So at one end we’ve got Reform who have in their past repeated Russian talking points, and one of Farage’s MEPs took bribes to advance Russia and at the other end we’ve the Corbynite cranks repeating Russian talking points and dissing Zelenskyy.
I'm not holding my breath, but I do hope that those who are concerned about the over-representation of black and Asian people in adverts are equally concerned by the over-representation of the same groups in crime reporting in the popular press.
To take the Mail as an example, though they are not alone, they only seem interested in reporting on crimes committed by non-white people, ideally asylum seekers, with any Muslims a close second favourite. Scanning the press, one would get the impression that the white British majority have almost given up committing crimes, particularly those where women or young girls are the victims. Sadly, they haven't.
This is partly a notability issue. It's one of the differences between Ireland and Britain that is really noticeable in the news.
In Ireland the population is small enough that every murder is reported in the national news. In Britain it's only unusual murders that make it to the national news. And so, because people only hear about unusual murders, they have a skewed sense of what is normal about murder.
Maybe, though I didn't have murder particularly in mind - I was thinking about a much broader spectrum of crimes. And any cursory scan of our popular press would give the reader the impression that the public are not safe from minority ethnic groups, and asylum seekers in particular, but that the white majority are pretty harmless - and even when they're not (asylum hotel riots after Southport) they are often the victims of injustice. It's most evident in the discourse about the 'crime-ridden hellhole' that is London, with its woke Muslim mayor.
I see Zarah Sultana has said the quiet part out loud.
Perhaps more detail would be helpful?
Doubled down on her ”we shouldn’t be sending arms to Ukraine because arms manufacture is taking food from the mouths of the poor” position. Oh, and we should pull out of NATO as well, obviously:
I see Zarah Sultana has said the quiet part out loud.
Perhaps more detail would be helpful?
Doubled down on her ”we shouldn’t be sending arms to Ukraine because arms manufacture is taking food from the mouths of the poor” position. Oh, and we should pull out of NATO as well, obviously:
Danny Kruger currently doing a HUGE amount of mansplaining on R4 about what Ms Pochin actually meant.
Care to precis?
Pochin's words were bad, deeply offensive, wrong, but not racist. Tbf Nick Robinson tried to pin 'preparing for government' Dan down to what was so bad about the words if they were not racist, but got a lot of argle, bargle, fargle in return.
I thought Nick Robinson was particularly good today. Not that it was too challenging. Why he didn't just hold up his hands and say 'Ok we've got an iredeemable racist in the Party. What can I do. I'm not the leader'
Whike she could have made her point more tactfully, it is not racist to state the facts, which is what Sarah Pochin did, however you feel about it.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
There’s nothing to enforce. These lights are road legal if OEM fit. They also test them as part of the MOT and will fail a car if it does not meet the criteria.
Change the spec to appease a few complainants by all means but the reality is it is not an overnight fix, there’d be an,out of compliance and validation tests and would be very hard to apply retrospectively.
I worked in vehicle lighting for a few years up in Cannock and in Brum and these lights have to meet strict criteria to be able to be used on the road including the position of the beam.
Isn’t the problem that all the regulations were written pre-LED so things like maximum wattage and beam patterns etc are no longer fit for purpose for low energy but high brightness matrix LEDs?
They are regularly updated though, last updated in 2019. Takes account of LED.
So at one end we’ve got Reform who have in their past repeated Russian talking points, and one of Farage’s MEPs took bribes to advance Russia and at the other end we’ve the Corbynite cranks repeating Russian talking points and dissing Zelenskyy.
Horseshoe theory in action.
I liked the view of one poster, last night, that the latter see it as genuinely insulting, to see pro-Western liberal democracies/social democracies being created on the sacred soil of the USSR.
Who knew people in their 80s might sometimes walk like that? What I can't quite understand is the posters who delighted in updating us on Biden's every misstep seem remarkably quiet over Trump?
I see Zarah Sultana has said the quiet part out loud.
Perhaps more detail would be helpful?
Doubled down on her ”we shouldn’t be sending arms to Ukraine because arms manufacture is taking food from the mouths of the poor” position. Oh, and we should pull out of NATO as well, obviously:
So at one end we’ve got Reform who have in their past repeated Russian talking points, and one of Farage’s MEPs took bribes to advance Russia and at the other end we’ve the Corbynite cranks repeating Russian talking points and dissing Zelenskyy.
I see Zarah Sultana has said the quiet part out loud.
Perhaps more detail would be helpful?
Doubled down on her ”we shouldn’t be sending arms to Ukraine because arms manufacture is taking food from the mouths of the poor” position. Oh, and we should pull out of NATO as well, obviously:
She needs to check her Western European privilege and speak to people in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania about the value of NATO.
There are people who consider themselves "progressive", but who do actually wish considerable harm to entire groups that they dislike.
There was a time when the SNP were pro-genocide because their head couldn’t get grasp that a UK PM was leading at the forefront of a military campaign.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
Foot was a democrat, yes.
I would not be confident that a government led by Your Party would uphold democracy.
WRT Farage/Trump, I think that the latter is obviously willing to threaten violence against opponents, and to overturn constitutional norms. Farage is more of a Captain Mainwaring/Colonel Blimp-type character.
It seems to me that Captain Mainwaring, bumptious but fundamentally kind-hearted, and (Powell and Pressburger’s) Colonel Blimp, old-fashioned but honourable, are much better figures than the fear-mongering, economically illiterate charlatan Nigel Farage.
Farage is actually a spiv. And not an endearing one.
I see Zarah Sultana has said the quiet part out loud.
Perhaps more detail would be helpful?
Doubled down on her ”we shouldn’t be sending arms to Ukraine because arms manufacture is taking food from the mouths of the poor” position. Oh, and we should pull out of NATO as well, obviously:
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Do you think it would be a problem if 100% of people in adverts 100% of the time were black?
Danny Kruger currently doing a HUGE amount of mansplaining on R4 about what Ms Pochin actually meant.
Care to precis?
Pochin's words were bad, deeply offensive, wrong, but not racist. Tbf Nick Robinson tried to pin 'preparing for government' Dan down to what was so bad about the words if they were not racist, but got a lot of argle, bargle, fargle in return.
I thought Nick Robinson was particularly good today. Not that it was too challenging. Why he didn't just hold up his hands and say 'Ok we've got an iredeemable racist in the Party. What can I do. I'm not the leader'
Whike she could have made her point more tactfully, it is not racist to state the facts, which is what Sarah Pochin did, however you feel about it.
True. Focus on facts. She stated the fact that it "drives me mad" to see so many black and Asian people in adverts.
So at one end we’ve got Reform who have in their past repeated Russian talking points, and one of Farage’s MEPs took bribes to advance Russia and at the other end we’ve the Corbynite cranks repeating Russian talking points and dissing Zelenskyy.
Horseshoe theory in action.
I liked the view of one poster, last night, that the latter see it as genuinely insulting, to see pro-Western liberal democracies/social democracies being created on the sacred soil of the USSR.
That was me. They see it as Cultural Imperialism. During the 80s, the Hard Left claimed that multi-party democracy was for Europeans only and suggesting it for non-European nations was racist. Asking them about Japan caused gears to fail in their brains....
Even more, the Poland vs USSR war was a foundational myth of the Marxist-Leninists in the UK. That Poland survived was an example of Western Interventionism.
Which is why they cheered as Poland was carved up between Hitler and Stalin.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So at one end we’ve got Reform who have in their past repeated Russian talking points, and one of Farage’s MEPs took bribes to advance Russia and at the other end we’ve the Corbynite cranks repeating Russian talking points and dissing Zelenskyy.
Horseshoe theory in action.
Not the most famous cartoon on the subject....
Eventually ran off with a fat, cigar smoking, champagne quaffing Harrovian, did old Josef.
Danny Kruger currently doing a HUGE amount of mansplaining on R4 about what Ms Pochin actually meant.
Care to precis?
Pochin's words were bad, deeply offensive, wrong, but not racist. Tbf Nick Robinson tried to pin 'preparing for government' Dan down to what was so bad about the words if they were not racist, but got a lot of argle, bargle, fargle in return.
