems to have been minimal violence. In New York, for example, there were no protest related arrests at all.
I'm sure he'll find a reason to arrest them for something.
'Sir Tony Blair believes the top rate of income tax should be cut to below 40 per cent, putting him at odds with Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves.
As the Chancellor prepares to increase taxes yet again in next month’s Budget, the former Labour prime minister has argued that she should do the opposite.
Sir Tony told the authors of a new book on economic policy that direct taxes, such as income tax and National Insurance, were extremely high in historical terms and that the state was not making good use of taxpayers’ money.
I agree with him but he is so far out of contact with his former party now that I don't believe that they will give a damn what he thinks.
I agree with him too.
We spend a lot of time on here (well I do anyway) lamenting the paucity of talent in our political leadership of any stripe. For me, pretty much the only people who I see who could hope to lead us out of this hole are Tony Blair and George Osborne. Neither of whom are showing any interest in getting back to front line politics.
Remarkable lack of ambition for the country. Tony Blair's 'reforms' have made Britain ungovernable. George Osborne was instrumental in the Government that failed to overturn Blair's toxic legacy. What would either of them do to address the problems the country faces?
It's centrist article of faith that if only someone reasonable, centrist, 'in' with the rich and powerful, and with the gift of the gab, gets in, all will be well. The endless quest for 'the grown ups back in the room'. The recent results of that search are Sunak, and now Starmer. It's the same mentality that thinks Mandelson was a genius pick for US Ambassador. Centrist hires will keep being as shit as that, and centrists will keep thinking they need to just kiss a few more frogs. It will not be long before there are calls for Mark Carney to be our PM - I can see it now.
We don't have anyone actively involved in politics in this country that is even close to having the skills, intelligence and judgment of Mark Carney. I wish we did.
Called it.
You didn't call anything. Someone disagreed with you, which is something that happens every other time you post.
"No Kings" is a really stupid slogan, because as you say it completely ignores the existence of constitutional monarchies, and anyway Trump has never claimed to be a king. Presidential systems tend naturally towards dictatorships, and America (or France for that matters) would actually be better as a constitutional monarchy with a Parliamentary system, but then they'd basically be Canada or Australia, and have to question the whole revolution thing.
What they actually mean is "No Dictators", which I think we can all sign up to. Trump has actually said he'd be a dictator, albeit only on Day One, which was a transparent lie, so I think it makes much more sense as a slogan, even though it has a three syllable word, which is probably at the limits of most Americans' comprehension.
On the "No Kings" protest: When the Loser came on the political scene, I quickly noticed that he was a monarchist at heart. He cozied up to the Saudis, to North Korea's Kim, and to the UK's monarchs. These three nations have little in common, but they are all monarchies of a sort.
And his promotion of his children is almost universal in monarchies.
So, by attacking him with "No Kings", they are attacking a central part of his thinking -- such as it is.
(Moreover, as your Walter Bagehot observed, monarchies are often attractive to low-information voters.)
Most kings are highly constrained and aren't nearly as despotic as Trump. But I guess "No tinpot dictators" lacks the resonance of "No Kings"
"No Kings" is a really stupid slogan, because as you say it completely ignores the existence of constitutional monarchies, and anyway Trump has never claimed to be a king. Presidential systems tend naturally towards dictatorships, and America (or France for that matters) would actually be better as a constitutional monarchy with a Parliamentary system, but then they'd basically be Canada or Australia, and have to question the whole revolution thing.
What they actually mean is "No Dictators", which I think we can all sign up to. Trump has actually said he'd be a dictator, albeit only on Day One, which was a transparent lie, so I think it makes much more sense as a slogan, even though it has a three syllable word, which is probably at the limits of most Americans' comprehension.
No Kings is an utterly brilliant slogan. It's a slogan not analysis, they don't need to worry about constitutional monarchies or whatever. The proof that it's doing it right is that they've just mobilized the biggest nationwide demonstration since the Vietnam War and kept it almost entirely peaceful.
1. It references the founding myth of the nation 2. It allows for fun fancy dress 3. It negatively polarizes the other side into saying "Yes, we want Trump to be King" which is a good thing to have out on the table
It must be particularly humiliating to Trump that for all the MAGA wanking about "Antifa mobs" there seems to have been minimal violence. In New York, for example, there were no protest related arrests at all.
On the "No Kings" protest: When the Loser came on the political scene, I quickly noticed that he was a monarchist at heart. He cozied up to the Saudis, to North Korea's Kim, and to the UK's monarchs. These three nations have little in common, but they are all monarchies of a sort.
And his promotion of his children is almost universal in monarchies.
So, by attacking him with "No Kings", they are attacking a central part of his thinking -- such as it is.
(Moreover, as your Walter Bagehot observed, monarchies are often attractive to low-information voters.)
Most kings are highly constrained and aren't nearly as despotic as Trump. But I guess "No tinpot dictators" lacks the resonance of "No Kings"
"No Kings" is a really stupid slogan, because as you say it completely ignores the existence of constitutional monarchies, and anyway Trump has never claimed to be a king. Presidential systems tend naturally towards dictatorships, and America (or France for that matters) would actually be better as a constitutional monarchy with a Parliamentary system, but then they'd basically be Canada or Australia, and have to question the whole revolution thing.
What they actually mean is "No Dictators", which I think we can all sign up to. Trump has actually said he'd be a dictator, albeit only on Day One, which was a transparent lie, so I think it makes much more sense as a slogan, even though it has a three syllable word, which is probably at the limits of most Americans' comprehension.
No Kings is an utterly brilliant slogan. It's a slogan not analysis, they don't need to worry about constitutional monarchies or whatever. The proof that it's doing it right is that they've just mobilized the biggest nationwide demonstration since the Vietnam War and kept it almost entirely peaceful.
