I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
The public probably wants someone from outside politics like Martin Lewis or Matthew Syed. The Dutch recently had someone like this as PM.
America tried this in 2016 with a president who was a property developer and television presenter rather than state governor or senator.
I haven't been following but it seems Zelenski has feet of clay.
Surely not?
If anyone seemed straight it was him. How depressing
The corruption scandal doesn't (yet?) seemed to involve him personally, but rather a number of close associates.
I interpret the actions of the Ukranian Parliament to show a robust vitality. We wouldn't see such a display of dirty linen inthe Russian Duma, or in Washington DC for that matter.
Far too little attention is paid to the fact that without China, Russia would not be able to continue fighting the war as they are. On Trump's watch they have upped their level of support.
China is officially neutral on the Russia-Ukraine war and officially wants a peace deal, unlike N Korea which has sent troops to help Russia. China just has not cut economic ties with Russia
That's nonsense.
Firstly why do you assume that China's official position is the same as their actual one? Do you take them at their word? They have been providing all kinds of essential military technology. No-one seems to dispute that.
China has been doing very little for Russia and has even reduced oil purchases, on which it was getting a discount and using a pipeline built at Russia's expense. You might be thinking of Iran or North Korea which have provided drones and their designs, and soldiers.
Re Zelenski. It's his business partner who seems to be behind it and he has now escaped to Israel. A multi million dollar fraud......
They are now demanding elections. It sounds like Zelenski is in trouble. The Americans are now proposing an unfavourable peace deal and with this going on and Zelenski weakened it strikes me they will not be in a strong positiion to resist.
It's like our Saturday morning visitors did a podcast spinoff series.
Even GB News would be embarrassed by such garbage.
I've just been reading what I can find. The facts are
1. The US is proposing a peace deal which is completely unacceptable to Ukraine 2. Zelenski's popularity because of the corruption scandal is down to 20% (ref Newsnight) 3. The pressure for him to accept a deal brokered by Trump will be extreme because of 1+2
I'm not sure what Tucker Carlson or Netanyahu has to do with anything?
Do a bit of due diligence on who you are linking to. Just because it *sounds* reasonable, doesn’t mean it isn’t batshit insane propaganda.
Remember the Lisa Kudrow character in “Death to 2020”?
It appears the reporting about the US taking Russia's absurd demands seriously has some truth in it.
Ending a complex and deadly war such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive exchange of serious and realistic ideas. And achieving a durable peace will require both sides to agree to difficult but necessary concessions. That is why we are and will continue to develop a list of potential ideas for ending this war based on input from both sides of this conflict. https://x.com/marcorubio/status/1991297619964854460
Far too little attention is paid to the fact that without China, Russia would not be able to continue fighting the war as they are. On Trump's watch they have upped their level of support.
China is officially neutral on the Russia-Ukraine war and officially wants a peace deal, unlike N Korea which has sent troops to help Russia. China just has not cut economic ties with Russia
That's nonsense.
Firstly why do you assume that China's official position is the same as their actual one? Do you take them at their word? They have been providing all kinds of essential military technology. No-one seems to dispute that.
China has been doing very little for Russia and has even reduced oil purchases, on which it was getting a discount and using a pipeline built at Russia's expense. You might be thinking of Iran or North Korea which have provided drones and their designs, and soldiers.
But generally yes, thankfully the Chinese have remained more neutral than expected in this conflict.
The optimist in me says that Xi doesn’t want WWIII, the pessimist in me says he’s saving his army to fight for Taiwan.
Meanwhile, it appears that the NorKs have pretty much stopped shipping ammo to Russia in the last couple of months.
Latest Russian attempt at a “peace” plan looks about as acceptable to everyone else as their last attempt. Meanwhile 25 civilians in Turnopil, hundreds of km from the front lines, were killed yesterday when the Russians bombed a residential tower block. https://x.com/tatarigami_ua/status/1991148149608456287?s=12
Far too little attention is paid to the fact that without China, Russia would not be able to continue fighting the war as they are. On Trump's watch they have upped their level of support.
This is very true.
But China is intructive from another point of view. They stood up to Trump and as a consequence are now in an advantaged trading position with the US relative to Europe.
They had the ability to.
As we saw with the Dutch chip company Europe (including the UK) has put themselves in a very weak strategic position by created dependency on an aggressive rival
"LABOUR are planning to cut electricity prices for tech companies while energy bills continue to leave families struggling, The National can reveal.
The UK Government has set out plans to slash costs for artificial intelligence (AI) data centres –saving companies as much as £80 million per year.
Campaigners said the plans were a “gut punch” to people struggling with the cost of living."
interesting. Given Labour are already vulnerable in the north, west and south west on regional pricing ...
While I don’t agree with the policy the paper’s framing is the epitome of the zero sum thinking that infects our politics (“Resources allocated to group x is a kick in the teeth to group y”)
The issue is that it makes regional pricing even less likely, and the lack of r. p. in itself is a developing issue. Edit: so not zero sum thinking per se.
It's not as if the server farms will produce many permanent jobs [edit] locally.
Are you trying to say that becoming an 'AI Superpower' wont cure all our economic woes? You've reminded me of one of my favourite recent government headlines :
"Artificial intelligence will deliver a decade of national renewal, as part of a new plan announced today".
Nothing brings that "oh, that's doomed then" feeling more the a government PR piece with "as part of a new plan announced today". "Made up today". "Hurriedly sketched out on a napkin today". "Keir said what? Wtf? Ok - let's wing it, today"...
Not particvularly: just wondering on the effects on the *local* or in UKGspeak *regional* economic woes.
Though there's that too, now you mention it.
US companies get to offload a chunk of their power generation woes onto the UK. Luckily for them - our power companies and grid haven't spent the last 30 years creaming off profits from ageing infrastructure like they have in the USA.
Phew!
See also the water industry for the data-center cooling. Phew^2!
There are some press stories goiung around about Edinburgh suddenly needing 2-4 x the power, water etc. because data centre proposals [edit]. No idea myself how true that is. But it will not go down well with the natives. Or indeed if UKG plonk them down without asking the natives.
Similar in the US. Power companies have been sitting pretty for years and now there's new demand from huge customers, pass the cost on to the regular consumer and keep their own margins up. Years of under-investment passed onto the end consumer. It's not at all a familiar story.
Haven’t we always had discounted rates for power for businesses that use large amounts consistently? That’s a pretty natural pricing model because you can use that demand to justify baseline supply
"LABOUR are planning to cut electricity prices for tech companies while energy bills continue to leave families struggling, The National can reveal.
The UK Government has set out plans to slash costs for artificial intelligence (AI) data centres –saving companies as much as £80 million per year.
Campaigners said the plans were a “gut punch” to people struggling with the cost of living."
interesting. Given Labour are already vulnerable in the north, west and south west on regional pricing ...
While I don’t agree with the policy the paper’s framing is the epitome of the zero sum thinking that infects our politics (“Resources allocated to group x is a kick in the teeth to group y”)
The issue is that it makes regional pricing even less likely, and the lack of r. p. in itself is a developing issue. Edit: so not zero sum thinking per se.
It's not as if the server farms will produce many permanent jobs [edit] locally.
Are you trying to say that becoming an 'AI Superpower' wont cure all our economic woes? You've reminded me of one of my favourite recent government headlines :
"Artificial intelligence will deliver a decade of national renewal, as part of a new plan announced today".
Nothing brings that "oh, that's doomed then" feeling more the a government PR piece with "as part of a new plan announced today". "Made up today". "Hurriedly sketched out on a napkin today". "Keir said what? Wtf? Ok - let's wing it, today"...
Not particvularly: just wondering on the effects on the *local* or in UKGspeak *regional* economic woes.
Though there's that too, now you mention it.
US companies get to offload a chunk of their power generation woes onto the UK. Luckily for them - our power companies and grid haven't spent the last 30 years creaming off profits from ageing infrastructure like they have in the USA.
