Skip to content

The majority of Brits say Sir Keir Starmer is a decent man – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,169
edited April 26 in General
The majority of Brits say Sir Keir Starmer is a decent man – politicalbetting.com

Some crumb of comfort for the Prime Minister from More in Common is that 54% of Brits say he is a decent man sadly I don’t think that will save him and Labour from a shellacking when 74% of Brits say he is not cut out to be Prime Minister.I wish I could understand the 7% of Brits who say Starmer isn’t a decent man but he is cut out to be Prime Minister.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,833
    That means his reputation has further to fall.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,224
    So there's scope for his reputation to get worse? Goodo.
  • ajbajb Posts: 184
    I met a guy once who thought Brexit was a bad idea, but voted for it because he wanted to see politicians running round like headless chickens. That's probably the demographic of the 7%. Complete stupidity, but probably the only people who got what they wanted out of Brexit.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424
    edited April 26
    Having only 19% of people willing to say you’re both decent and up to the job isn’t a success.

    People who think you’re decent, but an incompetent numpty, aren’t your friends; neither are those fewer number of people thinking you’re up to the job but intent on wreaking evil upon the world.

    The only silver lining for Starmer is that 19% is nowadays sometimes a per cent or two higher than the proportion of voters willing to back his party.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,488
    edited April 26
    isam said:

    I don't think it is difficult to understand those who think he is not a decent man, but is cut out to be Prime Minister; politics is seen as a dirty game, so a degree of cunning and mendacity is required. Hence "To us he's just Peter" was appointed as our Ambassador to the US

    INdeed.

    To be a medieval King, you had to be a hard arsed bastard who would kill your best friend at the drop of a hat.*

    Henry VI was a lovely human being, but a total catastrophe as King.

    Similarly, to be PM it helps to be a cold, ruthless, efficient, backstabbing git. It's not compulsory but it can help.

    Probably the most amiable person ever to be PM was Alec Douglas-Home. He lasted eleven months. After him, Stanley Baldwin. Electorally a genius, politically something of a lacklustre PM.

    *of course, this could be taken too far. If you killed everyone until they began to think you were second cousin to a upas tree, or kept raping other men's wives, or kept stealing everyone's lands, that could upset them too. See Richard III, John and Richard II. But then, for our PMs case, look at Liz Truss.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,587

    Nigelb said:

    Have we discussed this ?
    (I think it a really bad idea, which Reform will likely pick up too.)

    The Conservative plan to cut the budget of UK Research and Innovation by 20%, reallocating the money to defence, is a signal that a 20 year old cross-party consensus on science funding has come to an end...
    https://x.com/RichardALJones/status/2047939525893140941

    The UK does have a long term problem of being consistently unable to capitalise on what's often world class research, but this is not a solution to that problem.

    Its a good job we aren't a knowledge economy or that AI is coming for all the low hanging fruit of said knowledge economies while China increasing getting really good at the high end.
    UKRI is a colossal waste of public money. 20% is pocket change - it should have its entire budget suspended until it has been reformed root and branch.

    Recent awards highlighted by Charlotte Gill include:

    £840,000 award for a project titled "The Europe that Gay Porn Built, 1945–2000."

    £939,368 for FemIDEAS: Decolonising Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Higher Education - at the University of Westminster Centre for Social Justice

    £800,000 - Facilitating a University of Roehampton project that says the “disproportionate representation” of William Shakespeare in the theatre has propagated “white, able-bodied, heterosexual, cisgender male narratives”.

    Failing to 'capitalise' on 'world class research'?
    I was at a scientific conference dinner once where I was sat in between the Professor head of a European research institute and the principal researcher in a department of a British government science organisation, and my recently-published paper contributed to one side of an argument about where to prioritise funding and research to make progress on a long-standing research problem.

    My point being that, even among experts in one small niche of one area of science there was disagreement over what should be funded in preference. So the idea that, in a democracy, where you would expect dissent and a plurality of opinion, the idea that I should approve of every funding decision for university research is naive and absurd.

    I would find it disturbing if I could not find a number of things that I did not feel should be funded.
    There is a larger point, though.
    The vast majority of modern commercialised research can be traced back to "curiosity driven" research.

    Even in commercial settings that tends to be true. It's why Bell Labs produced so many ideas which ended up being worth billions, but very few of which they made any money from themselves.

    The UK's problem is not so much in research funding as it is in our perennial inability to truly capitalise on what we discover.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424
    ydoethur said:

    isam said:

    I don't think it is difficult to understand those who think he is not a decent man, but is cut out to be Prime Minister; politics is seen as a dirty game, so a degree of cunning and mendacity is required. Hence "To us he's just Peter" was appointed as our Ambassador to the US

    INdeed.

    To be a medieval King, you had to be a hard arsed bastard who would kill your best friend at the drop of a hat.*

    Henry VI was a lovely human being, but a total catastrophe as King.

    Similarly, to be PM it helps to be a cold, ruthless, efficient, backstabbing git. It's not compulsory but it can help.

    Probably the most amiable person ever to be PM was Alec Douglas-Home. He lasted eleven months. After him, Stanley Baldwin. Electorally a genius, politically something of a lacklustre PM.

    *of course, this could be taken too far. If you killed everyone until they began to think you were second cousin to a upas tree, or kept raping other men's wives, or kept stealing everyone's lands, that could upset them too. See Richard III, John and Richard II. But then, for our PMs case, look at Liz Truss.
    History is littered with venal, incompetent, and sometimes downright evil rulers. The more interesting question is at what point people acquired the ability to demand better, and how history arrived at such point.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,126
    edited April 26
    Good afternoon

    I think Starmer's biggest problem is he just wants to be liked, and that is not how politics works and means you cannot take unpopular decisions, though ironically the one he did may well be fatal to his premiership

    He simply is not PM material and he probably is a decent man, but overwhelmed by the office
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,673
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Have we discussed this ?
    (I think it a really bad idea, which Reform will likely pick up too.)

    The Conservative plan to cut the budget of UK Research and Innovation by 20%, reallocating the money to defence, is a signal that a 20 year old cross-party consensus on science funding has come to an end...
    https://x.com/RichardALJones/status/2047939525893140941

    The UK does have a long term problem of being consistently unable to capitalise on what's often world class research, but this is not a solution to that problem.