1. It references the founding myth of the nation 2. It allows for fun fancy dress 3. It negatively polarizes the other side into saying "Yes, we want Trump to be King" which is a good thing to have out on the table
It must be particularly humiliating to Trump that for all the MAGA wanking about "Antifa mobs" there seems to have been minimal violence. In New York, for example, there were no protest related arrests at all.
Clearly, it should be humiliating. Whether anyone in the Administration is capable of being humiliated is another matter.
And the question about US politics remains. To what extent will the elections of 2026 and 2028 allow non-Trumpian candidates to take office? There are many many potential slips between the cup of primary nominations and the lip of swearing-in.
Christian nationalist podcaster Joshua Haymes says Christians must be willing to defend the institution of slavery because the Bible makes it clear that "it is not inherently evil to own another human being." https://x.com/RightWingWatch/status/1979284403324096830
Some consistent problems for Farage- questionable funding. Doubt we'll see a GBN investigation on this any time soon. However NF has quite the form here, who knows if it were to come out, at an inconvenient moment...
Betting positions should be factoring in the What Happens If of Farage not being a political figure by the next election. It could be health, it could be his back story. 5 and 6 will both have chunky dossiers, accessible by the Government.
Anyone really think Tice is going to inherit his mantle? If not and by the election Reform is on 3% rather than 30%, the world of domestic politics is almost unfathomable this far out.
While Reform is Farage and Farage is Reform, have a look at how the LibDems organise. If they lost Ed Davey (and one can only hope) the LD ground game will continue as they are very effective locally. Reform's success or failure will depend on what kind of organisation they can build locally and all eyes should be on how they cope with the 11 Counties they have under their control. Don't write them off yet.
Half of LibDem MP's have seats in the top decile (IMD measure). They dominate that decile having as many MP's as the other parties put together. That's incredible targeting.
As we saw in the local elections in Surrey heath and Guildford last Thursday, once the Lib Dems get in, they quickly turn their electoral inroads into fortresses. The size of the majorities of Lib Dem MPs are on average substantially higher than the Tories- yes, bad as 2024 was for Sunak, it could have been so much worse. So its an asymmetrical fight on the Lib Dem/Conservative axis- easier for Lib Dems to take more Tory seats than Tories to recover seats from the Lib Dems, especially if RefUK are stealing more Tory votes.
I do not think that RefUK are going to come anywhere close to a majority, the combination of lurking scandal, tactical voting against them and the "capricious" nature of the leadership are head winds that they will find extremely difficult to overcome,. The vagaries of FPTP notwithstanding, I think it more likely that the Conservatives recover enough to cancel RefUK gains in most places outside Lincs and the former Red Wall. With the Lib Dems set to hold and maybe even make gains, the conundrum is what happens to Labour, and that is not yet clear- still years from the next election and many courses open to them. Then the return of twenty or even thirty SNP MPs also confuses the maths still more. The rise of the Greens is interesting too. The Corbyn chaos of "your" party will not, in my judgement be so significant- Corbyn will be almost 80 at the next GE.
I am not sure either punters or the politicos are factoring in this increasingly higher chance for No Overall Control at Westminster, and that could be very interesting. If the numbers for a Con/RefUk coalition do not add up, and Labour/Green/Nat do not add up, then with a big block of MPs behind him, Ed Davey might not just be Kingmaker, but maybe even King. So all those rushing in to back a 320 seat gain for RefUK should take note that such a surge has *never* happened, and the maths in each seat has to fall exactly right- and their record high poll has only been 35%. Winning a majority on a third of the vote is possible- Labour just did it- but is is a fluke when it happens. I don't think RefUK can do it, especially when we see the amateurish way they run councils and themselves.
More and more, therefore, I think the numbers speak to a hung Parliament, and one which will find it extremely difficult to construct a government. We may look back with nostalgia on this current time in British politics as the calm before the storm.
Some consistent problems for Farage- questionable funding. Doubt we'll see a GBN investigation on this any time soon. However NF has quite the form here, who knows if it were to come out, at an inconvenient moment...
Betting positions should be factoring in the What Happens If of Farage not being a political figure by the next election. It could be health, it could be his back story. 5 and 6 will both have chunky dossiers, accessible by the Government.
Anyone really think Tice is going to inherit his mantle? If not and by the election Reform is on 3% rather than 30%, the world of domestic politics is almost unfathomable this far out.
While Reform is Farage and Farage is Reform, have a look at how the LibDems organise. If they lost Ed Davey (and one can only hope) the LD ground game will continue as they are very effective locally. Reform's success or failure will depend on what kind of organisation they can build locally and all eyes should be on how they cope with the 11 Counties they have under their control. Don't write them off yet.
Half of LibDem MP's have seats in the top decile (IMD measure). They dominate that decile having as many MP's as the other parties put together. That's incredible targeting.
As we saw in the local elections in Surrey heath and Guildford last Thursday, once the Lib Dems get in, they quickly turn their electoral inroads into fortresses. The size of the majorities of Lib Dem MPs are on average substantially higher than the Tories- yes, bad as 2024 was for Sunak, it could have been so much worse. So its an asymmetrical fight on the Lib Dem/Conservative axis- easier for Lib Dems to take more Tory seats than Tories to recover seats from the Lib Dems, especially if RefUK are stealing more Tory votes.
I do not think that RefUK are going to come anywhere close to a majority, the combination of lurking scandal, tactical voting against them and the "capricious" nature of the leadership are head winds that they will find extremely difficult to overcome,. The vagaries of FPTP notwithstanding, I think it more likely that the Conservatives recover enough to cancel RefUK gains in most places outside Lincs and the former Red Wall. With the Lib Dems set to hold and maybe even make gains, the conundrum is what happens to Labour, and that is not yet clear- still years from the next election and many courses open to them. Then the return of twenty or even thirty SNP MPs also confuses the maths still more. The rise of the Greens is interesting too. The Corbyn chaos of "your" party will not, in my judgement be so significant- Corbyn will be almost 80 at the next GE.
