The Politics Thread

[Vice Admiral]

Basically agree.

The UK is full of idiotic saps pumping out snarky content on social media, most of whom wouldn't be able to run a market stall never mind a country but they have very, very hard views on what it takes to be a top rank politician.

In the past they'd just be pub bores but now we have far less pubs to bore in.

I suppose we're just treating PMs like failing football team managers now and shouting abuse from the terraces.

In this context there’s a worthwhile article by Janice Turner in today’s Times, with the heading, “Why is there such hatred for Keir Starmer?” and the sub-heading, “He’s not a scoundrel, he hasn’t crashed the economy and he kept us out of a war, yet the PM is mocked and loathed”.

These headings (presumably written by a sub-editor) – though sound in themselves – are slightly misleading, since they represent only a small part of Turner's theme.  Most of her article is devoted to explaining in some detail why Starmer has proved to be such a poor Prime Minister.  Here are a couple of paragraphs:
________________________

With no political compass, no core beliefs on anything from welfare reform to whether Britain is an “island of strangers”, he had no intellectual ballast. Blown around by the next person he spoke to, he lost the loyalty of those who had invested their credibility in building a case or writing a speech.

Starmer’s inner political void leads to U-turns, which make his government look weak and give voters a switchback ride. And one U-turn begets another, because if applying pressure reverses decisions on the two-child cap or winter fuel payments, maybe it can stop the Chagos deal. So opponents throw everything they have at him, language grows intemperate and angry, ratcheting up the hate. Then he caves, and is despised even more.

[sparkus]

In this context there’s a worthwhile article by Janice Turner in today’s Times, with the heading, “Why is there such hatred for Keir Starmer?” and the sub-heading, “He’s not a scoundrel, he hasn’t crashed the economy and he kept us out of a war, yet the PM is mocked and loathed”.

These headings (presumably written by a sub-editor) – though sound in themselves – are slightly misleading, since they represent only a small part of Turner's theme.  Most of her article is devoted to explaining in some detail why Starmer has proved to be such a poor Prime Minister.  Here are a couple of paragraphs:
________________________

With no political compass, no core beliefs on anything from welfare reform to whether Britain is an “island of strangers”, he had no intellectual ballast. Blown around by the next person he spoke to, he lost the loyalty of those who had invested their credibility in building a case or writing a speech.

Starmer’s inner political void leads to U-turns, which make his government look weak and give voters a switchback ride. And one U-turn begets another, because if applying pressure reverses decisions on the two-child cap or winter fuel payments, maybe it can stop the Chagos deal. So opponents throw everything they have at him, language grows intemperate and angry, ratcheting up the hate. Then he caves, and is despised even more.

Again, fair points. But Starmer and co came in on pretty big mandate to deliver "change" then immediately set up doing the square root of fuck all with no particular plan beyond Not Being The Tories. People tired of this quite quickly and TBH he's not particularly likeable (or unlikeable either, he's just not there). He was just lucky to conquer a field of weak leadership rivals at the right time. I think Ed M would have beaten him in 2010. Which kinda shows you how fucked we are.

[bigden40]

Again, fair points. But Starmer and co came in on pretty big mandate to deliver "change" then immediately set up doing the square root of fuck all with no particular plan beyond Not Being The Tories. People tired of this quite quickly and TBH he's not particularly likeable (or unlikeable either, he's just not there). He was just lucky to conquer a field of weak leadership rivals at the right time. I think Ed M would have beaten him in 2010. Which kinda shows you how fucked we are.

Did they though?  Whilst they secured a large majority they did so on fewer votes than Corbyn had got losing to Johnson.  Through the  peculiarities of our electoral system they have a loveless but large majority, but I wouldn’t call 33% of the vote a big mandate.

And if only they had done the square root of fuck, that would be far more desirable than their actual, extremely damaging, policies.

[Vice Admiral]

Somewhere in today's Times someone was praising Wes Streeting for his integrity.

I don't see it that way.

Everything Streeting has done recently has been cynically calculated to undermine the Prime Minister and to maximise his chances of becoming the next Labour leader.

However his winning doesn't seem likely to me.  (He's now said he'll be standing, by the way.)

If Andy Burnham wins in Makerfield, he will be the next leader, either by acclamation or by election.

If he doesn't, I imagine that one of the two other lefties – Angela Rayner or Ed Miliband – will be elected leader (I’m assuming that in the end Starmer won’t stand), one of them having been eliminated in the first round.

What about as wild card such as Al Carns?

Nah.