    Its a good job we aren't a knowledge economy or that AI is coming for all the low hanging fruit of said knowledge economies while China increasing getting really good at the high end.
    UKRI is a colossal waste of public money. 20% is pocket change - it should have its entire budget suspended until it has been reformed root and branch.

    Recent awards highlighted by Charlotte Gill include:

    £840,000 award for a project titled "The Europe that Gay Porn Built, 1945–2000."

    £939,368 for FemIDEAS: Decolonising Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Higher Education - at the University of Westminster Centre for Social Justice

    £800,000 - Facilitating a University of Roehampton project that says the “disproportionate representation” of William Shakespeare in the theatre has propagated “white, able-bodied, heterosexual, cisgender male narratives”.

    Failing to 'capitalise' on 'world class research'?
    I was at a scientific conference dinner once where I was sat in between the Professor head of a European research institute and the principal researcher in a department of a British government science organisation, and my recently-published paper contributed to one side of an argument about where to prioritise funding and research to make progress on a long-standing research problem.

    My point being that, even among experts in one small niche of one area of science there was disagreement over what should be funded in preference. So the idea that, in a democracy, where you would expect dissent and a plurality of opinion, the idea that I should approve of every funding decision for university research is naive and absurd.

    I would find it disturbing if I could not find a number of things that I did not feel should be funded.
    There is a larger point, though.
    The vast majority of modern commercialised research can be traced back to "curiosity driven" research.

    Even in commercial settings that tends to be true. It's why Bell Labs produced so many ideas which ended up being worth billions, but very few of which they made any money from themselves.

    The UK's problem is not so much in research funding as it is in our perennial inability to truly capitalise on what we discover.
    So what does the government plan to do that might incentivise venture capital, such as CGT offsetting, that won’t be shouted down as pandering to the “billionaires” by half of the PLP?
  • isamisam Posts: 44,230

    Good afternoon

    I think Starmer's biggest problem is he just wants to be liked, and that is not how politics works and means you cannot take unpopular decisions, though ironically the one he did may well be fatal to his premiership

    He simply is not PM material and he probably is a decent man, but overwhelmed by the office

    I don't see how people can think he is just a nice guy with bad political judgement. he is one of the snidest, most two faced politicians

    This is from a centrist journalist who blocked me on twiter because I criticised Sir Keir.



    https://bsky.app/profile/rentouljohn.bsky.social/post/3mkcruieisc24
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,833
    The latest transatlantic divide: is it acceptable to grab the wine off the table if your dinner has to be evacuated?

    https://x.com/MattWallace888/status/2048252780171952625
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,488

    The latest transatlantic divide: is it acceptable to grab the wine off the table if your dinner has to be evacuated?

    https://x.com/MattWallace888/status/2048252780171952625

    Depends on the vintage.
  • TresTres Posts: 3,647

    The latest transatlantic divide: is it acceptable to grab the wine off the table if your dinner has to be evacuated?

    https://x.com/MattWallace888/status/2048252780171952625

    And is it acceptable for Stephen Miller to be using his pregnant wife as a human shield?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,218

    The latest transatlantic divide: is it acceptable to grab the wine off the table if your dinner has to be evacuated?

    https://x.com/MattWallace888/status/2048252780171952625

    I'm not sure I'd really class it as stealing. It's been paid for, for the guests. I'd say the hotel returning it to stock would be stealing. Not saying I'd do it myself, though I might refill my glass.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,462
    Until last week I’d have agreed, frankly. Not now.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,498
    ydoethur said:

    The latest transatlantic divide: is it acceptable to grab the wine off the table if your dinner has to be evacuated?

    https://x.com/MattWallace888/status/2048252780171952625

    Depends on the vintage.
    Indeed. If that was Raveneau Grand Cru, I would have evacuated as many bottles as possible to a safe place.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,498
    Tres said:

    The latest transatlantic divide: is it acceptable to grab the wine off the table if your dinner has to be evacuated?

    https://x.com/MattWallace888/status/2048252780171952625

    And is it acceptable for Stephen Miller to be using his pregnant wife as a human shield?
    Think about a world with *more* Stephen Millers in it. And then one with less.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,949
    Sandpit said:

    Until recently I’d have said that he was basically a decent man.

    But the Mandelson and now Lord Hermer scandals paint him as the worst of the scumbag lawyers, hiding behind process while seeking to destroy the state from the inside.

    That his senior staff turnover is so high, says he’s happy to throw anyone under the bus to protect his own reputation.

    The big turn over of staff looks particularly bad, especially when quite a few are highly experienced operators who are Labour supporters e.g. James Lyons lasted 7 months I think.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,498
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    isam said:

    I don't think it is difficult to understand those who think he is not a decent man, but is cut out to be Prime Minister; politics is seen as a dirty game, so a degree of cunning and mendacity is required. Hence "To us he's just Peter" was appointed as our Ambassador to the US

    INdeed.

    To be a medieval King, you had to be a hard arsed bastard who would kill your best friend at the drop of a hat.*

    Henry VI was a lovely human being, but a total catastrophe as King.

    Similarly, to be PM it helps to be a cold, ruthless, efficient, backstabbing git. It's not compulsory but it can help.

    Probably the most amiable person ever to be PM was Alec Douglas-Home. He lasted eleven months. After him, Stanley Baldwin. Electorally a genius, politically something of a lacklustre PM.

    *of course, this could be taken too far. If you killed everyone until they began to think you were second cousin to a upas tree, or kept raping other men's wives, or kept stealing everyone's lands, that could upset them too. See Richard III, John and Richard II. But then, for our PMs case, look at Liz Truss.
    History is littered with venal, incompetent, and sometimes downright evil rulers. The more interesting question is at what point people acquired the ability to demand better, and how history arrived at such point.
    "I distinguish four types.

    There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined.
    1. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff.
    2. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties.
    3. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions.
    4. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage."
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,498
    edited April 26
    DougSeal said:

    The latest transatlantic divide: is it acceptable to grab the wine off the table if your dinner has to be evacuated?

    https://x.com/MattWallace888/status/2048252780171952625

    The London Bridge attack had pics of evacuees walking away carrying pints. Possibly the only thing that’s made me proud to be English in the last 10 years.
    The fact that the attack was, in part, defeated by a reformed murderer with a narwhal tusk seemed Peak British, somehow.