I am not sure either punters or the politicos are factoring in this increasingly higher chance for No Overall Control at Westminster, and that could be very interesting. If the numbers for a Con/RefUk coalition do not add up, and Labour/Green/Nat do not add up, then with a big block of MPs behind him, Ed Davey might not just be Kingmaker, but maybe even King. So all those rushing in to back a 320 seat gain for RefUK should take note that such a surge has *never* happened, and the maths in each seat has to fall exactly right- and their record high poll has only been 35%. Winning a majority on a third of the vote is possible- Labour just did it- but is is a fluke when it happens. I don't think RefUK can do it, especially when we see the amateurish way they run councils and themselves.
More and more, therefore, I think the numbers speak to a hung Parliament, and one which will find it extremely difficult to construct a government. We may look back with nostalgia on this current time in British politics as the calm before the storm.
I like that argument. Though I suspect the odds of this Ed being PM are no better than those of the other Ed..
Some consistent problems for Farage- questionable funding. Doubt we'll see a GBN investigation on this any time soon. However NF has quite the form here, who knows if it were to come out, at an inconvenient moment...
Betting positions should be factoring in the What Happens If of Farage not being a political figure by the next election. It could be health, it could be his back story. 5 and 6 will both have chunky dossiers, accessible by the Government.
Anyone really think Tice is going to inherit his mantle? If not and by the election Reform is on 3% rather than 30%, the world of domestic politics is almost unfathomable this far out.
Farage all but anointed Jenrick as his heir the other day, not Tice
If Jenrick had any sense he would be heading to Reform that day. It's worth repeating that the Tory brand has been completely trashed...
Some consistent problems for Farage- questionable funding. Doubt we'll see a GBN investigation on this any time soon. However NF has quite the form here, who knows if it were to come out, at an inconvenient moment...
Betting positions should be factoring in the What Happens If of Farage not being a political figure by the next election. It could be health, it could be his back story. 5 and 6 will both have chunky dossiers, accessible by the Government.
Anyone really think Tice is going to inherit his mantle? If not and by the election Reform is on 3% rather than 30%, the world of domestic politics is almost unfathomable this far out.
Farage all but anointed Jenrick as his heir the other day, not Tice
If Jenrick had any sense he would be heading to Reform that day. It's worth repeating that the Tory brand has been completely trashed...
Reform's brand can get trashed in record time though, if their history in local Government is what we go by...
Some consistent problems for Farage- questionable funding. Doubt we'll see a GBN investigation on this any time soon. However NF has quite the form here, who knows if it were to come out, at an inconvenient moment...
Betting positions should be factoring in the What Happens If of Farage not being a political figure by the next election. It could be health, it could be his back story. 5 and 6 will both have chunky dossiers, accessible by the Government.
Anyone really think Tice is going to inherit his mantle? If not and by the election Reform is on 3% rather than 30%, the world of domestic politics is almost unfathomable this far out.
Farage all but anointed Jenrick as his heir the other day, not Tice
If Jenrick had any sense he would be heading to Reform that day. It's worth repeating that the Tory brand has been completely trashed...
Jenrick probably can tell that Farage would fall out with him within a month.
"No Kings" is a really stupid slogan, because as you say it completely ignores the existence of constitutional monarchies, and anyway Trump has never claimed to be a king. Presidential systems tend naturally towards dictatorships, and America (or France for that matters) would actually be better as a constitutional monarchy with a Parliamentary system, but then they'd basically be Canada or Australia, and have to question the whole revolution thing.
What they actually mean is "No Dictators", which I think we can all sign up to. Trump has actually said he'd be a dictator, albeit only on Day One, which was a transparent lie, so I think it makes much more sense as a slogan, even though it has a three syllable word, which is probably at the limits of most Americans' comprehension.
Christian nationalist podcaster Joshua Haymes says Christians must be willing to defend the institution of slavery because the Bible makes it clear that "it is not inherently evil to own another human being." https://x.com/RightWingWatch/status/1979284403324096830
Some consistent problems for Farage- questionable funding. Doubt we'll see a GBN investigation on this any time soon. However NF has quite the form here, who knows if it were to come out, at an inconvenient moment...
Betting positions should be factoring in the What Happens If of Farage not being a political figure by the next election. It could be health, it could be his back story. 5 and 6 will both have chunky dossiers, accessible by the Government.
Anyone really think Tice is going to inherit his mantle? If not and by the election Reform is on 3% rather than 30%, the world of domestic politics is almost unfathomable this far out.
Farage all but anointed Jenrick as his heir the other day, not Tice
If Jenrick had any sense he would be heading to Reform that day. It's worth repeating that the Tory brand has been completely trashed...
Jenrick probably can tell that Farage would fall out with him within a month.
Good morning everyone. "Interesting" that a thread based on Dominic Cummings has lasted nearly as long as he did!
On topic, one of my sons once worked for a short time with Nigel Farage, and would NEVER do so again.
Please. Can someone, somewhere tell me that there's a sane explanation for this.
Russia has stuff on Trump....
Even if Epstein had passed tapes to them as insurance surely Trump would just call it fake and the idiot core would believe him.
I generally hesitate to call people idiots but there is no other way to describe the MAGA loyalists. Seriously, how thick do you have to be to believe the stuff that Trump, Hesketh, Leavitt and Millar come out with?
Christian nationalist podcaster Joshua Haymes says Christians must be willing to defend the institution of slavery because the Bible makes it clear that "it is not inherently evil to own another human being." https://x.com/RightWingWatch/status/1979284403324096830
Saying the quiet part out loud.
Now, in theory, a slave could be one’s brother and sister in Christ, in a society where social distinctions did not matter among believers. For a time, that was the viewpoint of the Quakers of Pennsylvania.
In practice, you cannot have a system of slavery which does not depend upon murder, kidnap, rape, and human trafficking. Those are the system’s features, rather than its bugs.