Phew!
See also the water industry for the data-center cooling. Phew^2!
There are some press stories goiung around about Edinburgh suddenly needing 2-4 x the power, water etc. because data centre proposals [edit]. No idea myself how true that is. But it will not go down well with the natives. Or indeed if UKG plonk them down without asking the natives.
Similar in the US. Power companies have been sitting pretty for years and now there's new demand from huge customers, pass the cost on to the regular consumer and keep their own margins up. Years of under-investment passed onto the end consumer. It's not at all a familiar story.
Haven’t we always had discounted rates for power for businesses that use large amounts consistently? That’s a pretty natural pricing model because you can use that demand to justify baseline supply
Not really. Under current pricing structures, large users don't get much discount, and pay considerably more for capacity charges.
What's proposed is effectively a subsidy.for the data centres.
It appears the reporting about the US taking Russia's absurd demands seriously has some truth in it.
Ending a complex and deadly war such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive exchange of serious and realistic ideas. And achieving a durable peace will require both sides to agree to difficult but necessary concessions. That is why we are and will continue to develop a list of potential ideas for ending this war based on input from both sides of this conflict. https://x.com/marcorubio/status/1991297619964854460
So what concessions are the Russians making?
Only one I can see is Ukraine gets to keep half its army rather that totally demilitarising.
Far too little attention is paid to the fact that without China, Russia would not be able to continue fighting the war as they are. On Trump's watch they have upped their level of support.
China is officially neutral on the Russia-Ukraine war and officially wants a peace deal, unlike N Korea which has sent troops to help Russia. China just has not cut economic ties with Russia
That's nonsense.
Firstly why do you assume that China's official position is the same as their actual one? Do you take them at their word? They have been providing all kinds of essential military technology. No-one seems to dispute that.
China has been doing very little for Russia and has even reduced oil purchases, on which it was getting a discount and using a pipeline built at Russia's expense. You might be thinking of Iran or North Korea which have provided drones and their designs, and soldiers.
But generally yes, thankfully the Chinese have remained more neutral than expected in this conflict.
The optimist in me says that Xi doesn’t want WWIII, the pessimist in me says he’s saving his army to fight for Taiwan.
Meanwhile, it appears that the NorKs have pretty much stopped shipping ammo to Russia in the last couple of months.
Latest Russian attempt at a “peace” plan looks about as acceptable to everyone else as their last attempt. Meanwhile 25 civilians in Turnopil, hundreds of km from the front lines, were killed yesterday when the Russians bombed a residential tower block. https://x.com/tatarigami_ua/status/1991148149608456287?s=12
Remember the alternative tin foil theory that China has half an eye on Siberia, specifically Outer Manchuria which used to be part of China until Russia took it. Maybe it was not just the Biden administration content to watch Russia bleed out.
Trump's Epstein woes now move to the Senate Oversight Committee, where Pam Bondi cannot withhold ANY unredacted documents, videos, photos from their subpoena - or she is skewered. They can be compared with any releases from the Epstein estate - or from a whistle-blower.
"Polling group More in Common has identified a new, distinct voting group called "the disillusioned men," which it says represents a growing dissatisfaction with politics in large parts of the country.
The organisation's research points to a group of men who feel increasingly hopeless, disappointed, and that the "dream of a decent life and opportunity to provide for their families seems out of reach".
It comes on International Men's Day, and coincides with the government's own announcement of a tailored health strategy addressing some of the key concerns affecting men.
But what makes a "disillusioned man," and what does this group tell us about the direction of travel in UK politics?"
Far too little attention is paid to the fact that without China, Russia would not be able to continue fighting the war as they are. On Trump's watch they have upped their level of support.
China is officially neutral on the Russia-Ukraine war and officially wants a peace deal, unlike N Korea which has sent troops to help Russia. China just has not cut economic ties with Russia
That's nonsense.
Firstly why do you assume that China's official position is the same as their actual one? Do you take them at their word? They have been providing all kinds of essential military technology. No-one seems to dispute that.
China has been doing very little for Russia and has even reduced oil purchases, on which it was getting a discount and using a pipeline built at Russia's expense. You might be thinking of Iran or North Korea which have provided drones and their designs, and soldiers.
But generally yes, thankfully the Chinese have remained more neutral than expected in this conflict.
The optimist in me says that Xi doesn’t want WWIII, the pessimist in me says he’s saving his army to fight for Taiwan.
Meanwhile, it appears that the NorKs have pretty much stopped shipping ammo to Russia in the last couple of months.
Latest Russian attempt at a “peace” plan looks about as acceptable to everyone else as their last attempt. Meanwhile 25 civilians in Turnopil, hundreds of km from the front lines, were killed yesterday when the Russians bombed a residential tower block. https://x.com/tatarigami_ua/status/1991148149608456287?s=12
Remember the alternative tin foil theory that China has half an eye on Siberia, specifically Outer Manchuria which used to be part of China until Russia took it. Maybe it was not just the Biden administration content to watch Russia bleed out.
Oh indeed. We all know that China plays the very long game, and it’s not difficult to imagine that Xi has his eye on the potential wealth oil and mineral in Eastern Russia.
One can understand that the US has to tread a little carefully around Russia, but yes both Biden and Trump admins could have been much more enthusiastic in their military support for Ukraine. Biden talked the talk about sending hundreds of billions in aid but actually sent a load of obsolete kit from storage, Trump talks about achieving peace and speaks to both sides, but behind the scenes there’s a lot of intelligence sharing that still goes on.
I think that European leaders need to make it clear to Trump that they will play their part in increasing defense spending if the US helps more than they have been, but also that US sales of military kit to Europe depends on the US themselves doing their bit to support NATO and the war effort. That isolationism works both ways.
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
Unfortunately for Labour, they need a leader with competence and charisma, and they don’t have any.
Looks to me like they need to rethink the criteria for appointing PPCs.
You mean, Politics graduate, SPAD, constituency organiser isn’t the ideal career path? I’m shocked, I tell you!
As a matter of interest who on the Labour front bench came that route? No one springs to mind.
That is the route for PPCs. They don’t have the skills or ability to progress to the front bench, which is why there are so few contenders for front bench posts.
"Polling group More in Common has identified a new, distinct voting group called "the disillusioned men," which it says represents a growing dissatisfaction with politics in large parts of the country.
The organisation's research points to a group of men who feel increasingly hopeless, disappointed, and that the "dream of a decent life and opportunity to provide for their families seems out of reach".
It comes on International Men's Day, and coincides with the government's own announcement of a tailored health strategy addressing some of the key concerns affecting men.
But what makes a "disillusioned man," and what does this group tell us about the direction of travel in UK politics?"
Are these the snowflakes/woke that everyone was going on about a couple of years ago? And have been given a new name?
The “Disillusioned Men” are those keeping Farage top of the polling in the UK, and who elected Trump again in the US. There’s sharp differences in polling between men and women.
They’re reacting sharply to the “Woke” movement of the past few years, which portrayed men, especially white men, as inherently bad people, to the cost of living which has made housebuying unaffordable for many on average salaries, and to the “dating” environment which sees many of them single into their thirties.
"Polling group More in Common has identified a new, distinct voting group called "the disillusioned men," which it says represents a growing dissatisfaction with politics in large parts of the country.
The organisation's research points to a group of men who feel increasingly hopeless, disappointed, and that the "dream of a decent life and opportunity to provide for their families seems out of reach".
It comes on International Men's Day, and coincides with the government's own announcement of a tailored health strategy addressing some of the key concerns affecting men.
But what makes a "disillusioned man," and what does this group tell us about the direction of travel in UK politics?"
Are these the snowflakes/woke that everyone was going on about a couple of years ago? And have been given a new name?
The “Disillusioned Men” are those keeping Farage top of the polling in the UK, and who elected Trump again in the US. There’s sharp differences in polling between men and women.