    Edit: That the Government did not, immediately, form the Royal Company of Unicorn Tusk Bearers, a ceremonial anti-terrorism unit, compete with mid-Tudor uniforms, is blight upon our national story.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,949
    A package of City of London reforms, including changes to major regulators, will be included in the King’s Speech next month.

    The financial services bill is already being drafted and will be included in the legislative package for the next parliamentary session to be set out in the speech on May 13, according to several officials briefed on the measure.

    Legislation is needed to complete several planned reforms to key pillars of City regulation, such as scrapping the payments watchdog and overhauling the financial ombudsman. 

    https://www.ft.com/content/5811b388-1b45-42c9-b2a3-baa72e7807b8


  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,498
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    isam said:

    I don't think it is difficult to understand those who think he is not a decent man, but is cut out to be Prime Minister; politics is seen as a dirty game, so a degree of cunning and mendacity is required. Hence "To us he's just Peter" was appointed as our Ambassador to the US

    INdeed.

    To be a medieval King, you had to be a hard arsed bastard who would kill your best friend at the drop of a hat.*

    Henry VI was a lovely human being, but a total catastrophe as King.

    Similarly, to be PM it helps to be a cold, ruthless, efficient, backstabbing git. It's not compulsory but it can help.

    Probably the most amiable person ever to be PM was Alec Douglas-Home. He lasted eleven months. After him, Stanley Baldwin. Electorally a genius, politically something of a lacklustre PM.

    *of course, this could be taken too far. If you killed everyone until they began to think you were second cousin to a upas tree, or kept raping other men's wives, or kept stealing everyone's lands, that could upset them too. See Richard III, John and Richard II. But then, for our PMs case, look at Liz Truss.
    History is littered with venal, incompetent, and sometimes downright evil rulers. The more interesting question is at what point people acquired the ability to demand better, and how history arrived at such point.
    The people always demanded better. And sometimes reduce the headcount of the rulers in the attempt to get better.

    The system of democracy is about the ability to overthrow the government, at intervals. Without having to go through the whole mess of civil war, heaps of dead people etc.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,564

    A package of City of London reforms, including changes to major regulators, will be included in the King’s Speech next month.

    The financial services bill is already being drafted and will be included in the legislative package for the next parliamentary session to be set out in the speech on May 13, according to several officials briefed on the measure.

    Legislation is needed to complete several planned reforms to key pillars of City regulation, such as scrapping the payments watchdog and overhauling the financial ombudsman. 

    https://www.ft.com/content/5811b388-1b45-42c9-b2a3-baa72e7807b8


    Yay, more work for me.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,733
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    isam said:

    I don't think it is difficult to understand those who think he is not a decent man, but is cut out to be Prime Minister; politics is seen as a dirty game, so a degree of cunning and mendacity is required. Hence "To us he's just Peter" was appointed as our Ambassador to the US

    INdeed.

    To be a medieval King, you had to be a hard arsed bastard who would kill your best friend at the drop of a hat.*

    Henry VI was a lovely human being, but a total catastrophe as King.

    Similarly, to be PM it helps to be a cold, ruthless, efficient, backstabbing git. It's not compulsory but it can help.

    Probably the most amiable person ever to be PM was Alec Douglas-Home. He lasted eleven months. After him, Stanley Baldwin. Electorally a genius, politically something of a lacklustre PM.

    *of course, this could be taken too far. If you killed everyone until they began to think you were second cousin to a upas tree, or kept raping other men's wives, or kept stealing everyone's lands, that could upset them too. See Richard III, John and Richard II. But then, for our PMs case, look at Liz Truss.
    History is littered with venal, incompetent, and sometimes downright evil rulers. The more interesting question is at what point people acquired the ability to demand better, and how history arrived at such point.
    "I distinguish four types.

    There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined.
    1. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff.
    2. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties.
    3. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions.
    4. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage."
    If we categorise them as Conservative politicians:

    1) Rishi Sunak
    2) Bill Cash
    3) David Cameron
    4) Dominic Cummings
    Where does Johnson fit? Two or three.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,442
    Impressive that 74% of respondents agree in considering SKS is not cut out to be PM.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,949
    AnneJGP said:

    Impressive that 74% of respondents agree in considering SKS is not cut out to be PM.

    Think he might have lost the dressing room.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 59,748

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    isam said:

    I don't think it is difficult to understand those who think he is not a decent man, but is cut out to be Prime Minister; politics is seen as a dirty game, so a degree of cunning and mendacity is required. Hence "To us he's just Peter" was appointed as our Ambassador to the US

    INdeed.

    To be a medieval King, you had to be a hard arsed bastard who would kill your best friend at the drop of a hat.*

    Henry VI was a lovely human being, but a total catastrophe as King.

    Similarly, to be PM it helps to be a cold, ruthless, efficient, backstabbing git. It's not compulsory but it can help.

    Probably the most amiable person ever to be PM was Alec Douglas-Home. He lasted eleven months. After him, Stanley Baldwin. Electorally a genius, politically something of a lacklustre PM.

    *of course, this could be taken too far. If you killed everyone until they began to think you were second cousin to a upas tree, or kept raping other men's wives, or kept stealing everyone's lands, that could upset them too. See Richard III, John and Richard II. But then, for our PMs case, look at Liz Truss.
    History is littered with venal, incompetent, and sometimes downright evil rulers. The more interesting question is at what point people acquired the ability to demand better, and how history arrived at such point.
    The people always demanded better. And sometimes reduce the headcount of the rulers in the attempt to get better.

    The system of democracy is about the ability to overthrow the government, at intervals. Without having to go through the whole mess of civil war, heaps of dead people etc.
    “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill, 1947.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,673
    Tres said:

    The latest transatlantic divide: is it acceptable to grab the wine off the table if your dinner has to be evacuated?

    https://x.com/MattWallace888/status/2048252780171952625

    And is it acceptable for Stephen Miller to be using his pregnant wife as a human shield?
    There’s plenty you can say about Stephen Miller without resorting to such obvious untruths. He was shielding her from the threat behind them as they left through the stage door.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,488

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    isam said:

    I don't think it is difficult to understand those who think he is not a decent man, but is cut out to be Prime Minister; politics is seen as a dirty game, so a degree of cunning and mendacity is required. Hence "To us he's just Peter" was appointed as our Ambassador to the US

    INdeed.