Anyway, the “principled” Wes Streeting must be getting down on his knees every night to pray that Burnham doesn’t win the Makerfield by-election. 

And if there’s a bloke with binoculars and a smart-phone spotted behind a tree in Makerfield spying on the Burnham camp in the next few weeks, I think we can guess who it will be.

[timsussex]

Its a shame we cant have a poll on here 
Which do you expect/hope for
1) Labour hold Manchester Mayor; Burnham wins and becomes PM by acclamation
2) Reform takes Mayor - Starmer says told you so but Burnham wins and is elected PM 
3) Labour lose both Streeting becomes PM

[bigden40]

Its a shame we cant have a poll on here 
Which do you expect/hope for
1) Labour hold Manchester Mayor; Burnham wins and becomes PM by acclamation
2) Reform takes Mayor - Starmer says told you so but Burnham wins and is elected PM 
3) Labour lose both Streeting becomes PM

4) Labour lose both and A N Other becomes PM

[scutty brown]

4) Labour lose both and A N Other becomes PM

or
5) Starmer asks the King to dissolve parliament and calls a general election. Or threatens his party that's what he'll do if a challenge is called.
It would sort the labour party out permanently and get rid of the idiots

[Adoniron]

Somewhere in today's Times someone was praising Wes Streeting for his integrity.

I don't see it that way.

Everything Streeting has done recently has been cynically calculated to undermine the Prime Minister and to maximise his chances of becoming the next Labour leader.

However his winning doesn't seem likely to me.  (He's now said he'll be standing, by the way.)

If Andy Burnham wins in Makerfield, he will be the next leader, either by acclamation or by election.

If he doesn't, I imagine that one of the two other lefties – Angela Rayner or Ed Miliband – will be elected leader (I’m assuming that in the end Starmer won’t stand), one of them having been eliminated in the first round.

What about as wild card such as Al Carns?

Nah.

Anyway, the “principled” Wes Streeting must be getting down on his knees every night to pray that Burnham doesn’t win the Makerfield by-election. 

And if there’s a bloke with binoculars and a smart-phone spotted behind a tree in Makerfield spying on the Burnham camp in the next few weeks, I think we can guess who it will be.

Streeting won't win. He's more Blairite than Starmer and tainted by his association with Mandelson.

[Jonestown]

Party before Country: On the BBC website, Burnham “vows” to save Labour party, no mention of who is going to save The UK.

[DastardlyDick]

I see Rupert Lowe has,said Restore will field a candidate in Makerfield, which could stuff Reform.

[bigden40]

or
5) Starmer asks the King to dissolve parliament and calls a general election. Or threatens his party that's what he'll do if a challenge is called.
It would sort the labour party out permanently and get rid of the idiots

A GE is beyond my wildest dreams.

[sparkus]

Did they though?  Whilst they secured a large majority they did so on fewer votes than Corbyn had got losing to Johnson.  Through the  peculiarities of our electoral system they have a loveless but large majority, but I wouldn’t call 33% of the vote a big mandate.

And if only they had done the square root of fuck, that would be far more desirable than their actual, extremely damaging, policies.

A win's a win.  Ask Boris.

I mean they've not doing anything that's benefited the broad mass of British society, some tweaks here and there but that's it.

[timsussex]

or
5) Starmer asks the King to dissolve parliament and calls a general election. Or threatens his party that's what he'll do if a challenge is called.
It would sort the labour party out permanently and get rid of the idiots

probably the only power he has left

[Vice Admiral]

I don't suppose I've heard Andy Burnham's voice for ten years or so.  If ever.

Yesterday he was interviewed on C4 News. 

I expected the King of the North to be bursting with charisma, with a voice to match.

Instead – dreary voice, dreary delivery. dreary platitudes.  Starmer Mark II.

King of the North?  Chartered Accountant of the North, more like.

Streeting's voice and delivery are a bit better, but not much.

Meanwhile, today’s Mail on Sunday front page headline is: “Wes turns screw on Burnham over Brexit”.

I haven’t read the story, but here’s a cynical interpretation of what’s going on.

The Makerfield constituency voted 65% leave in the 2016 Brexit referendum.  If Burnham is forced to make a strong case for joining the EU, that makes it more likely that he will fail to win this heavily pro-Brexit constituency – increasing Streeting’s chances of winning the subsequent Labour leadership election.

[bigden40]

I don't suppose I've heard Andy Burnham's voice for ten years or so.  If ever.

Yesterday he was interviewed on C4 News. 