"No Kings" is a really stupid slogan, because as you say it completely ignores the existence of constitutional monarchies, and anyway Trump has never claimed to be a king. Presidential systems tend naturally towards dictatorships, and America (or France for that matters) would actually be better as a constitutional monarchy with a Parliamentary system, but then they'd basically be Canada or Australia, and have to question the whole revolution thing.
What they actually mean is "No Dictators", which I think we can all sign up to. Trump has actually said he'd be a dictator, albeit only on Day One, which was a transparent lie, so I think it makes much more sense as a slogan, even though it has a three syllable word, which is probably at the limits of most Americans' comprehension.
Please. Can someone, somewhere tell me that there's a sane explanation for this.
Russia has stuff on Trump....
Even if Epstein had passed tapes to them as insurance surely Trump would just call it fake and the idiot core would believe him.
I generally hesitate to call people idiots but there is no other way to describe the MAGA loyalists. Seriously, how thick do you have to be to believe the stuff that Trump, Hesketh, Leavitt and Millar come out with?
About as thick as those who believed Brexit would make us all richer and happier
Please. Can someone, somewhere tell me that there's a sane explanation for this.
Russia has stuff on Trump....
Even if Epstein had passed tapes to them as insurance surely Trump would just call it fake and the idiot core would believe him.
I generally hesitate to call people idiots but there is no other way to describe the MAGA loyalists. Seriously, how thick do you have to be to believe the stuff that Trump, Hesketh, Leavitt and Millar come out with?
About as thick as those who believed Brexit would make us all richer and happier
You are the demented Michael Hesletine and I claim my £5.
Please. Can someone, somewhere tell me that there's a sane explanation for this.
Russia has stuff on Trump....
Even if Epstein had passed tapes to them as insurance surely Trump would just call it fake and the idiot core would believe him.
I generally hesitate to call people idiots but there is no other way to describe the MAGA loyalists. Seriously, how thick do you have to be to believe the stuff that Trump, Hesketh, Leavitt and Millar come out with?
Please. Can someone, somewhere tell me that there's a sane explanation for this.
Russia has stuff on Trump....
Even if Epstein had passed tapes to them as insurance surely Trump would just call it fake and the idiot core would believe him.
I generally hesitate to call people idiots but there is no other way to describe the MAGA loyalists. Seriously, how thick do you have to be to believe the stuff that Trump, Hesketh, Leavitt and Millar come out with?
About as thick as those who believed Brexit would make us all richer and happier
Not quite. In both cases, and with Nigel for PM, you can make a plausible enough case that the gamble was worth taking. Mistaken, and I thought at the time mistaken, but at least arguable in good faith.
Trump has reached the stage where nobody is really trying a good faith argument in his favour any more- mostly because it's approximately impossible. (But the crucial thing is that it doesn't really matter for now, and might not matter in 2026/8.)
Brexit is going down the same path, but dawdling not racing.
Some consistent problems for Farage- questionable funding. Doubt we'll see a GBN investigation on this any time soon. However NF has quite the form here, who knows if it were to come out, at an inconvenient moment...
Betting positions should be factoring in the What Happens If of Farage not being a political figure by the next election. It could be health, it could be his back story. 5 and 6 will both have chunky dossiers, accessible by the Government.
Anyone really think Tice is going to inherit his mantle? If not and by the election Reform is on 3% rather than 30%, the world of domestic politics is almost unfathomable this far out.
While Reform is Farage and Farage is Reform, have a look at how the LibDems organise. If they lost Ed Davey (and one can only hope) the LD ground game will continue as they are very effective locally. Reform's success or failure will depend on what kind of organisation they can build locally and all eyes should be on how they cope with the 11 Counties they have under their control. Don't write them off yet.
Half of LibDem MP's have seats in the top decile (IMD measure). They dominate that decile having as many MP's as the other parties put together. That's incredible targeting.
As we saw in the local elections in Surrey heath and Guildford last Thursday, once the Lib Dems get in, they quickly turn their electoral inroads into fortresses. The size of the majorities of Lib Dem MPs are on average substantially higher than the Tories- yes, bad as 2024 was for Sunak, it could have been so much worse. So its an asymmetrical fight on the Lib Dem/Conservative axis- easier for Lib Dems to take more Tory seats than Tories to recover seats from the Lib Dems, especially if RefUK are stealing more Tory votes.
I do not think that RefUK are going to come anywhere close to a majority, the combination of lurking scandal, tactical voting against them and the "capricious" nature of the leadership are head winds that they will find extremely difficult to overcome,. The vagaries of FPTP notwithstanding, I think it more likely that the Conservatives recover enough to cancel RefUK gains in most places outside Lincs and the former Red Wall. With the Lib Dems set to hold and maybe even make gains, the conundrum is what happens to Labour, and that is not yet clear- still years from the next election and many courses open to them. Then the return of twenty or even thirty SNP MPs also confuses the maths still more. The rise of the Greens is interesting too. The Corbyn chaos of "your" party will not, in my judgement be so significant- Corbyn will be almost 80 at the next GE.
I am not sure either punters or the politicos are factoring in this increasingly higher chance for No Overall Control at Westminster, and that could be very interesting. If the numbers for a Con/RefUk coalition do not add up, and Labour/Green/Nat do not add up, then with a big block of MPs behind him, Ed Davey might not just be Kingmaker, but maybe even King. So all those rushing in to back a 320 seat gain for RefUK should take note that such a surge has *never* happened, and the maths in each seat has to fall exactly right- and their record high poll has only been 35%. Winning a majority on a third of the vote is possible- Labour just did it- but is is a fluke when it happens. I don't think RefUK can do it, especially when we see the amateurish way they run councils and themselves.
More and more, therefore, I think the numbers speak to a hung Parliament, and one which will find it extremely difficult to construct a government. We may look back with nostalgia on this current time in British politics as the calm before the storm.
What will boost Reform is the sense that they are winners. We will have three rounds of local and devolved elections, where they will gain hundreds of seats. By 2029, they will probably have more elected representatives than the Conservatives, and perhaps more than any party.