    To be a medieval King, you had to be a hard arsed bastard who would kill your best friend at the drop of a hat.*

    Henry VI was a lovely human being, but a total catastrophe as King.

    Similarly, to be PM it helps to be a cold, ruthless, efficient, backstabbing git. It's not compulsory but it can help.

    Probably the most amiable person ever to be PM was Alec Douglas-Home. He lasted eleven months. After him, Stanley Baldwin. Electorally a genius, politically something of a lacklustre PM.

    *of course, this could be taken too far. If you killed everyone until they began to think you were second cousin to a upas tree, or kept raping other men's wives, or kept stealing everyone's lands, that could upset them too. See Richard III, John and Richard II. But then, for our PMs case, look at Liz Truss.
    History is littered with venal, incompetent, and sometimes downright evil rulers. The more interesting question is at what point people acquired the ability to demand better, and how history arrived at such point.
    "I distinguish four types.

    There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined.
    1. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff.
    2. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties.
    3. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions.
    4. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage."
    If we categorise them as Conservative politicians:

    1) Rishi Sunak
    2) Bill Cash
    3) David Cameron
    4) Dominic Cummings
    Where does Johnson fit? Two or three.
    Depends on what you mean by stupid, and depends on what you mean by industrious.

    He isn't a complete idiot, so 2 is out.

    However, he is bone idle *except* when it comes to causing trouble or advancing his career. So 4 might be the best fit but it's not perfect.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,949
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    isam said:

    I don't think it is difficult to understand those who think he is not a decent man, but is cut out to be Prime Minister; politics is seen as a dirty game, so a degree of cunning and mendacity is required. Hence "To us he's just Peter" was appointed as our Ambassador to the US

    INdeed.

    To be a medieval King, you had to be a hard arsed bastard who would kill your best friend at the drop of a hat.*

    Henry VI was a lovely human being, but a total catastrophe as King.

    Similarly, to be PM it helps to be a cold, ruthless, efficient, backstabbing git. It's not compulsory but it can help.

    Probably the most amiable person ever to be PM was Alec Douglas-Home. He lasted eleven months. After him, Stanley Baldwin. Electorally a genius, politically something of a lacklustre PM.

    *of course, this could be taken too far. If you killed everyone until they began to think you were second cousin to a upas tree, or kept raping other men's wives, or kept stealing everyone's lands, that could upset them too. See Richard III, John and Richard II. But then, for our PMs case, look at Liz Truss.
    History is littered with venal, incompetent, and sometimes downright evil rulers. The more interesting question is at what point people acquired the ability to demand better, and how history arrived at such point.
    "I distinguish four types.

    There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined.
    1. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff.
    2. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties.
    3. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions.
    4. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage."
    If we categorise them as Conservative politicians:

    1) Rishi Sunak
    2) Bill Cash
    3) David Cameron
    4) Dominic Cummings
    Where does Johnson fit? Two or three.
    Depends on what you mean by stupid, and depends on what you mean by industrious.

    He isn't a complete idiot, so 2 is out.

    However, he is bone idle *except* when it comes to causing trouble or advancing his career. So 4 might be the best fit but it's not perfect.
    Actually I always put down Boris as one of those people who excelled in younger years, was told he was extremely bright, then peaked early on in uni, but still is convinced he is much much smarter than the average, when he isnt really e.g. see his inability to grasp anything sciency during COVID.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,442
    Sandpit said:

    Until recently I’d have said that he was basically a decent man.

    But the Mandelson and now Lord Hermer scandals paint him as the worst of the scumbag lawyers, hiding behind process while seeking to destroy the state from the inside.

    That his senior staff turnover is so high, says he’s happy to throw anyone under the bus to protect his own reputation.

    Yes. There are people who can't keep staff who are just bad bosses. What we've seen recently isn't only that.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,733

    AnneJGP said:

    Impressive that 74% of respondents agree in considering SKS is not cut out to be PM.

    Think he might have lost the dressing room.
    Has there ever been a more disappointing Prime Minister? Many of us though with his background and educational attainment the corner would be turned at any minute.

    The events of the last few weeks, have demonstrated that Starmer is incapable of turning that corner. I can understand rolling the dice with Mandelson, but I cannot understand the incompetent cover up. If he'd told it as it is I believe he had a defence. Throwing everyone under the bus is not a defence.

    This is the straw that broke the camel's back. One has to consider the poor political calls and the subsequent U turns. He is not up to the job.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,790
    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 7,955
    I think he's a first class shit and entirely untrustworthy.
    There are questions about his time at the DPP...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,371

    I think he's a first class shit and entirely untrustworthy.
    There are questions about his time at the DPP...

    I'll put you down as a maybe then, Ange...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,733

    I think he's a first class shit and entirely untrustworthy.
    There are questions about his time at the DPP...

    But then you liked Boris Johnson.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,733
    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Starmer does not have the self awareness of Estelle Morris. I think he needs that self awareness more than she did.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,833

    https://x.com/TimesRadio/status/2048362325409669435


    "For the opposition to suggest that there's some type of cover-up here is just inaccurate."

    The Prime Minister's Chief Secretary @darrenpjones tells Times Radio's @adamboultonTABB that a trip to tech firm Palantir with Peter Mandelson was a "visit" and not a "meeting".

    We are doing the pinhead legalise dancing again.
    "I was told that this would be a site visit. I was not told that executives from Palantir would be waiting there to meet me."
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,673
    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Dude who finished just behind him, also under two hours, had never run a marathon before!
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 7,955

    I think he's a first class shit and entirely untrustworthy.
    There are questions about his time at the DPP...

    But then you liked Boris Johnson.
    At the start but his lies got to me..
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,833
    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Dude who finished just behind him, also under two hours, had never run a marathon before!
    It's almost a different sport since the revolution in shoe technology a few years ago.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,498

    https://x.com/TimesRadio/status/2048362325409669435


    "For the opposition to suggest that there's some type of cover-up here is just inaccurate."

