It was amusing to read today's 'Times'. The account of the event at Omaha Beach listed the World Leaders who attended, while tactfully skating round the fact that the British Prime Minister was starring in the role of Macavity the Mystery Cat. Presumably nobody wanted to disturb the newly-remarried Rupert Murdoch to get his line on this.
It was amusing to read today's 'Times'. The account of the event at Omaha Beach listed the World Leaders who attended, while tactfully skating round the fact that the British Prime Minister was starring in the role of Macavity the Mystery Cat. Presumably nobody wanted to disturb the newly-remarried Rupert Murdoch to get his line on this.
From the Guardian's live blog a little while ago:
This is from James Ball from the New European.
Rishi Sunak’s current D-Day explanation is that he hadn’t planned to attend the full ceremonies even before it was taking place during an election.
Isn’t that…worse? Does he not see that’s worse?
What's the planned (or unplanned) own goal for tomorrow, I wonder?
The message I get from Sunak's no-show at the second half of the day is that he's unwittingly demonstrated what he really thinks about the UK’s foreign allies, then and now. i.e. He can’t be bothered with them. Let Dave deal with all that stuff. The bit he went to was about 'our brave boys'. The bit he slighted commemorated the multinational co-operative effort involved.
It all fits with being a Brexitist.
I agree that the revelation that he'd never intended to go, even before he called the election - and remember, he it was that called it.
If Farage had been invited, he’d have done the same but made a great noise about how he wasn’t going on to a ceremony involving Johnny Foreigner. But this reads as though the only difference between Sunak and Farage is that Sunak knows that as PM he can’t say that.
Without wishing to rant on about Sunak's leaving the D-Day event early, I do wonder if perhaps he's intent on losing not only the General Election, but also his seat in Yorkshire.
This might fit in with the rumours that he simply wants to decamp to California (with his £££ and $$$) at the earliest opportunity - which would be very soon after July 4th.
I suppose he can't very well resign as leader of the Tory party right now, even though many people just want him gone?
I've been unavailable and out of contact all day - but a thought that crossed my mind is to wonder the last time that the Opposition in the British HoC was not the party previously in government.
There would be quite a difference in tone if the LDs were the Opposition, for one thing the Labour gov wouldn't be able to blame the state of the country on the person standing at the opposite dispatch box.
I guess it must be in the days of the rising Labour movement when the new party began to break the Lib-Tory/Whig division of British politics. Which must be more than 100 years ago.
I don't think anyone is claiming that any media outlet is neutral and unbiased but comparing the BBC with the Gestapo shows how out of touch with reality or any sense of proportion some Shipmates are.
I am not comparing them.
I am saying that neither is impartial. Do you discern the difference? The BBC does not snatch people off the street and torture them, but it has a clear agenda and does not tolerate alternative views. It is absolutely useless to argue with them. I have tried. It is like dealing with any other monolithic entity that cannot conceive of the possibility that it may be mistaken.
Perhaps I should have said 'The Post Office Management'. It may well be that given time, a similar scandal will erupt around the BBC and its clear and apparent agenda and bias. The Daily Mail is, of course, just as bad, but then I do not have to buy a Daily Mail subscription so that I can legally read.
But you are making a point that I'd be shouted down for were I to make it, and that's how authoritarian some on the left can be.
At last someone's been prepared to be open about that.
At the same time, I think it's a ghastly caricature you're drawing of the Labour left as
But an enlightened socialist elite leading the unenlightened masses towards a bright socialist future.
Although reading some posts on these boards ... 😉
But yes, it would be nice to see some liberal policies from the Lib Dems and some socialist ones from Labour ... 😉
To illustrate my point, think of Roy Jenkins and Harriet Harman, and the radical social policy (for the time) that they espoused.
Although nominally 'centrists', on these issues they were far, far, far to the left of a typical Labour voter in a pub in Salford or Scunthorpe. This is something many working-class voters have cottoned on to, and now claim Labour does not represent them. The question is, who does? The answer is, honestly, no one. Certainly not the tinpot fascists of Reform.
To illustrate my point, think of Roy Jenkins and Harriet Harman, and the radical social policy (for the time) that they espoused.
Although nominally 'centrists', on these issues they were far, far, far to the left of a typical Labour voter in a pub in Salford or Scunthorpe. This is something many working-class voters have cottoned on to, and now claim Labour does not represent them. The question is, who does? The answer is, honestly, no one. Certainly not the tinpot fascists of Reform.
