How could he make it any clearer he is mentally incompetent?
There was sufficient evidence of that during the 2024 campaign imo but it didn't cost him. Nor did the attempted insurrection, two impeachments, all the criminal indictments, ten years of deranged trash talking, pedo links, a rape judgement, "grab em by the pussy", openly racist sneering, mocking the disabled, unashamed corruption on an epic scale, subversion of democratic norms, and that's just off the top of my head. Apols for omissions. Point is, it hasn't stopped him and I guess he's feeling inviolate by now.
It's a question of those who have the power to remove him are feeling.
Indeed. Appears unlikely atm but it could happen. And the midterms might mitigate some of the worst excesses. Important not to mentally snuff out the bright side. The world has had worse. God he's a menace and a downer though.
I had been opposing Vance as the next Republican candidate. However I had a flash of insight and have backed out of that - happily at a miniscule profit. Trump might not make it and then Vance as president is almost certain for the nomination. (Tricky stuff US political betting, although the lovely Kamala overturned my lifetime losses into shiny profits)
Too modest. You will have made a more than miniscule profit opposing Vance given how he's drifted in recent weeks.
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
I voted for Nandy!
Almost all PB Labs did, I think. Go figure.
I voted for Sir Keir. Backed him when basically everyone called for him to go after Hartlepool too.
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
I voted for Nandy!
Almost all PB Labs did, I think. Go figure.
I voted for Sir Keir. Backed him when basically everyone called for him to go after Hartlepool too.
I voted for Nandy. Probably would have been equally shit in hindsight
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
Jenrick would have had the Tories on 25% easily and no defects to Reform.
Nandy is an excellent communicator, always good on programmes like QT, often not got the roles she deserves but I don't think she's leadership material.
Long Bailey, I cannot think of a single redeeming factor. Should have been turfed out ages ago with Burgon, Mccarthy, Abbot and a few others
And Starmer is?
He's shown excellent leadership on the international stage.
Played just about every hand spot on.
Read some of the classy stuff from Macron Carney Meloni and Sanchez. I'm afraid Starmer doesn't come close and his head is still three quarters of the way up Netanyahu's backside. Just listen to his ghastly Foreign Secretary
So when the last tanker gets here on April 9th or whatever it is, what happens then?
According to this chart (I can't post due to using up my picture allowance) the UK is in a relatively OK position apart from jet oil. So I guess air traffic will be curtailed.
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
Jenrick would have had the Tories on 25% easily and no defects to Reform.
Nandy is an excellent communicator, always good on programmes like QT, often not got the roles she deserves but I don't think she's leadership material.
Long Bailey, I cannot think of a single redeeming factor. Should have been turfed out ages ago with Burgon, Mccarthy, Abbot and a few others
And Starmer is?
He's shown excellent leadership on the international stage.
Played just about every hand spot on.
Read some of the classy stuff from Macron Carney Meloni and Sanchez. I'm afraid Starmer doesn't come close and his head is still three quarters of the way up Netanyahu's backside. Just listen to his ghastly Foreign Secretary
Spain come out of this the clear winners in the principles stakes for me.
Said no to Trump at the very start and stuck.to their guns.
Of course it won't save them from the shortages and the economic fallout sadly. Just a shame the rest of us didn't follow their lead and tell Trump and Netanyahu to go fuck themselves.
How could he make it any clearer he is mentally incompetent?
There was sufficient evidence of that during the 2024 campaign imo but it didn't cost him. Nor did the attempted insurrection, two impeachments, all the criminal indictments, ten years of deranged trash talking, pedo links, a rape judgement, "grab em by the pussy", openly racist sneering, mocking the disabled, unashamed corruption on an epic scale, subversion of democratic norms, and that's just off the top of my head. Apols for omissions. Point is, it hasn't stopped him and I guess he's feeling inviolate by now.
It's a question of those who have the power to remove him are feeling.
Indeed. Appears unlikely atm but it could happen. And the midterms might mitigate some of the worst excesses. Important not to mentally snuff out the bright side. The world has had worse. God he's a menace and a downer though.
I had been opposing Vance as the next Republican candidate. However I had a flash of insight and have backed out of that - happily at a miniscule profit. Trump might not make it and then Vance as president is almost certain for the nomination. (Tricky stuff US political betting, although the lovely Kamala overturned my lifetime losses into shiny profits)
Too modest. You will have made a more than miniscule profit opposing Vance given how he's drifted in recent weeks.
No the profit is tiny. I have an absolutely ghastly record on US bets (sans Harris) so I bet in peanuts. Cashews all round if I win of course.
(I win slightly on political betting. Generally Labour markets have been my best, and Tory markets the worst. Only France offers any great light in my overseas wagers)
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
I voted for Nandy!
I voted for Nandy too!
As I said, Lisa has many positive qualities
Her communication skills are excellent.
She actually answers questions
She's in the top 3 or 4 communicators in the Party.