    The Prime Minister's Chief Secretary @darrenpjones tells Times Radio's @adamboultonTABB that a trip to tech firm Palantir with Peter Mandelson was a "visit" and not a "meeting".

    We are doing the pinhead legalise dancing again.
    "I was told that this would be a site visit. I was not told that executives from Palantir would be waiting there to meet me."
    Because when the PM visits a company doing billions in contracting work for the government, executives rarely are present to greet him. Usually just the lady who cleans on Thursdays
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,949

    https://x.com/TimesRadio/status/2048362325409669435


    "For the opposition to suggest that there's some type of cover-up here is just inaccurate."

    The Prime Minister's Chief Secretary @darrenpjones tells Times Radio's @adamboultonTABB that a trip to tech firm Palantir with Peter Mandelson was a "visit" and not a "meeting".

    We are doing the pinhead legalise dancing again.
    "I was told that this would be a site visit. I was not told that executives from Palantir would be waiting there to meet me."
    Because when the PM visits a company doing billions in contracting work for the government, executives rarely are present to greet him. Usually just the lady who cleans on Thursdays
    Who goes on about cleaning up their mothers piss?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,371
    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
  • TresTres Posts: 3,647
    Sandpit said:

    Tres said:

    The latest transatlantic divide: is it acceptable to grab the wine off the table if your dinner has to be evacuated?

    https://x.com/MattWallace888/status/2048252780171952625

    And is it acceptable for Stephen Miller to be using his pregnant wife as a human shield?
    There’s plenty you can say about Stephen Miller without resorting to such obvious untruths. He was shielding her from the threat behind them as they left through the stage door.
    MUST

    DEFEND

    MAGA
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,488

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    not really. But I don't rubberneck at motorway pileups.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,733

    https://x.com/TimesRadio/status/2048362325409669435


    "For the opposition to suggest that there's some type of cover-up here is just inaccurate."

    The Prime Minister's Chief Secretary @darrenpjones tells Times Radio's @adamboultonTABB that a trip to tech firm Palantir with Peter Mandelson was a "visit" and not a "meeting".

    We are doing the pinhead legalise dancing again.
    "I was told that this would be a site visit. I was not told that executives from Palantir would be waiting there to meet me."
    Because when the PM visits a company doing billions in contracting work for the government, executives rarely are present to greet him. Usually just the lady who cleans on Thursdays
    Who goes on about cleaning up their mothers piss?
    Well I do.

    My mother spent hours on the floor of a private (NHS) room on the day she died during the midst of the Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend scandal of 2011. Soaked in cold piss on a hospital floor for hours, what a way to spend one's last day on this earth.

  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,858

    AnneJGP said:

    Impressive that 74% of respondents agree in considering SKS is not cut out to be PM.

    Think he might have lost the dressing room.
    Has there ever been a more disappointing Prime Minister? Many of us though with his background and educational attainment the corner would be turned at any minute.

    The events of the last few weeks, have demonstrated that Starmer is incapable of turning that corner. I can understand rolling the dice with Mandelson, but I cannot understand the incompetent cover up. If he'd told it as it is I believe he had a defence. Throwing everyone under the bus is not a defence.

    This is the straw that broke the camel's back. One has to consider the poor political calls and the subsequent U turns. He is not up to the job.
    Sunak.

    Was never going to be great, excellent General Staff, hopelessly undercooked for the top job. (That he couldn't tame the job is the job's fault, not his. Ditto May, ditto Starmer.)

    First year, he did OK at clearing up done of the mess left by his disastrous predecessors. But then he seemed to panic about the polls and went all culture warrior, fiscal instability, creating elephant traps for his successor.

    If any PM could have dealt with the election-losing nettles, that have been growing for decades, it was the one on track to lose.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,733

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,872
    Sandpit said:

    Until recently I’d have said that he was basically a decent man.

    But the Mandelson and now Lord Hermer scandals paint him as the worst of the scumbag lawyers, hiding behind process while seeking to destroy the state from the inside.

    That his senior staff turnover is so high, says he’s happy to throw anyone under the bus to protect his own reputation.

    Until recently I would have agreed with your initial assessment but there have been far too many examples of people being sacked or driven out to make him look good or to shore up his position, even for a brief time. I really did not like the Olly Robbins dismissal. I think it made Starmer look pathetic and untrustworthy.

    He is an exceptionally poor politician. That would be forgivable if he was getting results but this government looks as paralysed as Boris's and much of Sunak's. There is no sense of purpose, no drive to address our multitude of problems, no ideas other than soldiering on and hoping something turns up.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 59,748

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Is this not why you are here?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,858
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    isam said:

    I don't think it is difficult to understand those who think he is not a decent man, but is cut out to be Prime Minister; politics is seen as a dirty game, so a degree of cunning and mendacity is required. Hence "To us he's just Peter" was appointed as our Ambassador to the US

    INdeed.

    To be a medieval King, you had to be a hard arsed bastard who would kill your best friend at the drop of a hat.*

    Henry VI was a lovely human being, but a total catastrophe as King.

    Similarly, to be PM it helps to be a cold, ruthless, efficient, backstabbing git. It's not compulsory but it can help.

    Probably the most amiable person ever to be PM was Alec Douglas-Home. He lasted eleven months. After him, Stanley Baldwin. Electorally a genius, politically something of a lacklustre PM.

    *of course, this could be taken too far. If you killed everyone until they began to think you were second cousin to a upas tree, or kept raping other men's wives, or kept stealing everyone's lands, that could upset them too. See Richard III, John and Richard II. But then, for our PMs case, look at Liz Truss.
    History is littered with venal, incompetent, and sometimes downright evil rulers. The more interesting question is at what point people acquired the ability to demand better, and how history arrived at such point.
    "I distinguish four types.

    There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined.
    1. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff.
    2. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties.
    3. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions.
    4. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage."
    If we categorise them as Conservative politicians:

    1) Rishi Sunak
    2) Bill Cash
    3) David Cameron
    4) Dominic Cummings
    Where does Johnson fit? Two or three.
    Depends on what you mean by stupid, and depends on what you mean by industrious.