They’re reacting sharply to the “Woke” movement of the past few years, which portrayed men, especially white men, as inherently bad people, to the cost of living which has made housebuying unaffordable for many on average salaries, and to the “dating” environment which sees many of them single into their thirties.
So Incel Snowflakes as opposed to Woke Snowflakes?
"Polling group More in Common has identified a new, distinct voting group called "the disillusioned men," which it says represents a growing dissatisfaction with politics in large parts of the country.
The organisation's research points to a group of men who feel increasingly hopeless, disappointed, and that the "dream of a decent life and opportunity to provide for their families seems out of reach".
It comes on International Men's Day, and coincides with the government's own announcement of a tailored health strategy addressing some of the key concerns affecting men.
But what makes a "disillusioned man," and what does this group tell us about the direction of travel in UK politics?"
Are these the snowflakes/woke that everyone was going on about a couple of years ago? And have been given a new name?
The “Disillusioned Men” are those keeping Farage top of the polling in the UK, and who elected Trump again in the US. There’s sharp differences in polling between men and women.
They’re reacting sharply to the “Woke” movement of the past few years, which portrayed men, especially white men, as inherently bad people, to the cost of living which has made housebuying unaffordable for many on average salaries, and to the “dating” environment which sees many of them single into their thirties.
Hardly. From that ITV article,
Much discussion on men's desire for radical change often centres on younger generations and their vulnerability at the hands of an increasingly extreme manosphere.
Contrary to this, the More in Common data suggests the most disillusioned in society actually fall within the 35-54 age group, with Gen Z being the least affected...
Executive Director of More in Common UK, Luke Tryl, said: “The men most disillusioned with politics aren't primarily concerned with the cultural issues that dominate online debates - they want action on bread and butter concerns like the cost of living.
See also the observation that Moneysaving Martin Lewis is the best idea for their leader. It's the affordability. In the end, that's mostly housing and energy, which are the price we are now paying for decades of deliberate inaction and cheapskatedom.
Far too little attention is paid to the fact that without China, Russia would not be able to continue fighting the war as they are. On Trump's watch they have upped their level of support.
China is officially neutral on the Russia-Ukraine war and officially wants a peace deal, unlike N Korea which has sent troops to help Russia. China just has not cut economic ties with Russia
That's nonsense.
Firstly why do you assume that China's official position is the same as their actual one? Do you take them at their word? They have been providing all kinds of essential military technology. No-one seems to dispute that.
China has been doing very little for Russia and has even reduced oil purchases, on which it was getting a discount and using a pipeline built at Russia's expense. You might be thinking of Iran or North Korea which have provided drones and their designs, and soldiers.
But generally yes, thankfully the Chinese have remained more neutral than expected in this conflict.
The optimist in me says that Xi doesn’t want WWIII, the pessimist in me says he’s saving his army to fight for Taiwan.
Meanwhile, it appears that the NorKs have pretty much stopped shipping ammo to Russia in the last couple of months.
Latest Russian attempt at a “peace” plan looks about as acceptable to everyone else as their last attempt. Meanwhile 25 civilians in Turnopil, hundreds of km from the front lines, were killed yesterday when the Russians bombed a residential tower block. https://x.com/tatarigami_ua/status/1991148149608456287?s=12
Sadly I think the pessimist in you is right on Xi.
There was talk here a month or so ago he may be in trouble. He seems to be still clinging on to power.
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
The public probably wants someone from outside politics like Martin Lewis or Matthew Syed. The Dutch recently had someone like this as PM.
America tried this in 2016 with a president who was a property developer and television presenter rather than state governor or senator.
The popularity of people like Lewis would plummet as soon as he had to make a decision. He courts publicity as always the defender of the consumer, but getting your hands down and dirty into politics, which is always about choices and priorities will result in a devastating fall from grace. I think he recognises this and has said things along those lines when people suggest he puts himself up for election.
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
The public probably wants someone from outside politics like Martin Lewis or Matthew Syed. The Dutch recently had someone like this as PM.
America tried this in 2016 with a president who was a property developer and television presenter rather than state governor or senator.
The popularity of people like Lewis would plummet as soon as he had to make a decision. He courts publicity as always the defender of the consumer, but getting your hands down and dirty into politics, which is always about choices and priorities will result in a devastating fall from grace. I think he recognises this and has said things along those lines when people suggest he puts himself up for election.
Given his intervention in the energy price spike crisis, it's pretty clear that PM Lewis would be a disaster. And whilst he recognises that, his interventions put pressure on politicians to do dumb things.
Even non-racist, non-loopy populism is still populism.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
Russia would find itself with significantly more problems than it had before it fired the missiles.
I reckon Britain would lose at least a couple of significant infrastructure targets to such a Russian attack. Yes the RAF, with support from other European NATO air forces, would rapidly make a mess of the Russian armed forces, but the damage Britain would likely suffer would be shocking to a British population not prepared to suffer any degree of hardship and complacent about the threat that exists.
What damage? You are making an awfully big assumption that Russia would be able to successfully launch a nuclear weapon.
Because that's the Kremlin's dilemma. If they had nukes that they knew worked, well... (Albeit I think nukes are a clear red line for China. The last thing they want is proliferation, and the moment that Russia lobs a nuke, then South Korea, Japan and Taiwain essentially have to get them.)
Let's leave that aside.
Even Putin probably realized by now that his nukes might not work. And that is absolutely the worst possible scenario for him. Nukes fired. But don't work.
I didn't say anything about nukes. I was talking about cruise missiles, like the kh-101s and similar that have wrecked Ukrainian power plants and other infrastructure.
They have. But then again they have been able to lob cruise missiles at Ukraine from just over the border.
How easy do you think it would be for Russia to load cruise missiles onto their Bears and get them close enough to Britain to lob cruise missiles?
They've been firing these cruise missiles at Ukraine from the Capital sea. They have the range to be fired from plenty far enough away from Britain. They can reach Britain from Novaya Zemlya.
"Polling group More in Common has identified a new, distinct voting group called "the disillusioned men," which it says represents a growing dissatisfaction with politics in large parts of the country.
The organisation's research points to a group of men who feel increasingly hopeless, disappointed, and that the "dream of a decent life and opportunity to provide for their families seems out of reach".
It comes on International Men's Day, and coincides with the government's own announcement of a tailored health strategy addressing some of the key concerns affecting men.
But what makes a "disillusioned man," and what does this group tell us about the direction of travel in UK politics?"
Are these the snowflakes/woke that everyone was going on about a couple of years ago? And have been given a new name?
The “Disillusioned Men” are those keeping Farage top of the polling in the UK, and who elected Trump again in the US. There’s sharp differences in polling between men and women.
They’re reacting sharply to the “Woke” movement of the past few years, which portrayed men, especially white men, as inherently bad people, to the cost of living which has made housebuying unaffordable for many on average salaries, and to the “dating” environment which sees many of them single into their thirties.
Hardly. From that ITV article,
Much discussion on men's desire for radical change often centres on younger generations and their vulnerability at the hands of an increasingly extreme manosphere.
Contrary to this, the More in Common data suggests the most disillusioned in society actually fall within the 35-54 age group, with Gen Z being the least affected...
Executive Director of More in Common UK, Luke Tryl, said: “The men most disillusioned with politics aren't primarily concerned with the cultural issues that dominate online debates - they want action on bread and butter concerns like the cost of living.
See also the observation that Moneysaving Martin Lewis is the best idea for their leader. It's the affordability. In the end, that's mostly housing and energy, which are the price we are now paying for decades of deliberate inaction and cheapskatedom.
Yes, and this fits the 5 tribes of Reform voters described the other day. A lot were not primarily driven by immigration or other cultural issues, more a frustration over bread and butter issues and the perceived failures of the other parties tackle them.
It was said of Labour a couple of years back that their support was a mile wide and an inch deep. I think that is true of Reform support now. Farage's honeymoon in office will be very short.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
They won’t because we have nukes.