I just don't think she could handle Party Leadership
She looks like a character from The Simpsons who is always about to start crying
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
Jenrick would have had the Tories on 25% easily and no defects to Reform.
Nandy is an excellent communicator, always good on programmes like QT, often not got the roles she deserves but I don't think she's leadership material.
Long Bailey, I cannot think of a single redeeming factor. Should have been turfed out ages ago with Burgon, Mccarthy, Abbot and a few others
And Starmer is?
He's shown excellent leadership on the international stage.
Played just about every hand spot on.
Absolutely not. He has been far too close to Trump from.the start and the one time he looked like making a stand against the Mango Mussolini he immediate bottled it.
I think several here have benefitted from Buildhub advice (I am a moderator there) at various times.
It is a volunteer run, community owned (Company Limited by Guarantee), self-build and renovation forum now with 23k members, which does not do adverts or sponsorships.
There is a donations drive currently, to top up an income received from tool loans (we have a library of things like anemometers that are posted around the country) and Octopus referrals. This is the first one for 3 years.
If you have benefitted (and it taught me much of what I know), then please consider a donation.
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
Jenrick would have had the Tories on 25% easily and no defects to Reform.
Nandy is an excellent communicator, always good on programmes like QT, often not got the roles she deserves but I don't think she's leadership material.
Long Bailey, I cannot think of a single redeeming factor. Should have been turfed out ages ago with Burgon, Mccarthy, Abbot and a few others
And Starmer is?
He's shown excellent leadership on the international stage.
Played just about every hand spot on.
Read some of the classy stuff from Macron Carney Meloni and Sanchez. I'm afraid Starmer doesn't come close and his head is still three quarters of the way up Netanyahu's backside. Just listen to his ghastly Foreign Secretary
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
Jenrick would have had the Tories on 25% easily and no defects to Reform.
Nandy is an excellent communicator, always good on programmes like QT, often not got the roles she deserves but I don't think she's leadership material.
Long Bailey, I cannot think of a single redeeming factor. Should have been turfed out ages ago with Burgon, Mccarthy, Abbot and a few others
And Starmer is?
He's shown excellent leadership on the international stage.
Played just about every hand spot on.
The Daily Mail, the Telegraph, Nick Ferrari, Tony Blair, Boris Johnson, Kemi Badenoch and GB News all say he flunked it catastrophically.
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
Jenrick would have had the Tories on 25% easily and no defects to Reform.
Nandy is an excellent communicator, always good on programmes like QT, often not got the roles she deserves but I don't think she's leadership material.
Long Bailey, I cannot think of a single redeeming factor. Should have been turfed out ages ago with Burgon, Mccarthy, Abbot and a few others
And Starmer is?
He's shown excellent leadership on the international stage.
Played just about every hand spot on.
Read some of the classy stuff from Macron Carney Meloni and Sanchez. I'm afraid Starmer doesn't come close and his head is still three quarters of the way up Netanyahu's backside. Just listen to his ghastly Foreign Secretary
Spain come out of this the clear winners in the principles stakes for me.
Said no to Trump at the very start and stuck.to their guns.
Of course it won't save them from the shortages and the economic fallout sadly. Just a shame the rest of us didn't follow their lead and tell Trump and Netanyahu to go fuck themselves.
I don't normally 'Like" posts with the 'f' word in them; not a word I usually use, but I agree with you. Had Europe been united in action, then I suspect it could have been quite difficult for Trump to actually carry out his threats.
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
Jenrick would have had the Tories on 25% easily and no defects to Reform.
Nandy is an excellent communicator, always good on programmes like QT, often not got the roles she deserves but I don't think she's leadership material.
Long Bailey, I cannot think of a single redeeming factor. Should have been turfed out ages ago with Burgon, Mccarthy, Abbot and a few others
And Starmer is?
He's shown excellent leadership on the international stage.
Played just about every hand spot on.
Absolutely not. He has been far too close to Trump from.the start and the one time he looked like making a stand against the Mango Mussolini he immediate bottled it.
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
Jenrick would have had the Tories on 25% easily and no defects to Reform.
Nandy is an excellent communicator, always good on programmes like QT, often not got the roles she deserves but I don't think she's leadership material.
Long Bailey, I cannot think of a single redeeming factor. Should have been turfed out ages ago with Burgon, Mccarthy, Abbot and a few others
And Starmer is?
He's shown excellent leadership on the international stage.
Played just about every hand spot on.
Read some of the classy stuff from Macron Carney Meloni and Sanchez. I'm afraid Starmer doesn't come close and his head is still three quarters of the way up Netanyahu's backside. Just listen to his ghastly Foreign Secretary
Spain come out of this the clear winners in the principles stakes for me.
Said no to Trump at the very start and stuck.to their guns.
Of course it won't save them from the shortages and the economic fallout sadly. Just a shame the rest of us didn't follow their lead and tell Trump and Netanyahu to go fuck themselves.