I expected the King of the North to be bursting with charisma, with a voice to match.

Instead – dreary voice, dreary delivery. dreary platitudes.  Starmer Mark II.

King of the North?  Chartered Accountant of the North, more like.

Streeting's voice and delivery are a bit better, but not much.

Meanwhile, today’s Mail on Sunday front page headline is: “Wes turns screw on Burnham over Brexit”.

I haven’t read the story, but here’s a cynical interpretation of what’s going on.

The Makerfield constituency voted 65% leave in the 2016 Brexit referendum.  If Burnham is forced to make a strong case for joining the EU, that makes it more likely that he will fail to win this heavily pro-Brexit constituency – increasing Streeting’s chances of winning the subsequent Labour leadership election.

Wait until you see Burnham's policy positions.

[RandomGuy99]

Wait until you see Burnham's policy positions.

I wonder how any of them would do in a meeting with Donald Trump?

[Vice Admiral]

In today’s Sunday Times, Karl Turner, the MP for East Hull, is quoted describing Wes Streeting’s proposal to support Britain rejoining the European Union as deeply divisive:  “For many people in places like East Hull, where 74 per cent voted Leave, Brexit was about more than economics. It was about democracy, trust and feeling listened to after years of feeling ignored and left behind.”

Doesn’t that say it all?  The United Kingdom was plunged into the economic, practical and reputational nightmare of no longer being part of the EU because millions of people “felt ignored and left behind”!

Still at least we got one vote in the Eurovision Song Context, from the Ukrainian jury – a sympathy vote, no doubt.  At least the Ukrainians can find time to feel sorry for us.

[timsussex]

Perhaps that is what Streeting is relying on - the electorate felt ignored, wanted to give the politicians a slap in the face (or a kick up the arse) so voted leave He may believe that having made their point they now see - or saw all along - the economic advantages of EU membership and in any case he needs to differentiate himself from Starmer & Burnham somehow

[Jerboa]

He must think that he has a good chance. Not everyone will agree.
Hidden Image/Members Only


Pass the sick bucket......
Hidden Image/Members Only

Burnham covered up the rape gangs in Greater Manchester for his and Labour's political power.

[Jerboa]

In today’s Sunday Times, Karl Turner, the MP for East Hull, is quoted describing Wes Streeting’s proposal to support Britain rejoining the European Union as deeply divisive:  “For many people in places like East Hull, where 74 per cent voted Leave, Brexit was about more than economics. It was about democracy, trust and feeling listened to after years of feeling ignored and left behind.”

Doesn’t that say it all?  The United Kingdom was plunged into the economic, practical and reputational nightmare of no longer being part of the EU because millions of people “felt ignored and left behind”!

Still at least we got one vote in the Eurovision Song Context, from the Ukrainian jury – a sympathy vote, no doubt.  At least the Ukrainians can find time to feel sorry for us.

Karl Turner is a endangered species in the Labour party, a proper old school working class socialist who hasn't forgotten his roots.

[Vice Admiral]

Burnham covered up the rape gangs in Greater Manchester for his and Labour's political power.

I hadn't heard that, and, to be fair, a report in the Times on 9 January 2025 suggests the opposite.

Under the heading, “Andy Burnham backs inquiry into grooming gangs” and the sub-heading, “The Manchester mayor says ministers were right to reject Conservative ‘opportunism’ but thinks there is a case for a limited national inquiry to hold people to account”, the report includes this:
___________________

Sir Keir Starmer faces a Labour split over his refusal to order a new national inquiry into historical child sexual abuse.

Andy Burnham, the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, signalled that he supported such an investigation, despite resistance by Downing Street.

Burnham said on Thursday that Labour MPs had been right to vote against a Conservative amendment to the government’s schools bill. The amendment called for a national inquiry but would have derailed the legislation, which is designed to protect home-schooled children.

“In my view, the government was right to reject that form of opportunism,” Burnham told BBC Radio Manchester on Thursday. “But I did hear last night coming out of the debate, ministers saying they are open to discussing issues now with survivors.

“And I will add my voice into this and say I do think there is the case for a limited national inquiry that draws on reviews like the one that I commissioned and the one we’ve seen in Rotherham, the one we’ve seen in Telford, to draw out some of these national issues, and compel people to give evidence who then may have charges to answer and be held to account. That is something I couldn’t do at my level.”

Sources close to Burnham stressed he first wanted ministers to implement the Jay report’s recommendations so that progress and justice for victims is not impeded by a new inquiry.