That sense of momentum will also keep internal dissent under wraps.
There is also the chance that as the left vote converges on whichever party is best-placed to defeat Reform, so the Conservatives will be squeezed further.
Christian nationalist podcaster Joshua Haymes says Christians must be willing to defend the institution of slavery because the Bible makes it clear that "it is not inherently evil to own another human being." https://x.com/RightWingWatch/status/1979284403324096830
Saying the quiet part out loud.
Now, in theory, a slave could be one’s brother and sister in Christ, in a society where social distinctions did not matter among believers. For a time, that was the viewpoint of the Quakers of Pennsylvania.
In practice, you cannot have a system of slavery which does not depend upon murder, kidnap, rape, and human trafficking. Those are the system’s features, rather than its bugs.
Human trafficking yes, but the other features aren't essential. Highly probable yes, but not essential.
Sequence: 1. Ukrainian drones fly to attack a Russian fuel depot in occupied Crimea. 2. Russian Su-30 fighter jet dispatched to shoot down the Ukrainian drones. 3. Russian air defense shoots down the Russian aircraft. 💥 4. Ukrainian drones strike the Russian fuel depot. 💥
Just think what they could do if Mushroom Shaped gave them Tomahawks...(although it should be noted Biden didn't either).
We wouldn’t be in the mess we’re now in if Biden had been a little less timid in his response to the 2022 invasion. Drip feeding stuff to Ukraine when a bigger commitment was needed.
We wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now if Trump hadn’t been re-elected.
At least Sleepy Joe didn't roll out the red carpet for Pootin like Dopey Donald did!
Christian nationalist podcaster Joshua Haymes says Christians must be willing to defend the institution of slavery because the Bible makes it clear that "it is not inherently evil to own another human being." https://x.com/RightWingWatch/status/1979284403324096830
Saying the quiet part out loud.
Now, in theory, a slave could be one’s brother and sister in Christ, in a society where social distinctions did not matter among believers. For a time, that was the viewpoint of the Quakers of Pennsylvania.
In practice, you cannot have a system of slavery which does not depend upon murder, kidnap, rape, and human trafficking. Those are the system’s features, rather than its bugs.
To make it work, you need the culture-flipping bit of Christianity, the bit that says whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant. There are communities that manage that, and gosh it is powerful.
So, Secretary Hesketh, your towel and bowl are over there. I'm sure you can find some feet in need of washing.
Christian nationalist podcaster Joshua Haymes says Christians must be willing to defend the institution of slavery because the Bible makes it clear that "it is not inherently evil to own another human being." https://x.com/RightWingWatch/status/1979284403324096830
Saying the quiet part out loud.
Now, in theory, a slave could be one’s brother and sister in Christ, in a society where social distinctions did not matter among believers. For a time, that was the viewpoint of the Quakers of Pennsylvania.
In practice, you cannot have a system of slavery which does not depend upon murder, kidnap, rape, and human trafficking. Those are the system’s features, rather than its bugs.
Human trafficking yes, but the other features aren't essential. Highly probable yes, but not essential.
Murder is essential, to keep the slaves in a state of obedience . Rape provides an economic benefit (more slaves being born), as well as being a source of pleasure for the owners.
Spectator TV has just uploaded for your downstreaming pleasure 40 minutes of Michael Gove talking to Charles Moore (Thatcher biographer) and Peggy Noonan (Reagan speech-writer).
Some consistent problems for Farage- questionable funding. Doubt we'll see a GBN investigation on this any time soon. However NF has quite the form here, who knows if it were to come out, at an inconvenient moment...
Betting positions should be factoring in the What Happens If of Farage not being a political figure by the next election. It could be health, it could be his back story. 5 and 6 will both have chunky dossiers, accessible by the Government.
Anyone really think Tice is going to inherit his mantle? If not and by the election Reform is on 3% rather than 30%, the world of domestic politics is almost unfathomable this far out.
While Reform is Farage and Farage is Reform, have a look at how the LibDems organise. If they lost Ed Davey (and one can only hope) the LD ground game will continue as they are very effective locally. Reform's success or failure will depend on what kind of organisation they can build locally and all eyes should be on how they cope with the 11 Counties they have under their control. Don't write them off yet.
Half of LibDem MP's have seats in the top decile (IMD measure). They dominate that decile having as many MP's as the other parties put together. That's incredible targeting.
As we saw in the local elections in Surrey heath and Guildford last Thursday, once the Lib Dems get in, they quickly turn their electoral inroads into fortresses. The size of the majorities of Lib Dem MPs are on average substantially higher than the Tories- yes, bad as 2024 was for Sunak, it could have been so much worse. So its an asymmetrical fight on the Lib Dem/Conservative axis- easier for Lib Dems to take more Tory seats than Tories to recover seats from the Lib Dems, especially if RefUK are stealing more Tory votes.
I do not think that RefUK are going to come anywhere close to a majority, the combination of lurking scandal, tactical voting against them and the "capricious" nature of the leadership are head winds that they will find extremely difficult to overcome,. The vagaries of FPTP notwithstanding, I think it more likely that the Conservatives recover enough to cancel RefUK gains in most places outside Lincs and the former Red Wall. With the Lib Dems set to hold and maybe even make gains, the conundrum is what happens to Labour, and that is not yet clear- still years from the next election and many courses open to them. Then the return of twenty or even thirty SNP MPs also confuses the maths still more. The rise of the Greens is interesting too. The Corbyn chaos of "your" party will not, in my judgement be so significant- Corbyn will be almost 80 at the next GE.