I don't normally 'Like" posts with the 'f' word in them; not a word I usually use, but I agree with you. Had Europe been united in action, then I suspect it could have been quite difficult for Trump to actually carry out his threats.
Apologies OKC. I will hear that in mind going forward and reserve it for specific use rather than casual.
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
Jenrick would have had the Tories on 25% easily and no defects to Reform.
Nandy is an excellent communicator, always good on programmes like QT, often not got the roles she deserves but I don't think she's leadership material.
Long Bailey, I cannot think of a single redeeming factor. Should have been turfed out ages ago with Burgon, Mccarthy, Abbot and a few others
And Starmer is?
He's shown excellent leadership on the international stage.
Played just about every hand spot on.
Absolutely not. He has been far too close to Trump from.the start and the one time he looked like making a stand against the Mango Mussolini he immediate bottled it.
1/ Your reckless moves are dragging the United States into a living HELL for every single family, and our whole region is going to burn because you insist on following Netanyahu’s commands.
Make no mistake: You won’t gain anything through war crimes.
2/ The only real solution is respecting the rights of the Iranian people and ending this dangerous game.
So when the last tanker gets here on April 9th or whatever it is, what happens then?
According to this chart (I can't post due to using up my picture allowance) the UK is in a relatively OK position apart from jet oil. So I guess air traffic will be curtailed.
So when the last tanker gets here on April 9th or whatever it is, what happens then?
According to this chart (I can't post due to using up my picture allowance) the UK is in a relatively OK position apart from jet oil. So I guess air traffic will be curtailed.
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
I voted for Nandy!
Almost all PB Labs did, I think. Go figure.
I voted for Sir Keir. Backed him when basically everyone called for him to go after Hartlepool too.
I voted for Nandy. Probably would have been equally shit in hindsight
Nandy would have been worse, I'm pretty certain. She's not even in the running now. On topic of the top 4 runners, Rayner, Streeting, Mahmood and Milliband, you can see Streeting - Mahmood being transferable but Milliband seems the most transferable/compromise candidate.
As next PM, Cleverly at 150 seems value. Badenoch ditched, revival of Cons with Cleverly as leader, Cons form next govt.
How the f*** many times a day is Ashcroft's non BPC poll going to posted this week?
Are you suggesting that he has done anything wrong in this poll? Are you suggesting that the reputable polling firms he works with have done anything g wrong?
AIUI the main issue is that he uses different pollster for each poll so you don’t have good longitudinal data. But there’s nothing wrong with the individual poll
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
Jenrick would have had the Tories on 25% easily and no defects to Reform.
Nandy is an excellent communicator, always good on programmes like QT, often not got the roles she deserves but I don't think she's leadership material.
Long Bailey, I cannot think of a single redeeming factor. Should have been turfed out ages ago with Burgon, Mccarthy, Abbot and a few others
And Starmer is?
He's shown excellent leadership on the international stage.
Played just about every hand spot on.
Absolutely not. He has been far too close to Trump from.the start and the one time he looked like making a stand against the Mango Mussolini he immediate bottled it.
For clobbering the practice dummy you earn 0 XP.
I genuinely don't understand that reply.
Oh, in games you get 'experience' for killing monsters and the like. The tougher the opponent the more credit. If you kill a rat - "+1 experience". And that all eventually adds up so you can become a new 'level'.
So when the last tanker gets here on April 9th or whatever it is, what happens then?
According to this chart (I can't post due to using up my picture allowance) the UK is in a relatively OK position apart from jet oil. So I guess air traffic will be curtailed.
Am I right in thinking Lisa Nandy is supposed to be Culture Secretary? I ask because as far as I can tell she's not done a single thing as part of her role.
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
Jenrick would have had the Tories on 25% easily and no defects to Reform.
Nandy is an excellent communicator, always good on programmes like QT, often not got the roles she deserves but I don't think she's leadership material.
Long Bailey, I cannot think of a single redeeming factor. Should have been turfed out ages ago with Burgon, Mccarthy, Abbot and a few others
And Starmer is?
He's shown excellent leadership on the international stage.
Played just about every hand spot on.
Absolutely not. He has been far too close to Trump from.the start and the one time he looked like making a stand against the Mango Mussolini he immediate bottled it.
I haven't much time for Starmer. When he won the GE I had high hopes, but he has been a dreadful disappointment, however in terms of the Iran war he has played a horrible hand as well as he could.
With some extreme whataboutery from me, we do know that Badenoch, Blair, Farage and Johnson would all have joined Bibi and Trump's misadventure. Davey probably comes closest to your view, but I suspect Starmer can't follow that route whilst he still has one eye on Ukraine. And No-NATO Zack is just a "student politics" f*****' idiot.
In fairness, Theresa May was still PM on that date. Boris did not become leader until 24 July 2019.
