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.
Well, I would find the messy start easier to forgive if Farage had not fallen out with everyone at UKIP before Reform.
To name just a few of his fallings out: Alan Sked (UKIP), Diane James (UKIP), Marta Andreasen (UKIP), Douglas Carswell (UKIP), Mark Reckless (UKIP), Suzanne Evans (UKIP), Patrick O'Flyy (UKIP), Ben Habib (Reform), Rupert Lowe (Reform), Zia Yusuf (Reform).
These aren't just disagreements. These usually involve the person in question admitting having come to loathe Farage.
And I've probably missed quite a few.
Here's the thing.
If you meet an asshole in the morning, then you met an asshole.
If you meet an asshole every morning, then you're the asshole.
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.
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.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
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.
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.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
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.
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.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
I don’t think the Tories would survive being Reform’s servants much in the way the Lib Dems couldn’t cope with being in the coalition
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.
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.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
Did you mean the polar opposite? Remember the Lib Dems in 2015.
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.
Oh yes. Barber as Chancellor, 3 day week, Who Governs Britain? Reginald Maudling making Jenrick look an amateur.
And then there's this:
"[Heath's] decision to remain a bachelor and withhold any public indication of an interest in sex that fuelled 50 years of speculation about a secret gay life. Twelve years after his death, his sexual preferences are once again the subject of intense speculation.
Instead of claims that Heath was gay, Wiltshire police have investigated accusations that he was a paedophile whose crimes were covered up by establishment figures..."
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.
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.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
Nah. You have that very wrong. Standing aloof from a tacky doomed coalition will ultimately stand Kemi in good stead with the voters. In an election that would come along in short order. The people that will be MPs if they get 250+ elected will be ample reason to sit it out.
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.
Well, I would find the messy start easier to forgive if Farage had not fallen out with everyone at UKIP before Reform.
To name just a few of his fallings out: Alan Sked (UKIP), Diane James (UKIP), Marta Andreasen (UKIP), Douglas Carswell (UKIP), Mark Reckless (UKIP), Suzanne Evans (UKIP), Patrick O'Flyy (UKIP), Ben Habib (Reform), Rupert Lowe (Reform), Zia Yusuf (Reform).
These aren't just disagreements. These usually involve the person in question admitting having come to loathe Farage.
And I've probably missed quite a few.
Here's the thing.
If you meet an asshole in the morning, then you met an asshole.
If you meet an asshole every morning, then you're the asshole.
Or you work for British Gas.
But then, probably, you're still an asshole anyway.
Interesting comments from the perpetrators manifesto.
“I am a citizen of the United States of America,” it said. “What my representatives do reflects on me. And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”
I doubt the US media will be highlighting that as it seems on the money !
Interesting comments from the perpetrators manifesto.
“I am a citizen of the United States of America,” it said. “What my representatives do reflects on me. And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”
I doubt the US media will be highlighting that as it seems on the money !
Surely not? It only mentions his sex crimes and treasons, not his frauds and embezzlement.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
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.
Well, I would find the messy start easier to forgive if Farage had not fallen out with everyone at UKIP before Reform.
To name just a few of his fallings out: Alan Sked (UKIP), Diane James (UKIP), Marta Andreasen (UKIP), Douglas Carswell (UKIP), Mark Reckless (UKIP), Suzanne Evans (UKIP), Patrick O'Flyy (UKIP), Ben Habib (Reform), Rupert Lowe (Reform), Zia Yusuf (Reform).
These aren't just disagreements. These usually involve the person in question admitting having come to loathe Farage.
And I've probably missed quite a few.
Here's the thing.
If you meet an asshole in the morning, then you met an asshole.
If you meet an asshole every morning, then you're the asshole.
You've added Zia Yusuf to that list prematurely, but if their working relationship breaks down then Reform will be in serious trouble.
Perhaps the takeaway is that both the Tories and Restore are underpriced.
I think he's a first class shit and entirely untrustworthy. There are questions about his time at the DPP...
The first question being why was he appointed. He had very little experience as a criminal prosecutor. Was it for his admin and management skills? Well, frankly, you don't go to lawyers for that and certainly not members of the Bar. So why?
He was appointed in 2008. The announcement was by Baroness Scotland, the then Attorney-General. She had her own troubles, of course, on expenses, being fined for employing an illegal immigrant and giving a contract to a mate without following the rules. She was briefly an advisor at UBS where she asked for a briefing from me. She did most of the talking and at the end I was none the wiser about what she was actually there to do.
Interesting comments from the perpetrators manifesto.
“I am a citizen of the United States of America,” it said. “What my representatives do reflects on me. And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”
I doubt the US media will be highlighting that as it seems on the money !
John Wilkes Booth believed in the righteous nous of his cause too.
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 !
I’m watching Columbo on 5USA while drinking Ampleforth Abbey Cider.
A far worthier leisurely pursuit.
Publish or Perish, classic episode. Jack Cassidy a superb villain
Indeed he was. Brilliant as the magician in that one too. Also his other one was as a good one, an early one.
IIRC Spielberg directed it.
Father of teenage heartthrob David Cassidy too.
Sunday afternoons always mean Columbo.
Yes, the first ever episode I think, the Speilberg one. Cassidy is absolutely ruthless in it.
At 8.25 we have A Stitch in Time guest starring Leonard Nimoy. Another classic
Wasn’t the guy who was Ensign Chekov in that too ? I just love the way Columbo chips away at them relentlessly. It’s Janet Leigh now, seen it a few times. Nice twist in the tale and it features her film ‘Bringing my Baby back home’.
Have you seen the Shatner one, where he plays an actor who plays a TV Detective who kills someone. Ends up helping Columbo solve the case.
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.
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.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
I don’t think the Tories would survive being Reform’s servants much in the way the Lib Dems couldn’t cope with being in the coalition
There must be a junior coalition partner who hasn't been damaged by the experience somewhere, somewhen, but flip knows who.