I thought Nick Robinson was particularly good today. Not that it was too challenging. Why he didn't just hold up his hands and say 'Ok we've got an iredeemable racist in the Party. What can I do. I'm not the leader'
Whike she could have made her point more tactfully, it is not racist to state the facts, which is what Sarah Pochin did, however you feel about it.
True. Focus on facts. She stated the fact that it "drives me mad" to see so many black and Asian people in adverts.
That does seem to be a factually accurate statement.
I see Zarah Sultana has said the quiet part out loud.
Perhaps more detail would be helpful?
Doubled down on her ”we shouldn’t be sending arms to Ukraine because arms manufacture is taking food from the mouths of the poor” position. Oh, and we should pull out of NATO as well, obviously:
She needs to check her Western European privilege and speak to people in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania about the value of NATO.
There are people who consider themselves "progressive", but who do actually wish considerable harm to entire groups that they dislike.
There was a time when the SNP were pro-genocide because their head couldn’t get grasp that a UK PM was leading at the forefront of a military campaign.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
There’s nothing to enforce. These lights are road legal if OEM fit. They also test them as part of the MOT and will fail a car if it does not meet the criteria.
Change the spec to appease a few complainants by all means but the reality is it is not an overnight fix, there’d be an,out of compliance and validation tests and would be very hard to apply retrospectively.
I worked in vehicle lighting for a few years up in Cannock and in Brum and these lights have to meet strict criteria to be able to be used on the road including the position of the beam.
From your experience, if the UK spec differs markedly from EU spec, will the manufacturers change? Running different specs through the same factory is a recipe for mistakes and costs, so wonder if they will do it.
We’re different anyway due to being RHD v LHD so the spec for UK vehicle lighting, front lighting, will differ anyway due to the position of the beam.
It’s a cost burden for sure, it also means two sets of tools for key parts. It makes RHD cars more expensive to their European counterparts as you recover your fixed costs for additional tooling over fewer cars. It also means multiple BOMs and component numbers. This adds admin and complexity, increases inventory and reduces manufacturing efficency. It’s manageable especially now you have the technology to scan a barcode on the part to match to the BOM before you fit it.
But this is applicable across plenty of other vehicle parts too.
Pochin is obviously a nutter, but she has simply noted that advertising (and broadcast media in general) works very hard to represent metropolitan values.
Per usual in Britain this now dominates the airwaves, while the economy continues to descend into insignificance.
Who knew people in their 80s might sometimes walk like that? What I can't quite understand is the posters who delighted in updating us on Biden's every misstep seem remarkably quiet over Trump?
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
Foot was a democrat, yes.
I would not be confident that a government led by Your Party would uphold democracy.
WRT Farage/Trump, I think that the latter is obviously willing to threaten violence against opponents, and to overturn constitutional norms. Farage is more of a Captain Mainwaring/Colonel Blimp-type character.
For now, yes. But the trickier part is knowing how he (or his sucessor) would respond if he were in power and things were going badly. Most leaders push back a bit, but read the writing on the wall reasonably quickly once it is written. Even Johnson only kicked a bit on the way out in the end.
Trump in 2021 clearly would have stayed if he hadn't been let down by the weaklings and nincompoops who stabbed him in the back- that's one of the reasons the USA situation looks so ominous now. Farage? It's hard to tell. He has made sure that he is hard to dislodge internally- probably sensible given some of those who surround him. Probably in that grey area between Johnson and Trump, which isn't necessarily great but could be worse.
I see Zarah Sultana has said the quiet part out loud.
Perhaps more detail would be helpful?
Doubled down on her ”we shouldn’t be sending arms to Ukraine because arms manufacture is taking food from the mouths of the poor” position. Oh, and we should pull out of NATO as well, obviously:
In that case it should be able to inform Trump that their war aims haven’t changed and that he should stop interfering. Let the willing get on with it and forget about the Nobel.
Danny Kruger currently doing a HUGE amount of mansplaining on R4 about what Ms Pochin actually meant.
Care to precis?
Pochin's words were bad, deeply offensive, wrong, but not racist. Tbf Nick Robinson tried to pin 'preparing for government' Dan down to what was so bad about the words if they were not racist, but got a lot of argle, bargle, fargle in return.
I thought Nick Robinson was particularly good today. Not that it was too challenging. Why he didn't just hold up his hands and say 'Ok we've got an iredeemable racist in the Party. What can I do. I'm not the leader'
Whike she could have made her point more tactfully, it is not racist to state the facts, which is what Sarah Pochin did, however you feel about it.
True. Focus on facts. She stated the fact that it "drives me mad" to see so many black and Asian people in adverts.
That does seem to be a factually accurate statement.
Well, a question remains over how much driving to madness was required.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
There’s nothing to enforce. These lights are road legal if OEM fit. They also test them as part of the MOT and will fail a car if it does not meet the criteria.
Change the spec to appease a few complainants by all means but the reality is it is not an overnight fix, there’d be an,out of compliance and validation tests and would be very hard to apply retrospectively.
I worked in vehicle lighting for a few years up in Cannock and in Brum and these lights have to meet strict criteria to be able to be used on the road including the position of the beam.
From your experience, if the UK spec differs markedly from EU spec, will the manufacturers change? Running different specs through the same factory is a recipe for mistakes and costs, so wonder if they will do it.
We’re different anyway due to being RHD v LHD so the spec for UK vehicle lighting, front lighting, will differ anyway due to the position of the beam.
It’s a cost burden for sure, it also means two sets of tools for key parts. It makes RHD cars more expensive to their European counterparts as you recover your fixed costs for additional tooling over fewer cars. It also means multiple BOMs and component numbers. This adds admin and complexity, increases inventory and reduces manufacturing efficency. It’s manageable especially now you have the technology to scan a barcode on the part to match to the BOM before you fit it.
But this is applicable across plenty of other vehicle parts too.
There are three left hand drive countries in the EU.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So would most of the country.
I chose what I chose as I put democracy and freedom over the economy every day of the week. Obviously not a choice I would like to make.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So would most of the country.
We are not actually faced with such a choice, thank goodness.
So at one end we’ve got Reform who have in their past repeated Russian talking points, and one of Farage’s MEPs took bribes to advance Russia and at the other end we’ve the Corbynite cranks repeating Russian talking points and dissing Zelenskyy.
Horseshoe theory in action.
Not the most famous cartoon on the subject....
Eventually ran off with a fat, cigar smoking, champagne quaffing Harrovian, did old Josef.
?
Adolf did the dirty on his bride.
Who was supported in his/her distress (at a distance), by said Harrovian.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
There’s nothing to enforce. These lights are road legal if OEM fit. They also test them as part of the MOT and will fail a car if it does not meet the criteria.
Change the spec to appease a few complainants by all means but the reality is it is not an overnight fix, there’d be an,out of compliance and validation tests and would be very hard to apply retrospectively.
I worked in vehicle lighting for a few years up in Cannock and in Brum and these lights have to meet strict criteria to be able to be used on the road including the position of the beam.
From your experience, if the UK spec differs markedly from EU spec, will the manufacturers change? Running different specs through the same factory is a recipe for mistakes and costs, so wonder if they will do it.
We’re different anyway due to being RHD v LHD so the spec for UK vehicle lighting, front lighting, will differ anyway due to the position of the beam.
It’s a cost burden for sure, it also means two sets of tools for key parts. It makes RHD cars more expensive to their European counterparts as you recover your fixed costs for additional tooling over fewer cars. It also means multiple BOMs and component numbers. This adds admin and complexity, increases inventory and reduces manufacturing efficency. It’s manageable especially now you have the technology to scan a barcode on the part to match to the BOM before you fit it.
But this is applicable across plenty of other vehicle parts too.
There are three left hand drive countries in the EU.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
My main reservation about Labour (and I'm still chair of my CLP) is the negative bias - I largely agree, but I'm genuinely unsure what we are trying to achieve in the long term. The Greens don't seem to have seriously considered the choices of actual power, and still project themselves as a pressure group. Your Party? Maybe.