    He isn't a complete idiot, so 2 is out.

    However, he is bone idle *except* when it comes to causing trouble or advancing his career. So 4 might be the best fit but it's not perfect.
    The thing about 'clever + idle = great leader' is that it depends on self-awareness of why you are being idle and knowing when to throw that saved energy into an essay crisis all-nighter.

    A great leader would have known to put effort into checking Cummings's sanity before giving him.control of the machine, and BoJo was too lazy to do that.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,733
    edited April 26

    AnneJGP said:

    Impressive that 74% of respondents agree in considering SKS is not cut out to be PM.

    Think he might have lost the dressing room.
    Has there ever been a more disappointing Prime Minister? Many of us though with his background and educational attainment the corner would be turned at any minute.

    The events of the last few weeks, have demonstrated that Starmer is incapable of turning that corner. I can understand rolling the dice with Mandelson, but I cannot understand the incompetent cover up. If he'd told it as it is I believe he had a defence. Throwing everyone under the bus is not a defence.

    This is the straw that broke the camel's back. One has to consider the poor political calls and the subsequent U turns. He is not up to the job.
    Sunak.

    Was never going to be great, excellent General Staff, hopelessly undercooked for the top job. (That he couldn't tame the job is the job's fault, not his. Ditto May, ditto Starmer.)

    First year, he did OK at clearing up done of the mess left by his disastrous predecessors. But then he seemed to panic about the polls and went all culture warrior, fiscal instability, creating elephant traps for his successor.

    If any PM could have dealt with the election-losing nettles, that have been growing for decades, it was the one on track to lose.
    That is true and a good point.

    I suspect Sunak was persuaded that salting the earth for Starmer was a good idea for the future. However no one expected the Reform challenge, Trump, nor Starmer to be as calamitously ineffective as he has been so he didn't need Sunak's help to look ridiculous.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,371

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,790

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Dude who finished just behind him, also under two hours, had never run a marathon before!
    It's almost a different sport since the revolution in shoe technology a few years ago.
    What could they possibly have discovered about shoes in the last few years that the human race had not figured out in the last 8000 years?!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,790

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    isam said:

    I don't think it is difficult to understand those who think he is not a decent man, but is cut out to be Prime Minister; politics is seen as a dirty game, so a degree of cunning and mendacity is required. Hence "To us he's just Peter" was appointed as our Ambassador to the US

    INdeed.

    To be a medieval King, you had to be a hard arsed bastard who would kill your best friend at the drop of a hat.*

    Henry VI was a lovely human being, but a total catastrophe as King.

    Similarly, to be PM it helps to be a cold, ruthless, efficient, backstabbing git. It's not compulsory but it can help.

    Probably the most amiable person ever to be PM was Alec Douglas-Home. He lasted eleven months. After him, Stanley Baldwin. Electorally a genius, politically something of a lacklustre PM.

    *of course, this could be taken too far. If you killed everyone until they began to think you were second cousin to a upas tree, or kept raping other men's wives, or kept stealing everyone's lands, that could upset them too. See Richard III, John and Richard II. But then, for our PMs case, look at Liz Truss.
    History is littered with venal, incompetent, and sometimes downright evil rulers. The more interesting question is at what point people acquired the ability to demand better, and how history arrived at such point.
    "I distinguish four types.

    There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined.
    1. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff.
    2. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties.
    3. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions.
    4. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage."
    If we categorise them as Conservative politicians:

    1) Rishi Sunak
    2) Bill Cash
    3) David Cameron
    4) Dominic Cummings
    Where does Johnson fit? Two or three.
    Depends on what you mean by stupid, and depends on what you mean by industrious.

    He isn't a complete idiot, so 2 is out.

    However, he is bone idle *except* when it comes to causing trouble or advancing his career. So 4 might be the best fit but it's not perfect.
    The thing about 'clever + idle = great leader' is that it depends on self-awareness of why you are being idle and knowing when to throw that saved energy into an essay crisis all-nighter.

    A great leader would have known to put effort into checking Cummings's sanity before giving him.control of the machine, and BoJo was too lazy to do that.
    I feel like a Cummings type can be very useful with people to rein in their egos.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,673
    edited April 26
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Dude who finished just behind him, also under two hours, had never run a marathon before!
    It's almost a different sport since the revolution in shoe technology a few years ago.
    What could they possibly have discovered about shoes in the last few years that the human race had not figured out in the last 8000 years?!
    The same thing that bicycle makers discovered in around 1992, and F1 car makers in around 1981.

    Carbon fibre.

    The latest shoes basically have a large carbon fibre spring in the sole, rather like the the running springs we see in the Paralympics.

    They’re said to be worth around 3%, and the authorities now have technical regulations around the designs.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,833
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Dude who finished just behind him, also under two hours, had never run a marathon before!
    It's almost a different sport since the revolution in shoe technology a few years ago.
    What could they possibly have discovered about shoes in the last few years that the human race had not figured out in the last 8000 years?!
    Mainly materials. Previously marathon runners would race in very minimal flat shoes but now they wear chunkier shoes with carbon fibre plates that act a bit like a spring and make it much easier to maintain a fast pace efficiently.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,080

    The latest transatlantic divide: is it acceptable to grab the wine off the table if your dinner has to be evacuated?

    https://x.com/MattWallace888/status/2048252780171952625

    I'm not sure I'd really class it as stealing. It's been paid for, for the guests. I'd say the hotel returning it to stock would be stealing. Not saying I'd do it myself, though I might refill my glass.
    The bottles were on the table and open.

    I have no doubt whatsoever if I was in that situation I’d definitely take a bottle as well as filling up a glass to take.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,733
    edited April 26

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,447

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    I'd rather have Ed than the Cock of the North, Andy Burnham.

    Or Emily Thornbury.

    If I was faced with Burnham and Thornbury as the only two options on the ballot, I'd be drawing a cock and balls.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,218

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,080

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    Controlling our borders and the changes to ILR is ‘performative cruelty’ apparently.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,833
    rcs1000 said:

    I think everyone is misreading this poll. In this time of self ID, many of the people who say he is a "decent man" merely man they think it is probable that he is a man on the old, traditional definition of "man".