Yes, but it still shows how futile it is to over analyse polls at this stage. Anything can happen, yet we argue about hypothetical scenarios based on the polls and leaders being the same now as at a GE campaign
Am I right in thinking Lisa Nandy is supposed to be Culture Secretary? I ask because as far as I can tell she's not done a single thing as part of her role.
Not even masterly inactivity. Just inactivity.
I remember her handing out a trophy at the British GP last year.
In fairness, Theresa May was still PM on that date. Boris did not become leader until 24 July 2019.
It was also a rather brief moment.
The Tories had, inexplicably, maintained a lead into March despite being in complete paralysis, Labour were then in front for a couple of months into late May, we had the Euro elections then a few weeks of Brexit Part doing well, then it was back to Labour/Tory leads until Boris was elected and he was far ahead for the rest of the year.
In fairness, Theresa May was still PM on that date. Boris did not become leader until 24 July 2019.
Yes, but it still shows how futile it is to over analyse polls at this stage. Anything can happen, yet we argue about hypothetical scenarios based on the polls and leaders being the same now as at a GE campaign
Indeed. We are way too far out to make any solid predictions. Who predicted on 01/01/2025 that Green would be joint first in the polls or that Con and Lab would *both* be in the teens on average? It's a topsy-turvy time.
How the f*** many times a day is Ashcroft's non BPC poll going to posted this week?
Are you suggesting that he has done anything wrong in this poll? Are you suggesting that the reputable polling firms he works with have done anything g wrong?
AIUI the main issue is that he uses different pollster for each poll so you don’t have good longitudinal data. But there’s nothing wrong with the individual poll
Yes. For starters RefCon a touch over 40% seems incredibly low. Doesn't he exclude all DKs? Load of bollocks.
Am I right in thinking Lisa Nandy is supposed to be Culture Secretary? I ask because as far as I can tell she's not done a single thing as part of her role.
Not even masterly inactivity. Just inactivity.
I remember her handing out a trophy at the British GP last year.
But apart from that, nope.
Culture Secretary is not a prime gig for an ambitious minister.
It is a fun polling chart in fairness. LDs probably quite annoyed they've trended down whilst Pollers gets all the former Labour voters' pulses racing.
It is a fun polling chart in fairness. LDs probably quite annoyed they've trended down whilst Pollers gets all the former Labour voters' pulses racing.
Smells of Reform to Green switchers, in addition to the expected Labour to Green switchers, this graph. No way to prove it, of course.
Am I right in thinking Lisa Nandy is supposed to be Culture Secretary? I ask because as far as I can tell she's not done a single thing as part of her role.
Not even masterly inactivity. Just inactivity.
I remember her handing out a trophy at the British GP last year.
But apart from that, nope.
Culture Secretary is not a prime gig for an ambitious minister.
But you might expect someone aiming to be prime minister to want to talk about their track record. "In my two years as Culture Minister I have,....err, I have, umm ... "
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
I voted for Nandy!
Almost all PB Labs did, I think. Go figure.
I voted for Sir Keir. Backed him when basically everyone called for him to go after Hartlepool too.
I voted for Nandy. Probably would have been equally shit in hindsight
Nandy would have been worse, I'm pretty certain. She's not even in the running now. On topic of the top 4 runners, Rayner, Streeting, Mahmood and Milliband, you can see Streeting - Mahmood being transferable but Milliband seems the most transferable/compromise candidate.
As next PM, Cleverly at 150 seems value. Badenoch ditched, revival of Cons with Cleverly as leader, Cons form next govt.
I’m guessing the outpouring of support on here today for Nandy is due to an excessive outpouring of excess wine at lunch?
She’s basic. She’s not thick-thick but can you name a serious business or NGO where she would have the dynamism and experience of work and life to drive it forward?
Her plus points are that she’s not mad and used to be cute. That’s it.
If she is the answer to running the country we are utterly fucked in the calibre of politicians which we sort of have been but another low. Again, I don’t hate her but I cannot understand what anyone has seen in her that says “she will fix Britain”. Weird.
So when the last tanker gets here on April 9th or whatever it is, what happens then?
According to this chart (I can't post due to using up my picture allowance) the UK is in a relatively OK position apart from jet oil. So I guess air traffic will be curtailed.
I suspect its more likely that the government will try to subsidise air travel than tell people they cannot have their week in Lanzarote.
How do you subsidise the price of something that we don't have.
It's (complete) lack of supply that is the problem so the price is irrelevant...
Price is not irrelevant because if the price of air travel goes up enough then demand and thus the need for supply will fall. But because of that, subsidising prices for non-essential travel would make things worse not better, costing the taxpayer while doing nothing to address the supply issue. And what would the UK's tourism industry say if the UK prioritised subsidising their competitors abroad while offering them nothing?
PS. I write as someone who flew to the Canaries in January.
"The government is to break a manifesto commitment to ban foie gras imports, and has declined to stop fur imports, after the EU made these red lines in its discussions for a trade deal.