I think he's a first class shit and entirely untrustworthy. There are questions about his time at the DPP...
The first question being why was he appointed. He had very little experience as a criminal prosecutor. Was it for his admin and management skills? Well, frankly, you don't go to lawyers for that and certainly not members of the Bar. So why?
He was appointed in 2008. The announcement was by Baroness Scotland, the then Attorney-General. She had her own troubles, of course, on expenses, being fined for employing an illegal immigrant and giving a contract to a mate without following the rules. She was briefly an advisor at UBS where she asked for a briefing from me. She did most of the talking and at the end I was none the wiser about what she was actually there to do.
She sounds like a very typical public sector quangocrat - corrupt, useless, incompetent and baffling how and why they got there except that they kiss the right posteriors and always shovel blame for their disasters on to other people. In my time in government I met plenty of the breed.
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.
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.
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.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
I don’t think the Tories would survive being Reform’s servants much in the way the Lib Dems couldn’t cope with being in the coalition
There must be a junior coalition partner who hasn't been damaged by the experience somewhere, somewhen, but flip knows who.
Might I suggest the Lib Dems, in their coalitions in both Holyrood and the Senedd? In the sense that they were held in contempt beforehand, and the level of contempt afterwards did not increase?
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.
Well, I would find the messy start easier to forgive if Farage had not fallen out with everyone at UKIP before Reform.
To name just a few of his fallings out: Alan Sked (UKIP), Diane James (UKIP), Marta Andreasen (UKIP), Douglas Carswell (UKIP), Mark Reckless (UKIP), Suzanne Evans (UKIP), Patrick O'Flyy (UKIP), Ben Habib (Reform), Rupert Lowe (Reform), Zia Yusuf (Reform).
These aren't just disagreements. These usually involve the person in question admitting having come to loathe Farage.
And I've probably missed quite a few.
Here's the thing.
If you meet an asshole in the morning, then you met an asshole.
If you meet an asshole every morning, then you're the asshole.
It's a pretty good parallel with Starmer. If you have to fire one person you've appointed, then you appointed a dud. If you end up firing everyone you've appointed, then you're the dud.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
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.
Well, I would find the messy start easier to forgive if Farage had not fallen out with everyone at UKIP before Reform.
To name just a few of his fallings out: Alan Sked (UKIP), Diane James (UKIP), Marta Andreasen (UKIP), Douglas Carswell (UKIP), Mark Reckless (UKIP), Suzanne Evans (UKIP), Patrick O'Flyy (UKIP), Ben Habib (Reform), Rupert Lowe (Reform), Zia Yusuf (Reform).
These aren't just disagreements. These usually involve the person in question admitting having come to loathe Farage.
And I've probably missed quite a few.
Here's the thing.
If you meet an asshole in the morning, then you met an asshole.
If you meet an asshole every morning, then you're the asshole.
It's a pretty good parallel with Starmer. If you have to fire one person you've appointed, then you appointed a dud. If you end up firing everyone you've appointed, then you're the dud.
More significantly, it kind of applies to the British demos as a whole.
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.
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.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
I don’t think the Tories would survive being Reform’s servants much in the way the Lib Dems couldn’t cope with being in the coalition
There must be a junior coalition partner who hasn't been damaged by the experience somewhere, somewhen, but flip knows who.
I think the CDU were a junior coalition partner under Scholz in Germany and now lead the government instead.
The Greens in Scotland may increase their number of MSPs, and they spent some of the last term as junior coalition partners to the SNP.
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.
Well, I would find the messy start easier to forgive if Farage had not fallen out with everyone at UKIP before Reform.
To name just a few of his fallings out: Alan Sked (UKIP), Diane James (UKIP), Marta Andreasen (UKIP), Douglas Carswell (UKIP), Mark Reckless (UKIP), Suzanne Evans (UKIP), Patrick O'Flyy (UKIP), Ben Habib (Reform), Rupert Lowe (Reform), Zia Yusuf (Reform).
These aren't just disagreements. These usually involve the person in question admitting having come to loathe Farage.
And I've probably missed quite a few.
Here's the thing.
If you meet an asshole in the morning, then you met an asshole.
If you meet an asshole every morning, then you're the asshole.
It's a pretty good parallel with Starmer. If you have to fire one person you've appointed, then you appointed a dud. If you end up firing everyone you've appointed, then you're the dud.
More significantly, it kind of applies to the British demos as a whole.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
Was it Theresa May in 2017 who decided not to build the Swansea lagoon?
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.
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.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
I don’t think the Tories would survive being Reform’s servants much in the way the Lib Dems couldn’t cope with being in the coalition
Perhaps - but in Canada they effected a backwards takeover and it's now just the Conservatives again.
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.
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.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
Nah. You have that very wrong. Standing aloof from a tacky doomed coalition will ultimately stand Kemi in good stead with the voters. In an election that would come along in short order. The people that will be MPs if they get 250+ elected will be ample reason to sit it out.
'Tacky' is an absolutely you word to describe it. Dripping with snobbery and desperation to appeal to luvviedom - meanwhile the country goes to hell with Zack. Hopefully the party has some wiser people than you in it.
Interesting comments from the perpetrators manifesto.
“I am a citizen of the United States of America,” it said. “What my representatives do reflects on me. And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”
I doubt the US media will be highlighting that as it seems on the money !
John Wilkes Booth believed in the righteous nous of his cause too.
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.
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.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
I don’t think the Tories would survive being Reform’s servants much in the way the Lib Dems couldn’t cope with being in the coalition
I think it would be a situation where the Tories would be damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
The only way out is to do well enough in the next few years not to end up in that position.
Ladbrokes have a market on the Newham Mayoral Election:
Labour 4/7 Newham Independents 7/4 Greens: 10/1 Reform: 16/1 100/1 Bar
First, Reform should be with the 100/1 and bigger shots. The Greens are too short at 10s. Labour were 4/9 last week and have eased to 4/7 as money has come for the Newham Independents from 5/2 to 7/4.