Russia has nukes and they haven't used them in response to Ukraine firing cruise missiles at them.
And it was you who posited a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. What did you think that would entail?
Russia hasn't fired nukes because there is a serious risk the nukes don't work....
Is that a realistic assessment, or is that more along the lines of, "hur hur, those dumb Russians."
The Russians have definitely had issues with rocket development in recent years, but during the last few years we've seen them make traps developments with drones, they've modified their ballistic missiles to evade Patriots, etc, I don't see any evidence to suggest that they're incapable of maintaining their existing nuclear weapons or delivery systems.
It is a realistic question to ask because an essential ingredient of those nuclear weapons is tritium, which is used as part of the ignition process. Tritium is extremely valuable, and lots of it has turned up on the black market.
There's a high likelihood that it's come from Russian nuclear weapons.
Tritium has a relatively short shelf-life. This means you need a steady supply of Tritium to refuel your nuclear weapons.
If there's Russian tritium on the black market that's a sign that they're producing fresh Tritium to renew their nuclear weapons. Sure, Russia is massively corrupt and so some of the fresh Tritium is being sold on the black market, so they likely have fewer usable nukes than they would have without corruption. But even if most of the Tritium is skimmed off they'll still have plenty of usable nukes.
If there was no Russian tritium on the black market I'd be more doubtful about whether their nukes were usable, as it would be a sign that for some reason they didn't have access to fresh Tritium, and you have to replace the Tritium pretty often - it doesn't take many years for enough of it to decay to make the nuke fizzle.
Re Zelenski. It's his business partner who seems to be behind it and he has now escaped to Israel. A multi million dollar fraud......
They are now demanding elections. It sounds like Zelenski is in trouble. The Americans are now proposing an unfavourable peace deal and with this going on and Zelenski weakened it strikes me they will not be in a strong positiion to resist.
It's like our Saturday morning visitors did a podcast spinoff series.
Even GB News would be embarrassed by such garbage.
I've just been reading what I can find. The facts are
1. The US is proposing a peace deal which is completely unacceptable to Ukraine 2. Zelenski's popularity because of the corruption scandal is down to 20% (ref Newsnight) 3. The pressure for him to accept a deal brokered by Trump will be extreme because of 1+2
I'm not sure what Tucker Carlson or Netanyahu has to do with anything?
The Ukrainian public are angry at Zelensky because of the corruption scandal, but there would be a revolution and he would be forced out of office if he surrendered to Russia. So (2) does not increase the pressure on him to accept the surrender deal.
Far too little attention is paid to the fact that without China, Russia would not be able to continue fighting the war as they are. On Trump's watch they have upped their level of support.
China is officially neutral on the Russia-Ukraine war and officially wants a peace deal, unlike N Korea which has sent troops to help Russia. China just has not cut economic ties with Russia
That's nonsense.
Firstly why do you assume that China's official position is the same as their actual one? Do you take them at their word? They have been providing all kinds of essential military technology. No-one seems to dispute that.
China has been doing very little for Russia and has even reduced oil purchases, on which it was getting a discount and using a pipeline built at Russia's expense. You might be thinking of Iran or North Korea which have provided drones and their designs, and soldiers.
China provide all the components for lots of the latest drones that Russia is making. They have increased their tangible support to Russia a lot this year.
"Polling group More in Common has identified a new, distinct voting group called "the disillusioned men," which it says represents a growing dissatisfaction with politics in large parts of the country.
The organisation's research points to a group of men who feel increasingly hopeless, disappointed, and that the "dream of a decent life and opportunity to provide for their families seems out of reach".
It comes on International Men's Day, and coincides with the government's own announcement of a tailored health strategy addressing some of the key concerns affecting men.
But what makes a "disillusioned man," and what does this group tell us about the direction of travel in UK politics?"
Are these the snowflakes/woke that everyone was going on about a couple of years ago? And have been given a new name?
The “Disillusioned Men” are those keeping Farage top of the polling in the UK, and who elected Trump again in the US. There’s sharp differences in polling between men and women.
They’re reacting sharply to the “Woke” movement of the past few years, which portrayed men, especially white men, as inherently bad people, to the cost of living which has made housebuying unaffordable for many on average salaries, and to the “dating” environment which sees many of them single into their thirties.
Hardly. From that ITV article,
Much discussion on men's desire for radical change often centres on younger generations and their vulnerability at the hands of an increasingly extreme manosphere.
Contrary to this, the More in Common data suggests the most disillusioned in society actually fall within the 35-54 age group, with Gen Z being the least affected...
Executive Director of More in Common UK, Luke Tryl, said: “The men most disillusioned with politics aren't primarily concerned with the cultural issues that dominate online debates - they want action on bread and butter concerns like the cost of living.
See also the observation that Moneysaving Martin Lewis is the best idea for their leader. It's the affordability. In the end, that's mostly housing and energy, which are the price we are now paying for decades of deliberate inaction and cheapskatedom.
Yes, and this fits the 5 tribes of Reform voters described the other day. A lot were not primarily driven by immigration or other cultural issues, more a frustration over bread and butter issues and the perceived failures of the other parties tackle them.
It was said of Labour a couple of years back that their support was a mile wide and an inch deep. I think that is true of Reform support now. Farage's honeymoon in office will be very short.
The usual game for the populist right is to make a big fuss about cultural issues and a few big gestures on cost of living, whilst quietly making the bread and butter things worse.
The theory is that if you distract the plebs, they won't notice the millions being siphoned off at the very top. It tends not to work sufficiently, since the plebs aren't that stupid. So then we move on to managed democracy.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
They won’t because we have nukes.
Russia has nukes and they haven't used them in response to Ukraine firing cruise missiles at them.
And it was you who posited a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. What did you think that would entail?
Russia hasn't fired nukes because there is a serious risk the nukes don't work....
Is that a realistic assessment, or is that more along the lines of, "hur hur, those dumb Russians."
The Russians have definitely had issues with rocket development in recent years, but during the last few years we've seen them make traps developments with drones, they've modified their ballistic missiles to evade Patriots, etc, I don't see any evidence to suggest that they're incapable of maintaining their existing nuclear weapons or delivery systems.
It is a realistic question to ask because an essential ingredient of those nuclear weapons is tritium, which is used as part of the ignition process. Tritium is extremely valuable, and lots of it has turned up on the black market.
There's a high likelihood that it's come from Russian nuclear weapons.
Tritium has a relatively short shelf-life. This means you need a steady supply of Tritium to refuel your nuclear weapons.
If there's Russian tritium on the black market that's a sign that they're producing fresh Tritium to renew their nuclear weapons. Sure, Russia is massively corrupt and so some of the fresh Tritium is being sold on the black market, so they likely have fewer usable nukes than they would have without corruption. But even if most of the Tritium is skimmed off they'll still have plenty of usable nukes.
If there was no Russian tritium on the black market I'd be more doubtful about whether their nukes were usable, as it would be a sign that for some reason they didn't have access to fresh Tritium, and you have to replace the Tritium pretty often - it doesn't take many years for enough of it to decay to make the nuke fizzle.
The black market was 20-30 years ago, with a lot of dodgy ex-Soviet military stuff finding its way into some interesting and unusual places.
It’s been thought for at least a couple of decades in Western intelligence circles that Russia might actually struggle to launch nukes in practice, with a lot of the infrastructure around the known nuclear sites in poor condition and rampant corruption among those charged with keeping the ultimate threat active. A failure will still trigger the same reaction from the rest of the world as a success, because it will be clear that the intent was there.
"Polling group More in Common has identified a new, distinct voting group called "the disillusioned men," which it says represents a growing dissatisfaction with politics in large parts of the country.
The organisation's research points to a group of men who feel increasingly hopeless, disappointed, and that the "dream of a decent life and opportunity to provide for their families seems out of reach".
It comes on International Men's Day, and coincides with the government's own announcement of a tailored health strategy addressing some of the key concerns affecting men.