I think his performance over the Israeli football hooligans was the last straw for me. Others will have their own last straws.
But I think you've summed up the problems with looking for an alternative. Corbyn and Sultana are the very opposite of new and exciting. Corbyn looks like an old fighter who doesn't know when he's finished. Sultana's just following him around with a towel.
Zack has killed them both dead. He's everything they aren't. It would be good if they could join forces but they've got nothing to offer. Zack would do well to keep his distance. He has got real appeal. The British Mamdani
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So would most of the country.
I’d vote for the hard left on the basis they are less likely to deport me.
I see Zarah Sultana has said the quiet part out loud.
Perhaps more detail would be helpful?
Doubled down on her ”we shouldn’t be sending arms to Ukraine because arms manufacture is taking food from the mouths of the poor” position. Oh, and we should pull out of NATO as well, obviously:
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
There’s nothing to enforce. These lights are road legal if OEM fit. They also test them as part of the MOT and will fail a car if it does not meet the criteria.
Change the spec to appease a few complainants by all means but the reality is it is not an overnight fix, there’d be an,out of compliance and validation tests and would be very hard to apply retrospectively.
I worked in vehicle lighting for a few years up in Cannock and in Brum and these lights have to meet strict criteria to be able to be used on the road including the position of the beam.
From your experience, if the UK spec differs markedly from EU spec, will the manufacturers change? Running different specs through the same factory is a recipe for mistakes and costs, so wonder if they will do it.
We’re different anyway due to being RHD v LHD so the spec for UK vehicle lighting, front lighting, will differ anyway due to the position of the beam.
It’s a cost burden for sure, it also means two sets of tools for key parts. It makes RHD cars more expensive to their European counterparts as you recover your fixed costs for additional tooling over fewer cars. It also means multiple BOMs and component numbers. This adds admin and complexity, increases inventory and reduces manufacturing efficency. It’s manageable especially now you have the technology to scan a barcode on the part to match to the BOM before you fit it.
But this is applicable across plenty of other vehicle parts too.
There are three left hand drive countries in the EU.
That's fine if the new UK rules are merely stricter. Our position as a regulatory superpower will ensure UK spec cars in Ireland, Malta and Cyprus. Only if the EU and UK specs are mutually incompatible would there be a problem.
I think Lammy's performance yesterday was a sad reflection on our politics as he ranted and raved at the dispatch box that must have had the victims of thid woeful affair watching in despair
Passing the buck, then laughing, gesticulatin, and pointing is exactly the reason politics is in the gutter at present
It may delight some but I expect the public turned away in disgust
Nothing to do with Jenrick pretending we havent had 14 years of cuts in funding to justice then?
No due to fact that things have got even worse since the Dumb party took over. You would have expected after more than a year that they would hav emade an improvement somewhere, but no we hav emore illegals, more dangerous prisoners being released , more taxes , and on and on and on yet Lammy can just sneer and make fun of it all.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So would most of the country.
I chose what I chose as I put democracy and freedom over the economy every day of the week. Obviously not a choice I would like to make.
It's a luxury belief though, and this is one the Democrats fell into last year - that saying this loud enough about Trump would be enough.
Most people - and this is true throughout history - will put their economic and physical security and those of their families over what they'd see as abstract principles.
You'd then have the issue on top with Corbyn that he wouldn't champion democracy or freedom.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So would most of the country.
I’d vote for the hard left on the basis they are less likely to deport me.
They might put you up against the wall as a capitalist running dog, though.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So would most of the country.
I’d vote for the hard left on the basis they are less likely to deport me.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So would most of the country.
I’d vote for the hard left on the basis they are less likely to deport me.
They might put you up against the wall as a capitalist running dog, though.
Nah, they’d be riven by factionalism and never get anything done.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
There’s nothing to enforce. These lights are road legal if OEM fit. They also test them as part of the MOT and will fail a car if it does not meet the criteria.
Change the spec to appease a few complainants by all means but the reality is it is not an overnight fix, there’d be an,out of compliance and validation tests and would be very hard to apply retrospectively.
I worked in vehicle lighting for a few years up in Cannock and in Brum and these lights have to meet strict criteria to be able to be used on the road including the position of the beam.
From your experience, if the UK spec differs markedly from EU spec, will the manufacturers change? Running different specs through the same factory is a recipe for mistakes and costs, so wonder if they will do it.
We’re different anyway due to being RHD v LHD so the spec for UK vehicle lighting, front lighting, will differ anyway due to the position of the beam.
It’s a cost burden for sure, it also means two sets of tools for key parts. It makes RHD cars more expensive to their European counterparts as you recover your fixed costs for additional tooling over fewer cars. It also means multiple BOMs and component numbers. This adds admin and complexity, increases inventory and reduces manufacturing efficency. It’s manageable especially now you have the technology to scan a barcode on the part to match to the BOM before you fit it.
But this is applicable across plenty of other vehicle parts too.
There are three left hand drive countries in the EU.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
Foot was a democrat, yes.
I would not be confident that a government led by Your Party would uphold democracy.
WRT Farage/Trump, I think that the latter is obviously willing to threaten violence against opponents, and to overturn constitutional norms. Farage is more of a Captain Mainwaring/Colonel Blimp-type character.
It seems to me that Captain Mainwaring, bumptious but fundamentally kind-hearted, and (Powell and Pressburger’s) Colonel Blimp, old-fashioned but honourable, are much better figures than the fear-mongering, economically illiterate charlatan Nigel Farage.
Farage is actually a spiv. And not an endearing one.
To extend the Dad's Army theme, I wonder of how much of Farage's appeal is channeling Joe Walker. A spiv, sure, but a useful one who was mostly on the side of the angels (as long as he could take his cut). Question is whether Nigel does the same.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Imagine the fuss about representation if only one in fifty actors in adverts were non white, and how much value would be given to the argument that it didn’t matter because they are just works of fiction that aren’t meant to be representative.
Then David Lammy or Diane Abbott mentions it, and is accused of racism by every virtue signaller in town
50% of ads feature black people - but 100% of populations in the UK feature black people (there's one population, sure, but it's the right comparison).
Neither of you has considered *how many* people there are in each advertisement [edit: apart ftom isam's suggestion, apols.]
The true comparison to the 4% figure is the probability that a single person in the collective population shown in the ads is black. The ads might, put together, be precisely representative, over-representative, or under-representative. I have no idea which is right.
Edit: as also noted by Pulpy and kjh.
adverts are mind numbing bollox in any case , she did not put it well to say the least but over last few years there have definitely been huge changes re non whites , mixed families , LBGT etc. You would need to be blind not to notice it and it is woke bollox.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
Not really. It’s just advertisers wanting to make sure that all their potential customers are represented. The same people who care about this are the same people who think that peak oppression is that golliwogs are no longer ok.
I've kept out oof this because its a topic in which all opinions are wilfully misinterpreted. The crime she has committed is noticing. Dont be under any illusions that activist groups havent been counting. It's what they do, they count and they count. They enter organisations through DEI, through external consulting and the shake down begins "it's a nice company you have here, it would be a shame if anything happened to it".
The only thing the Reform MP did was notice the cultural revolution that has been happening.
A bit more than just noticing a cultural revolution:
After the caller claimed the demographics of adverts represented a “demonisation of white people”, the Runcorn and Helsby MP agreed.
Sarah Pochin claimed it 'drove her mad' seeing adverts 'full of black and Asian people'
Responding, the Reform UK MP said: “I think Stuart is absolutely right, it drives me mad when I see adverts full of Black people, full of Asian people, full of people that are basically anything other than white.”
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Imagine the fuss about representation if only one in fifty actors in adverts were non white, and how much value would be given to the argument that it didn’t matter because they are just works of fiction that aren’t meant to be representative.
Then David Lammy or Diane Abbott mentions it, and is accused of racism by every virtue signaller in town
50% of ads feature black people - but 100% of populations in the UK feature black people (there's one population, sure, but it's the right comparison).