The Conservatives used Burnham’s intervention to criticise Starmer’s insistence at the start of the week that some politicians had “jumped on the bandwagon” and were only feigning concern about the issue.

Matt Vickers, a shadow Home Office minister, said: “Labour were wrong to block a Conservative call for an inquiry into rape gangs. Andy Burnham is just the latest voice now calling for Keir Starmer to change track and put the victims of this vile scandal first instead of his own pride.”

[chuck_88]

Have always liked Andy Burnham.

His speech to the commons on Hillsborough was fantastic.  In particular his comments on Margaret Aspinall and the other victims  families at the end - magnificent.

External Link/Members Only

[Vice Admiral]

Interestingly, the bookies now have Andy Burnham as red-hot favourite to be the next Prime Minister, with typical odds of 8/11 or 4/5.

Angela Rayner’s odds are a lot longer, typically at 9/2 or 11/2 – and Wes Streeting is third favourite, out at around 9/1.

The people who are willing to put their money where their mouths are seem to be very sure that Burnham will clear his first and biggest hurdle, winning the Makerfield by-election.

We shall see.

[Jerboa]

I hadn't heard that, and, to be fair, a report in the Times on 9 January 2025 suggests the opposite.

Under the heading, “Andy Burnham backs inquiry into grooming gangs” and the sub-heading, “The Manchester mayor says ministers were right to reject Conservative ‘opportunism’ but thinks there is a case for a limited national inquiry to hold people to account”, the report includes this:
___________________

Sir Keir Starmer faces a Labour split over his refusal to order a new national inquiry into historical child sexual abuse.

Andy Burnham, the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, signalled that he supported such an investigation, despite resistance by Downing Street.

Burnham said on Thursday that Labour MPs had been right to vote against a Conservative amendment to the government’s schools bill. The amendment called for a national inquiry but would have derailed the legislation, which is designed to protect home-schooled children.

“In my view, the government was right to reject that form of opportunism,” Burnham told BBC Radio Manchester on Thursday. “But I did hear last night coming out of the debate, ministers saying they are open to discussing issues now with survivors.

“And I will add my voice into this and say I do think there is the case for a limited national inquiry that draws on reviews like the one that I commissioned and the one we’ve seen in Rotherham, the one we’ve seen in Telford, to draw out some of these national issues, and compel people to give evidence who then may have charges to answer and be held to account. That is something I couldn’t do at my level.”

Sources close to Burnham stressed he first wanted ministers to implement the Jay report’s recommendations so that progress and justice for victims is not impeded by a new inquiry.

The Conservatives used Burnham’s intervention to criticise Starmer’s insistence at the start of the week that some politicians had “jumped on the bandwagon” and were only feigning concern about the issue.

Matt Vickers, a shadow Home Office minister, said: “Labour were wrong to block a Conservative call for an inquiry into rape gangs. Andy Burnham is just the latest voice now calling for Keir Starmer to change track and put the victims of this vile scandal first instead of his own pride.”

Well not a lot of people know about it, check out Raja Miah, he is a activist in Oldham, who has investigated the corruption in his town, involving the local labour group and pakistani drug gangs, and Burnham did whitewash the so called independent inquiry to save the Muslim block vote.

[bigden40]

In today’s Sunday Times, Karl Turner, the MP for East Hull, is quoted describing Wes Streeting’s proposal to support Britain rejoining the European Union as deeply divisive:  “For many people in places like East Hull, where 74 per cent voted Leave, Brexit was about more than economics. It was about democracy, trust and feeling listened to after years of feeling ignored and left behind.”

Doesn’t that say it all?  The United Kingdom was plunged into the economic, practical and reputational nightmare of no longer being part of the EU because millions of people “felt ignored and left behind”!

Still at least we got one vote in the Eurovision Song Context, from the Ukrainian jury – a sympathy vote, no doubt.  At least the Ukrainians can find time to feel sorry for us.

You’re very typical of that view that wants to blame all of our current woes on Brexit.  This ignores the impact of Covid lockdowns, subsequent government policy choices, etc.  One could also note that Germany's economic fortunes over the same period have been worse than ours, they’re one of the few countries making even worse decisions over energy policy than us. It’s a very simplistic view to take on a complex situation that really calls for a multi-variant analysis.

Campaigning to rejoin the EU would mark another unnecessary and divisive period and would undoubtedly be quite evenly split again. Rejoining would certainly not be a magic bullet.

We would be better off being honest about where we are and pursue policies that are more pro-trade, pro-growth.