Er... you might have to elucidate a bit @Sighthound as I am only just coming up on 50 so was not very politically aware when "Woy" was in his prime... and even on Harriet Harman it would be helpful to have it pointed out exactly what her "radical social policy" was...
FWIW, the latest IPSOS poll puts the LibDems (marginally) behind the Greens.
Although given the distribution of Green votes, they're unlikely to get many seats. Siân Berry has a decent chance of succeeding Caroline Lucas in Brighton. Carla Denyer hopes to win the new Bristol Central seat, and might. It's not impossible that a strong local Reform vote will allow Adrian Ramsay to sneak through in the new Waveney Valley constituency, although I think that's a bit of a long shot.
I think that's probably it for realistic prospects.
Was any other shipmate sad enough to watch the debate on BBC1 this evening?
I found it pretty depressing. Mordaunt was really dreadful, little better than Farage. She talked over everyone else and just got louder when Michal Husain tried to shut her up. One suspects her of having a deep inner complacency, that as a member of the government, she's entitled to steamroller everyone else. I regret to predict that unless she fails to get back in for whichever part of Portsmouth she has represented - which it's argued is possible - I think she'll be the next leader of her party. She struck me as having just the sort of unfounded self-confidence, lack of self awareness and loose relationship with the facts that goes down well with the party faithful.
Predictably, yes, Farage was dreadful too, but everyone already knows that. Rayner started a bit uncertainly but warmed up and improved as she relaxed a bit. The two nats were quite good, but nobody here can vote for them, and their core message is only relevant if you vote in their areas. Denyer, I thought, was fluent but pretty dismal, guff rather than content. She also frequently didn't deign to answer the questions the audience had actually asked. Cooper IMHO was the one who came out best, clear, rational, persuasive and giving the impression she was presenting policies she or her party had actually thought out. That will please @Gamma Gamaliel and may get a few seats, but it won't alas get them into power. Sadly, also, it doesn't stir the mob.
I thought Michal Husain did a better job than Julie Etchingham earlier in the week at trying to manage them but she had a thankless task.
FWIW, the latest IPSOS poll puts the LibDems (marginally) behind the Greens.
Although given the distribution of Green votes, they're unlikely to get many seats. Siân Berry has a decent chance of succeeding Caroline Lucas in Brighton. Carla Denyer hopes to win the new Bristol Central seat, and might. It's not impossible that a strong local Reform vote will allow Adrian Ramsay to sneak through in the new Waveney Valley constituency, although I think that's a bit of a long shot.
I think that's probably it for realistic prospects.
Give it time. There's almost 4 weeks for Starmer to endorse another genocide or two, or wax lyrical about how great Thatcher was.
<snip>
Predictably, yes, Farage was dreadful too, but everyone already knows that. <snip>
But everyone doesn't know this. That's why his party is polling so well
Reform UK has pulled to within two points of the Conservatives, according to the latest YouGov poll of the election campaign for Sky News.
The latest exclusive weekly survey, conducted on Monday and Tuesday before the head-to-head TV debate, puts Labour on 40%, the Tories on 19%, Reform UK on 17%, the Liberal Democrats on 10% and the Greens on 7%.
I don't think anyone is claiming that any media outlet is neutral and unbiased but comparing the BBC with the Gestapo shows how out of touch with reality or any sense of proportion some Shipmates are.
I am not comparing them.
I am saying that neither is impartial. Do you discern the difference? The BBC does not snatch people off the street and torture them, but it has a clear agenda and does not tolerate alternative views. It is absolutely useless to argue with them. I have tried. It is like dealing with any other monolithic entity that cannot conceive of the possibility that it may be mistaken.
Perhaps I should have said 'The Post Office Management'. It may well be that given time, a similar scandal will erupt around the BBC and its clear and apparent agenda and bias. The Daily Mail is, of course, just as bad, but then I do not have to buy a Daily Mail subscription so that I can legally read.
You did compare them.
How is this not a comparison?
'BBC? Unbiased? Don't make me laugh! They're not even unbiased on football, and seek as many clicks as possible from fans of three teams. Hence their style of coverage in that area, about as neutral as the Gestapo was.'
To say that my feet are as cold as ice, say, is to draw a comparison between how cold my feet feel and how cold ice is.
There is no difference to discern.
This is Godwin's Law and also arrant nonsense.
Nobody is saying that the BBC or any other media outlet is neutral and impartial.
That doesn't mean that their lack of partiality puts them on the same level as the Gestapo.
Why use the Gestapo as an example of impartiality when you could have chosen any other that wouldn't have the same frisson or level of hyperbole?