Neither of you has considered *how many* people there are in each advertisement [edit: apart ftom isam's suggestion, apols.]
The true comparison to the 4% figure is the probability that a single person in the collective population shown in the ads is black. The ads might, put together, be precisely representative, over-representative, or under-representative. I have no idea which is right.
Edit: as also noted by Pulpy and kjh.
adverts are mind numbing bollox in any case , she did not put it well to say the least but over last few years there have definitely been huge changes re non whites , mixed families , LBGT etc. You would need to be blind not to notice it and it is woke bollox.
The thing is you never see a mixed race coupe when one of them is white and one is Asian.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So would most of the country.
I’d vote for the hard left on the basis they are less likely to deport me.
They might put you up against the wall as a capitalist running dog, though.
With Marie Antoinette tastes in running shoes. Might have to claim they’re cheap knock-offs he got down the market.
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
It’s one of those arguments that people make to feel good about themselves.
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
I've never seen a fully convincing narrative as to why, though. The upper middle class (outside a very narrow intelligensia) used to be anything but.
It's one of the most fascinating political developments of the last 30 years.
The most interesting poll I saw recently was one that showed that the only section of the population that Labour has a clear lead among, is the privately-educated.
I think many would change their tune, if they actually got a radically redistributionist left wing government.
Reform led amongst comprehensive and academy educated voters with Labour second. Reform also led with grammar school educated voters with the Conservatives a close second.
Amongst the privately educated as you say Labour led Reform with the Conservatives and LDs doing better than the national average and Reform worse
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
There’s nothing to enforce. These lights are road legal if OEM fit. They also test them as part of the MOT and will fail a car if it does not meet the criteria.
Change the spec to appease a few complainants by all means but the reality is it is not an overnight fix, there’d be an,out of compliance and validation tests and would be very hard to apply retrospectively.
I worked in vehicle lighting for a few years up in Cannock and in Brum and these lights have to meet strict criteria to be able to be used on the road including the position of the beam.
From your experience, if the UK spec differs markedly from EU spec, will the manufacturers change? Running different specs through the same factory is a recipe for mistakes and costs, so wonder if they will do it.
We’re different anyway due to being RHD v LHD so the spec for UK vehicle lighting, front lighting, will differ anyway due to the position of the beam.
It’s a cost burden for sure, it also means two sets of tools for key parts. It makes RHD cars more expensive to their European counterparts as you recover your fixed costs for additional tooling over fewer cars. It also means multiple BOMs and component numbers. This adds admin and complexity, increases inventory and reduces manufacturing efficency. It’s manageable especially now you have the technology to scan a barcode on the part to match to the BOM before you fit it.
But this is applicable across plenty of other vehicle parts too.
There are three left hand drive countries in the EU.
But only two of them are in Europe :-)
LHD means you sit on the left side of the car to drive.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
Foot was a democrat, yes.
I would not be confident that a government led by Your Party would uphold democracy.
WRT Farage/Trump, I think that the latter is obviously willing to threaten violence against opponents, and to overturn constitutional norms. Farage is more of a Captain Mainwaring/Colonel Blimp-type character.
It seems to me that Captain Mainwaring, bumptious but fundamentally kind-hearted, and (Powell and Pressburger’s) Colonel Blimp, old-fashioned but honourable, are much better figures than the fear-mongering, economically illiterate charlatan Nigel Farage.
Farage is actually a spiv. And not an endearing one.
To extend the Dad's Army theme, I wonder of how much of Farage's appeal is channeling Joe Walker. A spiv, sure, but a useful one who was mostly on the side of the angels (as long as he could take his cut). Question is whether Nigel does the same.
Farage is a much darker figure. More Harry Lime than Joe Walker.
I agree with the original poster that he is a different type of character than Trump, but he is not necessarily any less malign.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
There’s nothing to enforce. These lights are road legal if OEM fit. They also test them as part of the MOT and will fail a car if it does not meet the criteria.
Change the spec to appease a few complainants by all means but the reality is it is not an overnight fix, there’d be an,out of compliance and validation tests and would be very hard to apply retrospectively.
I worked in vehicle lighting for a few years up in Cannock and in Brum and these lights have to meet strict criteria to be able to be used on the road including the position of the beam.
From your experience, if the UK spec differs markedly from EU spec, will the manufacturers change? Running different specs through the same factory is a recipe for mistakes and costs, so wonder if they will do it.
We’re different anyway due to being RHD v LHD so the spec for UK vehicle lighting, front lighting, will differ anyway due to the position of the beam.
It’s a cost burden for sure, it also means two sets of tools for key parts. It makes RHD cars more expensive to their European counterparts as you recover your fixed costs for additional tooling over fewer cars. It also means multiple BOMs and component numbers. This adds admin and complexity, increases inventory and reduces manufacturing efficency. It’s manageable especially now you have the technology to scan a barcode on the part to match to the BOM before you fit it.
But this is applicable across plenty of other vehicle parts too.
There are three left hand drive countries in the EU.
But only two of them are in Europe :-)
LHD means you sit on the left side of the car to drive.
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
It’s one of those arguments that people make to feel good about themselves.
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
I've never seen a fully convincing narrative as to why, though. The upper middle class (outside a very narrow intelligensia) used to be anything but.
It's one of the most fascinating political developments of the last 30 years.
The most interesting poll I saw recently was one that showed that the only section of the population that Labour has a clear lead among, is the privately-educated.
I think many would change their tune, if they actually got a radically redistributionist left wing government.
Reform led amongst comprehensive and academy educated voters though with Labour second. Reform also led with grammar school educated voters with the Conservatives a close second.
Amongst the privately educated as you say Labour led Reform with the Conservatives and LDs doing better than the national average and Reform worse
The same cultural impulse that delivers massively disproportionate representation of ethnic minorities on our screens also ensures that fathers are invariably portrayed as hapless idiots.
As I posted a few days ago, it is probably harmless and you’d sound like a nutter if you were to bang on about it, but it’s a thing and we shouldn’t demonise people who merely point it out.
It’s mud season in Ukraine, and the defenders have added to the situation by creating a leaky dam in Belgorod. Russian positions and trenches are literally being flooded out.
Apparently the Gripen is quite a lot cheaper per flying hour than is the Mig-29. And massively cheaper than (eg) the F35.
Ukraine plans to receive up to 250 new aircraft. These are the F-16, Gripen and Rafale, - Zelensky.
“I am conducting three parallel conversations about aircraft — with the Swedes, the French and the Americans. And the general request for the future of our combat aviation is a fleet of 250 new aircraft,” he noted.
The President added that Gripen is one of the priority aircraft for Ukraine. This is because the maintenance of these fighters is the cheapest, and they are also convenient in terms of using weapons. https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1983092432251064626
The Gripen was designed and marketed as cheap to buy, cheap to fly. Less capabilities than other jets of its generation.
In some respects; superior in others. For example, it can tote a wider range of NATO weapons than any of the alternatives, which given Ukraine's heterogenous arms supplies, is quite important. (Note it can carry more of the RAF's missiles than can the RAF's F35s.) It's better integrated with the only airborne AEW that they have. It can operate better off crappy airstrips than the others.
Etc
I believe it uses radar still being manufactured in the old Ferranti factory in Edinburgh (now part of the Leonardo group)
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
Foot was a democrat, yes.
I would not be confident that a government led by Your Party would uphold democracy.
WRT Farage/Trump, I think that the latter is obviously willing to threaten violence against opponents, and to overturn constitutional norms. Farage is more of a Captain Mainwaring/Colonel Blimp-type character.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
Foot was a democrat, yes.
I would not be confident that a government led by Your Party would uphold democracy.
WRT Farage/Trump, I think that the latter is obviously willing to threaten violence against opponents, and to overturn constitutional norms. Farage is more of a Captain Mainwaring/Colonel Blimp-type character.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So would most of the country.
I’d vote for the hard left on the basis they are less likely to deport me.
They might put you up against the wall as a capitalist running dog, though.
If the next general election looked like being a choice between Reform or the Greens/Your Party I suspect TSE would buy himself an emergency bolt hole in Switzerland, Monaco, the UAE or Singapore.