[mills_and_bhuna]

I wonder how any of them would do in a meeting with Donald Trump?

Not really a fair question.
Badenoch and Farage would probably roll over and get their tummy tickled.
Xi and Putin know they're dealing with an utter clown and treat him accordingly.
Promise nothing and use your leverage.
Britain hasn't got any.

[Jerboa]

You’re very typical of that view that wants to blame all of our current woes on Brexit.  This ignores the impact of Covid lockdowns, subsequent government policy choices, etc.  One could also note that Germany's economic fortunes over the same period have been worse than ours, they’re one of the few countries making even worse decisions over energy policy than us. It’s a very simplistic view to take on a complex situation that really calls for a multi-variant analysis.

Campaigning to rejoin the EU would mark another unnecessary and divisive period and would undoubtedly be quite evenly split again. Rejoining would certainly not be a magic bullet.

We would be better off being honest about where we are and pursue policies that are more pro-trade, pro-growth.

Correct, Germany is buggered, somebody and we don't know who....blew up their Nordstream pipelines, now they're buying Qatari & US LNG at 5x the cost. Rheinmetall can't afford to manufacture steel plates for their Leopard tanks. 

[Vice Admiral]

Campaigning to rejoin the EU would mark another unnecessary and divisive period and would undoubtedly be quite evenly split again. Rejoining would certainly not be a magic bullet.

In that respect I agree with you.  Another referendum campaign does not bear thinking about.  In addition, it has often been suggested that if we became a "new" member of the EU, we would have to join the single currency, to which I would be very much opposed.

In current circumstances, the answer is probably to try to negotiate access to the single market and / or the customs union, while remaining outside the EU.

[bigden40]

In that respect I agree with you.  Another referendum campaign does not bear thinking about.  In addition, it has often been suggested that if we became a "new" member of the EU, we would have to join the single currency, to which I would be very much opposed.

In current circumstances, the answer is probably to try to negotiate access to the single market and / or the customs union, while remaining outside the EU.

I disagree.  The answer IMHO is to attempt to rediscover the qualities that allowed our little island to dominate the globe for a couple of centuries. 

I asked AI:  “Why was a small island like Britain able to dominate the world until the early 20th century?  What qualities and attributes enabled that and how could those qualities be rediscovered to recapture some of that success in a US-centric world?”

In a US-centric world, Britain (or any mid-sized power) cannot “rule the waves” again, but it can recapture disproportionate influence through high-leverage niches. Focus on quality over quantity:
- Institutions First: Strengthen rule of law, fiscal discipline, and regulatory simplicity. Reduce policy uncertainty and rent-seeking. London already excels in finance/tech/services—build on it with predictable taxes and immigration favoring high skills. Evidence from economic history shows institutions explain a large share of long-run growth differences.
- Innovation and Human Capital: Double down on education (especially STEM, vocational/apprenticeships), R&D incentives, and entrepreneurship. Leverage English-language advantage, universities (Oxbridge + others), and clusters (tech in Cambridge/Oxford/London, finance, biotech, AI). Attract global talent; historically, openness to brains amplified British success. Nuclear energy, advanced manufacturing, and defense tech offer edges.
- Maritime/Aerospace and Power Projection: Maintain a capable navy (carriers, submarines, alliances via AUKUS/NATO/Five Eyes). Control of undersea cables, Arctic routes, and space are modern equivalents. Soft power via BBC, English, culture, and diplomacy remains strong.
- Pragmatic Alliances and Trade: Deepen ties with US/Commonwealth/Indo-Pacific partners without over-reliance. Pursue nimble free-trade deals and “Global Britain.” Historical adaptability (pivot from empire to EU to post-Brexit) is reusable.
- Cultural Confidence and Cohesion: Rediscover traits like empirical problem-solving over ideology, tolerance for debate, and national narrative emphasizing achievement/resilience rather than perpetual grievance. Social trust and low corruption are force multipliers. Immigration policy that prioritizes assimilation and skills preserves the human capital edge.
- Realism on Scale: Britain (~67 million people) thrives as a high-value specialist, not hegemon. Examples: Singapore, Netherlands, Switzerland show small entities punching above weight via institutions, trade, and niches. Avoid over-taxation/entitlement traps that erode incentives.

Success isn’t guaranteed by copying 1800s models—technology (AI, biotech, energy) and global supply chains have changed the game. But the timeless drivers (secure rights + incentives for innovation + openness to talent + external orientation) remain observable in high-performing societies. Britain’s story shows these are cultivable, not mystical. Relative decline was partly inevitable with diffusion of technology and larger rivals, but stagnation is a choice.