I am not sure either punters or the politicos are factoring in this increasingly higher chance for No Overall Control at Westminster, and that could be very interesting. If the numbers for a Con/RefUk coalition do not add up, and Labour/Green/Nat do not add up, then with a big block of MPs behind him, Ed Davey might not just be Kingmaker, but maybe even King. So all those rushing in to back a 320 seat gain for RefUK should take note that such a surge has *never* happened, and the maths in each seat has to fall exactly right- and their record high poll has only been 35%. Winning a majority on a third of the vote is possible- Labour just did it- but is is a fluke when it happens. I don't think RefUK can do it, especially when we see the amateurish way they run councils and themselves.
More and more, therefore, I think the numbers speak to a hung Parliament, and one which will find it extremely difficult to construct a government. We may look back with nostalgia on this current time in British politics as the calm before the storm.
What will boost Reform is the sense that they are winners. We will have three rounds of local and devolved elections, where they will gain hundreds of seats. By 2029, they will probably have more elected representatives than the Conservatives, and perhaps more than any party.
That sense of momentum will also keep internal dissent under wraps.
There is also the chance that as the left vote converges on whichever party is best-placed to defeat Reform, so the Conservatives will be squeezed further.
This weeks by-elections, especially Caerfilli will, perhaps, be a pointer.
Please. Can someone, somewhere tell me that there's a sane explanation for this.
Russia has stuff on Trump....
Even if Epstein had passed tapes to them as insurance surely Trump would just call it fake and the idiot core would believe him.
I generally hesitate to call people idiots but there is no other way to describe the MAGA loyalists. Seriously, how thick do you have to be to believe the stuff that Trump, Hesketh, Leavitt and Millar come out with?
About as thick as those who believed Brexit would make us all richer and happier
You are the demented Michael Hesletine and I claim my £5.
Its revealing that people cannot give details as to what all the disasters are supposed to have happened.
Whereas they were full of details as to what they predicted would happen:
Some consistent problems for Farage- questionable funding. Doubt we'll see a GBN investigation on this any time soon. However NF has quite the form here, who knows if it were to come out, at an inconvenient moment...
Betting positions should be factoring in the What Happens If of Farage not being a political figure by the next election. It could be health, it could be his back story. 5 and 6 will both have chunky dossiers, accessible by the Government.
Anyone really think Tice is going to inherit his mantle? If not and by the election Reform is on 3% rather than 30%, the world of domestic politics is almost unfathomable this far out.
While Reform is Farage and Farage is Reform, have a look at how the LibDems organise. If they lost Ed Davey (and one can only hope) the LD ground game will continue as they are very effective locally. Reform's success or failure will depend on what kind of organisation they can build locally and all eyes should be on how they cope with the 11 Counties they have under their control. Don't write them off yet.
Half of LibDem MP's have seats in the top decile (IMD measure). They dominate that decile having as many MP's as the other parties put together. That's incredible targeting.
As we saw in the local elections in Surrey heath and Guildford last Thursday, once the Lib Dems get in, they quickly turn their electoral inroads into fortresses. The size of the majorities of Lib Dem MPs are on average substantially higher than the Tories- yes, bad as 2024 was for Sunak, it could have been so much worse. So its an asymmetrical fight on the Lib Dem/Conservative axis- easier for Lib Dems to take more Tory seats than Tories to recover seats from the Lib Dems, especially if RefUK are stealing more Tory votes.
I do not think that RefUK are going to come anywhere close to a majority, the combination of lurking scandal, tactical voting against them and the "capricious" nature of the leadership are head winds that they will find extremely difficult to overcome,. The vagaries of FPTP notwithstanding, I think it more likely that the Conservatives recover enough to cancel RefUK gains in most places outside Lincs and the former Red Wall. With the Lib Dems set to hold and maybe even make gains, the conundrum is what happens to Labour, and that is not yet clear- still years from the next election and many courses open to them. Then the return of twenty or even thirty SNP MPs also confuses the maths still more. The rise of the Greens is interesting too. The Corbyn chaos of "your" party will not, in my judgement be so significant- Corbyn will be almost 80 at the next GE.
I am not sure either punters or the politicos are factoring in this increasingly higher chance for No Overall Control at Westminster, and that could be very interesting. If the numbers for a Con/RefUk coalition do not add up, and Labour/Green/Nat do not add up, then with a big block of MPs behind him, Ed Davey might not just be Kingmaker, but maybe even King. So all those rushing in to back a 320 seat gain for RefUK should take note that such a surge has *never* happened, and the maths in each seat has to fall exactly right- and their record high poll has only been 35%. Winning a majority on a third of the vote is possible- Labour just did it- but is is a fluke when it happens. I don't think RefUK can do it, especially when we see the amateurish way they run councils and themselves.
More and more, therefore, I think the numbers speak to a hung Parliament, and one which will find it extremely difficult to construct a government. We may look back with nostalgia on this current time in British politics as the calm before the storm.
What will boost Reform is the sense that they are winners. We will have three rounds of local and devolved elections, where they will gain hundreds of seats. By 2029, they will probably have more elected representatives than the Conservatives, and perhaps more than any party.
That sense of momentum will also keep internal dissent under wraps.
There is also the chance that as the left vote converges on whichever party is best-placed to defeat Reform, so the Conservatives will be squeezed further.
Also by gaining councils and councillors they gain a ground game and people to do the donkey work at election time which they didn’t have last time.
There’s many middle class centrists hoping the bubble bursts. Currently all they have is hope.
I see Taco has lived up to his name and won't be letting Ukraine buy Tomahawks.
Orange is the new yellow.
He wants Putin to win.
No, he has said he wants a ceasefire along current lines, he just doesn't want US missiles sent into Russia leading to an escalation, especially as Putin has nukes.
He could though allow Tomahawks to be used within Ukranian territory as a defensive weapon by Zelensky admittedly
They would be almost completely useless - and certainly pointless - on Ukrainian territory. Ukraine has all manner of other weapons to do that.
The whole point about them is their range, which would allow Ukraine to hit military targets in Russia (drone factories, for example).
Not just their range. Ukraine has weapons with similar range now.