As would many non white or liberal wealthy high earners
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So would most of the country.
I’d vote for the hard left on the basis they are less likely to deport me.
They would see your wealth and class, not your race.
FWIW, the Trump/Farage stuff is hugely overblown on deportation.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So would most of the country.
I’d vote for the hard left on the basis they are less likely to deport me.
They might put you up against the wall as a capitalist running dog, though.
If the next general election looked like being a choice between Reform or the Greens/Your Party I suspect TSE would buy himself an emergency bolt hole in Switzerland, Monaco, the UAE or Singapore.
As would many non white or liberal wealthy high earners
Certainly, in Luton South, where I live, it seems like a choice between Your Party and Reform.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
There’s nothing to enforce. These lights are road legal if OEM fit. They also test them as part of the MOT and will fail a car if it does not meet the criteria.
Change the spec to appease a few complainants by all means but the reality is it is not an overnight fix, there’d be an,out of compliance and validation tests and would be very hard to apply retrospectively.
I worked in vehicle lighting for a few years up in Cannock and in Brum and these lights have to meet strict criteria to be able to be used on the road including the position of the beam.
From your experience, if the UK spec differs markedly from EU spec, will the manufacturers change? Running different specs through the same factory is a recipe for mistakes and costs, so wonder if they will do it.
We’re different anyway due to being RHD v LHD so the spec for UK vehicle lighting, front lighting, will differ anyway due to the position of the beam.
It’s a cost burden for sure, it also means two sets of tools for key parts. It makes RHD cars more expensive to their European counterparts as you recover your fixed costs for additional tooling over fewer cars. It also means multiple BOMs and component numbers. This adds admin and complexity, increases inventory and reduces manufacturing efficency. It’s manageable especially now you have the technology to scan a barcode on the part to match to the BOM before you fit it.
But this is applicable across plenty of other vehicle parts too.
There are three left hand drive countries in the EU.
But only two of them are in Europe :-)
LHD means you sit on the left side of the car to drive.
The same cultural impulse that delivers massively disproportionate representation of ethnic minorities on our screens also ensures that fathers are invariably portrayed as hapless idiots.
As I posted a few days ago, it is probably harmless and you’d sound like a nutter if you were to bang on about it, but it’s a thing and we shouldn’t demonise people who merely point it out.
Quite so, I've always thought Fathers for Justice (before they went barmy, and tried to kidnap Blair's kid) had a point.
There's a lot of superficial nonsense in our culture right now, one being upbraiding men for not taking enough paternity leave/taking on more childcare on the one hand, and then totally failing to empower them at all as fathers on the other.
They are only ever celebrated when they loudly proclaim how much they are "allies" of feminism.
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
It’s one of those arguments that people make to feel good about themselves.
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
I've never seen a fully convincing narrative as to why, though. The upper middle class (outside a very narrow intelligensia) used to be anything but.
It's one of the most fascinating political developments of the last 30 years.
The most interesting poll I saw recently was one that showed that the only section of the population that Labour has a clear lead among, is the privately-educated.
I think many would change their tune, if they actually got a radically redistributionist left wing government.
Reform led amongst comprehensive and academy educated voters though with Labour second. Reform also led with grammar school educated voters with the Conservatives a close second.
Amongst the privately educated as you say Labour led Reform with the Conservatives and LDs doing better than the national average and Reform worse
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So would most of the country.
I’d vote for the hard left on the basis they are less likely to deport me.
They would see your wealth and class, not your race.
FWIW, the Trump/Farage stuff is hugely overblown on deportation.
Maybe very few will be deported, but millions will fear deportation and feel insecure and unwelcome.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Imagine the fuss about representation if only one in fifty actors in adverts were non white, and how much value would be given to the argument that it didn’t matter because they are just works of fiction that aren’t meant to be representative.
Then David Lammy or Diane Abbott mentions it, and is accused of racism by every virtue signaller in town
50% of ads feature black people - but 100% of populations in the UK feature black people (there's one population, sure, but it's the right comparison).
Neither of you has considered *how many* people there are in each advertisement [edit: apart ftom isam's suggestion, apols.]
The true comparison to the 4% figure is the probability that a single person in the collective population shown in the ads is black. The ads might, put together, be precisely representative, over-representative, or under-representative. I have no idea which is right.
Edit: as also noted by Pulpy and kjh.
adverts are mind numbing bollox in any case , she did not put it well to say the least but over last few years there have definitely been huge changes re non whites , mixed families , LBGT etc. You would need to be blind not to notice it and it is woke bollox.
The thing is you never see a mixed race coupe when one of them is white and one is Asian.
Which has always amused me.
It's all superficial b0ll0cks. But it does speak to a point of culture clash in our country, for the reasons @Gardenwalker points out.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Ad in the rise in the height of headlights (bigger, taller cars, SUVs etc) and the brighter lights and travelling on A roads at night can be a real pain in the arse. The brightness of even dipped lights can be an issue.
Which is ridiculous because articulated lorry headlights are typically well aimed and don’t blind me in my Polo. Tesla are by far the worst, it’s like looking into the sun.
I imagine that most of those being blinded are driving older cars on halogens. I don't drive one of our cars at night for this reason, it has me swearing constantly as I can't see dick on dipped beam. The Tesla otoh is great, I'm never blinded by oncoming traffic and can see everything. Presumably this is because my eyes are habituated driving it to high power LEDs. From this I conclude that the light issue will sort itself out when everyone is on decent headlights in a decade or so's time.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So would most of the country.
I’d vote for the hard left on the basis they are less likely to deport me.
They might put you up against the wall as a capitalist running dog, though.
Nah, they’d be riven by factionalism and never get anything done.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So would most of the country.
I’d vote for the hard left on the basis they are less likely to deport me.
They might put you up against the wall as a capitalist running dog, though.
If the next general election looked like being a choice between Reform or the Greens/Your Party I suspect TSE would buy himself an emergency bolt hole in Switzerland, Monaco, the UAE or Singapore.
As would many non white or liberal wealthy high earners
Certainly, in Luton South, where I live, it seems like a choice between Your Party and Reform.
The same cultural impulse that delivers massively disproportionate representation of ethnic minorities on our screens also ensures that fathers are invariably portrayed as hapless idiots.
As I posted a few days ago, it is probably harmless and you’d sound like a nutter if you were to bang on about it, but it’s a thing and we shouldn’t demonise people who merely point it out.
Those sorts of adverts were banned a few years ago
Apparently the Gripen is quite a lot cheaper per flying hour than is the Mig-29. And massively cheaper than (eg) the F35.
Ukraine plans to receive up to 250 new aircraft. These are the F-16, Gripen and Rafale, - Zelensky.
“I am conducting three parallel conversations about aircraft — with the Swedes, the French and the Americans. And the general request for the future of our combat aviation is a fleet of 250 new aircraft,” he noted.
The President added that Gripen is one of the priority aircraft for Ukraine. This is because the maintenance of these fighters is the cheapest, and they are also convenient in terms of using weapons. https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1983092432251064626
The Gripen was designed and marketed as cheap to buy, cheap to fly. Less capabilities than other jets of its generation.
In some respects; superior in others. For example, it can tote a wider range of NATO weapons than any of the alternatives, which given Ukraine's heterogenous arms supplies, is quite important. (Note it can carry more of the RAF's missiles than can the RAF's F35s.) It's better integrated with the only airborne AEW that they have. It can operate better off crappy airstrips than the others.
Etc
I believe it uses radar still being manufactured in the old Ferranti factory in Edinburgh (now part of the Leonardo group)
Ferranti; Racal; Plessey; Marconi... all long gone.
The same cultural impulse that delivers massively disproportionate representation of ethnic minorities on our screens also ensures that fathers are invariably portrayed as hapless idiots.
As I posted a few days ago, it is probably harmless and you’d sound like a nutter if you were to bang on about it, but it’s a thing and we shouldn’t demonise people who merely point it out.