We could take seriously a comment like, 'I don't think the BBC is any more impartial than GB News,' say. Or 'I don't think the BBC is any more impartial than the Daily Mirror / Daily Mail / The Telegraph / The Times / CNN / ITV ... [delete media outlet of choice] ...'
We could debate that seriously with examples.
The BBC's a mixed bag. It's pretty liberal for the most part on what we might call 'Dead Horse Issues' but as @Chrisstiles has reminded us without resorting to hyperbole or Godwin's Law, there are quantitive studies that show a lack of balance and objectivity on certain political topics.
There have been scandals at the BBC and I don't doubt that we'll evidence of more merge, perhaps even to the level of the Post Office management one.
As everyone knows, I'm not a big fan of the hard left but were I to come on here comparing Corbyn to Stalin I'd rightly get short-shrift.
I mean, c'mon ... with your apparent equanimity about the idea of an 'enlightened' elite leading the unenlightened knuckle-dragging masses towards a socialist utopia, one could make comparisons between what seems to be your position and totalitarianism or a kind of 1984 dystopia.
I'm sure you'd react if any Shipmate were to draw that comparison (which I have done by inference). So it should come as no surprise when someone challenges your Godwin's Law style comparison between the lack of impartiality of both the BBC and The Gestapo and your shamefully disingenuous denial that you were making any comparison at all.
<snip>
Predictably, yes, Farage was dreadful too, but everyone already knows that. <snip>
But everyone doesn't know this. That's why his party is polling so well
Reform UK has pulled to within two points of the Conservatives, according to the latest YouGov poll of the election campaign for Sky News.
The latest exclusive weekly survey, conducted on Monday and Tuesday before the head-to-head TV debate, puts Labour on 40%, the Tories on 19%, Reform UK on 17%, the Liberal Democrats on 10% and the Greens on 7%.
I imagine that @Enoch meant that everyone here already knows that.
But that doesn't seem to be the case either given the way you seem to lean towards or defend Farage.
Heck, the fella is enough to make me want to cancel my CAMRA-membership and drink keg and gassy lagers instead ...
Nominations for candidates closed yesterday, so I can now see what my options are in a brand-new constituency. Parties listed in the order and as described on the official statement of persons nominated that I've downloaded from our district council website. We have the choice of:
Social Democratic Party
Conservative Party
Green Party
Liberal Democrat
Labour Party
Reform UK
So far we've had fliers from Conservatives and Lib Dems (and the Lib Dem bar chart was accurately sized!).
<snip>
Predictably, yes, Farage was dreadful too, but everyone already knows that. <snip>
But everyone doesn't know this. That's why his party is polling so well ....
@Telford I don't agree with your analysis. You're displaying a touching faith that 'the system' is good and therefore what it delivers must be true.
Farage appeals to people who know he's dreadful, that he's puff and wind who shoots his mouth off and can't be relied on. What appeals to them is that they think he tells it like it is. He's not mealy mouthed about things they really think but know they aren't supposed to say. It's the same political market as Trump gets his support from. Sadly, it's the downside of universal suffrage.
It's the sting in the tail from previous intakes of politicians who have imagined that you change how people are by passing laws against the things about them you don't like.
I think it's a combination of genuinely low information voters, people who like the fact that he's dreadful and those who are sick of pulling the lever for one of the major parties and never seeing results (which can either be real or imagined).
Don't doubt that the first category exist, the state of political coverage in the UK is parlous, plenty in the media now purport to have known that the 2019 Tory Manifesto was undeliverable in terms of health spending and 'levelling up' yet no one really said so at the time:
<snip>
Predictably, yes, Farage was dreadful too, but everyone already knows that. <snip>
But everyone doesn't know this. That's why his party is polling so well ....
@Telford I don't agree with your analysis. You're displaying a touching faith that 'the system' is good and therefore what it delivers must be true.
Farage appeals to people who know he's dreadful, that he's puff and wind who shoots his mouth off and can't be relied on. What appeals to them is that they think he tells it like it is. He's not mealy mouthed about things they really think but know they aren't supposed to say. It's the same political market as Trump gets his support from. Sadly, it's the downside of universal suffrage.
It's the sting in the tail from previous intakes of politicians who have imagined that you change how people are by passing laws against the things about them you don't like.
The problem with your statement was your use of the word Everyone'
<snip>
Predictably, yes, Farage was dreadful too, but everyone already knows that. <snip>
But everyone doesn't know this. That's why his party is polling so well ....