Tbh it’s not a bad answer.

[Vice Admiral]

I disagree.  The answer IMHO is to attempt to rediscover the qualities that allowed our little island to dominate the globe for a couple of centuries. 

I asked AI:  “Why was a small island like Britain able to dominate the world until the early 20th century?  What qualities and attributes enabled that and how could those qualities be rediscovered to recapture some of that success in a US-centric world?”

Tbh it’s not a bad answer.

Meanwhile, Google AI’s reply to the question, “Would rejoining the EU boost the UK economy?” is as pasted below.

Sadly, the Vice-Admiral’s cunning plan would seemingly have little benefit:  “Partial integration, such as rejoining the Single Market or establishing a bespoke customs union, would offer a fraction of the economic boost (e.g., about 0.5% for a customs union).” 
______________________________

Rejoining the European Union is estimated to boost the UK economy by roughly 4% to 8% in long-run national income, as it would eliminate expensive non-tariff trade barriers and restore frictionless access to the EU Single Market. However, the exact economic benefits depend heavily on the specific terms of the deal.

The economic implications break down into key areas:
•   Trade and Business: Full membership would cut costly customs bureaucracy and regulatory friction. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) notes that rejoining would not instantly reverse all losses, as the UK would likely have to negotiate from a different baseline and might not receive the same favourable financial terms or rebates it had previously.
•   Investment: Rejoining would provide legal and regulatory certainty, potentially unlocking major foreign direct investment.
•   Labor and Migration: Restoring freedom of movement would ease labor shortages in key sectors (like hospitality, agriculture, and healthcare), though it would also require adjusting to new domestic immigration and wage policies.
•   Alternative Approaches: Partial integration, such as rejoining the Single Market or establishing a bespoke customs union, would offer a fraction of the economic boost (e.g., about 0.5% for a customs union) while avoiding some of the stricter obligations of full membership.

While many economists argue full EU membership presents the most significant opportunity for long-term GDP growth, the current UK government has ruled out rejoining the EU, the Single Market, or the Customs Union, opting instead to focus on a strategic trade and partnership reset.

[DastardlyDick]

In that respect I agree with you.  Another referendum campaign does not bear thinking about.  In addition, it has often been suggested that if we became a "new" member of the EU, we would have to join the single currency, to which I would be very much opposed.

In current circumstances, the answer is probably to try to negotiate access to the single market and / or the customs union, while remaining outside the EU.

I don't think that many people care about what money is called/looks like, so long as it still buys them the same amount of goods/services.

[bigden40]

I don't think that many people care about what money is called/looks like, so long as it still buys them the same amount of goods/services.

That may be true, but people usually need a compelling reason to change.

[Jonestown]

I don't think that many people care about what money is called/looks like, so long as it still buys them the same amount of goods/services.

Are you old enough to remember decimalisation, when over a period of time everything more or less went up by a factor of 2.4 ?

[mills_and_bhuna]

I disagree.  The answer IMHO is to attempt to rediscover the qualities that allowed our little island to dominate the globe for a couple of centuries. 

I asked AI:  “Why was a small island like Britain able to dominate the world until the early 20th century?  What qualities and attributes enabled that and how could those qualities be rediscovered to recapture some of that success in a US-centric world?”

Tbh it’s not a bad answer.

No mention of killing natives in huge numbers ?
Or stealing their shit?

[scutty brown]

No mention of killing natives in huge numbers ?
Or stealing their shit?

Don't be daft, we just stole the good stuff. We let the French have the shit stuff

[DastardlyDick]

Are you old enough to remember decimalisation, when over a period of time everything more or less went up by a factor of 2.4 ?

Yes, I am. 12 sided 3d coins  1 shilling becoming 5p etc. Many of the price rises were down to companies using decimalization as an excuse.
That could be avoided by Government price controls.

[Vice Admiral]

Wait until you see Burnham's policy positions.

Yesterday’s Sunday Times Business & Money section has an article by David Smith with the heading, “Why big business fears ‘Raynernomics’ – and Andy Burnham” and the sub-heading, “The former deputy prime minister is to the left of both Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting, and the Greater Manchester mayor could follow her playbook”.

Here are three paragraphs:
______________________

For the past two years, business people have regarded the Starmer-Reeves approach of higher taxes, higher minimum wages and increased intervention as about as bad as it could get. They may be about to discover that, as in the old saying, clinging on to nurse might have been better than something worse.