Quite so, I've always thought Fathers for Justice (before they went barmy, and tried to kidnap Blair's kid) had a point.
There's a lot of superficial nonsense in our culture right now, one being upbraiding men for not taking enough paternity leave/taking on more childcare on the one hand, and then totally failing to empower them at all as fathers on the other.
They are only ever celebrated when they loudly proclaim how much they are "allies" of feminism.
Note: Fathers For Justice disbanded when a new member started *suggesting* all kinds of terroristic actions. Such as kidnapping Blair's son.
The "new member" turned out to be a police infiltrator from the group run (illegally!) by ACPO. The ones being sued, to this day, over the illegal actions they took. While infiltrating tree hugging and other mild protest groups.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So would most of the country.
I’d vote for the hard left on the basis they are less likely to deport me.
They would see your wealth and class, not your race.
FWIW, the Trump/Farage stuff is hugely overblown on deportation.
Maybe very few will be deported, but millions will fear deportation and feel insecure and unwelcome.
As Jews would under Your Party.
It is the job of politicians to set the tone, and for others to sensibly engage with the issues they raise. I think there are points to be made on returning those who've taken the biscuit, radically reforming international treaties, and challenging the absurd metropolitanism that sets the tone of acceptable discourse in Britain.
But, I think Jenrick and Pochin have put their foot across the line recently. You have to be very careful how you do it.
For balance, I think the chorus of shouts of 'racist' the other way has been childish too.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Yes, it's a problem for me too, but it includes those blinding flashing lights on bicycles. They should be illegal, but can't see anything being done about them.
In Germany they have specific rules about bike lights - we could have the same given they are often higher than car lights and some brands are approaching the same brightness - mine are 900 lumen versus 1,500 in my car.
But frankly the risk is much higher for the cyclist in not being seen, so there's no chance they'll try to restrict the lights.
Since 2005, flashing bicycle lights are permitted to be used as sole lights, provided the light flashes between 60 and 240 times per minute (1-4Hz).
I think in Germany it's more about beam direction.
Anyway, there is a live debate about what's safer - flashing lights or constant. The former last 10x longer on battery and in daytime running you definitely want flashing for long distance visibility.
I appreciate they cause some drivers issues but the number of times I've nearly been hit despite lights + high vis + reflectors means I would never advocate for restricting their use. The consequences are fatal if you're not seen and drivers should slow down if they are struggling to see (or get to the optician ASAP).
I try to run at least one flashing and one constant front and rear. Flashing to grab the attention, constant to make it easier to judge distance and speed. It doesn't help with the significant minority of drivers incapable of judging distances and speeds even in broad daylight but it's a start.
I once encountered a cyclist with only a flashing white light *at the back*. I saw him, fair enough, but it took me a while to work out his speed and direction, on an unlit windy country road. Can't imagine what he was thinking. Surely rear lights should be red.
I'm always shocked when I encounter cyclists at night with no lights and wearing dark clothes. Usually kids.
On this year's France cycling trip our sleeper train to Paris from Toulouse got cancelled. The only train we could get got us into Paris at midnight. Although we never planned to cycle at night we had lights just in case, but absolutely never expected to use them at midnight and in Paris. Fortunately we also had tape and attached them to our helmets. As it happened cycling in Paris at night is a damn sight safer than during the day.
The biggest problem with the flashing white light was that the cyclist was also wearing dark clothing. Initially it seemed that the cycle was approaching me on the wrong side of the road. I had to slow right down and wait for my brain to adjust.
Of course cyclists out at night with dark clothing and no lights are too frequent to be worth mentioning. And while I'm quite good at remembering to wear a bright T shirt when running, and taking a torch or head torch, I have realised that as a pedestrian I am not that easily seen, as I tend to go out in jeans and a dark blue fleece.
I live in a very dark road and my waterproof is dark, so I routinely wear a hi-vis waistcoat thing after dark. It's quite surprising how many people find that funny or oddball when I get to the well-lit places.
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
It’s one of those arguments that people make to feel good about themselves.
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
I've never seen a fully convincing narrative as to why, though. The upper middle class (outside a very narrow intelligensia) used to be anything but.
It's one of the most fascinating political developments of the last 30 years.
The most interesting poll I saw recently was one that showed that the only section of the population that Labour has a clear lead among, is the privately-educated.
I think many would change their tune, if they actually got a radically redistributionist left wing government.
Reform led amongst comprehensive and academy educated voters though with Labour second. Reform also led with grammar school educated voters with the Conservatives a close second.
Amongst the privately educated as you say Labour led Reform with the Conservatives and LDs doing better than the national average and Reform worse
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Do you think it would be a problem if 100% of people in adverts 100% of the time were black?
Ads are very well researched these days. Black people are considered fit and sporty so if you want a family to walk round a supermarket and not look plump and overweight that might be a good choice. Hair ads occasionally use orientals because their hair is more shiny. Edinburgh accents are honest so insurance companies might go for that. Liverpudlians are crooks ....cockneys are sharp etc. None of it is prejudice. It's all tested......
Voice overs are another story. There are people who spend a lot of time researching these things. I've seen casting briefs that have run to pages looking for a single person,.........Seeming nonsense like 'Would go skiing to St Moritz but wouldn't say no to a pint in the local pub. Might ride a horse..
........' I've many times asked who thinks up this bullshit?
Apparently the Gripen is quite a lot cheaper per flying hour than is the Mig-29. And massively cheaper than (eg) the F35.
Ukraine plans to receive up to 250 new aircraft. These are the F-16, Gripen and Rafale, - Zelensky.
“I am conducting three parallel conversations about aircraft — with the Swedes, the French and the Americans. And the general request for the future of our combat aviation is a fleet of 250 new aircraft,” he noted.
The President added that Gripen is one of the priority aircraft for Ukraine. This is because the maintenance of these fighters is the cheapest, and they are also convenient in terms of using weapons. https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1983092432251064626
The Gripen was designed and marketed as cheap to buy, cheap to fly. Less capabilities than other jets of its generation.
In some respects; superior in others. For example, it can tote a wider range of NATO weapons than any of the alternatives, which given Ukraine's heterogenous arms supplies, is quite important. (Note it can carry more of the RAF's missiles than can the RAF's F35s.) It's better integrated with the only airborne AEW that they have. It can operate better off crappy airstrips than the others.
Etc
I believe it uses radar still being manufactured in the old Ferranti factory in Edinburgh (now part of the Leonardo group)
Ferranti; Racal; Plessey; Marconi... all long gone.
The names are gone, but it's the same people making the same products in the same factory at Crewe Toll.
Apparently the Gripen is quite a lot cheaper per flying hour than is the Mig-29. And massively cheaper than (eg) the F35.
Ukraine plans to receive up to 250 new aircraft. These are the F-16, Gripen and Rafale, - Zelensky.
“I am conducting three parallel conversations about aircraft — with the Swedes, the French and the Americans. And the general request for the future of our combat aviation is a fleet of 250 new aircraft,” he noted.
The President added that Gripen is one of the priority aircraft for Ukraine. This is because the maintenance of these fighters is the cheapest, and they are also convenient in terms of using weapons. https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1983092432251064626
The Gripen was designed and marketed as cheap to buy, cheap to fly. Less capabilities than other jets of its generation.
In some respects; superior in others. For example, it can tote a wider range of NATO weapons than any of the alternatives, which given Ukraine's heterogenous arms supplies, is quite important. (Note it can carry more of the RAF's missiles than can the RAF's F35s.) It's better integrated with the only airborne AEW that they have. It can operate better off crappy airstrips than the others.
Etc
I believe it uses radar still being manufactured in the old Ferranti factory in Edinburgh (now part of the Leonardo group)
Ferranti; Racal; Plessey; Marconi... all long gone.
The names are gone, but it's the same people making the same products in the same factory at Crewe Toll.
Shadows of their former selves, though. Weren't all four FTSE constituents ?
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
So would most of the country.
I’d vote for the hard left on the basis they are less likely to deport me.
They would see your wealth and class, not your race.
FWIW, the Trump/Farage stuff is hugely overblown on deportation.