But what makes a "disillusioned man," and what does this group tell us about the direction of travel in UK politics?"
Are these the snowflakes/woke that everyone was going on about a couple of years ago? And have been given a new name?
The “Disillusioned Men” are those keeping Farage top of the polling in the UK, and who elected Trump again in the US. There’s sharp differences in polling between men and women.
They’re reacting sharply to the “Woke” movement of the past few years, which portrayed men, especially white men, as inherently bad people, to the cost of living which has made housebuying unaffordable for many on average salaries, and to the “dating” environment which sees many of them single into their thirties.
Hardly. From that ITV article,
Much discussion on men's desire for radical change often centres on younger generations and their vulnerability at the hands of an increasingly extreme manosphere.
Contrary to this, the More in Common data suggests the most disillusioned in society actually fall within the 35-54 age group, with Gen Z being the least affected...
Executive Director of More in Common UK, Luke Tryl, said: “The men most disillusioned with politics aren't primarily concerned with the cultural issues that dominate online debates - they want action on bread and butter concerns like the cost of living.
See also the observation that Moneysaving Martin Lewis is the best idea for their leader. It's the affordability. In the end, that's mostly housing and energy, which are the price we are now paying for decades of deliberate inaction and cheapskatedom.
In times gone by, at age range 35-54, most people would (insofar as it is what they want) have expected to be established in some sort of career or at least stable employment, established on the housing market, and established with a family. It’s no surprise that, for those that now aren’t, for a mix of mostly but not entirely economic reasons, achieving this, there is growing disillusion.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
They won’t because we have nukes.
Russia has nukes and they haven't used them in response to Ukraine firing cruise missiles at them.
And it was you who posited a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. What did you think that would entail?
Russia hasn't fired nukes because there is a serious risk the nukes don't work....
Is that a realistic assessment, or is that more along the lines of, "hur hur, those dumb Russians."
The Russians have definitely had issues with rocket development in recent years, but during the last few years we've seen them make traps developments with drones, they've modified their ballistic missiles to evade Patriots, etc, I don't see any evidence to suggest that they're incapable of maintaining their existing nuclear weapons or delivery systems.
It is a realistic question to ask because an essential ingredient of those nuclear weapons is tritium, which is used as part of the ignition process. Tritium is extremely valuable, and lots of it has turned up on the black market.
There's a high likelihood that it's come from Russian nuclear weapons.
Tritium has a relatively short shelf-life. This means you need a steady supply of Tritium to refuel your nuclear weapons.
If there's Russian tritium on the black market that's a sign that they're producing fresh Tritium to renew their nuclear weapons. Sure, Russia is massively corrupt and so some of the fresh Tritium is being sold on the black market, so they likely have fewer usable nukes than they would have without corruption. But even if most of the Tritium is skimmed off they'll still have plenty of usable nukes.
If there was no Russian tritium on the black market I'd be more doubtful about whether their nukes were usable, as it would be a sign that for some reason they didn't have access to fresh Tritium, and you have to replace the Tritium pretty often - it doesn't take many years for enough of it to decay to make the nuke fizzle.
The black market was 20-30 years ago, with a lot of dodgy ex-Soviet military stuff finding its way into some interesting and unusual places.
It’s been thought for at least a couple of decades in Western intelligence circles that Russia might actually struggle to launch nukes in practice, with a lot of the infrastructure around the known nuclear sites in poor condition and rampant corruption among those charged with keeping the ultimate threat active. A failure will still trigger the same reaction from the rest of the world as a success, because it will be clear that the intent was there.
Russian analysts put down the failed 2022 SMO down to the issue of dodgy Chinese supplies throughout the Russian Army equipment. That corruption was based on the idea that no-one would be using the stuff so high price/poor quality stuff was supplied by the Chinese. Whether that practice has been totally removed from the China/Russian supply chains can only be judged by what is happening now.
"Polling group More in Common has identified a new, distinct voting group called "the disillusioned men," which it says represents a growing dissatisfaction with politics in large parts of the country.
The organisation's research points to a group of men who feel increasingly hopeless, disappointed, and that the "dream of a decent life and opportunity to provide for their families seems out of reach".
It comes on International Men's Day, and coincides with the government's own announcement of a tailored health strategy addressing some of the key concerns affecting men.
But what makes a "disillusioned man," and what does this group tell us about the direction of travel in UK politics?"
Are these the snowflakes/woke that everyone was going on about a couple of years ago? And have been given a new name?
The “Disillusioned Men” are those keeping Farage top of the polling in the UK, and who elected Trump again in the US. There’s sharp differences in polling between men and women.
They’re reacting sharply to the “Woke” movement of the past few years, which portrayed men, especially white men, as inherently bad people, to the cost of living which has made housebuying unaffordable for many on average salaries, and to the “dating” environment which sees many of them single into their thirties.
Hardly. From that ITV article,
Much discussion on men's desire for radical change often centres on younger generations and their vulnerability at the hands of an increasingly extreme manosphere.
Contrary to this, the More in Common data suggests the most disillusioned in society actually fall within the 35-54 age group, with Gen Z being the least affected...
Executive Director of More in Common UK, Luke Tryl, said: “The men most disillusioned with politics aren't primarily concerned with the cultural issues that dominate online debates - they want action on bread and butter concerns like the cost of living.
See also the observation that Moneysaving Martin Lewis is the best idea for their leader. It's the affordability. In the end, that's mostly housing and energy, which are the price we are now paying for decades of deliberate inaction and cheapskatedom.
Yes, and this fits the 5 tribes of Reform voters described the other day. A lot were not primarily driven by immigration or other cultural issues, more a frustration over bread and butter issues and the perceived failures of the other parties tackle them.
It was said of Labour a couple of years back that their support was a mile wide and an inch deep. I think that is true of Reform support now. Farage's honeymoon in office will be very short.
Which won't matter if that support votes for Reform in an election.
"Polling group More in Common has identified a new, distinct voting group called "the disillusioned men," which it says represents a growing dissatisfaction with politics in large parts of the country.
The organisation's research points to a group of men who feel increasingly hopeless, disappointed, and that the "dream of a decent life and opportunity to provide for their families seems out of reach".
It comes on International Men's Day, and coincides with the government's own announcement of a tailored health strategy addressing some of the key concerns affecting men.
But what makes a "disillusioned man," and what does this group tell us about the direction of travel in UK politics?"
Are these the snowflakes/woke that everyone was going on about a couple of years ago? And have been given a new name?
The “Disillusioned Men” are those keeping Farage top of the polling in the UK, and who elected Trump again in the US. There’s sharp differences in polling between men and women.
They’re reacting sharply to the “Woke” movement of the past few years, which portrayed men, especially white men, as inherently bad people, to the cost of living which has made housebuying unaffordable for many on average salaries, and to the “dating” environment which sees many of them single into their thirties.
Hardly. From that ITV article,
Much discussion on men's desire for radical change often centres on younger generations and their vulnerability at the hands of an increasingly extreme manosphere.
Contrary to this, the More in Common data suggests the most disillusioned in society actually fall within the 35-54 age group, with Gen Z being the least affected...
Executive Director of More in Common UK, Luke Tryl, said: “The men most disillusioned with politics aren't primarily concerned with the cultural issues that dominate online debates - they want action on bread and butter concerns like the cost of living.
See also the observation that Moneysaving Martin Lewis is the best idea for their leader. It's the affordability. In the end, that's mostly housing and energy, which are the price we are now paying for decades of deliberate inaction and cheapskatedom.
In times gone by, at age range 35-54, most people would (insofar as it is what they want) have expected to be established in some sort of career or at least stable employment, established on the housing market, and established with a family. It’s no surprise that, for those that now aren’t, for a mix of mostly but not entirely economic reasons, achieving this, there is growing disillusion.