Animal welfare charities say they are “bitterly disappointed” that ministers are failing to use powers granted by Brexit to restrict the import of these “cruel” items."
(Given a phytosanitary deal was clearly going to involve this, why did they put it in the manifesto?)
"The government is to break a manifesto commitment to ban foie gras imports, and has declined to stop fur imports, after the EU made these red lines in its discussions for a trade deal.
Animal welfare charities say they are “bitterly disappointed” that ministers are failing to use powers granted by Brexit to restrict the import of these “cruel” items."
(Given a phytosanitary deal was clearly going to involve this, why did they put it in the manifesto?)
So when the last tanker gets here on April 9th or whatever it is, what happens then?
According to this chart (I can't post due to using up my picture allowance) the UK is in a relatively OK position apart from jet oil. So I guess air traffic will be curtailed.
I suspect its more likely that the government will try to subsidise air travel than tell people they cannot have their week in Lanzarote.
How do you subsidise the price of something that we don't have.
It's (complete) lack of supply that is the problem so the price is irrelevant...
Price is not irrelevant because if the price of air travel goes up enough then demand and thus the need for supply will fall. But because of that, subsidising prices for non-essential travel would make things worse not better, costing the taxpayer while doing nothing to address the supply issue. And what would the UK's tourism industry say if the UK prioritised subsidising their competitors abroad while offering them nothing?
PS. I write as someone who flew to the Canaries in January.
Just because something is stupid for a government to do doesn't mean a government will not do it if it thinks enough voters will want it.
We saw during covid that the UK government will allow air travel irrespective of the cost it might bring.
Not to mention that reduced air travel makes it far more difficult for government ministers and Sir Humphreys to have their own holidays in the sun.
"The government is to break a manifesto commitment to ban foie gras imports, and has declined to stop fur imports, after the EU made these red lines in its discussions for a trade deal.
Animal welfare charities say they are “bitterly disappointed” that ministers are failing to use powers granted by Brexit to restrict the import of these “cruel” items."
(Given a phytosanitary deal was clearly going to involve this, why did they put it in the manifesto?)
Paddington 1:12
(calling at all stations)
I appreciate it's Easter Day, but there are people of all religions and none here. Do we really need bible references?
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
I voted for Nandy!
Almost all PB Labs did, I think. Go figure.
I voted for Sir Keir. Backed him when basically everyone called for him to go after Hartlepool too.
Ah yes. Hartlepool. Boris peak, Keir trough. If any PB poster had said then, "Prediction: Starmer landslide majority at the next GE" there would have been calls for a ban. And Kemi was toast last year yet here she still is. All goes to show. It's why politics enchants and infuriates as a betting and discussion vehicle.
"The government is to break a manifesto commitment to ban foie gras imports, and has declined to stop fur imports, after the EU made these red lines in its discussions for a trade deal.
Animal welfare charities say they are “bitterly disappointed” that ministers are failing to use powers granted by Brexit to restrict the import of these “cruel” items."
(Given a phytosanitary deal was clearly going to involve this, why did they put it in the manifesto?)
Paddington 1:12
(calling at all stations)
I appreciate it's Easter Day, but there are people of all religions and none here. Do we really need bible references?
It's the 1:11 stopping service that gets them biblical.
It is a fun polling chart in fairness. LDs probably quite annoyed they've trended down whilst Pollers gets all the former Labour voters' pulses racing.
Smells of Reform to Green switchers, in addition to the expected Labour to Green switchers, this graph. No way to prove it, of course.
Reform to Green switchers are those who have moved from beer to spirits at the 'pissed off with the world, lets burn it all down' bar.
“Mahdi Tabatabaei, an aide at Iran’s President’s Office, says the Strait of Hormuz “will be reopened” when “a portion of transit tolls is used to compensate for all the damage caused” by the war.
Iranian officials and lawmakers have previously raised the possibility of imposing transit fees or tolls on vessels using the strait.”
Is this a softening of the Iranian position ? Or am I being overly optimistic?
"Boris Johnson’s Conservative government had plans to ban fur and foie gras imports, using “Brexit freedoms”, but shelved them after an outcry from Tory MPs who did not want their favourite fashions and delicacies banned."
Not quite sure the Guardian's characterisation here is entirely free of bias.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
Whatever his many faults. We are lucky we have Sir Keir to have stopped the UK from getting involved in the war
I think that this has more to do with the fact that £68bn a year apparently gives us 1 destroyer that is now deployed off Cyprus. We cannot get involved because we have not got any relevant capacity. This is something we need to do something about.
Indeed so.
The MoD needs to start looking at value for money, and not treat spending as the end goal.
As might have been said many times, wartime procurement looks very different to peacetime procurement.
Oh, and they need to find a way to stop retired generals turning up in the supply chain on the other side shortly afterwards.