Maybe very few will be deported, but millions will fear deportation and feel insecure and unwelcome.
As Jews would under Your Party.
It is the job of politicians to set the tone, and for others to sensibly engage with the issues they raise. I think there are points to be made on returning those who've taken the biscuit, radically reforming international treaties, and challenging the absurd metropolitanism that sets the tone of acceptable discourse in Britain.
But, I think Jenrick and Pochin have put their foot across the line recently. You have to be very careful how you do it.
For balance, I think the chorus of shouts of 'racist' the other way has been childish too.
Your Party are never going to gain power. Farage or Jenrick will. That is the difference.
The same cultural impulse that delivers massively disproportionate representation of ethnic minorities on our screens also ensures that fathers are invariably portrayed as hapless idiots.
As I posted a few days ago, it is probably harmless and you’d sound like a nutter if you were to bang on about it, but it’s a thing and we shouldn’t demonise people who merely point it out.
The only time you see oldies are on ads for cruises, sun life over 50 plans and funeral/cremation plans.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Yes, it's a problem for me too, but it includes those blinding flashing lights on bicycles. They should be illegal, but can't see anything being done about them.
In Germany they have specific rules about bike lights - we could have the same given they are often higher than car lights and some brands are approaching the same brightness - mine are 900 lumen versus 1,500 in my car.
But frankly the risk is much higher for the cyclist in not being seen, so there's no chance they'll try to restrict the lights.
Since 2005, flashing bicycle lights are permitted to be used as sole lights, provided the light flashes between 60 and 240 times per minute (1-4Hz).
I think in Germany it's more about beam direction.
Anyway, there is a live debate about what's safer - flashing lights or constant. The former last 10x longer on battery and in daytime running you definitely want flashing for long distance visibility.
I appreciate they cause some drivers issues but the number of times I've nearly been hit despite lights + high vis + reflectors means I would never advocate for restricting their use. The consequences are fatal if you're not seen and drivers should slow down if they are struggling to see (or get to the optician ASAP).
I try to run at least one flashing and one constant front and rear. Flashing to grab the attention, constant to make it easier to judge distance and speed. It doesn't help with the significant minority of drivers incapable of judging distances and speeds even in broad daylight but it's a start.
I once encountered a cyclist with only a flashing white light *at the back*. I saw him, fair enough, but it took me a while to work out his speed and direction, on an unlit windy country road. Can't imagine what he was thinking. Surely rear lights should be red.
I'm always shocked when I encounter cyclists at night with no lights and wearing dark clothes. Usually kids.
On this year's France cycling trip our sleeper train to Paris from Toulouse got cancelled. The only train we could get got us into Paris at midnight. Although we never planned to cycle at night we had lights just in case, but absolutely never expected to use them at midnight and in Paris. Fortunately we also had tape and attached them to our helmets. As it happened cycling in Paris at night is a damn sight safer than during the day.
The biggest problem with the flashing white light was that the cyclist was also wearing dark clothing. Initially it seemed that the cycle was approaching me on the wrong side of the road. I had to slow right down and wait for my brain to adjust.
Of course cyclists out at night with dark clothing and no lights are too frequent to be worth mentioning. And while I'm quite good at remembering to wear a bright T shirt when running, and taking a torch or head torch, I have realised that as a pedestrian I am not that easily seen, as I tend to go out in jeans and a dark blue fleece.
From my POV, if it made you slow down and take care then that is part of the idea.
One cycling trick - especially in the countryside and in the UK with our narrow roads - at night is to have a headlight that does a passable imitation of a motorcycle. They notice those more readily.
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
It’s one of those arguments that people make to feel good about themselves.
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
I've never seen a fully convincing narrative as to why, though. The upper middle class (outside a very narrow intelligensia) used to be anything but.
It's one of the most fascinating political developments of the last 30 years.
The most interesting poll I saw recently was one that showed that the only section of the population that Labour has a clear lead among, is the privately-educated.
I think many would change their tune, if they actually got a radically redistributionist left wing government.
Reform led amongst comprehensive and academy educated voters though with Labour second. Reform also led with grammar school educated voters with the Conservatives a close second.
Amongst the privately educated as you say Labour led Reform with the Conservatives and LDs doing better than the national average and Reform worse
It's a case of people simply voting in line with their own interests.
I am still baffled why so many privately educated people think Labour is on their side.
I can understand Conservative/LD.
Basically for privately educated snobs whereas Labour used to be the party of working class oiks under Starmer they are the party of middle class woke liberals, like many privately educated people now are too.
The working class oiks though are now largely voting for Farage and Reform
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
It’s one of those arguments that people make to feel good about themselves.
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
I've never seen a fully convincing narrative as to why, though. The upper middle class (outside a very narrow intelligensia) used to be anything but.
It's one of the most fascinating political developments of the last 30 years.
The most interesting poll I saw recently was one that showed that the only section of the population that Labour has a clear lead among, is the privately-educated.
I think many would change their tune, if they actually got a radically redistributionist left wing government.
Reform led amongst comprehensive and academy educated voters though with Labour second. Reform also led with grammar school educated voters with the Conservatives a close second.
Amongst the privately educated as you say Labour led Reform with the Conservatives and LDs doing better than the national average and Reform worse
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
It’s one of those arguments that people make to feel good about themselves.
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
I've never seen a fully convincing narrative as to why, though. The upper middle class (outside a very narrow intelligensia) used to be anything but.
It's one of the most fascinating political developments of the last 30 years.
The most interesting poll I saw recently was one that showed that the only section of the population that Labour has a clear lead among, is the privately-educated.
I think many would change their tune, if they actually got a radically redistributionist left wing government.
Reform led amongst comprehensive and academy educated voters though with Labour second. Reform also led with grammar school educated voters with the Conservatives a close second.
Amongst the privately educated as you say Labour led Reform with the Conservatives and LDs doing better than the national average and Reform worse
It's a case of people simply voting in line with their own interests.
I am still baffled why so many privately educated people think Labour is on their side.
I can understand Conservative/LD.
Privately educated folk, being smarter than the average voter, simply realise that the choice on offer right now is appalling and that Labour may be the least worst option.
Note for the day: do not take your Brompton to a highly public place (eg Haematology Clinic) after months of non-use without practising the fold. Otherwise you may end up sitting there going redder and redder thinking "WTF do I do next?"
And the "German" suspension is a bloody ball-breaker on today's roads.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Do you think it would be a problem if 100% of people in adverts 100% of the time were black?
Ads are very well researched these days. Black people are considered fit and sporty so if you want a family to walk round a supermarket and not look plump and overweight that might be a good choice. Hair ads occasionally use orientals because their hair is more shiny. Edinburgh accents are honest so insurance companies might go for that. Liverpudlians are crooks ....cockneys are sharp etc. None of it is prejudice. It's all tested......
Voice overs are another story. There are people who spend a lot of time researching these things. I've seen casting briefs that have run to pages looking for a single person,.........Seeming nonsense like 'Would go skiing to St Moritz but wouldn't say no to a pint in the local pub. Might ride a horse..
........' I've many times asked who thinks up this bullshit?
*MIddle class* Edinburgh accents I assume - known as Scottish Received Pronunciation. But I assume neither the Hyacinth Bouquet-analogue variants of Morningsaide (coal comes in sex, or did when I were a bairn), nor demotic Leith gadgies pace Trainspotting.
The same cultural impulse that delivers massively disproportionate representation of ethnic minorities on our screens also ensures that fathers are invariably portrayed as hapless idiots.
As I posted a few days ago, it is probably harmless and you’d sound like a nutter if you were to bang on about it, but it’s a thing and we shouldn’t demonise people who merely point it out.
The only time you see oldies are on ads for cruises, sun life over 50 plans and funeral/cremation plans.
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
It’s one of those arguments that people make to feel good about themselves.
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
I've never seen a fully convincing narrative as to why, though. The upper middle class (outside a very narrow intelligensia) used to be anything but.
It's one of the most fascinating political developments of the last 30 years.