Going back about 50-60 years, most people would be renting and happy to rent. Then Thatcher came in with the idea that there should be a property owning democracy but failed to account for the lack of land supply. So it's all Thatcher's fault. ;-)
"Polling group More in Common has identified a new, distinct voting group called "the disillusioned men," which it says represents a growing dissatisfaction with politics in large parts of the country.
The organisation's research points to a group of men who feel increasingly hopeless, disappointed, and that the "dream of a decent life and opportunity to provide for their families seems out of reach".
It comes on International Men's Day, and coincides with the government's own announcement of a tailored health strategy addressing some of the key concerns affecting men.
But what makes a "disillusioned man," and what does this group tell us about the direction of travel in UK politics?"
Are these the snowflakes/woke that everyone was going on about a couple of years ago? And have been given a new name?
The “Disillusioned Men” are those keeping Farage top of the polling in the UK, and who elected Trump again in the US. There’s sharp differences in polling between men and women.
They’re reacting sharply to the “Woke” movement of the past few years, which portrayed men, especially white men, as inherently bad people, to the cost of living which has made housebuying unaffordable for many on average salaries, and to the “dating” environment which sees many of them single into their thirties.
Hardly. From that ITV article,
Much discussion on men's desire for radical change often centres on younger generations and their vulnerability at the hands of an increasingly extreme manosphere.
Contrary to this, the More in Common data suggests the most disillusioned in society actually fall within the 35-54 age group, with Gen Z being the least affected...
Executive Director of More in Common UK, Luke Tryl, said: “The men most disillusioned with politics aren't primarily concerned with the cultural issues that dominate online debates - they want action on bread and butter concerns like the cost of living.
See also the observation that Moneysaving Martin Lewis is the best idea for their leader. It's the affordability. In the end, that's mostly housing and energy, which are the price we are now paying for decades of deliberate inaction and cheapskatedom.
In times gone by, at age range 35-54, most people would (insofar as it is what they want) have expected to be established in some sort of career or at least stable employment, established on the housing market, and established with a family. It’s no surprise that, for those that now aren’t, for a mix of mostly but not entirely economic reasons, achieving this, there is growing disillusion.
Going back about 50-60 years, most people would be renting and happy to rent. Then Thatcher came in with the idea that there should be a property owning democracy but failed to account for the lack of land supply. So it's all Thatcher's fault. ;-)
Longer than that, I think, and back when social renting provided nearly 20% of housing, having a secure council flat or house fulfilled the same role of providing housing security for many working people. So by “housing market” I should really have said “housing security” (with the closely associated financial security) which is the element that has disappeared with so many people stuck in expensive, insecure and often low quality private rentals.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
They won’t because we have nukes.
Russia has nukes and they haven't used them in response to Ukraine firing cruise missiles at them.
And it was you who posited a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. What did you think that would entail?
Russia hasn't fired nukes because there is a serious risk the nukes don't work....
Is that a realistic assessment, or is that more along the lines of, "hur hur, those dumb Russians."
The Russians have definitely had issues with rocket development in recent years, but during the last few years we've seen them make traps developments with drones, they've modified their ballistic missiles to evade Patriots, etc, I don't see any evidence to suggest that they're incapable of maintaining their existing nuclear weapons or delivery systems.
It is a realistic question to ask because an essential ingredient of those nuclear weapons is tritium, which is used as part of the ignition process. Tritium is extremely valuable, and lots of it has turned up on the black market.
There's a high likelihood that it's come from Russian nuclear weapons.
Tritium has a relatively short shelf-life. This means you need a steady supply of Tritium to refuel your nuclear weapons.
If there's Russian tritium on the black market that's a sign that they're producing fresh Tritium to renew their nuclear weapons. Sure, Russia is massively corrupt and so some of the fresh Tritium is being sold on the black market, so they likely have fewer usable nukes than they would have without corruption. But even if most of the Tritium is skimmed off they'll still have plenty of usable nukes.
If there was no Russian tritium on the black market I'd be more doubtful about whether their nukes were usable, as it would be a sign that for some reason they didn't have access to fresh Tritium, and you have to replace the Tritium pretty often - it doesn't take many years for enough of it to decay to make the nuke fizzle.
The black market was 20-30 years ago, with a lot of dodgy ex-Soviet military stuff finding its way into some interesting and unusual places.
It’s been thought for at least a couple of decades in Western intelligence circles that Russia might actually struggle to launch nukes in practice, with a lot of the infrastructure around the known nuclear sites in poor condition and rampant corruption among those charged with keeping the ultimate threat active. A failure will still trigger the same reaction from the rest of the world as a success, because it will be clear that the intent was there.
Russian analysts put down the failed 2022 SMO down to the issue of dodgy Chinese supplies throughout the Russian Army equipment. That corruption was based on the idea that no-one would be using the stuff so high price/poor quality stuff was supplied by the Chinese. Whether that practice has been totally removed from the China/Russian supply chains can only be judged by what is happening now.
The Russian military supply chains have been terrible for decades, with everyone involved taking their cut until almost nothing serviceable gets delivered. They all think that the kit will never need to be fielded, so you have an order for 100 planes that results in 20 or 30 planes actually on the flight line, but they only ever need to use 4 or 6 at once for keeping the pilots current even though Putin thinks he has 100 available.
Oh, and the pilots aren’t current, because the fuel supplier has been filling the tanks with regular unleaded that everyone on the base uses to run their cars, their wives’ cars, their brothers’ cars..
"Polling group More in Common has identified a new, distinct voting group called "the disillusioned men," which it says represents a growing dissatisfaction with politics in large parts of the country.
The organisation's research points to a group of men who feel increasingly hopeless, disappointed, and that the "dream of a decent life and opportunity to provide for their families seems out of reach".
It comes on International Men's Day, and coincides with the government's own announcement of a tailored health strategy addressing some of the key concerns affecting men.
But what makes a "disillusioned man," and what does this group tell us about the direction of travel in UK politics?"
Are these the snowflakes/woke that everyone was going on about a couple of years ago? And have been given a new name?
The “Disillusioned Men” are those keeping Farage top of the polling in the UK, and who elected Trump again in the US. There’s sharp differences in polling between men and women.
They’re reacting sharply to the “Woke” movement of the past few years, which portrayed men, especially white men, as inherently bad people, to the cost of living which has made housebuying unaffordable for many on average salaries, and to the “dating” environment which sees many of them single into their thirties.
Hardly. From that ITV article,
Much discussion on men's desire for radical change often centres on younger generations and their vulnerability at the hands of an increasingly extreme manosphere.
Contrary to this, the More in Common data suggests the most disillusioned in society actually fall within the 35-54 age group, with Gen Z being the least affected...
Executive Director of More in Common UK, Luke Tryl, said: “The men most disillusioned with politics aren't primarily concerned with the cultural issues that dominate online debates - they want action on bread and butter concerns like the cost of living.
See also the observation that Moneysaving Martin Lewis is the best idea for their leader. It's the affordability. In the end, that's mostly housing and energy, which are the price we are now paying for decades of deliberate inaction and cheapskatedom.
In times gone by, at age range 35-54, most people would (insofar as it is what they want) have expected to be established in some sort of career or at least stable employment, established on the housing market, and established with a family. It’s no surprise that, for those that now aren’t, for a mix of mostly but not entirely economic reasons, achieving this, there is growing disillusion.
Going back about 50-60 years, most people would be renting and happy to rent. Then Thatcher came in with the idea that there should be a property owning democracy but failed to account for the lack of land supply. So it's all Thatcher's fault. ;-)
Rented from a council who sought to house their residents was rather easier (cheaper, long term, secure) than renting from a private landlord seeking to maximise profits.
"Polling group More in Common has identified a new, distinct voting group called "the disillusioned men," which it says represents a growing dissatisfaction with politics in large parts of the country.
The organisation's research points to a group of men who feel increasingly hopeless, disappointed, and that the "dream of a decent life and opportunity to provide for their families seems out of reach".