    If he fights the election against Badenoch, the Tories could go with the slogan: “Vote for the woman, not the old woman.”
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 59,748

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Dude who finished just behind him, also under two hours, had never run a marathon before!
    It's almost a different sport since the revolution in shoe technology a few years ago.
    What could they possibly have discovered about shoes in the last few years that the human race had not figured out in the last 8000 years?!
    Mainly materials. Previously marathon runners would race in very minimal flat shoes but now they wear chunkier shoes with carbon fibre plates that act a bit like a spring and make it much easier to maintain a fast pace efficiently.
    Performance-enhancing... Shoes??
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,623

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    That's a view. Alternatively, having Farage, Tice, Yusuf, Jenrick, Braverman, Anderson and similar running the country would be such a shitshow that the populus would be begging for the return of Starmer, Reeves and their mates, despite all their faults.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,224
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    So... I think Farage would be catastrophic.

    Not for reasons of policy, but because he's incapable of maintaining good relations with colleagues for longer than about six weeks. Look at the turmoil at the top of UKIP and the fact that Reform -a party with half a dozen MPs that's been around for about two years- has had more defections and desertions and expulsions than the Liberal Democrats have had since their inception.

    Farage has also shown a... willingness... to take money from people he shouldn't, and to take money to say stupid things on Cameo.

    Reform needs to move past Farage, if it's going to be anything other than a disaster in power.
    But without Farage, can it get into power?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,755
    Taz said:

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    Controlling our borders and the changes to ILR is ‘performative cruelty’ apparently.
    I thought ILR was a railway and was briefly puzzled
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,080

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    That's a view. Alternatively, having Farage, Tice, Yusuf, Jenrick, Braverman, Anderson and similar running the country would be such a shitshow that the populus would be begging for the return of Starmer, Reeves and their mates, despite all their faults.
    On here with the predominantly white, middle aged middle class centrist mob, possibly, but in the real world I’d expect they’d be looking at the greens or another alternative. Assuming it is as you say. No evidence either way yet.

    However people are not suddenly pining for a return to the Tories after the SKS shitshow.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,673

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    I don’t disagree, but I think Kemi would be a better PM than Nigel.

    At some point a government is going to have to get to grips with actually deporting people who have nothing to contribute and serious criminal records.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,080
    viewcode said:

    Taz said:

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    Controlling our borders and the changes to ILR is ‘performative cruelty’ apparently.
    I thought ILR was a railway and was briefly puzzled
    Only if that railway is the golden ticket to access the benefits system. Kerching.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,733

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    Thank you. You have just explained that Reform and the current Tories are ideal bedfellows.

    I am also aware that you remain the only poster who considers Truss's budget to be an unfortunate accidental missed opportunity.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,218

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    That's a view. Alternatively, having Farage, Tice, Yusuf, Jenrick, Braverman, Anderson and similar running the country would be such a shitshow that the populus would be begging for the return of Starmer, Reeves and their mates, despite all their faults.
    Meh. Jenrick I don't warm to as a persona (very effective and may be lovely IRL) but I don't have an issue with his record, or Suella's. Farage I like, and I think he's wise enough to know his own limitations - he will come into power with a very clear prepared agenda, and act as the public face of his Government rather than being a Thatcher. Yusuf I'm impressed with. Tice can't deliver a speech but I like some of his ideas. I think they compare well to the people you mention.

    I also think Danny Kruger is excellent.

    Here he is being interviewed from the right, and implacably (and rightly) opposed ethno-nationalism in favour of civic nationalism. There is nobody in Labour who is thinking about how to implement a positive programme for Government, if they're thinking at all. Indeed their crowning ambition is to give away more of their own powers.

    https://youtu.be/_4f9JJZyVo0?si=xqCeScnHYAM3Cg65
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 56,826
    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    I don’t disagree, but I think Kemi would be a better PM than Nigel.

    At some point a government is going to have to get to grips with actually deporting people who have nothing to contribute and serious criminal records.
    Deportations fell from 19000 per year to 1000 under the last Tory government. One that had Jenrick in and Braverman leading on that policy.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,833
    https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/2048421013952856534

    NEW: Cole Allen spewed anti-Christian and anti-Trump rhetoric on his social media accounts, said he wanted to target the Trump admin in his manifesto, according to CBS News.

    According to Allen’s sister, he sent the manifesto to his family before the incident.

    Allen had also attended a No Kings rally in California and was a part of the group named 'The Wide Awakes,' per Fox News.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,218
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    So... I think Farage would be catastrophic.

    Not for reasons of policy, but because he's incapable of maintaining good relations with colleagues for longer than about six weeks. Look at the turmoil at the top of UKIP and the fact that Reform -a party with half a dozen MPs that's been around for about two years- has had more defections and desertions and expulsions than the Liberal Democrats have had since their inception.

    Farage has also shown a... willingness... to take money from people he shouldn't, and to take money to say stupid things on Cameo.

    Reform needs to move past Farage, if it's going to be anything other than a disaster in power.
    There are different types of PM. Farage isn't a Thatcher but he's clever and good at setting the direction of travel.

    I agree they've had a messy start - I don't lay 100% of that at Farage's door.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,733
    edited April 26
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    I don’t disagree, but I think Kemi would be a better PM than Nigel.

    At some point a government is going to have to get to grips with actually deporting people who have nothing to contribute and serious criminal records.
    Deportations fell from 19000 per year to 1000 under the last Tory government. One that had Jenrick in and Braverman leading on that policy.
    Immigration isn't a particular concern of mine in the way it is for gaslit Reform voters. I am however bewildered that the Tories can claim Labour are more chaotic on immigration than they were. Their record was, if you don't like "foreigners", unforgivable.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,224
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    I don’t disagree, but I think Kemi would be a better PM than Nigel.

    At some point a government is going to have to get to grips with actually deporting people who have nothing to contribute and serious criminal records.
    Deportations fell from 19000 per year to 1000 under the last Tory government. One that had Jenrick in and Braverman leading on that policy.
    Tory underfinding is undoubtedly a factor, but there are many others to explain that decline:

    https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/returns-of-unauthorised-migrants-from-the-uk/
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,733
    BBC teatime news bigging up the "attempted" assassination of Trump and his entourage. What a brave boy Trump is.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,218

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    Thank you. You have just explained that Reform and the current Tories are ideal bedfellows.