That looks about right ten days out - the Labour machine has come to life and is pushing Forhad Hussain while the NIP will be hoping they can pile up votes for Mehmood Mirza in the Muslim Wards.
Exclusive: Police to question No 10 over McSweeney’s missing phone
The DTel story includes this:
But they are now feared to have been lost after No 10’s security team remotely wiped the device, with opposition MPs voicing concerns over a cover-up.
All MMcS's messages will be found on the recipient/sender phone as well. A small number of people will stand out as potential relevant senders/recipients. I don't suppose they have all done a Vardy/Watt North Sea drop. Or have they?
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.
Well, I would find the messy start easier to forgive if Farage had not fallen out with everyone at UKIP before Reform.
To name just a few of his fallings out: Alan Sked (UKIP), Diane James (UKIP), Marta Andreasen (UKIP), Douglas Carswell (UKIP), Mark Reckless (UKIP), Suzanne Evans (UKIP), Patrick O'Flyy (UKIP), Ben Habib (Reform), Rupert Lowe (Reform), Zia Yusuf (Reform).
These aren't just disagreements. These usually involve the person in question admitting having come to loathe Farage.
And I've probably missed quite a few.
Here's the thing.
If you meet an asshole in the morning, then you met an asshole.
If you meet an asshole every morning, then you're the asshole.
You've added Zia Yusuf to that list prematurely, but if their working relationship breaks down then Reform will be in serious trouble.
Perhaps the takeaway is that both the Tories and Restore are underpriced.
Reform would break down very soon anyway. All they've got is the anti-immigration schtick. A quick look at their councillors will show that they have anti and pro Trump, Ukraine, NHS, environment and goodness knows what else. Their support could not survive the tax cuts for the rich and the closure of government departments, whilst a large selection of their support is expecting more social security and government jobs. They have somehow ignored it's basically Liz Truss and other right-wingers of the last Tory government.
Exclusive: Police to question No 10 over McSweeney’s missing phone
The DTel story includes this:
But they are now feared to have been lost after No 10’s security team remotely wiped the device, with opposition MPs voicing concerns over a cover-up.
All MMcS's messages will be found on the recipient/sender phone as well. A small number of people will stand out as potential relevant senders/recipients. I don't suppose they have all done a Vardy/Watt North Sea drop. Or have they?
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.
Well, I would find the messy start easier to forgive if Farage had not fallen out with everyone at UKIP before Reform.
To name just a few of his fallings out: Alan Sked (UKIP), Diane James (UKIP), Marta Andreasen (UKIP), Douglas Carswell (UKIP), Mark Reckless (UKIP), Suzanne Evans (UKIP), Patrick O'Flyy (UKIP), Ben Habib (Reform), Rupert Lowe (Reform), Zia Yusuf (Reform).
These aren't just disagreements. These usually involve the person in question admitting having come to loathe Farage.
And I've probably missed quite a few.
Here's the thing.
If you meet an asshole in the morning, then you met an asshole.
If you meet an asshole every morning, then you're the asshole.
Sure. Alan Sked and Farage fell out in 1997. That's nearly 30 years ago. That's 9 serious fallings out (he hasn't fallen out with Yusuf and has been very tolerant when Yusuf had a meltdown), meaning approximately one every three years. Less if you date it back from him joining. That's not an enviable record, but neither is it unique in politics. It’s also worth remembering that his parties have never been in Government, glued together by self-interest and collective cabinet responsibility.
Exclusive: Police to question No 10 over McSweeney’s missing phone
The DTel story includes this:
But they are now feared to have been lost after No 10’s security team remotely wiped the device, with opposition MPs voicing concerns over a cover-up.
All MMcS's messages will be found on the recipient/sender phone as well. A small number of people will stand out as potential relevant senders/recipients. I don't suppose they have all done a Vardy/Watt North Sea drop. Or have they?
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.
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.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
I don’t think the Tories would survive being Reform’s servants much in the way the Lib Dems couldn’t cope with being in the coalition
I think it would be a situation where the Tories would be damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
The only way out is to do well enough in the next few years not to end up in that position.
Politics doesn't work that way - the Conservatives are now facing the same issues and questions which have bedevilled the LDs and before them the Alliance. What is the point of the Conservatives and why should anyone vote for them?
IF Badenoch positions the party too close to Reform, there will be no point voting Conservative as you might as well vote Reform. IF, however, she positions the party distant from Reform, those among the Conservative electorate who want to see the back of Labour will justifiably ask how voting Conservative brings that about when voting Reform looks the best and safest way?
It may be many Conservatives would put up with Reform to be rid of Labour but is that true of all Conservative voters? I suspect not so Badenoch and Davey can sit together on the Equidistance Express but both will face difficult questions IF the post-election arithmetic works out and it may be both have more in common with each other than with prospective allies or partners.
The more I think about it, the more I see that bloc of 150-170 Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs sitting between the emerging Reform and the broken Labour parties as a powerful force in the next Parliament.
Interesting that he blames lack of insurance for closing the Strait of Hormuz. This recalls the suggestion here that in order to reopen the Strait, America should simply underwrite cheap or free insurance for tankers passing through.
Interesting that he blames lack of insurance for closing the Strait of Hormuz. This recalls the suggestion here that in order to reopen the Strait, America should simply underwrite cheap or free insurance for tankers passing through.
Nice to know the owners care about the cargo more than the seafarers...
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 !
I’m watching Columbo on 5USA while drinking Ampleforth Abbey Cider.
A far worthier leisurely pursuit.
Publish or Perish, classic episode. Jack Cassidy a superb villain
Indeed he was. Brilliant as the magician in that one too. Also his other one was as a good one, an early one.
IIRC Spielberg directed it.
Father of teenage heartthrob David Cassidy too.
Sunday afternoons always mean Columbo.