Until about a month ago, there was a massive opportunity to invest in startup Ukranian companies at the cutting edge of modern warfare - but then Iran bombed the GCC States, and Mr Zelenskyy just came back from his tour of the Gulf with many billions in cheques at significantly higher valuations.
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
I voted for Nandy!
Almost all PB Labs did, I think. Go figure.
I voted for Sir Keir. Backed him when basically everyone called for him to go after Hartlepool too.
Ah yes. Hartlepool. Boris peak, Keir trough. If any PB poster had said then, "Prediction: Starmer landslide majority at the next GE" there would have been calls for a ban. And Kemi was toast last year yet here she still is. All goes to show. It's why politics enchants and infuriates as a betting and discussion vehicle.
Prime Minister David Cameron has branded the alternative vote (AV) system "undemocratic, obscure, unfair and crazy", ahead of May's referendum on changing the way MPs are elected to Westminster.
Speaking in Swansea, Mr Cameron said the vote was "hugely important" to Britain and went on to quote Sir Winston Churchill, who stood against the introduction of AV in 1931.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
There is something wrong with us, there really is...
Am I right in thinking Lisa Nandy is supposed to be Culture Secretary? I ask because as far as I can tell she's not done a single thing as part of her role.
Not even masterly inactivity. Just inactivity.
I remember her handing out a trophy at the British GP last year.
But apart from that, nope.
Culture Secretary is not a prime gig for an ambitious minister.
"Boris Johnson’s Conservative government had plans to ban fur and foie gras imports, using “Brexit freedoms”, but shelved them after an outcry from Tory MPs who did not want their favourite fashions and delicacies banned."
Not quite sure the Guardian's characterisation here is entirely free of bias.
Foie gras is the product of a sick animal - it cannot be achieved without bringing about that animal's sickness and suffering. That is cruel. I am not sure I support a ban, but I can see a case for one.
Banning fur imports, I don't see a justification for. We should ban imports of fur that uses cruel practises in its production, but where animals are reared and slaughtered humanely, we should be able to import the product.
That doesn't alter my amusement that Sir Wormtongue's 'deal' is quite rightly getting bummed by inconvenient outcomes.
I will also be interested in hearing the Green's stance on this.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
A bit like that bus driver who was sacked several weeks back.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
There is something wrong with us, there really is...
Moving very quickly to a low-trust society.
Pictures in today’s papers of £5 food items (cheese, steaks) with security tags.
Not that the security tags actually deter the shoplifters, they’re running out the the shop anyway and the staff will be fired if they intervene.
It’s rather sad to observe, watching from afar in a high-trust society.
Prime Minister David Cameron has branded the alternative vote (AV) system "undemocratic, obscure, unfair and crazy", ahead of May's referendum on changing the way MPs are elected to Westminster.
Speaking in Swansea, Mr Cameron said the vote was "hugely important" to Britain and went on to quote Sir Winston Churchill, who stood against the introduction of AV in 1931.
A “miserable little compromise”, as the Great Man once said.
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
I voted for Nandy!
Almost all PB Labs did, I think. Go figure.
I voted for Sir Keir. Backed him when basically everyone called for him to go after Hartlepool too.
Ah yes. Hartlepool. Boris peak, Keir trough. If any PB poster had said then, "Prediction: Starmer landslide majority at the next GE" there would have been calls for a ban. And Kemi was toast last year yet here she still is. All goes to show. It's why politics enchants and infuriates as a betting and discussion vehicle.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
There is something wrong with us, there really is...
Moving very quickly to a low-trust society.
Pictures in today’s papers of £5 food items (cheese, steaks) with security tags.
Not that the security tags actually deter the shoplifters, they’re running out the the shop anyway and the staff will be fired if they intervene.
It’s rather sad to observe, watching from afar in a high-trust society.
Many of us are done with it
We know what has degraded our societies. It will now be reversed
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
There is something wrong with us, there really is...
Moving very quickly to a low-trust society.
Pictures in today’s papers of £5 food items (cheese, steaks) with security tags.
Not that the security tags actually deter the shoplifters, they’re running out the the shop anyway and the staff will be fired if they intervene.
It’s rather sad to observe, watching from afar in a high-trust society.
Many of us are done with it
We know what has degraded our societies. It will now be reversed
"The government is to break a manifesto commitment to ban foie gras imports, and has declined to stop fur imports, after the EU made these red lines in its discussions for a trade deal.
Animal welfare charities say they are “bitterly disappointed” that ministers are failing to use powers granted by Brexit to restrict the import of these “cruel” items."
(Given a phytosanitary deal was clearly going to involve this, why did they put it in the manifesto?)
This is very much an example of the Government failing to take advantage of some of the clear benefits of Brexit
Whatever his many faults. We are lucky we have Sir Keir to have stopped the UK from getting involved in the war
I think that this has more to do with the fact that £68bn a year apparently gives us 1 destroyer that is now deployed off Cyprus. We cannot get involved because we have not got any relevant capacity. This is something we need to do something about.
Indeed so.