@Telford I don't agree with your analysis. You're displaying a touching faith that 'the system' is good and therefore what it delivers must be true.
Farage appeals to people who know he's dreadful, that he's puff and wind who shoots his mouth off and can't be relied on. What appeals to them is that they think he tells it like it is. He's not mealy mouthed about things they really think but know they aren't supposed to say. It's the same political market as Trump gets his support from. Sadly, it's the downside of universal suffrage.
It's the sting in the tail from previous intakes of politicians who have imagined that you change how people are by passing laws against the things about them you don't like.
The problem with your statement was your use of the word Everyone'
<snip>
Predictably, yes, Farage was dreadful too, but everyone already knows that. <snip>
But everyone doesn't know this. That's why his party is polling so well
Reform UK has pulled to within two points of the Conservatives, according to the latest YouGov poll of the election campaign for Sky News.
The latest exclusive weekly survey, conducted on Monday and Tuesday before the head-to-head TV debate, puts Labour on 40%, the Tories on 19%, Reform UK on 17%, the Liberal Democrats on 10% and the Greens on 7%.
I imagine that @Enoch meant that everyone here already knows that.
But that doesn't seem to be the case either given the way you seem to lean towards or defend Farage.
Heck, the fella is enough to make me want to cancel my CAMRA-membership and drink keg and gassy lagers instead ...
Well, not quite ...
You must have missed what @Gamma Gamaliel said. I've put it in italics for you.
Loads of the potholes round here have been fixed the last few weeks, and the roads are almost drivable.
Normally march is the stereotypical time (and that's been missing for a few years), so why now?
Am I imagining it? Or is it pure coincidence? Or (and hence why I'm asking on the thread) is there a political aspect too it or other causual link to the election.
It feels like it is a bit late to expect me to be thinking "wow the Tory council and MP, are so good with the roads". Although to be fair it is amazing how much happier a drive is. If I were fifty fifty.it might work.
I suppose the council could be anticipating future funds associated with an expected change of government?
The timing of the election seems to have been a surprise to everyone other than Sunak and his advisors, and possibly to them as well, so I doubt it's that specific.
Our council budget is passed at the end of February, so money for road maintenance is allocated then. Actual work usually starts in May through the summer when it's unlikely that water would penetrate the new surface and freeze during the repair.
The timing of the election seems to have been a surprise to everyone other than Sunak and his advisors, and possibly to them as well, so I doubt it's that specific.
This. I live in a county where every seat is currently blue, as are both the unitary authorities. We’re not seeing any work on our roads. They’re really not organised enough to be running round tarmacing roads just because an election looms.
These kind of works are often scheduled well in advance and often postponed. It will have been scheduled long before the Election was a twinkle in Sunak's eye.
That makes sense. Maybe before you noticed them getting ahead of the game with the tail of the last budget. While this year dealing with the remaining issues with the start of this year's budget.
Seems like this week will mostly consist of "to solve this problem we pledge this impossible solution".
Too many uncompleted criminal cases? No problem, we will just pledge to have more cases.
Need more nursery provision for infants? No problem, we will just pledge thousands more places.
Too few police? No problem, just pledge more.
Surely nobody is stupid enough to think that these are simple problems that are simply solved by making unfunded pledges?
Each one of these is a complex problem which would be expensive to fix. Mix in the other massive problems and it's pretty obvious that none of them could be delivered in difficult financial times when everyone is claiming to not want to raise taxation.
Corbyn produced a fully costed manifesto - all that happened was nobody read it and on the doorstop people just told us they didn’t believe it - even whilst admitting they hadn’t read the financial details. (Developed with the input of a panel of economists, because they knew that people would accuse them of being spendthrifts). On the basis of that, I doubt political parties see the point of properly showing their workings,
Each one of these is a complex problem which would be expensive to fix. Mix in the other massive problems and it's pretty obvious that none of them could be delivered in difficult financial times when everyone is claiming to not want to raise taxation.
Some of this assumption I would query.
For example, if you need 100 nurses and a nurse you hire currently costs £50, and a temp cover nurse costs £150 - you currently have 50 nurses at £50 and use 50 temps at £150 each, raising your nurses pay to £75 (if it allows you to hire your full establishment of 100) then overall you will increase your establishment, raise pay and save money.
Likewise, if you increase NHS funding, thereby increase staffing and reduce waiting lists - then you will have less people off sick with ineffectively treated illness thereby increasing the productivity of your workforce and decreasing your welfare bill.
Cases unheard in the court carry costs for those held on remand, police time and resources in monitoring police bail etc etc.