Yes, the first ever episode I think, the Speilberg one. Cassidy is absolutely ruthless in it.
At 8.25 we have A Stitch in Time guest starring Leonard Nimoy. Another classic
Wasn’t the guy who was Ensign Chekov in that too ? I just love the way Columbo chips away at them relentlessly. It’s Janet Leigh now, seen it a few times. Nice twist in the tale and it features her film ‘Bringing my Baby back home’.
Have you seen the Shatner one, where he plays an actor who plays a TV Detective who kills someone. Ends up helping Columbo solve the case.
I have seen almost all of them, although this Janet leigh one on currently is one I haven't. I don't think I bothered with the 2hr ones much as I usually watch them late at night
I love the ones ft Robert Culp as the villain. The first three of four series are the best.
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 !
it amused me that the BBC's on the ground correspondent in its initial coverage this morning was blind. could be a mettyfor or summink before Gibb woke up
Exclusive: Police to question No 10 over McSweeney’s missing phone
The DTel story includes this:
But they are now feared to have been lost after No 10’s security team remotely wiped the device, with opposition MPs voicing concerns over a cover-up.
All MMcS's messages will be found on the recipient/sender phone as well. A small number of people will stand out as potential relevant senders/recipients. I don't suppose they have all done a Vardy/Watt North Sea drop. Or have they?
Isn't the key phone the one that Starmer has?
Yes surely he will have the messages to and from MMcS, as must Mandelson etc
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.
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.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
I don’t think the Tories would survive being Reform’s servants much in the way the Lib Dems couldn’t cope with being in the coalition
I think it would be a situation where the Tories would be damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
The only way out is to do well enough in the next few years not to end up in that position.
Politics doesn't work that way - the Conservatives are now facing the same issues and questions which have bedevilled the LDs and before them the Alliance. What is the point of the Conservatives and why should anyone vote for them?
IF Badenoch positions the party too close to Reform, there will be no point voting Conservative as you might as well vote Reform. IF, however, she positions the party distant from Reform, those among the Conservative electorate who want to see the back of Labour will justifiably ask how voting Conservative brings that about when voting Reform looks the best and safest way?
It may be many Conservatives would put up with Reform to be rid of Labour but is that true of all Conservative voters? I suspect not so Badenoch and Davey can sit together on the Equidistance Express but both will face difficult questions IF the post-election arithmetic works out and it may be both have more in common with each other than with prospective allies or partners.
The more I think about it, the more I see that bloc of 150-170 Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs sitting between the emerging Reform and the broken Labour parties as a powerful force in the next Parliament.
Reform's position fall apart if the Tories overtake them in the polls. Another 4-5% drop and they are just stuck in the maelstrom with a bunch of other parties. All the more so if the Tories uptick 3%.
Interesting that he blames lack of insurance for closing the Strait of Hormuz. This recalls the suggestion here that in order to reopen the Strait, America should simply underwrite cheap or free insurance for tankers passing through.
During the late 19th century, the British Government and Admiralty made detailed plans to back the Lloyds Insurance market in case of war. Because otherwise shipping movements would collapse due to the threat of commerce raiders.
The plans were used (and worked) in both world wars.
Interesting that he blames lack of insurance for closing the Strait of Hormuz. This recalls the suggestion here that in order to reopen the Strait, America should simply underwrite cheap or free insurance for tankers passing through.
Nice to know the owners care about the cargo more than the seafarers...
Insurance would cover the compensation to the families as well…
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 !
it amused me that the BBC's on the ground correspondent in its initial coverage this morning was blind. could be a mettyfor or summink before Gibb woke up
Funnily enough he was at the first assassination attempt
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.
Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff.
The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties.
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.
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 correct answer is that you have to calibrate stupidity against the level of the role. Johnson sailed through his early career by dint of being clever, in relation to the role, but lazy. Then he hit his ceiling; then he got probably three more senior jobs beyond.
Interesting that he blames lack of insurance for closing the Strait of Hormuz. This recalls the suggestion here that in order to reopen the Strait, America should simply underwrite cheap or free insurance for tankers passing through.
Nice to know the owners care about the cargo more than the seafarers...
Insurance would cover the compensation to the families as well…
O’Sullivan cruising like a US Senator in a red light district here.
I think Hendry was a better player than O’Sullivan, but what is extraordinary about him is his ability to still play at this level aged 50. Hendry was retired at 43 and Williams and Higgins are both in clear decline.
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.
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.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
I don’t think the Tories would survive being Reform’s servants much in the way the Lib Dems couldn’t cope with being in the coalition
I think it would be a situation where the Tories would be damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
The only way out is to do well enough in the next few years not to end up in that position.
Politics doesn't work that way - the Conservatives are now facing the same issues and questions which have bedevilled the LDs and before them the Alliance. What is the point of the Conservatives and why should anyone vote for them?
IF Badenoch positions the party too close to Reform, there will be no point voting Conservative as you might as well vote Reform. IF, however, she positions the party distant from Reform, those among the Conservative electorate who want to see the back of Labour will justifiably ask how voting Conservative brings that about when voting Reform looks the best and safest way?
It may be many Conservatives would put up with Reform to be rid of Labour but is that true of all Conservative voters? I suspect not so Badenoch and Davey can sit together on the Equidistance Express but both will face difficult questions IF the post-election arithmetic works out and it may be both have more in common with each other than with prospective allies or partners.
The more I think about it, the more I see that bloc of 150-170 Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs sitting between the emerging Reform and the broken Labour parties as a powerful force in the next Parliament.
Reform's position fall apart if the Tories overtake them in the polls. Another 4-5% drop and they are just stuck in the maelstrom with a bunch of other parties. All the more so if the Tories uptick 3%.
Reform has seen an uptick in recent polls.
When the news is full of their successes a week on Thursday* then this is likely to give them a further lift.
*To be pedantic, while they will achieve successes on the Thursday, we won't have news of them until the Friday. Or Saturday, in the case of some Bradford wards.