It comes on International Men's Day, and coincides with the government's own announcement of a tailored health strategy addressing some of the key concerns affecting men.
But what makes a "disillusioned man," and what does this group tell us about the direction of travel in UK politics?"
Are these the snowflakes/woke that everyone was going on about a couple of years ago? And have been given a new name?
The “Disillusioned Men” are those keeping Farage top of the polling in the UK, and who elected Trump again in the US. There’s sharp differences in polling between men and women.
They’re reacting sharply to the “Woke” movement of the past few years, which portrayed men, especially white men, as inherently bad people, to the cost of living which has made housebuying unaffordable for many on average salaries, and to the “dating” environment which sees many of them single into their thirties.
Hardly. From that ITV article,
Much discussion on men's desire for radical change often centres on younger generations and their vulnerability at the hands of an increasingly extreme manosphere.
Contrary to this, the More in Common data suggests the most disillusioned in society actually fall within the 35-54 age group, with Gen Z being the least affected...
Executive Director of More in Common UK, Luke Tryl, said: “The men most disillusioned with politics aren't primarily concerned with the cultural issues that dominate online debates - they want action on bread and butter concerns like the cost of living.
See also the observation that Moneysaving Martin Lewis is the best idea for their leader. It's the affordability. In the end, that's mostly housing and energy, which are the price we are now paying for decades of deliberate inaction and cheapskatedom.
In times gone by, at age range 35-54, most people would (insofar as it is what they want) have expected to be established in some sort of career or at least stable employment, established on the housing market, and established with a family. It’s no surprise that, for those that now aren’t, for a mix of mostly but not entirely economic reasons, achieving this, there is growing disillusion.
Going back about 50-60 years, most people would be renting and happy to rent. Then Thatcher came in with the idea that there should be a property owning democracy but failed to account for the lack of land supply. So it's all Thatcher's fault. ;-)
Back then your rent would be to the council at a sensible rate. These days your rent is often to some spivvy operator and its for £bonkers...
"Polling group More in Common has identified a new, distinct voting group called "the disillusioned men," which it says represents a growing dissatisfaction with politics in large parts of the country.
The organisation's research points to a group of men who feel increasingly hopeless, disappointed, and that the "dream of a decent life and opportunity to provide for their families seems out of reach".
It comes on International Men's Day, and coincides with the government's own announcement of a tailored health strategy addressing some of the key concerns affecting men.
But what makes a "disillusioned man," and what does this group tell us about the direction of travel in UK politics?"
Are these the snowflakes/woke that everyone was going on about a couple of years ago? And have been given a new name?
The “Disillusioned Men” are those keeping Farage top of the polling in the UK, and who elected Trump again in the US. There’s sharp differences in polling between men and women.
They’re reacting sharply to the “Woke” movement of the past few years, which portrayed men, especially white men, as inherently bad people, to the cost of living which has made housebuying unaffordable for many on average salaries, and to the “dating” environment which sees many of them single into their thirties.
Hardly. From that ITV article,
Much discussion on men's desire for radical change often centres on younger generations and their vulnerability at the hands of an increasingly extreme manosphere.
Contrary to this, the More in Common data suggests the most disillusioned in society actually fall within the 35-54 age group, with Gen Z being the least affected...
Executive Director of More in Common UK, Luke Tryl, said: “The men most disillusioned with politics aren't primarily concerned with the cultural issues that dominate online debates - they want action on bread and butter concerns like the cost of living.
See also the observation that Moneysaving Martin Lewis is the best idea for their leader. It's the affordability. In the end, that's mostly housing and energy, which are the price we are now paying for decades of deliberate inaction and cheapskatedom.
In times gone by, at age range 35-54, most people would (insofar as it is what they want) have expected to be established in some sort of career or at least stable employment, established on the housing market, and established with a family. It’s no surprise that, for those that now aren’t, for a mix of mostly but not entirely economic reasons, achieving this, there is growing disillusion.
Going back about 50-60 years, most people would be renting and happy to rent. Then Thatcher came in with the idea that there should be a property owning democracy but failed to account for the lack of land supply. So it's all Thatcher's fault. ;-)
"Polling group More in Common has identified a new, distinct voting group called "the disillusioned men," which it says represents a growing dissatisfaction with politics in large parts of the country.
The organisation's research points to a group of men who feel increasingly hopeless, disappointed, and that the "dream of a decent life and opportunity to provide for their families seems out of reach".
It comes on International Men's Day, and coincides with the government's own announcement of a tailored health strategy addressing some of the key concerns affecting men.
But what makes a "disillusioned man," and what does this group tell us about the direction of travel in UK politics?"
Are these the snowflakes/woke that everyone was going on about a couple of years ago? And have been given a new name?
The “Disillusioned Men” are those keeping Farage top of the polling in the UK, and who elected Trump again in the US. There’s sharp differences in polling between men and women.
They’re reacting sharply to the “Woke” movement of the past few years, which portrayed men, especially white men, as inherently bad people, to the cost of living which has made housebuying unaffordable for many on average salaries, and to the “dating” environment which sees many of them single into their thirties.
Hardly. From that ITV article,
Much discussion on men's desire for radical change often centres on younger generations and their vulnerability at the hands of an increasingly extreme manosphere.
Contrary to this, the More in Common data suggests the most disillusioned in society actually fall within the 35-54 age group, with Gen Z being the least affected...
Executive Director of More in Common UK, Luke Tryl, said: “The men most disillusioned with politics aren't primarily concerned with the cultural issues that dominate online debates - they want action on bread and butter concerns like the cost of living.
See also the observation that Moneysaving Martin Lewis is the best idea for their leader. It's the affordability. In the end, that's mostly housing and energy, which are the price we are now paying for decades of deliberate inaction and cheapskatedom.
In times gone by, at age range 35-54, most people would (insofar as it is what they want) have expected to be established in some sort of career or at least stable employment, established on the housing market, and established with a family. It’s no surprise that, for those that now aren’t, for a mix of mostly but not entirely economic reasons, achieving this, there is growing disillusion.
It’s understandable of young people cannot get a foothold on the property ladder, a stake in society, to look at alternatives to the three main parties who failed them.
"Polling group More in Common has identified a new, distinct voting group called "the disillusioned men," which it says represents a growing dissatisfaction with politics in large parts of the country.
The organisation's research points to a group of men who feel increasingly hopeless, disappointed, and that the "dream of a decent life and opportunity to provide for their families seems out of reach".
It comes on International Men's Day, and coincides with the government's own announcement of a tailored health strategy addressing some of the key concerns affecting men.
But what makes a "disillusioned man," and what does this group tell us about the direction of travel in UK politics?"
Are these the snowflakes/woke that everyone was going on about a couple of years ago? And have been given a new name?
The “Disillusioned Men” are those keeping Farage top of the polling in the UK, and who elected Trump again in the US. There’s sharp differences in polling between men and women.
They’re reacting sharply to the “Woke” movement of the past few years, which portrayed men, especially white men, as inherently bad people, to the cost of living which has made housebuying unaffordable for many on average salaries, and to the “dating” environment which sees many of them single into their thirties.
Hardly. From that ITV article,
Much discussion on men's desire for radical change often centres on younger generations and their vulnerability at the hands of an increasingly extreme manosphere.
Contrary to this, the More in Common data suggests the most disillusioned in society actually fall within the 35-54 age group, with Gen Z being the least affected...
Executive Director of More in Common UK, Luke Tryl, said: “The men most disillusioned with politics aren't primarily concerned with the cultural issues that dominate online debates - they want action on bread and butter concerns like the cost of living.
See also the observation that Moneysaving Martin Lewis is the best idea for their leader. It's the affordability. In the end, that's mostly housing and energy, which are the price we are now paying for decades of deliberate inaction and cheapskatedom.