Corbyn produced a fully costed manifesto - all that happened was nobody read it and on the doorstop people just told us they didn’t believe it - even whilst admitting they hadn’t read the financial details. (Developed with the input of a panel of economists, because they knew that people would accuse them of being spendthrifts). On the basis of that, I doubt political parties see the point of properly showing their workings,
What percentage of the electorate have ever seen a manifesto let alone read it?
Quite - though it was all put online to increase access, it was available in an easy read version too. But it is a good example of providing what people always say they want and how much impact that actually has. Likewise polling showed wide public support for many of the policies when they were not identified with the party.
The state of the media in this country is a national disgrace. I’d support a system that forbids any one company or individual owning more than media outlet simultaneously.
Each one of these is a complex problem which would be expensive to fix. Mix in the other massive problems and it's pretty obvious that none of them could be delivered in difficult financial times when everyone is claiming to not want to raise taxation.
Some of this assumption I would query.
For example, if you need 100 nurses and a nurse you hire currently costs £50, and a temp cover nurse costs £150 - you currently have 50 nurses at £50 and use 50 temps at £150 each, raising your nurses pay to £75 (if it allows you to hire your full establishment of 100) then overall you will increase your establishment, raise pay and save money.
Likewise, if you increase NHS funding, thereby increase staffing and reduce waiting lists - then you will have less people off sick with ineffectively treated illness thereby increasing the productivity of your workforce and decreasing your welfare bill.
Cases unheard in the court carry costs for those held on remand, police time and resources in monitoring police bail etc etc.
I'm not sure what you think you are saying or what you think I'm disagreeing with.
Take for example nursery school places. The Tories have apparently made available the finances for many places however there are practical considerations which mean that parents are unable to use them.
The only point I'm making is that these issues are large and systemic. It's not just the case that you can make a pledge and magically solve the problem.
The point I was making, is that it can be possible do some of this stuff without raising taxes because often the failure of the system can be equally or more expensive than investing in it.
Take for example nursery school places. The Tories have apparently made available the finances for many places however there are practical considerations which mean that parents are unable to use them.
The "practical considerations" are chiefly that the places are underfunded, meaning hardly any nurseries can afford to take children with only "free" hours. The free hours also don't cover working hours for many parents so top-up hours have to be purchased to make up the difference both in time and in the cost of providing the care vs what the government fund.
As in many cases these "large and systemic" issues boil down to "not enough money". The organisation of the sector is different but adult social care faces similar problems with an identical root cause - allocated public funding is insufficient to the task.
Well maybe that's where we disagree. I don't think these are problems that can be solved with throwing cash at them.
Anyway this is all a bit irrelevant because even if they are that kind of problem, there is still a problem conjouring up the level of funds needed to do it.
Unless there is a big uptick in the economy, which seems quite unlikely in the near future.
The point I was making, is that it can be possible do some of this stuff without raising taxes because often the failure of the system can be equally or more expensive than investing in it.
Again, I'm not disagreeing. It's almost always cheaper to pay for things upfront and take the immediate financial hit. In almost everything.
One of the systematic issues with improving public services, whether that's nursery places or court capacity or whatever, is the availability of qualified staff. That's not going to be turned around quickly, because it takes time for staff to gain qualifications and experience.
Increasing wages to cover pay erosion cf cost of living will help retain existing staff, and maybe tempt some people back where they have left for other employment that pays enough to cover costs of living. But, to significantly increase numbers will need investment in training and time.
One of the systematic issues with improving public services, whether that's nursery places or court capacity or whatever, is the availability of qualified staff. That's not going to be turned around quickly, because it takes time for staff to gain qualifications and experience.
Increasing wages to cover pay erosion cf cost of living will help retain existing staff, and maybe tempt some people back where they have left for other employment that pays enough to cover costs of living. But, to significantly increase numbers will need investment in training and time.
That's an argument that a big majority is (or can be) a good thing as it gives the government significant breathing space to get things done that don't show immediate results. Whether a theoretical Starmer government would be brave enough is a different question.
Ed Davey is playing a blinder, don't you think? I won't be voting LD due to the situation in my constituency but he's certainly making me smile.
I think so. He's getting attention and getting heard.
Reform and the LibDems are kinda opposites. The annoying analogy journalists use is "ground war" and "air war." But the point remains, the LibDems have an excellent party machine with volunteers, door knacking, local events etc. Reform are poor at that but really good at getting attention at the national level.