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.
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.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
I don’t think the Tories would survive being Reform’s servants much in the way the Lib Dems couldn’t cope with being in the coalition
I think it would be a situation where the Tories would be damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
The only way out is to do well enough in the next few years not to end up in that position.
Politics doesn't work that way - the Conservatives are now facing the same issues and questions which have bedevilled the LDs and before them the Alliance. What is the point of the Conservatives and why should anyone vote for them?
IF Badenoch positions the party too close to Reform, there will be no point voting Conservative as you might as well vote Reform. IF, however, she positions the party distant from Reform, those among the Conservative electorate who want to see the back of Labour will justifiably ask how voting Conservative brings that about when voting Reform looks the best and safest way?
It may be many Conservatives would put up with Reform to be rid of Labour but is that true of all Conservative voters? I suspect not so Badenoch and Davey can sit together on the Equidistance Express but both will face difficult questions IF the post-election arithmetic works out and it may be both have more in common with each other than with prospective allies or partners.
The more I think about it, the more I see that bloc of 150-170 Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs sitting between the emerging Reform and the broken Labour parties as a powerful force in the next Parliament.
Which underlines the huge strategic opportunity Cameron was gifted by the coalition, squandered for short (and tbf medium) term party political advantage.
In my experience, Conservatives do understand where liberals are coming from, even if they often disregard their concerns to shoot for their favoured ends rather than the means; the gulf is largest when Tories stop thinking of people as individuals and look for ways to look after “their people” - whether oldies or the already wealthy. People think liberals and socialists live on the same planet, because the ends they aspire to are broadly similar; but in terms of means and methods, the socialists are always the aliens of the pack.
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.
Well, I would find the messy start easier to forgive if Farage had not fallen out with everyone at UKIP before Reform.
To name just a few of his fallings out: Alan Sked (UKIP), Diane James (UKIP), Marta Andreasen (UKIP), Douglas Carswell (UKIP), Mark Reckless (UKIP), Suzanne Evans (UKIP), Patrick O'Flyy (UKIP), Ben Habib (Reform), Rupert Lowe (Reform), Zia Yusuf (Reform).
These aren't just disagreements. These usually involve the person in question admitting having come to loathe Farage.
And I've probably missed quite a few.
Here's the thing.
If you meet an asshole in the morning, then you met an asshole.
If you meet an asshole every morning, then you're the asshole.
Sure. Alan Sked and Farage fell out in 1997. That's nearly 30 years ago. That's 9 serious fallings out (he hasn't fallen out with Yusuf and has been very tolerant when Yusuf had a meltdown), meaning approximately one every three years. Less if you date it back from him joining. That's not an enviable record, but neither is it unique in politics. It’s also worth remembering that his parties have never been in Government, glued together by self-interest and collective cabinet responsibility.
That's 100% of UKIP MPs, and 50% of Reform MPS who aren't him.
It's pretty much all former UKIP leaders.
And except for Alan Sked, it's all in the period since the Brexit referendum, isn't it.
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.
Well, I would find the messy start easier to forgive if Farage had not fallen out with everyone at UKIP before Reform.
To name just a few of his fallings out: Alan Sked (UKIP), Diane James (UKIP), Marta Andreasen (UKIP), Douglas Carswell (UKIP), Mark Reckless (UKIP), Suzanne Evans (UKIP), Patrick O'Flyy (UKIP), Ben Habib (Reform), Rupert Lowe (Reform), Zia Yusuf (Reform).
These aren't just disagreements. These usually involve the person in question admitting having come to loathe Farage.
And I've probably missed quite a few.
Here's the thing.
If you meet an asshole in the morning, then you met an asshole.
If you meet an asshole every morning, then you're the asshole.
You've added Zia Yusuf to that list prematurely, but if their working relationship breaks down then Reform will be in serious trouble.
Perhaps the takeaway is that both the Tories and Restore are underpriced.
Reform would break down very soon anyway. All they've got is the anti-immigration schtick. A quick look at their councillors will show that they have anti and pro Trump, Ukraine, NHS, environment and goodness knows what else. Their support could not survive the tax cuts for the rich and the closure of government departments, whilst a large selection of their support is expecting more social security and government jobs. They have somehow ignored it's basically Liz Truss and other right-wingers of the last Tory government.
Yes the "Red Wall" and Saxon Shore are going to get a rude awakening under PM Farage. Assuming of course that their Reform MPs vote for Tice's budget rather than VONC their own government.
To be fair, there is a valid point here. I will drink, but not on an evening where I am working the following day. Just as it might be appropriate to smoke cannabis under some circumstances but not before getting behind the wheel of an artic.
I don’t think MPs should be drunk while voting on laws that affect us all. After they have, if they’re not driving, that’s their decision.
It is about learning there is a time and a place for everything, as I told the Russian who got drunk on the school trip.
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.
Well, I would find the messy start easier to forgive if Farage had not fallen out with everyone at UKIP before Reform.
To name just a few of his fallings out: Alan Sked (UKIP), Diane James (UKIP), Marta Andreasen (UKIP), Douglas Carswell (UKIP), Mark Reckless (UKIP), Suzanne Evans (UKIP), Patrick O'Flyy (UKIP), Ben Habib (Reform), Rupert Lowe (Reform), Zia Yusuf (Reform).
These aren't just disagreements. These usually involve the person in question admitting having come to loathe Farage.
And I've probably missed quite a few.
Here's the thing.
If you meet an asshole in the morning, then you met an asshole.
If you meet an asshole every morning, then you're the asshole.
Sure. Alan Sked and Farage fell out in 1997. That's nearly 30 years ago. That's 9 serious fallings out (he hasn't fallen out with Yusuf and has been very tolerant when Yusuf had a meltdown), meaning approximately one every three years. Less if you date it back from him joining. That's not an enviable record, but neither is it unique in politics. It’s also worth remembering that his parties have never been in Government, glued together by self-interest and collective cabinet responsibility.