A Burnham / Rayner government would bring together the two people regarded by fund managers as riskiest for UK government bonds, the gilt market, and thus the cost of government borrowing.

Not only would it be highly likely to hit businesses and the better-off with higher taxes, but it would seek to further boost workers’ rights. According to Rayner, the government’s introduction of enhanced employment rights and a higher minimum wage, particularly for young people — widely regarded as job-destroying by many in business — could be just the start.

[bigden40]

Yesterday’s Sunday Times Business & Money section has an article by David Smith with the heading, “Why big business fears ‘Raynernomics’ – and Andy Burnham” and the sub-heading, “The former deputy prime minister is to the left of both Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting, and the Greater Manchester mayor could follow her playbook”.

Here are three paragraphs:
______________________

For the past two years, business people have regarded the Starmer-Reeves approach of higher taxes, higher minimum wages and increased intervention as about as bad as it could get. They may be about to discover that, as in the old saying, clinging on to nurse might have been better than something worse.

A Burnham / Rayner government would bring together the two people regarded by fund managers as riskiest for UK government bonds, the gilt market, and thus the cost of government borrowing.

Not only would it be highly likely to hit businesses and the better-off with higher taxes, but it would seek to further boost workers’ rights. According to Rayner, the government’s introduction of enhanced employment rights and a higher minimum wage, particularly for young people — widely regarded as job-destroying by many in business — could be just the start.

Exactly, and that’s without the tax and debt increases required to fund the extensive nationalisation programme that Burnham wants to pursue. 

There are no moderates in this Labour Party, Starmer is as good as it gets. 

[bigden40]

Picked up from a LinkedIn post this morning:

Keir Starmer has now wandered into territory so absurd it barely looks real.

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is facing legal action from a group of internationally known political commentators, parliamentarians and analysts after publicly branding them “far-right agitators” and “peddlers of hatred and division.”

This all follows the Home Office revoking visas and ETAs for multiple foreign nationals because they held views the government clearly found truthful enough to touch a collective nerve.

So Britain now appears to be operating a border policy where balanced political commentators and elected representatives can be excluded from the country while Starmer publicly smears them from a Downing Street podium.

Nothing says “defender of democracy” quite like banning critics from entering the country then receiving defamation letters from across Europe and America.

At this rate Starmer will soon need a sensitivity training seminar just to survive Prime Minister’s Questions.

[scutty brown]

Picked up from a LinkedIn post this morning:

was that written by Elon Musk or Jack Daniels Vance?

[bigden40]

was that written by Elon Musk or Jack Daniels Vance?

No, it wasn't.

Do you disagree, or are you just “doing a Mills”?

[scutty brown]

No, it wasn't.

Do you disagree, or are you just “doing a Mills”?

without knowing the source of the tale or whom it is discussing then agreement or otherwise is impossible to judge.
However based on what you've posted, then without further corroboration it reads like a bunch of shitstirring nonsense.
Tell us all where you found this tale, and by whom, and whom it is about and just maybe someone will believe

[bigden40]

without knowing the source of the tale or whom it is discussing then agreement or otherwise is impossible to judge.
However based on what you've posted, then without further corroboration it reads like a bunch of shitstirring nonsense.
Tell us all where you found this tale, and by whom, and whom it is about and just maybe someone will believe

This “tale” has been widely reported.  Sorry you missed it.

This was the PMs press release:  External Link/Members Only

The ban was covered in the MSM: External Link/Members Only

He’s being sued by, among others, the Polish MP Dominik Tarczyński.

The full list of 11 people has not been released but included:
Valentina Gomez (US) — Anti-Islam/MAGA influencer who spoke at the previous rally.
Filip Dewinter (Belgium) — Politician and commentator (Vlaams Belang).
Dominik Tarczyński (Poland) — MEP/politician, who has indicated he plans to sue over the ban.
Eva Vlaardingerbroek (Netherlands) — Anti-immigration activist and commentator.
Ada Lluch (Spain) — “Far-right” personality/influencer.
Joey Mannarino (US) — Commentator.
Don Keith (US) — Podcaster

I don’t necessarily agree with any of these people but it all smacks of shutting down speech you don’t like, something this government has shown a real propensity for.

Btw Eva Vlaardingerbroek is a good candidate for the women we wish were escorts thread as is Ada Lluch

[scutty brown]

This “tale” has been widely reported.  Sorry you missed it.

This was the PMs press release:  External Link/Members Only

The ban was covered in the MSM: External Link/Members Only

He’s being sued by, among others, the Polish MP Dominik Tarczyński.