In times gone by, at age range 35-54, most people would (insofar as it is what they want) have expected to be established in some sort of career or at least stable employment, established on the housing market, and established with a family. It’s no surprise that, for those that now aren’t, for a mix of mostly but not entirely economic reasons, achieving this, there is growing disillusion.
Going back about 50-60 years, most people would be renting and happy to rent. Then Thatcher came in with the idea that there should be a property owning democracy but failed to account for the lack of land supply. So it's all Thatcher's fault. ;-)
Nope
BTL received a huge boost from the financial crisis, with QE pushing up the prices of assets and near-zero interest rates crushing the attrativeness of financial investments. But the increase in private renting appears to have begun a few years earlier?
"Polling group More in Common has identified a new, distinct voting group called "the disillusioned men," which it says represents a growing dissatisfaction with politics in large parts of the country.
The organisation's research points to a group of men who feel increasingly hopeless, disappointed, and that the "dream of a decent life and opportunity to provide for their families seems out of reach".
It comes on International Men's Day, and coincides with the government's own announcement of a tailored health strategy addressing some of the key concerns affecting men.
But what makes a "disillusioned man," and what does this group tell us about the direction of travel in UK politics?"
Are these the snowflakes/woke that everyone was going on about a couple of years ago? And have been given a new name?
The “Disillusioned Men” are those keeping Farage top of the polling in the UK, and who elected Trump again in the US. There’s sharp differences in polling between men and women.
They’re reacting sharply to the “Woke” movement of the past few years, which portrayed men, especially white men, as inherently bad people, to the cost of living which has made housebuying unaffordable for many on average salaries, and to the “dating” environment which sees many of them single into their thirties.
Hardly. From that ITV article,
Much discussion on men's desire for radical change often centres on younger generations and their vulnerability at the hands of an increasingly extreme manosphere.
Contrary to this, the More in Common data suggests the most disillusioned in society actually fall within the 35-54 age group, with Gen Z being the least affected...
Executive Director of More in Common UK, Luke Tryl, said: “The men most disillusioned with politics aren't primarily concerned with the cultural issues that dominate online debates - they want action on bread and butter concerns like the cost of living.
See also the observation that Moneysaving Martin Lewis is the best idea for their leader. It's the affordability. In the end, that's mostly housing and energy, which are the price we are now paying for decades of deliberate inaction and cheapskatedom.
In times gone by, at age range 35-54, most people would (insofar as it is what they want) have expected to be established in some sort of career or at least stable employment, established on the housing market, and established with a family. It’s no surprise that, for those that now aren’t, for a mix of mostly but not entirely economic reasons, achieving this, there is growing disillusion.
Going back about 50-60 years, most people would be renting and happy to rent. Then Thatcher came in with the idea that there should be a property owning democracy but failed to account for the lack of land supply. So it's all Thatcher's fault. ;-)
Nope
BTL received a huge boost from the financial crisis, with QE pushing up the prices of assets and near-zero interest rates crushing the attrativeness of financial investments. But the increase in private renting appears to have begun a few years earlier?
Another factor is the rise of second homes and holiday homes enabled by interest rates being on the floor, taking hundreds of thousands of potential homes off the market and driving up costs for everyone.
Comments
And the bit that is being plucked from there is the statistic that only 25% of Ukrainians want Zelenskky to remain President after the war.
But his approval rating as a wartime leader is somewhat diffferent: it's 60% trust him to lead Ukraine through the war, while 35% do not.
Remember the Lisa Kudrow character in “Death to 2020”?
Ending a complex and deadly war such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive exchange of serious and realistic ideas. And achieving a durable peace will require both sides to agree to difficult but necessary concessions. That is why we are and will continue to develop a list of potential ideas for ending this war based on input from both sides of this conflict.
https://x.com/marcorubio/status/1991297619964854460
https://www.itv.com/news/central/2025-11-18/reform-leader-of-warwickshire-county-council-bans-flags-ahead-of-christmas
https://x.com/euromaidanpress/status/1990814258100158753
But generally yes, thankfully the Chinese have remained more neutral than expected in this conflict.
The optimist in me says that Xi doesn’t want WWIII, the pessimist in me says he’s saving his army to fight for Taiwan.
Meanwhile, it appears that the NorKs have pretty much stopped shipping ammo to Russia in the last couple of months.
Latest Russian attempt at a “peace” plan looks about as acceptable to everyone else as their last attempt. Meanwhile 25 civilians in Turnopil, hundreds of km from the front lines, were killed yesterday when the Russians bombed a residential tower block.
https://x.com/tatarigami_ua/status/1991148149608456287?s=12
As we saw with the Dutch chip company Europe (including the UK) has put themselves in a very weak strategic position by created dependency on an aggressive rival
Under current pricing structures, large users don't get much discount, and pay considerably more for capacity charges.
What's proposed is effectively a subsidy.for the data centres.
Only one I can see is Ukraine gets to keep half its army rather that totally demilitarising.
Next!
Drip, drip, drip.....BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM.
One can understand that the US has to tread a little carefully around Russia, but yes both Biden and Trump admins could have been much more enthusiastic in their military support for Ukraine. Biden talked the talk about sending hundreds of billions in aid but actually sent a load of obsolete kit from storage, Trump talks about achieving peace and speaks to both sides, but behind the scenes there’s a lot of intelligence sharing that still goes on.
I think that European leaders need to make it clear to Trump that they will play their part in increasing defense spending if the US helps more than they have been, but also that US sales of military kit to Europe depends on the US themselves doing their bit to support NATO and the war effort. That isolationism works both ways.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/civil-nuclear-constabulary/about
They’re reacting sharply to the “Woke” movement of the past few years, which portrayed men, especially white men, as inherently bad people, to the cost of living which has made housebuying unaffordable for many on average salaries, and to the “dating” environment which sees many of them single into their thirties.
Much discussion on men's desire for radical change often centres on younger generations and their vulnerability at the hands of an increasingly extreme manosphere.
Contrary to this, the More in Common data suggests the most disillusioned in society actually fall within the 35-54 age group, with Gen Z being the least affected...
Executive Director of More in Common UK, Luke Tryl, said: “The men most disillusioned with politics aren't primarily concerned with the cultural issues that dominate online debates - they want action on bread and butter concerns like the cost of living.
See also the observation that Moneysaving Martin Lewis is the best idea for their leader. It's the affordability. In the end, that's mostly housing and energy, which are the price we are now paying for decades of deliberate inaction and cheapskatedom.
There was talk here a month or so ago he may be in trouble. He seems to be still clinging on to power.
Even non-racist, non-loopy populism is still populism.
It was said of Labour a couple of years back that their support was a mile wide and an inch deep. I think that is true of Reform support now. Farage's honeymoon in office will be very short.
If there's Russian tritium on the black market that's a sign that they're producing fresh Tritium to renew their nuclear weapons. Sure, Russia is massively corrupt and so some of the fresh Tritium is being sold on the black market, so they likely have fewer usable nukes than they would have without corruption. But even if most of the Tritium is skimmed off they'll still have plenty of usable nukes.
If there was no Russian tritium on the black market I'd be more doubtful about whether their nukes were usable, as it would be a sign that for some reason they didn't have access to fresh Tritium, and you have to replace the Tritium pretty often - it doesn't take many years for enough of it to decay to make the nuke fizzle.
The theory is that if you distract the plebs, they won't notice the millions being siphoned off at the very top. It tends not to work sufficiently, since the plebs aren't that stupid. So then we move on to managed democracy.
It’s been thought for at least a couple of decades in Western intelligence circles that Russia might actually struggle to launch nukes in practice, with a lot of the infrastructure around the known nuclear sites in poor condition and rampant corruption among those charged with keeping the ultimate threat active. A failure will still trigger the same reaction from the rest of the world as a success, because it will be clear that the intent was there.
Oh, and the pilots aren’t current, because the fuel supplier has been filling the tanks with regular unleaded that everyone on the base uses to run their cars, their wives’ cars, their brothers’ cars..
NEW THREAD