That's 100% of UKIP MPs, and 50% of Reform MPS who aren't him.
It's pretty much all former UKIP leaders.
And except for Alan Sked, it's all in the period since the Brexit referendum, isn't it.
No. I also don't see any reason for excepting Sked. It would be fairer to have the start date when Farage first entered politics. However, it is also a bit of a daft discussion.
O’Sullivan cruising like a US Senator in a red light district here.
I think Hendry was a better player than O’Sullivan, but what is extraordinary about him is his ability to still play at this level aged 50. Hendry was retired at 43 and Williams and Higgins are both in clear decline.
I think Xintong has a good chance of ending the 'Crucible curse'. Him and O'Sullivan could meet in the semis
On the other side of the draw, Trump is doing ok (well at least of them is)
Noticeable how few younger players are coming through to reach the highest level, and a big contingent of Chinese this year in the main draw (11) which will only grow in the next few years
To be fair, there is a valid point here. I will drink, but not on an evening where I am working the following day. Just as it might be appropriate to smoke cannabis under some circumstances but not before getting behind the wheel of an artic.
I don’t think MPs should be drunk while voting on laws that affect us all. After they have, if they’re not driving, that’s their decision.
It is about learning there is a time and a place for everything, as I told the Russian who got drunk on the school trip.
To be fair, there is a valid point here. I will drink, but not on an evening where I am working the following day. Just as it might be appropriate to smoke cannabis under some circumstances but not before getting behind the wheel of an artic.
I don’t think MPs should be drunk while voting on laws that affect us all. After they have, if they’re not driving, that’s their decision.
It is about learning there is a time and a place for everything, as I told the Russian who got drunk on the school trip.
I've definitely sat on the terrace of the Houses of Parliament with a group of people drinking alcohol, including a Green Party member of the House of Lords.
I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
Smart politics from Polanski
It wasn’t like that when I started work back in the ‘80s!
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.
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.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
I don’t think the Tories would survive being Reform’s servants much in the way the Lib Dems couldn’t cope with being in the coalition
There must be a junior coalition partner who hasn't been damaged by the experience somewhere, somewhen, but flip knows who.
Sinn Fein, in the forced coalition with the DUP in the NI Assembly.
To be fair, there is a valid point here. I will drink, but not on an evening where I am working the following day. Just as it might be appropriate to smoke cannabis under some circumstances but not before getting behind the wheel of an artic.
I don’t think MPs should be drunk while voting on laws that affect us all. After they have, if they’re not driving, that’s their decision.
It is about learning there is a time and a place for everything, as I told the Russian who got drunk on the school trip.
Someone who decided how to vote three weeks ago going through the lobby drunk is nothing. Are they weighing it up ten minutes before? It's admin.
O’Sullivan cruising like a US Senator in a red light district here.
I think Hendry was a better player than O’Sullivan, but what is extraordinary about him is his ability to still play at this level aged 50. Hendry was retired at 43 and Williams and Higgins are both in clear decline.
I think Xintong has a good chance of ending the 'Crucible curse'. Him and O'Sullivan could meet in the semis
On the other side of the draw, Trump is doing ok (well at least of them is)
Noticeable how few younger players are coming through to reach the highest level, and a big contingent of Chinese this year in the main draw (11) which will only grow in the next few years
I'm semi-surprised they haven't come up with a snooker "Ryder cup" style tournament as of yet. Britain versus China, or maybe more inclusively Europe vs. Rest of World, would have fairly well-balanced lineups.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
To be fair, there is a valid point here. I will drink, but not on an evening where I am working the following day. Just as it might be appropriate to smoke cannabis under some circumstances but not before getting behind the wheel of an artic.
I don’t think MPs should be drunk while voting on laws that affect us all. After they have, if they’re not driving, that’s their decision.
It is about learning there is a time and a place for everything, as I told the Russian who got drunk on the school trip.
Based on their decision making, I assumed MPs were permanently paralytic.
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.
Well, I would find the messy start easier to forgive if Farage had not fallen out with everyone at UKIP before Reform.
To name just a few of his fallings out: Alan Sked (UKIP), Diane James (UKIP), Marta Andreasen (UKIP), Douglas Carswell (UKIP), Mark Reckless (UKIP), Suzanne Evans (UKIP), Patrick O'Flyy (UKIP), Ben Habib (Reform), Rupert Lowe (Reform), Zia Yusuf (Reform).
These aren't just disagreements. These usually involve the person in question admitting having come to loathe Farage.
And I've probably missed quite a few.
Here's the thing.
If you meet an asshole in the morning, then you met an asshole.
If you meet an asshole every morning, then you're the asshole.
Sure. Alan Sked and Farage fell out in 1997. That's nearly 30 years ago. That's 9 serious fallings out (he hasn't fallen out with Yusuf and has been very tolerant when Yusuf had a meltdown), meaning approximately one every three years. Less if you date it back from him joining. That's not an enviable record, but neither is it unique in politics. It’s also worth remembering that his parties have never been in Government, glued together by self-interest and collective cabinet responsibility.
That's 100% of UKIP MPs, and 50% of Reform MPS who aren't him.
It's pretty much all former UKIP leaders.
And except for Alan Sked, it's all in the period since the Brexit referendum, isn't it.
No. I also don't see any reason for excepting Sked. It would be fairer to have the start date when Farage first entered politics. However, it is also a bit of a daft discussion.
I'm not sure that works in his favour: it suggests the speed at which he falls out with colleagues is accelerating.
To be fair, there is a valid point here. I will drink, but not on an evening where I am working the following day. Just as it might be appropriate to smoke cannabis under some circumstances but not before getting behind the wheel of an artic.
I don’t think MPs should be drunk while voting on laws that affect us all. After they have, if they’re not driving, that’s their decision.