Davey's approach is, to me, very smart and likely to pay dividends by getting heard nationally.
I think he's being refreshingly human. Not claiming simple solutions, not overpromising, not apparently trying to speak to an older audience. Not even pretending that he's about to go into government.
Basically just clowning around so people see photos of him falling over and talking simply about some family hardships he's had.
He's not going to win, but I think he may well win friends.
Of course. Wouldn't you want to rinse away your coalition spell? 😉
Tell it not in Gath, but the Lib Dem campaign apparatus isn't as slick as AFZ suggests but it's certainly gone up a gear this time round.
Time will tell how much traction it'll make. But it's getting air-time for better reasons than the flatulent bloviating of Farage whose racist comments on Sunak 'not understanding our culture' are shameful in the extreme, notwithstanding the PM's D-Day gaff.
Sadly, Farage's xenophobia will receive more attention than the serious points Sir Ed is trying to make for all the clowning.
Well, to a point, but it ends up being somewhat misleading. Take for example the video about his son, the elided context is what happened to support for disability services under the coalition government - of which he was part.
Comments
From the Guardian's live blog a little while ago:
This is from James Ball from the New European.
Rishi Sunak’s current D-Day explanation is that he hadn’t planned to attend the full ceremonies even before it was taking place during an election.
Isn’t that…worse? Does he not see that’s worse?
What's the planned (or unplanned) own goal for tomorrow, I wonder?
It all fits with being a Brexitist.
I agree that the revelation that he'd never intended to go, even before he called the election - and remember, he it was that called it.
If Farage had been invited, he’d have done the same but made a great noise about how he wasn’t going on to a ceremony involving Johnny Foreigner. But this reads as though the only difference between Sunak and Farage is that Sunak knows that as PM he can’t say that.
This might fit in with the rumours that he simply wants to decamp to California (with his £££ and $$$) at the earliest opportunity - which would be very soon after July 4th.
I suppose he can't very well resign as leader of the Tory party right now, even though many people just want him gone?
There would be quite a difference in tone if the LDs were the Opposition, for one thing the Labour gov wouldn't be able to blame the state of the country on the person standing at the opposite dispatch box.
I guess it must be in the days of the rising Labour movement when the new party began to break the Lib-Tory/Whig division of British politics. Which must be more than 100 years ago.
So 101 years ago
I am not comparing them.
I am saying that neither is impartial. Do you discern the difference? The BBC does not snatch people off the street and torture them, but it has a clear agenda and does not tolerate alternative views. It is absolutely useless to argue with them. I have tried. It is like dealing with any other monolithic entity that cannot conceive of the possibility that it may be mistaken.
Perhaps I should have said 'The Post Office Management'. It may well be that given time, a similar scandal will erupt around the BBC and its clear and apparent agenda and bias. The Daily Mail is, of course, just as bad, but then I do not have to buy a Daily Mail subscription so that I can legally read.
To illustrate my point, think of Roy Jenkins and Harriet Harman, and the radical social policy (for the time) that they espoused.
Although nominally 'centrists', on these issues they were far, far, far to the left of a typical Labour voter in a pub in Salford or Scunthorpe. This is something many working-class voters have cottoned on to, and now claim Labour does not represent them. The question is, who does? The answer is, honestly, no one. Certainly not the tinpot fascists of Reform.
Er... you might have to elucidate a bit @Sighthound as I am only just coming up on 50 so was not very politically aware when "Woy" was in his prime... and even on Harriet Harman it would be helpful to have it pointed out exactly what her "radical social policy" was...
It won't matter to the progress of government, but it might matter to the question of how the national discourse is framed.
Although given the distribution of Green votes, they're unlikely to get many seats. Siân Berry has a decent chance of succeeding Caroline Lucas in Brighton. Carla Denyer hopes to win the new Bristol Central seat, and might. It's not impossible that a strong local Reform vote will allow Adrian Ramsay to sneak through in the new Waveney Valley constituency, although I think that's a bit of a long shot.
I think that's probably it for realistic prospects.
I found it pretty depressing. Mordaunt was really dreadful, little better than Farage. She talked over everyone else and just got louder when Michal Husain tried to shut her up. One suspects her of having a deep inner complacency, that as a member of the government, she's entitled to steamroller everyone else. I regret to predict that unless she fails to get back in for whichever part of Portsmouth she has represented - which it's argued is possible - I think she'll be the next leader of her party. She struck me as having just the sort of unfounded self-confidence, lack of self awareness and loose relationship with the facts that goes down well with the party faithful.