It's a combination of things - their ability to evade air defences (we laugh at Russian air defences, but Ukraine often sends large numbers of drones in order to hit a single target once - if you send a large number of Tomahawks at a target you hit that target a large number of times); their navigation system is similarly much more advanced.
One thing we don't know is how self-consuming these poker chips of Trump's are. He was playing games with control of weapons, strikes and intelligence, as ever. But he has also played games by burning down most of his soft power, started explicitly atacking the international and domestic rule of law, and damaged most of his relationships with friendly powers, who have now all learnt the lesson that the USA can never be wholly trusted.
As most of us probably think on PB, the market abhors a vacuum, and so Tomahawk replacements will be along in a few years. If there is one thing we know it is that the USA only plays in its own interest, which under Trump is severed from the interests of all former or temporary allies.
And it will fill this one (at some point), though the "in bed with a fat, grumpy elephant who wants to F*ck you" geopolitics are replaced by a "shoal of medium and small sharks in a European tank", with different compromises.
On the "No Kings" protest: When the Loser came on the political scene, I quickly noticed that he was a monarchist at heart. He cozied up to the Saudis, to North Korea's Kim, and to the UK's monarchs. These three nations have little in common, but they are all monarchies of a sort.
And his promotion of his children is almost universal in monarchies.
So, by attacking him with "No Kings", they are attacking a central part of his thinking -- such as it is.
(Moreover, as your Walter Bagehot observed, monarchies are often attractive to low-information voters.)
Most kings are highly constrained and aren't nearly as despotic as Trump. But I guess "No tinpot dictators" lacks the resonance of "No Kings"
"No Kings" is a really stupid slogan, because as you say it completely ignores the existence of constitutional monarchies, and anyway Trump has never claimed to be a king. Presidential systems tend naturally towards dictatorships, and America (or France for that matters) would actually be better as a constitutional monarchy with a Parliamentary system, but then they'd basically be Canada or Australia, and have to question the whole revolution thing.
What they actually mean is "No Dictators", which I think we can all sign up to. Trump has actually said he'd be a dictator, albeit only on Day One, which was a transparent lie, so I think it makes much more sense as a slogan, even though it has a three syllable word, which is probably at the limits of most Americans' comprehension.
No Kings is an utterly brilliant slogan. It's a slogan not analysis, they don't need to worry about constitutional monarchies or whatever. The proof that it's doing it right is that they've just mobilized the biggest nationwide demonstration since the Vietnam War and kept it almost entirely peaceful.
1. It references the founding myth of the nation 2. It allows for fun fancy dress 3. It negatively polarizes the other side into saying "Yes, we want Trump to be King" which is a good thing to have out on the table
Trump charactarised himself as a King immediately after he took up office, in connection with attempting to crush a very small "congestion charge" trial in Manhattan. AFAICS the USA has a VERY deep antipathy to "kings", which is their inner-dialogue about their foundation story. Exaggerated, but it is there and taught as part of the national myth, so reminders as to Trump's never-ending schmuckdom and his attacks on the nation itself may be a good strategy.
On the "No Kings" protest: When the Loser came on the political scene, I quickly noticed that he was a monarchist at heart. He cozied up to the Saudis, to North Korea's Kim, and to the UK's monarchs. These three nations have little in common, but they are all monarchies of a sort.
And his promotion of his children is almost universal in monarchies.
So, by attacking him with "No Kings", they are attacking a central part of his thinking -- such as it is.
(Moreover, as your Walter Bagehot observed, monarchies are often attractive to low-information voters.)
Most kings are highly constrained and aren't nearly as despotic as Trump. But I guess "No tinpot dictators" lacks the resonance of "No Kings"
"No Kings" is a really stupid slogan, because as you say it completely ignores the existence of constitutional monarchies, and anyway Trump has never claimed to be a king. Presidential systems tend naturally towards dictatorships, and America (or France for that matters) would actually be better as a constitutional monarchy with a Parliamentary system, but then they'd basically be Canada or Australia, and have to question the whole revolution thing.
What they actually mean is "No Dictators", which I think we can all sign up to. Trump has actually said he'd be a dictator, albeit only on Day One, which was a transparent lie, so I think it makes much more sense as a slogan, even though it has a three syllable word, which is probably at the limits of most Americans' comprehension.
No Kings is an utterly brilliant slogan. It's a slogan not analysis, they don't need to worry about constitutional monarchies or whatever. The proof that it's doing it right is that they've just mobilized the biggest nationwide demonstration since the Vietnam War and kept it almost entirely peaceful.
1. It references the founding myth of the nation 2. It allows for fun fancy dress 3. It negatively polarizes the other side into saying "Yes, we want Trump to be King" which is a good thing to have out on the table
Trump charactarised himself as a King immediately after he took up office, in connection with attempting to crush a very small "congestion charge" trial in Manhattan. AFAICS the USA has a VERY deep antipathy to "kings", which is their inner-dialogue about their foundation story. Exaggerated, but it is there and taught as part of the national myth, so reminders as to Trump's never-ending schmuckdom and his attacks on the nation itself may be a good strategy.
In general people living in NY like it; suburbanites driving in less so. In the end they are being very wee timorous beasties about introducing the scheme, and it was cut down in charge substantially.
Prince Andrew tried to smear his teenage sex abuse accuser by passing her confidential information to police, it has been claimed.
The Prince asked his taxpayer-funded police bodyguard to investigate Virginia Giuffre and passed him her date of birth and social security number, a leaked email revealed.
Comments
But thanks for your enquiry - our build is still going well thanks: plasterers are currently in for the next few weeks, then we'll be on the home run.
He said he didn’t sweat,
So, why did he pay 12 million quid,
To a girl he’d never met!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DFu8P7teOt8
A lot of council events have, I suspect, been cut by austerity. And community events need someone to organise them- and such people seem to grow scarcer every year. That's not unique to fireworks, either.
It's just a shame it's not one of the wholesome ones- Bake Off, say.
How much lower can Trump go?