It is about learning there is a time and a place for everything, as I told the Russian who got drunk on the school trip.
Someone who decided how to vote three weeks ago going through the lobby drunk is nothing. Are they weighing it up ten minutes before? It's admin.
I am struggling to remember of the hotel I stayed in when at the Supreme Court but it was in reasonable proximity to both the SC and the Houses of Parliament. In the bar there was a bell which rang when there was a division/vote in the Commons so that the MPs enjoying the hospitality of the bar could stagger back to the House and (hopefully) through the right corridor.
It was all very cosy and there were certainly a few Honourable Members somewhat in their cups that I recognised.
O’Sullivan cruising like a US Senator in a red light district here.
I think Hendry was a better player than O’Sullivan, but what is extraordinary about him is his ability to still play at this level aged 50. Hendry was retired at 43 and Williams and Higgins are both in clear decline.
I think Xintong has a good chance of ending the 'Crucible curse'. Him and O'Sullivan could meet in the semis
On the other side of the draw, Trump is doing ok (well at least of them is)
Noticeable how few younger players are coming through to reach the highest level, and a big contingent of Chinese this year in the main draw (11) which will only grow in the next few years
I'm semi-surprised they haven't come up with a snooker "Ryder cup" style tournament as of yet. Britain versus China, or maybe more inclusively Europe vs. Rest of World, would have fairly well-balanced lineups.
Would you have the snooker players playing in pairs, taking alternate shots?
To be fair, there is a valid point here. I will drink, but not on an evening where I am working the following day. Just as it might be appropriate to smoke cannabis under some circumstances but not before getting behind the wheel of an artic.
I don’t think MPs should be drunk while voting on laws that affect us all. After they have, if they’re not driving, that’s their decision.
It is about learning there is a time and a place for everything, as I told the Russian who got drunk on the school trip.
Someone who decided how to vote three weeks ago going through the lobby drunk is nothing. Are they weighing it up ten minutes before? It's admin.
Yes, but then that shows up a lot of Westminster procedure to be a bit of a sham - "I can go through the lobby the whips tell me to go through perfectly well drunk." While the Greens are presumably claiming to be a bit more high-minded and attempting to be involved in genuine debate in the Commons chamber.
The voters generally like the idea of their MP being independent-minded, rather than a drone at the command of the whips (though of course they also penalise leaders who can't impose discipline on their MPs).
To be fair, there is a valid point here. I will drink, but not on an evening where I am working the following day. Just as it might be appropriate to smoke cannabis under some circumstances but not before getting behind the wheel of an artic.
I don’t think MPs should be drunk while voting on laws that affect us all. After they have, if they’re not driving, that’s their decision.
It is about learning there is a time and a place for everything, as I told the Russian who got drunk on the school trip.
Someone who decided how to vote three weeks ago going through the lobby drunk is nothing. Are they weighing it up ten minutes before? It's admin.
I am struggling to remember of the hotel I stayed in when at the Supreme Court but it was in reasonable proximity to both the SC and the Houses of Parliament. In the bar there was a bell which rang when there was a division/vote in the Commons so that the MPs enjoying the hospitality of the bar could stagger back to the House and (hopefully) through the right corridor.
It was all very cosy and there were certainly a few Honourable Members somewhat in their cups that I recognised.
Indeed. Famously also in the Red Lion. No idea what the communication mechanism is/was.
Edit: internet says BT used to provide the system at £3000/yr but now it's an app.
O’Sullivan cruising like a US Senator in a red light district here.
I think Hendry was a better player than O’Sullivan, but what is extraordinary about him is his ability to still play at this level aged 50. Hendry was retired at 43 and Williams and Higgins are both in clear decline.
I think Xintong has a good chance of ending the 'Crucible curse'. Him and O'Sullivan could meet in the semis
On the other side of the draw, Trump is doing ok (well at least of them is)
Noticeable how few younger players are coming through to reach the highest level, and a big contingent of Chinese this year in the main draw (11) which will only grow in the next few years
I'm semi-surprised they haven't come up with a snooker "Ryder cup" style tournament as of yet. Britain versus China, or maybe more inclusively Europe vs. Rest of World, would have fairly well-balanced lineups.
Would you have the snooker players playing in pairs, taking alternate shots?
Could be part of it. I was thinking mainly from a singles line-up perspective, but that could give an additional element to the format.
Do they still have that doubles championship where they'd pair up a male and a female player?
Comments
To name just a few of his fallings out: Alan Sked (UKIP), Diane James (UKIP), Marta Andreasen (UKIP), Douglas Carswell (UKIP), Mark Reckless (UKIP), Suzanne Evans (UKIP), Patrick O'Flyy (UKIP), Ben Habib (Reform), Rupert Lowe (Reform), Zia Yusuf (Reform).
These aren't just disagreements. These usually involve the person in question admitting having come to loathe Farage.
And I've probably missed quite a few.
Here's the thing.
If you meet an asshole in the morning, then you met an asshole.
If you meet an asshole every morning, then you're the asshole.
A far worthier leisurely pursuit.
Gary as the "eyewitness" was an interesting notion. Although to be fair he was less excitable than the rest of them.
And then there's this:
"[Heath's] decision to remain a bachelor and withhold any public indication of an interest in sex that fuelled 50 years of speculation about a secret gay life. Twelve years after his death, his sexual preferences are once again the subject of intense speculation.
Instead of claims that Heath was gay, Wiltshire police have investigated accusations that he was a paedophile whose crimes were covered up by establishment figures..."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/05/edward-heath-scandal-allegations-enigmatic-leader
I'll pass on that, ta.
IIRC Spielberg directed it.
Father of teenage heartthrob David Cassidy too.
Sunday afternoons always mean Columbo.
(No, I don't REALLY think it was a set up. But they do make it damned easy to believe...)
But then, probably, you're still an asshole anyway.
“I am a citizen of the United States of America,” it said. “What my representatives do reflects on me. And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”
I doubt the US media will be highlighting that as it seems on the money !