The MoD needs to start looking at value for money, and not treat spending as the end goal.
It's not really up to the MoD because procurement decisions get overridden by broader political imperatives. Look at the recent NMH program. The essence of the discussion was the government asking Leonardo how much money they want to keep the Lysander Road toy shop open. The reply was 1 billion pounds. How many AW149s can we get for that? 23 comes the answer. So, the end goal of the NMH effort is conveniently 23 x AW149. The needs of the services and future capabilities were only ever a minor consideration.
Australia recently bought 40 x UH-60M, a proper battlefield helicopter, for the same money.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
Whatever his many faults. We are lucky we have Sir Keir to have stopped the UK from getting involved in the war
I think that this has more to do with the fact that £68bn a year apparently gives us 1 destroyer that is now deployed off Cyprus. We cannot get involved because we have not got any relevant capacity. This is something we need to do something about.
Indeed so.
The MoD needs to start looking at value for money, and not treat spending as the end goal.
It's not really up to the MoD because procurement decisions get overridden by broader political imperatives. Look at the recent NMH program. The essence of the discussion was the government asking Leonardo how much money they want to keep the Lysander Road toy shop open. The reply was 1 billion pounds. How many AW149s can we get for that? 23 comes the answer. So, the end goal of the NMH effort is conveniently 23 x AW149. The needs of the services and future capabilities were only ever a minor consideration.
Australia recently bought 40 x UH-60M, a proper battlefield helicopter, for the same money.
Of course, was it two decades ago that the government absolutely needed those two aircraft carriers because it saved thousands of jobs in the Chancellor’s contituency?
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
There is something wrong with us, there really is...
Moving very quickly to a low-trust society.
Pictures in today’s papers of £5 food items (cheese, steaks) with security tags.
Not that the security tags actually deter the shoplifters, they’re running out the the shop anyway and the staff will be fired if they intervene.
It’s rather sad to observe, watching from afar in a high-trust society.
Many of us are done with it
We know what has degraded our societies. It will now be reversed
I wonder if Waitrose were concerned that the shoplifter didn’t have a premium customer experience here.
Whatever his many faults. We are lucky we have Sir Keir to have stopped the UK from getting involved in the war
I think that this has more to do with the fact that £68bn a year apparently gives us 1 destroyer that is now deployed off Cyprus. We cannot get involved because we have not got any relevant capacity. This is something we need to do something about.
Indeed so.
The MoD needs to start looking at value for money, and not treat spending as the end goal.
It's not really up to the MoD because procurement decisions get overridden by broader political imperatives. Look at the recent NMH program. The essence of the discussion was the government asking Leonardo how much money they want to keep the Lysander Road toy shop open. The reply was 1 billion pounds. How many AW149s can we get for that? 23 comes the answer. So, the end goal of the NMH effort is conveniently 23 x AW149. The needs of the services and future capabilities were only ever a minor consideration.
Australia recently bought 40 x UH-60M, a proper battlefield helicopter, for the same money.
Of course, was it two decades ago that the government absolutely needed those two aircraft carriers because it saved thousands of jobs in the Chancellor’s contituency?
I believe they stated cancelling them would have cost as much or more as building them. Even with defence procurement legends I hope that is not true.
I watched “the greatest story ever told” on I player this morning between tea, wanks and shower. (I felt obliged to do something religious at Easter) I know it’s not a documentary but I did walk away from it thinking Jesus was a bit of a tit if it’s how he was. He was just played well by Max Von Sydow and I realised that the chap who played the faceless man in GoT based his whole character on him.
I watched “the greatest story ever told” on I player this morning between tea, wanks and shower. (I felt obliged to do something religious at Easter) I know it’s not a documentary but I did walk away from it thinking Jesus was a bit of a tit if it’s how he was. He was just played well by Max Von Sydow and I realised that the chap who played the faceless man in GoT based his whole character on him.
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
I'll leave it to biblical theorists to argue the true meaning of that passage, but whilst historical context is surely important, wasn't part of the point of Jesus meant to be about breaking with the cultural norms of his day? That's what many of the 'Christianity fundamentally altered our view of moral values' books that are popular now argue.
Comments
(Physicists have been trying to get their use of 'velocity' accepted for generations, but even they still mis-use the term)
Asia is screwed.
https://bsky.app/profile/chriso-wiki.bsky.social/post/3miqdgkv4uo2w
Said no to Trump at the very start and stuck.to their guns.
Of course it won't save them from the shortages and the economic fallout sadly. Just a shame the rest of us didn't follow their lead and tell Trump and Netanyahu to go fuck themselves.
(I win slightly on political betting. Generally Labour markets have been my best, and Tory markets the worst. Only France offers any great light in my overseas wagers)
https://x.com/mb_ghalibaf/status/2040823145251090462
1/ Your reckless moves are dragging the United States into a living HELL for every single family, and our whole region is going to burn because you insist on following Netanyahu’s commands.