It is also no surprise that our government and politics generally is perplexed as to how to approach it. More odd is the BBC's very light touch about it. Try Simon Marks of LBC for realistic coverage.
And perhaps we should also remember that while Trump's vacillation and ineptitude are not a good look, whatever the outcome from here on in Russia has already suffered a significant strategic defeat entirely of their own making. Having drained their reserves, damaged their overseas reputation and lost markets, killed hundreds of thousands of young men and caused hundreds of thousands more to flee into exile, and had their overseas assets seized, they have wrecked themselves as a great power. It will take them a long time to rebuild, although given their size and natural resources with good leadership (if they can find any, perhaps with Putin's government having ratnered its reputation inside the cities that is slightly more possible) that should be possible.
A bigger problem, and one the Poles at least are obviously alert to, is that in trying to compensate Putin might look to attack other states as well. But if he can't take on Ukraine, good luck taking on Poland.
Anyone really think Tice is going to inherit his mantle? If not and by the election Reform is on 3% rather than 30%, the world of domestic politics is almost unfathomable this far out.
https://bsky.app/profile/utopia-defer.red/post/3m3irmyfmmc2i
droneSu-30 probably could have started some, er, grass fires....Half of LibDem MP's have seats in the top decile (IMD measure). They dominate that decile having as many MP's as the other parties put together. That's incredible targeting.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/can-louis-xx-save-macrons-france/
Most likely, the non-voters will go go back to not voting.
In New York, for example, there were no protest related arrests at all.
Someone disagreed with you, which is something that happens every other time you post.
Congenital stupidity was the hallmark of the last of the Bourbons.
And the question about US politics remains. To what extent will the elections of 2026 and 2028 allow non-Trumpian candidates to take office? There are many many potential slips between the cup of primary nominations and the lip of swearing-in.
Christian nationalist podcaster Joshua Haymes says Christians must be willing to defend the institution of slavery because the Bible makes it clear that "it is not inherently evil to own another human being."
https://x.com/RightWingWatch/status/1979284403324096830
I do not think that RefUK are going to come anywhere close to a majority, the combination of lurking scandal, tactical voting against them and the "capricious" nature of the leadership are head winds that they will find extremely difficult to overcome,. The vagaries of FPTP notwithstanding, I think it more likely that the Conservatives recover enough to cancel RefUK gains in most places outside Lincs and the former Red Wall. With the Lib Dems set to hold and maybe even make gains, the conundrum is what happens to Labour, and that is not yet clear- still years from the next election and many courses open to them. Then the return of twenty or even thirty SNP MPs also confuses the maths still more. The rise of the Greens is interesting too. The Corbyn chaos of "your" party will not, in my judgement be so significant- Corbyn will be almost 80 at the next GE.
I am not sure either punters or the politicos are factoring in this increasingly higher chance for No Overall Control at Westminster, and that could be very interesting. If the numbers for a Con/RefUk coalition do not add up, and Labour/Green/Nat do not add up, then with a big block of MPs behind him, Ed Davey might not just be Kingmaker, but maybe even King. So all those rushing in to back a 320 seat gain for RefUK should take note that such a surge has *never* happened, and the maths in each seat has to fall exactly right- and their record high poll has only been 35%. Winning a majority on a third of the vote is possible- Labour just did it- but is is a fluke when it happens. I don't think RefUK can do it, especially when we see the amateurish way they run councils and themselves.
More and more, therefore, I think the numbers speak to a hung Parliament, and one which will find it extremely difficult to construct a government. We may look back with nostalgia on this current time in British politics as the calm before the storm.
Though I suspect the odds of this Ed being PM are no better than those of the other Ed..
I have eaten the last of my Bourbons, I need another packet.
No? Isn't that how it works?
On topic, one of my sons once worked for a short time with Nigel Farage, and would NEVER do so again.
I generally hesitate to call people idiots but there is no other way to describe the MAGA loyalists. Seriously, how thick do you have to be to believe the stuff that Trump, Hesketh, Leavitt and Millar come out with?
Now, in theory, a slave could be one’s brother and sister in Christ, in a society where social distinctions did not matter among believers. For a time, that was the viewpoint of the Quakers of Pennsylvania.
In practice, you cannot have a system of slavery which does not depend upon murder, kidnap, rape, and human trafficking. Those are the system’s features, rather than its bugs.
Trump has reached the stage where nobody is really trying a good faith argument in his favour any more- mostly because it's approximately impossible. (But the crucial thing is that it doesn't really matter for now, and might not matter in 2026/8.)
Brexit is going down the same path, but dawdling not racing.
That sense of momentum will also keep internal dissent under wraps.
There is also the chance that as the left vote converges on whichever party is best-placed to defeat Reform, so the Conservatives will be squeezed further.
So, Secretary Hesketh, your towel and bowl are over there. I'm sure you can find some feet in need of washing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLYwnyPP2SY
Spectator TV has just uploaded for your downstreaming pleasure 40 minutes of Michael Gove talking to Charles Moore (Thatcher biographer) and Peggy Noonan (Reagan speech-writer).
NEW THREAD
Whereas they were full of details as to what they predicted would happen:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britain-to-enter-recession-with-500000-uk-jobs-lost-if-it-left-eu-new-treasury-analysis-shows#:~:text=Even in its more cautious,housing market would be damaged.
There’s many middle class centrists hoping the bubble bursts. Currently all they have is hope.
As most of us probably think on PB, the market abhors a vacuum, and so Tomahawk replacements will be along in a few years. If there is one thing we know it is that the USA only plays in its own interest, which under Trump is severed from the interests of all former or temporary allies.
And it will fill this one (at some point), though the "in bed with a fat, grumpy elephant who wants to F*ck you" geopolitics are replaced by a "shoal of medium and small sharks in a European tank", with different compromises.
Good morning everyone.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/19/trump-backlash-social-media-king
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/jun/16/new-york-congestion-pricing