The full list of 11 people has not been released but included:
Valentina Gomez (US) — Anti-Islam/MAGA influencer who spoke at the previous rally.
Filip Dewinter (Belgium) — Politician and commentator (Vlaams Belang).
Dominik Tarczyński (Poland) — MEP/politician, who has indicated he plans to sue over the ban.
Eva Vlaardingerbroek (Netherlands) — Anti-immigration activist and commentator.
Ada Lluch (Spain) — “Far-right” personality/influencer.
Joey Mannarino (US) — Commentator.
Don Keith (US) — Podcaster

I don’t necessarily agree with any of these people but it all smacks of shutting down speech you don’t like, something this government has shown a real propensity for.

Btw Eva Vlaardingerbroek is a good candidate for the women we wish were escorts thread as is Ada Lluch

My view is simple.
If they're trying to get here to get involved in our politics, fuck 'em off. Doesn't matter if they're right wing, left wing, or vegetarian - foreigners have no place getting involved in our political business

[WARSZAWA16]

Does anybody know how to cancel an eBay bid? I bid £3 on a cowboy outfit and I'm 6 minutes away from owning the Labour Party.

[scutty brown]

Does anybody know how to cancel an eBay bid? I bid £3 on a cowboy outfit and I'm 6 minutes away from owning the Labour Party.

does it come with a fake moustache?

[Vice Admiral]

While on the subject of moustaches, here's Brookes's rather good cartoon from today's Times:

Hidden Image/Members Only

[bigden40]

My view is simple.
If they're trying to get here to get involved in our politics, fuck 'em off. Doesn't matter if they're right wing, left wing, or vegetarian - foreigners have no place getting involved in our political business

You’re entitled to your view.  By that token we should have equally denied entry to any foreigners speaking at other marches and rallies then, no?

I’m consistently pro-free speech, but recognise that free speech isn’t unlimited.  IMO free speech advocacy rests on a core principle: protect the expression of ideas (even repugnant ones), while allowing consequences for direct incitement to imminent violence or lawless action. Basically J S Mill's harm principle.

The challenge is drawing that line rigorously, without letting “might cause unrest” become a vague pretext for viewpoint discrimination ….. which is exactly what I think we have in the UK right now. 

I think some of the people banned are repugnant, but that’s not the point. You can advocate controversial policies - mass deportation, criticism of Islam, “remigration,” multiculturalism’s failures, etc. without it being ban-worthy.  These are political opinions that should be subject to debate.

If we’re going to ban people I’d expect to see evidence of, specific past conduct (organising riots, convictions for violence, credible threats); explicit statements calling for illegal acts in the immediate context; patterns of behaviour where entry previously led to documented disorder caused by them (not just protests against them).  Again I don’t see that with the individuals I’m familiar with.

I think this is preferable to Government asserting “pre-crime” based on opinions, social media history, or “far-right” labelling.

[bigden40]

While on the subject of moustaches, here's Brookes's rather good cartoon from today's Times:

Hidden Image/Members Only

Like.

[mills_and_bhuna]

You’re entitled to your view.  By that token we should have equally denied entry to any foreigners speaking at other marches and rallies then, no?

I’m consistently pro-free speech, but recognise that free speech isn’t unlimited.  IMO free speech advocacy rests on a core principle: protect the expression of ideas (even repugnant ones), while allowing consequences for direct incitement to imminent violence or lawless action. Basically J S Mill's harm principle.

The challenge is drawing that line rigorously, without letting “might cause unrest” become a vague pretext for viewpoint discrimination ….. which is exactly what I think we have in the UK right now. 

I think some of the people banned are repugnant, but that’s not the point. You can advocate controversial policies - mass deportation, criticism of Islam, “remigration,” multiculturalism’s failures, etc. without it being ban-worthy.  These are political opinions that should be subject to debate.

If we’re going to ban people I’d expect to see evidence of, specific past conduct (organising riots, convictions for violence, credible threats); explicit statements calling for illegal acts in the immediate context; patterns of behaviour where entry previously led to documented disorder caused by them (not just protests against them).  Again I don’t see that with the individuals I’m familiar with.

I think this is preferable to Government asserting “pre-crime” based on opinions, social media history, or “far-right” labelling.

I agree. Funnily enough.
Too many people say they're free speech but forget to tell you they're only for free speech they agree with.
Which is why I'm concerned that platforms are being pressurised by financial interests to monitor speech.
That always benefits the power interests.