At 8.25 we have A Stitch in Time guest starring Leonard Nimoy. Another classic
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/26/uk-departments-at-odds-over-energy-demands-of-ai-datacentres
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Perhaps the takeaway is that both the Tories and Restore are underpriced.
He was appointed in 2008. The announcement was by Baroness Scotland, the then Attorney-General. She had her own troubles, of course, on expenses, being fined for employing an illegal immigrant and giving a contract to a mate without following the rules. She was briefly an advisor at UBS where she asked for a briefing from me. She did most of the talking and at the end I was none the wiser about what she was actually there to do.
Have you seen the Shatner one, where he plays an actor who plays a TV Detective who kills someone. Ends up helping Columbo solve the case.
No wonder she and Starmer got on so well.
They also seem to have bought some more Law & Order episodes for weekdays. It was getting rather repetitive.
Exclusive: Police to question No 10 over McSweeney’s missing phone
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
They have a 3 point lead with 4 games to play
The Greens in Scotland may increase their number of MSPs, and they spent some of the last term as junior coalition partners to the SNP.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
So much time wasted.
But, here's the thing: I wouldn't hesitate with Rishi Sunak or, for that matter, Theresa May.
For all their faults, decency wasn't one of them, and there was plenty of evidence for it.
A particularly interesting look at where the US is at the moment. A must watch for Armchair Generals everywhere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiLANGfgc8M
The only way out is to do well enough in the next few years not to end up in that position.
Ladbrokes have a market on the Newham Mayoral Election:
Labour 4/7
Newham Independents 7/4
Greens: 10/1
Reform: 16/1
100/1 Bar
First, Reform should be with the 100/1 and bigger shots. The Greens are too short at 10s. Labour were 4/9 last week and have eased to 4/7 as money has come for the Newham Independents from 5/2 to 7/4.
That looks about right ten days out - the Labour machine has come to life and is pushing Forhad Hussain while the NIP will be hoping they can pile up votes for Mehmood Mirza in the Muslim Wards.
But they are now feared to have been lost after No 10’s security team remotely wiped the device, with opposition MPs voicing concerns over a cover-up.
All MMcS's messages will be found on the recipient/sender phone as well. A small number of people will stand out as potential relevant senders/recipients. I don't suppose they have all done a Vardy/Watt North Sea drop. Or have they?
IF Badenoch positions the party too close to Reform, there will be no point voting Conservative as you might as well vote Reform. IF, however, she positions the party distant from Reform, those among the Conservative electorate who want to see the back of Labour will justifiably ask how voting Conservative brings that about when voting Reform looks the best and safest way?
It may be many Conservatives would put up with Reform to be rid of Labour but is that true of all Conservative voters? I suspect not so Badenoch and Davey can sit together on the Equidistance Express but both will face difficult questions IF the post-election arithmetic works out and it may be both have more in common with each other than with prospective allies or partners.
The more I think about it, the more I see that bloc of 150-170 Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs sitting between the emerging Reform and the broken Labour parties as a powerful force in the next Parliament.
I love the ones ft Robert Culp as the villain. The first three of four series are the best.
I want Lt Columbo on this... and Currygate!!
The plans were used (and worked) in both world wars.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0475yr9kego
https://x.com/zackpolanski/status/2048472494542102805
I think Hendry was a better player than O’Sullivan, but what is extraordinary about him is his ability to still play at this level aged 50. Hendry was retired at 43 and Williams and Higgins are both in clear decline.
Decriminalise drugs. Every day is high day.
And now...
Zack Polanski
@ZackPolanski
·
25m
A choice for Labour MPs before a big set of elections to go out campaigning on:
"MPs should be able to drink alcohol before voting because they work long days."
They're really revealing themselves, aren't they?
Time to replace Labour.
http://Join.greenparty.org.uk
When the news is full of their successes a week on Thursday* then this is likely to give them a further lift.
*To be pedantic, while they will achieve successes on the Thursday, we won't have news of them until the Friday. Or Saturday, in the case of some Bradford wards.
@daisyeastlake
·
1h
🟢 Exclusive interview with @ZackPolanski for @thetimes
ahead of May 7th, when his Green party is predicted to make historic gains across England
https://x.com/daisyeastlake/status/2048463989688946885
In my experience, Conservatives do understand where liberals are coming from, even if they often disregard their concerns to shoot for their favoured ends rather than the means; the gulf is largest when Tories stop thinking of people as individuals and look for ways to look after “their people” - whether oldies or the already wealthy. People think liberals and socialists live on the same planet, because the ends they aspire to are broadly similar; but in terms of means and methods, the socialists are always the aliens of the pack.
It's pretty much all former UKIP leaders.
And except for Alan Sked, it's all in the period since the Brexit referendum, isn't it.
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
I don’t think MPs should be drunk while voting on laws that affect us all. After they have, if they’re not driving, that’s their decision.
It is about learning there is a time and a place for everything, as I told the Russian who got drunk on the school trip.
On the other side of the draw, Trump is doing ok (well at least of them is)
Noticeable how few younger players are coming through to reach the highest level, and a big contingent of Chinese this year in the main draw (11) which will only grow in the next few years
https://x.com/lukeakehurst/status/2048469945881661838
Darren Johnson
@DarrenJohnson66
I've definitely sat on the terrace of the Houses of Parliament with a group of people drinking alcohol, including a Green Party member of the House of Lords.
https://x.com/DarrenJohnson66/status/2048462001299505314
Smart politics from Polanski
It was all very cosy and there were certainly a few Honourable Members somewhat in their cups that I recognised.
The voters generally like the idea of their MP being independent-minded, rather than a drone at the command of the whips (though of course they also penalise leaders who can't impose discipline on their MPs).
Edit: internet says BT used to provide the system at £3000/yr but now it's an app.
Do they still have that doubles championship where they'd pair up a male and a female player?