Search results for:

And I definitely get that. I do think that a centrist labour government will be better than the tories. I can imagine a lot of areas that could get better (the UK's relationship with the EU, for example). But the status quo is unsustainable on many fronts. Inequality won't go down simply because we have a government laser focused on "growth." The environment isn't going to get better because of a new (nationalised) provider. Higher education will continue to fall apart in the UK so long as the current funding model continues.

Ha, tbf, I think 5 minutes of that poor man with cancer may have taken the wind out of it for me.

The 10/15 minutes of banal cliches following it didn't get me going either.

Was really hoping there'd be something to hope for (awkward, but you know what I mean).

This manifesto launch is dire. No policies to really give people hope in the manifesto and no charisma on stage.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/13/labour-candidates-campaigning-too-much-held-seats

I think (and hope!) labour will win the election, but there could be a storm brewing where talk of a massive majority falters as labour's core walk away.

The policy is the policy. I mean, that's not really what will win or lose an election. Although, as @hugo7 mentions, one may want to reflect on how officious Starmer may be on these things - especially when it comes to youth criminalisation. But that wasn't really my point.

I guess I'm an outlier, but it hurt my soul to watch. Hopefully we'll have some real policies on Thursday. Also hopefully they won't be introduced in a PhoneShop-esque sketch.

Almost certainly. Most are probably children.

You're right. Nothing will it seems. But in terms of eating a sandwich funny or that, I know which I cringe at much more.

And they decided to do that to themselves.

I'm other news, Labour continue to try to lose the election: https://x.com/UKLabour/status/1800249657018458443

Sorry for the Twitter link. That's how Labour communicate.

Another example's come to mind actually (but it comes down to the same fiscal vs monetary problem): Ireland's tax policy (fiscal) is impacting the way in which the ECB tries to manage it's monetary policy:

“When more iPhones roll off production lines in China [...] it is hard to believe such shifts could seriously distort Europe’s economic data. But they do. In fact, they do so frequently…

So much of the revenue these companies record in their Irish units comes from activities that provide few jobs or incomes for residents of Ireland or of anywhere else in Europe. Yet they still have a massive impact on perceptions about how the region’s economy is performing…

The latest example came when eurozone industrial production figures, published this month by the EU’s statistics arm Eurostat, showed month-on-month growth of 0.5 per cent in June, confounding analysts’ expectations for a slight decline.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2023/08/23/irelands-wild-data-is-leaving-economists-stumped/

Simplification incoming:

The euro zone crisis was exasperated for particular countries because they had no control over their monetary policy (while still controlling fiscal policy). This resulted in countries locked into policies out of step with those that would have been in their best interests. I.e., poorer countries with currencies that were overvalued compared to their domestic reality.

This is of course also true at the national level. The North is less well off than the South in the UK, but there are fiscal policies to (try and) correct this. Be it redistribution of wealth through things like the NHS or other welfare programmes, or larger policies to support regional development (the Northern Powerhouse).

However, the eurozone doesn't have a unified fiscal policy. There's no real mechanism that allows for redistribution of the eurozone's international wealth at scale (regional development funds exist, but these aren't the same thing). So countries can get fucked (historically it's been the smaller, poorer countries).

I'm sure someone can add more flesh to that.

Anyone want two tickets to The Bug Club at Seabright Arms this evening? Can't make it. Will just Dice them over.

I thought you were talking about Spurs. Pure confusion.

Think our washer just died.

Went back a few pages to see what's discussed on here and saw @NotThamesWater post this (thanks!)

brand model price score
Bosch WDU8H549G 1,029 78%
Bosch WDU8H541GB 1,029 78%
Whirlpool FFWDD 1174269 BSV UK 449 74%
Hotpoint NDD 9725 DA UK 449 73%
Hotpoint NDD 9725 GDA UK 469 73%

Not keen to spend > 1k. BUT.

We dry using racks and a dehumidifier. Works a treat, but obviously space is lost, and we're in a small flat so space is valuable.

However, maybe if one of these heat pump guys worked really well (and didn't damage clothing) I could convince myself. So, anyone got one and what do you think?

Thankfully. But it also doesn't say much for starmer the super lawyer.

Although that's largely down to debates like this being fucking dumb.

They were both awful. A draw is "fair". Or, we all lost.