Predictably, yes, Farage was dreadful too, but everyone already knows that. Rayner started a bit uncertainly but warmed up and improved as she relaxed a bit. The two nats were quite good, but nobody here can vote for them, and their core message is only relevant if you vote in their areas. Denyer, I thought, was fluent but pretty dismal, guff rather than content. She also frequently didn't deign to answer the questions the audience had actually asked. Cooper IMHO was the one who came out best, clear, rational, persuasive and giving the impression she was presenting policies she or her party had actually thought out. That will please @Gamma Gamaliel and may get a few seats, but it won't alas get them into power. Sadly, also, it doesn't stir the mob.
I thought Michal Husain did a better job than Julie Etchingham earlier in the week at trying to manage them but she had a thankless task.
Give it time. There's almost 4 weeks for Starmer to endorse another genocide or two, or wax lyrical about how great Thatcher was.
But everyone doesn't know this. That's why his party is polling so well
You did compare them.
How is this not a comparison?
'BBC? Unbiased? Don't make me laugh! They're not even unbiased on football, and seek as many clicks as possible from fans of three teams. Hence their style of coverage in that area, about as neutral as the Gestapo was.'
To say that my feet are as cold as ice, say, is to draw a comparison between how cold my feet feel and how cold ice is.
There is no difference to discern.
This is Godwin's Law and also arrant nonsense.
Nobody is saying that the BBC or any other media outlet is neutral and impartial.
That doesn't mean that their lack of partiality puts them on the same level as the Gestapo.
Why use the Gestapo as an example of impartiality when you could have chosen any other that wouldn't have the same frisson or level of hyperbole?
We could take seriously a comment like, 'I don't think the BBC is any more impartial than GB News,' say. Or 'I don't think the BBC is any more impartial than the Daily Mirror / Daily Mail / The Telegraph / The Times / CNN / ITV ... [delete media outlet of choice] ...'
We could debate that seriously with examples.
The BBC's a mixed bag. It's pretty liberal for the most part on what we might call 'Dead Horse Issues' but as @Chrisstiles has reminded us without resorting to hyperbole or Godwin's Law, there are quantitive studies that show a lack of balance and objectivity on certain political topics.
There have been scandals at the BBC and I don't doubt that we'll evidence of more merge, perhaps even to the level of the Post Office management one.
As everyone knows, I'm not a big fan of the hard left but were I to come on here comparing Corbyn to Stalin I'd rightly get short-shrift.
I mean, c'mon ... with your apparent equanimity about the idea of an 'enlightened' elite leading the unenlightened knuckle-dragging masses towards a socialist utopia, one could make comparisons between what seems to be your position and totalitarianism or a kind of 1984 dystopia.
I'm sure you'd react if any Shipmate were to draw that comparison (which I have done by inference). So it should come as no surprise when someone challenges your Godwin's Law style comparison between the lack of impartiality of both the BBC and The Gestapo and your shamefully disingenuous denial that you were making any comparison at all.
I call bollocks on it.
I imagine that @Enoch meant that everyone here already knows that.
But that doesn't seem to be the case either given the way you seem to lean towards or defend Farage.
Heck, the fella is enough to make me want to cancel my CAMRA-membership and drink keg and gassy lagers instead ...
Well, not quite ...
- Social Democratic Party
- Conservative Party
- Green Party
- Liberal Democrat
- Labour Party
- Reform UK
So far we've had fliers from Conservatives and Lib Dems (and the Lib Dem bar chart was accurately sized!).Farage appeals to people who know he's dreadful, that he's puff and wind who shoots his mouth off and can't be relied on. What appeals to them is that they think he tells it like it is. He's not mealy mouthed about things they really think but know they aren't supposed to say. It's the same political market as Trump gets his support from. Sadly, it's the downside of universal suffrage.
It's the sting in the tail from previous intakes of politicians who have imagined that you change how people are by passing laws against the things about them you don't like.
Don't doubt that the first category exist, the state of political coverage in the UK is parlous, plenty in the media now purport to have known that the 2019 Tory Manifesto was undeliverable in terms of health spending and 'levelling up' yet no one really said so at the time:
https://www.ft.com/content/e09c3a03-2cd8-47de-9c9a-7e9726fbb1e3 ( https://archive.is/pOtN6 )
It's archived at the second link.
The problem with your statement was your use of the word Everyone'
You must have missed what @Gamma Gamaliel said. I've put it in italics for you.
Normally march is the stereotypical time (and that's been missing for a few years), so why now?