    I am also aware that you remain the only poster who considers Truss's budget to be an unfortunate accidental missed opportunity.
    Yes, they are. In actual fact, Restore also shares many of the same ideas, though they are less realistic and are tinged with an ethnic version of nationalism. There is something of convergence of opinion across the right on deep policy - particularly on the damaging nature of the Blair reforms. Truss has been a big part of that realisation, though I doubt she'd have chosen the sacrifice of her political career and credibility as the means of doing it. I think the Tories and Reform will work OK as a coalition. That's if they're not Government and Opposition.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,371

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    You need to recalibrate your Catastroph-o-meter if you think a Farage and a Badenoch government would be equally catastrophic...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,489
    carnforth said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    So... I think Farage would be catastrophic.

    Not for reasons of policy, but because he's incapable of maintaining good relations with colleagues for longer than about six weeks. Look at the turmoil at the top of UKIP and the fact that Reform -a party with half a dozen MPs that's been around for about two years- has had more defections and desertions and expulsions than the Liberal Democrats have had since their inception.

    Farage has also shown a... willingness... to take money from people he shouldn't, and to take money to say stupid things on Cameo.

    Reform needs to move past Farage, if it's going to be anything other than a disaster in power.
    But without Farage, can it get into power?
    Well, yes.

    It's the same problem as Trump and Peron. A charasmatic character who latches onto justifiable anger. But who -for various reasons- is unsuitable for power.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 56,826
    carnforth said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    I don’t disagree, but I think Kemi would be a better PM than Nigel.

    At some point a government is going to have to get to grips with actually deporting people who have nothing to contribute and serious criminal records.
    Deportations fell from 19000 per year to 1000 under the last Tory government. One that had Jenrick in and Braverman leading on that policy.
    Tory underfinding is undoubtedly a factor, but there are many others to explain that decline:

    https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/returns-of-unauthorised-migrants-from-the-uk/
    They dropped under austerity, got even worse under covid and bounced back a little under Sunak before increasing further under Labour.

    The idea that Labour is poor at deporting people simply does not match the facts.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,447

    Taz said:

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    That's a view. Alternatively, having Farage, Tice, Yusuf, Jenrick, Braverman, Anderson and similar running the country would be such a shitshow that the populus would be begging for the return of Starmer, Reeves and their mates, despite all their faults.
    On here with the predominantly white, middle aged middle class centrist mob, possibly, but in the real world I’d expect they’d be looking at the greens or another alternative. Assuming it is as you say. No evidence either way yet.

    However people are not suddenly pining for a return to the Tories after the SKS shitshow.
    I'm not part of the middle aged middle class centrist mob.
    I speak for the pensioner middle class socialist mob.
    Meanwhile I am part of a handful rather than a mob: Leave-voting Labourites.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,733
    edited April 26

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    You need to recalibrate your Catastroph-o-meter if you think a Farage and a Badenoch government would be equally catastrophic...
    No, the existing opposition front bench are Farage-lite, lightweights.

    You need to reinvent yourselves as Ted Heath Tories. You would walk it back into Downing Street.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,371

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    That's a view. Alternatively, having Farage, Tice, Yusuf, Jenrick, Braverman, Anderson and similar running the country would be such a shitshow that the populus would be begging for the return of Starmer, Reeves and their mates, despite all their faults.
    Given how woeful Labour have been in Government, the populus would be begging for the return of the Tories before Starmer, Reeves and their mates - despite all their faults.

    Which is why the Tories need to keep well clear of Reform.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,623

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    That's a view. Alternatively, having Farage, Tice, Yusuf, Jenrick, Braverman, Anderson and similar running the country would be such a shitshow that the populus would be begging for the return of Starmer, Reeves and their mates, despite all their faults.
    Given how woeful Labour have been in Government, the populus would be begging for the return of the Tories before Starmer, Reeves and their mates - despite all their faults.

    Which is why the Tories need to keep well clear of Reform.
    Maybe so - I certainly agree with your last sentence. Any coalition with Reform would, I suspect, be poisonous for the Tories in the GE that would quickly follow any such coalition.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,733

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    That's a view. Alternatively, having Farage, Tice, Yusuf, Jenrick, Braverman, Anderson and similar running the country would be such a shitshow that the populus would be begging for the return of Starmer, Reeves and their mates, despite all their faults.
    Given how woeful Labour have been in Government, the populus would be begging for the return of the Tories before Starmer, Reeves and their mates - despite all their faults.

    Which is why the Tories need to keep well clear of Reform.
    Wishful thinking.

    Although your second paragraph is bob-on.
  • isamisam Posts: 44,230
    carnforth said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.

    Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.

    I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.

    Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
    Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
    I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.

    As long as not to Farage.
    But that is your dilemma.

    My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.

    Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
    Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.

    It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
    So... I think Farage would be catastrophic.

    Not for reasons of policy, but because he's incapable of maintaining good relations with colleagues for longer than about six weeks. Look at the turmoil at the top of UKIP and the fact that Reform -a party with half a dozen MPs that's been around for about two years- has had more defections and desertions and expulsions than the Liberal Democrats have had since their inception.

    Farage has also shown a... willingness... to take money from people he shouldn't, and to take money to say stupid things on Cameo.

    Reform needs to move past Farage, if it's going to be anything other than a disaster in power.
    But without Farage, can it get into power?
    No. That is the problem.

    I don't think he really wants it anyway. It suits him to be shouting from the sidelines. Even if he did manage to become PM, and was capable of being really good at it, there must be so many vested interests of the establishment intwined into the civil service etc that he would get no help from anyone
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,733
    BBC Wales very angry that Welsh Labour have spent the most on social media advertising.

    Waste of money as far as I am concerned.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,319

    BBC teatime news bigging up the "attempted" assassination of Trump and his entourage. What a brave boy Trump is.

    Pass me the sick bucket !

    I’m bored of the wall to wall coverage . I look forward instead to the wall to wall coverage of the Royal visit instead !
This discussion has been closed.