Make no mistake: You won’t gain anything through war crimes.
2/ The only real solution is respecting the rights of the Iranian people and ending this dangerous game.
It's (complete) lack of supply that is the problem so the price is irrelevant...
On topic of the top 4 runners, Rayner, Streeting, Mahmood and Milliband, you can see Streeting - Mahmood being transferable but Milliband seems the most transferable/compromise candidate.
As next PM, Cleverly at 150 seems value.
Badenoch ditched, revival of Cons with Cleverly as leader, Cons form next govt.
AIUI the main issue is that he uses different pollster for each poll so you don’t have good longitudinal data. But there’s nothing wrong with the individual poll
'XP' is the abbreviation for experience.
Unless there is a 100% reduction in supply, and there isn't, then it comes down to who will pay the most.
Not even masterly inactivity. Just inactivity.
With some extreme whataboutery from me, we do know that Badenoch, Blair, Farage and Johnson would all have joined Bibi and Trump's misadventure. Davey probably comes closest to your view, but I suspect Starmer can't follow that route whilst he still has one eye on Ukraine. And No-NATO Zack is just a "student politics" f*****' idiot.
But apart from that, nope.
The Tories had, inexplicably, maintained a lead into March despite being in complete paralysis, Labour were then in front for a couple of months into late May, we had the Euro elections then a few weeks of Brexit Part doing well, then it was back to Labour/Tory leads until Boris was elected and he was far ahead for the rest of the year.
Sweet. Christ is Risen
She’s basic. She’s not thick-thick but can you name a serious business or NGO where she would have the dynamism and experience of work and life to drive it forward?
Her plus points are that she’s not mad and used to be cute. That’s it.
If she is the answer to running the country we are utterly fucked in the calibre of politicians which we sort of have been but another low. Again, I don’t hate her but I cannot understand what anyone has seen in her that says “she will fix Britain”. Weird.
I had too much Simnel cake and Amontillado. The eggs will have to wait.
PS. I write as someone who flew to the Canaries in January.
"The government is to break a manifesto commitment to ban foie gras imports, and has declined to stop fur imports, after the EU made these red lines in its discussions for a trade deal.
Animal welfare charities say they are “bitterly disappointed” that ministers are failing to use powers granted by Brexit to restrict the import of these “cruel” items."
(Given a phytosanitary deal was clearly going to involve this, why did they put it in the manifesto?)
We all know this is a false flag as Orban becomes ever more desperate .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj60x206dx1o
I doubt we’ve seen the last of these attempts .
(calling at all stations)
We saw during covid that the UK government will allow air travel irrespective of the cost it might bring.
Not to mention that reduced air travel makes it far more difficult for government ministers and Sir Humphreys to have their own holidays in the sun.
In the same way that @TheScreamingEagles can be described as "Quasi-Indian"
Not quite sure the Guardian's characterisation here is entirely free of bias.
The MoD needs to start looking at value for money, and not treat spending as the end goal.
As might have been said many times, wartime procurement looks very different to peacetime procurement.
Oh, and they need to find a way to stop retired generals turning up in the supply chain on the other side shortly afterwards.
Until about a month ago, there was a massive opportunity to invest in startup Ukranian companies at the cutting edge of modern warfare - but then Iran bombed the GCC States, and Mr Zelenskyy just came back from his tour of the Gulf with many billions in cheques at significantly higher valuations.
Here is Dave dissing TSE's beloved AV system ahead of the 2011 referendum:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-12934509
Prime Minister David Cameron has branded the alternative vote (AV) system "undemocratic, obscure, unfair and crazy", ahead of May's referendum on changing the way MPs are elected to Westminster.
Speaking in Swansea, Mr Cameron said the vote was "hugely important" to Britain and went on to quote Sir Winston Churchill, who stood against the introduction of AV in 1931.
Islam, on the other hand, takes it a little more seriously...
Banning fur imports, I don't see a justification for. We should ban imports of fur that uses cruel practises in its production, but where animals are reared and slaughtered humanely, we should be able to import the product.
That doesn't alter my amusement that Sir Wormtongue's 'deal' is quite rightly getting bummed by inconvenient outcomes.
I will also be interested in hearing the Green's stance on this.
Pictures in today’s papers of £5 food items (cheese, steaks) with security tags.
Not that the security tags actually deter the shoplifters, they’re running out the the shop anyway and the staff will be fired if they intervene.
It’s rather sad to observe, watching from afar in a high-trust society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNQ7MoL7erI
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior.
And Ally McCoist and Darren Fletcher are an absolutely brilliant commentary team.
We know what has degraded our societies. It will now be reversed
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Australia recently bought 40 x UH-60M, a proper battlefield helicopter, for the same money.
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
From: https://bibleproject.com/articles/what-jesus-meant-turn-other-cheek-matthew-539/
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
https://x.com/m_h_taylor/status/2040757018613444725?s=61