Am I imagining it? Or is it pure coincidence? Or (and hence why I'm asking on the thread) is there a political aspect too it or other causual link to the election.
It feels like it is a bit late to expect me to be thinking "wow the Tory council and MP, are so good with the roads". Although to be fair it is amazing how much happier a drive is. If I were fifty fifty.it might work.
I suppose the council could be anticipating future funds associated with an expected change of government?
This. I live in a county where every seat is currently blue, as are both the unitary authorities. We’re not seeing any work on our roads. They’re really not organised enough to be running round tarmacing roads just because an election looms.
Chalk it up to coincidence.
Too many uncompleted criminal cases? No problem, we will just pledge to have more cases.
Need more nursery provision for infants? No problem, we will just pledge thousands more places.
Too few police? No problem, just pledge more.
Surely nobody is stupid enough to think that these are simple problems that are simply solved by making unfunded pledges?
Each one of these is a complex problem which would be expensive to fix. Mix in the other massive problems and it's pretty obvious that none of them could be delivered in difficult financial times when everyone is claiming to not want to raise taxation.
Some of this assumption I would query.
For example, if you need 100 nurses and a nurse you hire currently costs £50, and a temp cover nurse costs £150 - you currently have 50 nurses at £50 and use 50 temps at £150 each, raising your nurses pay to £75 (if it allows you to hire your full establishment of 100) then overall you will increase your establishment, raise pay and save money.
Likewise, if you increase NHS funding, thereby increase staffing and reduce waiting lists - then you will have less people off sick with ineffectively treated illness thereby increasing the productivity of your workforce and decreasing your welfare bill.
Cases unheard in the court carry costs for those held on remand, police time and resources in monitoring police bail etc etc.
What percentage of the electorate have ever seen a manifesto let alone read it?
The state of the media in this country is a national disgrace. I’d support a system that forbids any one company or individual owning more than media outlet simultaneously.
I'm not sure what you think you are saying or what you think I'm disagreeing with.
Take for example nursery school places. The Tories have apparently made available the finances for many places however there are practical considerations which mean that parents are unable to use them.
The only point I'm making is that these issues are large and systemic. It's not just the case that you can make a pledge and magically solve the problem.
The "practical considerations" are chiefly that the places are underfunded, meaning hardly any nurseries can afford to take children with only "free" hours. The free hours also don't cover working hours for many parents so top-up hours have to be purchased to make up the difference both in time and in the cost of providing the care vs what the government fund.
As in many cases these "large and systemic" issues boil down to "not enough money". The organisation of the sector is different but adult social care faces similar problems with an identical root cause - allocated public funding is insufficient to the task.
Anyway this is all a bit irrelevant because even if they are that kind of problem, there is still a problem conjouring up the level of funds needed to do it.
Unless there is a big uptick in the economy, which seems quite unlikely in the near future.
Again, I'm not disagreeing. It's almost always cheaper to pay for things upfront and take the immediate financial hit. In almost everything.
Politicians generally don't want to do this.
Increasing wages to cover pay erosion cf cost of living will help retain existing staff, and maybe tempt some people back where they have left for other employment that pays enough to cover costs of living. But, to significantly increase numbers will need investment in training and time.
That's an argument that a big majority is (or can be) a good thing as it gives the government significant breathing space to get things done that don't show immediate results. Whether a theoretical Starmer government would be brave enough is a different question.
I think so. He's getting attention and getting heard.
Reform and the LibDems are kinda opposites. The annoying analogy journalists use is "ground war" and "air war." But the point remains, the LibDems have an excellent party machine with volunteers, door knacking, local events etc. Reform are poor at that but really good at getting attention at the national level.
Davey's approach is, to me, very smart and likely to pay dividends by getting heard nationally.
AFZ
And it's a good way of washing their coalition spell.
Basically just clowning around so people see photos of him falling over and talking simply about some family hardships he's had.
He's not going to win, but I think he may well win friends.
Tell it not in Gath, but the Lib Dem campaign apparatus isn't as slick as AFZ suggests but it's certainly gone up a gear this time round.
Time will tell how much traction it'll make. But it's getting air-time for better reasons than the flatulent bloviating of Farage whose racist comments on Sunak 'not understanding our culture' are shameful in the extreme, notwithstanding the PM's D-Day gaff.
Sadly, Farage's xenophobia will receive more attention than the serious points Sir Ed is trying to make for all the clowning.
Well, to a point, but it ends up being somewhat misleading. Take for example the video about his son, the elided context is what happened to support for disability services under the coalition government - of which he was part.