I agree.

"what are you going to do?" ad infinitum.

That can stick.

Sunak absolutely getting an easier ride. Starmer is not doing good at all, but he's not being allowed to offer any nuance.

This is awful for many reasons.

Unsurprisingly I don't want to talk about Corbyn or the IRA. Neither seem particularly relevant to the 2024 general election. BUT! Very quickly: His intentions were heavily discussed over many years before, during, and after his leadership. It is a topic deeply tied to his political beliefs. The left's relationship with - and support for - Irish independence isn't a secret. That's all to say, I'm not sure what your point is, but I don't really want to get into it. If you really want to, though, there's a thread for Corbyn somewhere. You can search for "magic grandpa" and I'm sure it'll pop right up.

"But her emails!"

It’s happened again. Centrists heard a posh person speaking and immediately decided that person should be prime minister.

Lol

He will argue he had to vote in this way to get a ministerial position where he could effect change but it didn't really work out did it

People seems obsessed with this type of argumentation at the moment. Counter-factual politics is the centrist's post truth politics. It's all about assigning intent to historic actions to whitewash the actual things people have done, or making claims for future actions with no evidence to back them up.

Why is Kier a Sir? Not because he wanted to be, or he may be a royalist, or he likes the idea of power, or whatever (all perfectly reasonable things). It was because of the sun. They would have roasted him when he, ultimately, was going to run for PM.

Why did Stewart vote those ways? Not because he's a Tory. It's because he had to in order to do the actually good things he wanted/wants to do.

I guess it may go back to the cognitive dissonance stuff. If you develop opinions based on what people have actually done (or said they will do, only quickly to say they will do something else), you might not actually trust (or even like) them very much.

I liked this piece: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/03/keir-starmer-labour-left-rishi-sunak-tories

There's a point here about the cognitive dissonance those on the left are faced with right now (although without using those terms explicitly). I certainly feel it.

Your priorities are weird.

I'm not particularly bothered, but have you considered the possibility that the shoes were mismatched for a reason? Maybe medical? Perhaps an injury she got during door-knocking/campaigning? I don't know, and to be honest, even if not I'm not going to worry about.

Not going to disagree with any of that.

Meh. I do understand your point, but: "But Corbyn!" has to be centrists' "But her emails!" I.e., it feels like an often disingenuous attempt to stop criticism through tangential whataboutism.

I'm sure we could come up with many examples of deselection being discussed previously. I'm also sure we could come up with loads of reasons why it may not be a like-for-like comparison. But the goal isn't actually to discuss those things, so there's no point.

Just done some reading up on this and I think Faiza is a different kettle of fish to Abbott - she liked a bunch of posts including one which suggested that "professional organisations" were mobilising people to attack those who criticise Israel. She may be a decent person and a decent candidate but I can absolutely see why she would not be a candidate.

Not really relevant to my point. My point was about her getting the news from the Times before the Labour party told her anything. That is, this is something which happens. Which you agree with (in this case). But:

Unfortunately there is a factional element to this so there I think it's possible in this situation that one or other Labour faction may have leaked it to the Times. But I don't think that applies to Abbott for the reasons I already outlined.

As far as I can tell, your reason was "neither faction would benefit so they wouldn't do it." I gave you, what I think is, a very reasonable reason why they would do it. And that also ignores the possibility that it was just a - again - cockup. A bad choice. But that's fine, we can disagree. Certainly not keen to go in circles on this.

Peace!

You could give popularity amongst people who know the politician, which is the more typical way of doing it I believe

I don't want to get too much into the weeds here, but I'm certain they are taking popularity from those who know the politician. I'm fairly certain they don't even ask those who don't know of a politician what they think about them (+/-). This is what I meant by excluding "don't knows" - it's essential.

They won't just use raw %s from respondents because that's neither informative, nor the best use of the data they collect. The results will be representative (or weighted to be so) based on demographic characteristics. They'll use these characteristics to infer what other people of similar characteristics would think about something if they knew about it.

Despite the political history of YouGov, they are a very good polling organisation with some incredibly bright statisticians and methodologists.

They're not infallible, though.

Okay, but that's why it's easier to make an more objective assessment of whether Truss is a liability to the Tory party overall.

There's way too many complexities to make the cases comparable. This is weeds + 1000000.