The most interesting poll I saw recently was one that showed that the only section of the population that Labour has a clear lead among, is the privately-educated.
I think many would change their tune, if they actually got a radically redistributionist left wing government.
Reform led amongst comprehensive and academy educated voters though with Labour second. Reform also led with grammar school educated voters with the Conservatives a close second.
Amongst the privately educated as you say Labour led Reform with the Conservatives and LDs doing better than the national average and Reform worse
It's a case of people simply voting in line with their own interests.
I am still baffled why so many privately educated people think Labour is on their side.
I can understand Conservative/LD.
The old Conservatives, yes. Indeed, the "I'm not very political and that's why I'm a Conservative" archetype was an archetype for a reason. Civic duty, paying a bit of my privilege forward, that sort of thing. Rory Stewart was probably the last of them standing. Respect to people still trying to fly the flag for the old ways, but it looks like it's over.
The natural home of such people now is the Lib Dems, with their shared interest in fixing the parish church roof. But Lib Dems barely exist in most of the country, so Labour become the placebo.
The Conservatives, meanwhile, picked a side in the generational fiscal and culture wars, and well-bred people of working age have mostly taken the hint.
Danny Kruger currently doing a HUGE amount of mansplaining on R4 about what Ms Pochin actually meant.
Care to precis?
Pochin's words were bad, deeply offensive, wrong, but not racist. Tbf Nick Robinson tried to pin 'preparing for government' Dan down to what was so bad about the words if they were not racist, but got a lot of argle, bargle, fargle in return.
I thought Nick Robinson was particularly good today. Not that it was too challenging. Why he didn't just hold up his hands and say 'Ok we've got an iredeemable racist in the Party. What can I do. I'm not the leader'
Whike she could have made her point more tactfully, it is not racist to state the facts, which is what Sarah Pochin did, however you feel about it.
She said, "it drives me mad when I see adverts full of black people, full of Asian people". That is not merely stating a fact. She was expressing an emotional response to see adverts "full of black people, full of Asian people".
The same cultural impulse that delivers massively disproportionate representation of ethnic minorities on our screens also ensures that fathers are invariably portrayed as hapless idiots.
As I posted a few days ago, it is probably harmless and you’d sound like a nutter if you were to bang on about it, but it’s a thing and we shouldn’t demonise people who merely point it out.
The only time you see oldies are on ads for cruises, sun life over 50 plans and funeral/cremation plans.
Comments
Horseshoe theory in action.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1982972384597701048
Same as the rest of us.
Farage is actually a spiv. And not an endearing one.
Elon Musk's new "Grokipedia" promotes verbatim Kremlin disinformation narratives on Ukraine because it's sourcing "information" from the actual Kremlin website.
https://x.com/StratcomCentre/status/1983091773858525530
Even more, the Poland vs USSR war was a foundational myth of the Marxist-Leninists in the UK. That Poland survived was an example of Western Interventionism.
Which is why they cheered as Poland was carved up between Hitler and Stalin.
So would most of the country.
It’s a cost burden for sure, it also means two sets of tools for key parts. It makes RHD cars more expensive to their European counterparts as you recover your fixed costs for additional tooling over fewer cars. It also means multiple BOMs and component numbers. This adds admin and complexity, increases inventory and reduces manufacturing efficency. It’s manageable especially now you have the technology to scan a barcode on the part to match to the BOM before you fit it.
But this is applicable across plenty of other vehicle parts too.
Per usual in Britain this now dominates the airwaves, while the economy continues to descend into insignificance.
Trump in 2021 clearly would have stayed if he hadn't been let down by the weaklings and nincompoops who stabbed him in the back- that's one of the reasons the USA situation looks so ominous now. Farage? It's hard to tell. He has made sure that he is hard to dislodge internally- probably sensible given some of those who surround him. Probably in that grey area between Johnson and Trump, which isn't necessarily great but could be worse.
Adolf did the dirty on his bride.
Who was supported in his/her distress (at a distance), by said Harrovian.
But I think you've summed up the problems with looking for an alternative. Corbyn and Sultana are the very opposite of new and exciting. Corbyn looks like an old fighter who doesn't know when he's finished. Sultana's just following him around with a towel.
Zack has killed them both dead. He's everything they aren't. It would be good if they could join forces but they've got nothing to offer. Zack would do well to keep his distance. He has got real appeal. The British Mamdani
Most people - and this is true throughout history - will put their economic and physical security and those of their families over what they'd see as abstract principles.
You'd then have the issue on top with Corbyn that he wouldn't champion democracy or freedom.
Sadly, she had dementia prior to her demise.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjd0yn5gyndo
After the caller claimed the demographics of adverts represented a “demonisation of white people”, the Runcorn and Helsby MP agreed.
Sarah Pochin claimed it 'drove her mad' seeing adverts 'full of black and Asian people'
Responding, the Reform UK MP said: “I think Stuart is absolutely right, it drives me mad when I see adverts full of Black people, full of Asian people, full of people that are basically anything other than white.”
Which has always amused me.
5ive have reformed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2l0525801o
Amongst the privately educated as you say Labour led Reform with the Conservatives and LDs doing better than the national average and Reform worse
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/18/reform-more-popular-labour-former-state-school-pupils/
https://carsexport.eu/lhdcars.htm
Most of Europe is LHD.
More Harry Lime than Joe Walker.
I agree with the original poster that he is a different type of character than Trump, but he is not necessarily any less malign.
As I posted a few days ago, it is probably harmless and you’d sound like a nutter if you were to bang on about it, but it’s a thing and we shouldn’t demonise people who merely point it out.
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1983106449460081072
As would many non white or liberal wealthy high earners
FWIW, the Trump/Farage stuff is hugely overblown on deportation.
You may know the poster you replied to confused driving on the left to a car where you sit on the left.
I’ve driven in Cyprus. It’s nice to drive there. Not a lot of traffic.
There's a lot of superficial nonsense in our culture right now, one being upbraiding men for not taking enough paternity leave/taking on more childcare on the one hand, and then totally failing to empower them at all as fathers on the other.
They are only ever celebrated when they loudly proclaim how much they are "allies" of feminism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48628678
"A ban on adverts featuring "harmful gender stereotypes" or those which are likely to cause "serious or widespread offence" has come into force.
The ban covers scenarios such as a man with his feet up while a woman cleans, or a woman failing to park a car.
The UK's advertising watchdog introduced the ban because it found some portrayals could play a part in "limiting people's potential"."
@Brody_wx
·
1h
#Melissa has once again just made history again with an eye temperature of -3.1C
https://x.com/PettusWX/status/1983134378508087625
The "new member" turned out to be a police infiltrator from the group run (illegally!) by ACPO. The ones being sued, to this day, over the illegal actions they took. While infiltrating tree hugging and other mild protest groups.
It is the job of politicians to set the tone, and for others to sensibly engage with the issues they raise. I think there are points to be made on returning those who've taken the biscuit, radically reforming international treaties, and challenging the absurd metropolitanism that sets the tone of acceptable discourse in Britain.
But, I think Jenrick and Pochin have put their foot across the line recently. You have to be very careful how you do it.
For balance, I think the chorus of shouts of 'racist' the other way has been childish too.
I can understand Conservative/LD.
Voice overs are another story. There are people who spend a lot of time researching these things. I've seen casting briefs that have run to pages looking for a single person,.........Seeming nonsense like 'Would go skiing to St Moritz but wouldn't say no to a pint in the local pub. Might ride a horse..
........' I've many times asked who thinks up this bullshit?
Weren't all four FTSE constituents ?
One cycling trick - especially in the countryside and in the UK with our narrow roads - at night is to have a headlight that does a passable imitation of a motorcycle. They notice those more readily.
The working class oiks though are now largely voting for Farage and Reform
And the "German" suspension is a bloody ball-breaker on today's roads.
The natural home of such people now is the Lib Dems, with their shared interest in fixing the parish church roof. But Lib Dems barely exist in most of the country, so Labour become the placebo.
The Conservatives, meanwhile, picked a side in the generational fiscal and culture wars, and well-bred people of working age have mostly taken the hint.