Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Starmer edges up further in new YouGov leadership poll

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 17 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Starmer edges up further in new YouGov leadership poll

New Labour leadership polling for @thetimes

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 17,868
    First like SKS.
  • My boy Burgon isn't peaking too early.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,072
    Is there any event where the also rans can grab momentum? With such masses behind the top two, and given how people don't like to switch once they choose, I suspect it to be unlikely.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,690
    FPT

    Excellent news.

    YouGov have a good track record of polling party members. The only real caveat about their earlier poll was that it came so early in the contest. This one comes after the candidates are known and have had a fair bit of exposure.

    The Survation poll, by contrast, is far more suspect. It is a poll of Labour Party members who happen to have registered as such on the Labour List website (I think to get regular e-mail updates etc.). So it was quite self-selecting and probably skewed towards an activist base. By far the strongest correlation was with which candidate was supported in 2016 e.g. of RLB 1st preferences, 66% supported Corbyn in 2016, 2% Smith. Yet of those in the sample who voted in 2016, 66% favoured Corbyn compared to an actual result of 61.8%.

    Odds of 4/6 on Starmer no longer available with Ladbrokes.

  • isamisam Posts: 29,946
    edited January 17

    FPT

    Excellent news.

    YouGov have a good track record of polling party members. The only real caveat about their earlier poll was that it came so early in the contest. This one comes after the candidates are known and have had a fair bit of exposure.

    The Survation poll, by contrast, is far more suspect. It is a poll of Labour Party members who happen to have registered as such on the Labour List website (I think to get regular e-mail updates etc.). So it was quite self-selecting and probably skewed towards an activist base. By far the strongest correlation was with which candidate was supported in 2016 e.g. of RLB 1st preferences, 66% supported Corbyn in 2016, 2% Smith. Yet of those in the sample who voted in 2016, 66% favoured Corbyn compared to an actual result of 61.8%.

    Odds of 4/6 on Starmer no longer available with Ladbrokes.

    Yes.. I think that polls of party members for leadership contests are far more reliable than those of the public for General Elections, so I have steamed in and Starmer is now my second best result of those in the race....

    -£259!!!
  • StockyStocky Posts: 1,561
    Starmer still 4/7 with Bet Victor
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,418
    kle4 said:

    Is there any event where the also rans can grab momentum? With such masses behind the top two, and given how people don't like to switch once they choose, I suspect it to be unlikely.

    I thought momentum was with Rebecca Wrong Daily?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,072

    If SKS wins hopefully he gives Nandy a high profile role.

    There will be vacancies for Shadow Chancellor and Shadow Home Sec. I suggest the latter.

    Who gets the former will be interesting. And where does he put RLB?
    In the bin hopefully.
    He won't dare. An end to factional infighting by not including the chosen candidate of continutiy corbynism?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,710
    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    edited January 17
    Starmer is going to be the Labour Michael Howard

    This is good news, for Labour, as RLB would have been IDS
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 675
    Starmeh, more like.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,710

    FPT

    Excellent news.

    YouGov have a good track record of polling party members. The only real caveat about their earlier poll was that it came so early in the contest. This one comes after the candidates are known and have had a fair bit of exposure.

    The Survation poll, by contrast, is far more suspect. It is a poll of Labour Party members who happen to have registered as such on the Labour List website (I think to get regular e-mail updates etc.). So it was quite self-selecting and probably skewed towards an activist base. By far the strongest correlation was with which candidate was supported in 2016 e.g. of RLB 1st preferences, 66% supported Corbyn in 2016, 2% Smith. Yet of those in the sample who voted in 2016, 66% favoured Corbyn compared to an actual result of 61.8%.

    Odds of 4/6 on Starmer no longer available with Ladbrokes.

    It looks like a Boris/Hunt run-off result to me, albeit for slightly different reasons.

    Money on RLB is money wasted.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,641
    edited January 17
    As I said in the previous thread, the southerners pretending they speak for the northern working class don’t know what they’re talking about.

    I’ve spoken to a few Brexiteer friends who voted Con in the GE just gone in seats like Washington and Sunderland South and North West Durham and they like Keir Starmer.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,287
    Hopefully sanity prevails and Keir Starmer wins the Labour leadership .

    The big problem for RLB is even if she was pretty close in the first round she will never see enough support moving over from the candidates who have been knocked out .

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 10,285
    Having given it 5 minutes thought, Yvette Cooper for Shadow Chancellor.

    RLB Shadow Justice.

    Nandy Shadow Home Sec.

    Thornberry stays as Shadow Foreign Sec.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,991
    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:

    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:


    Interesting point. I think it probably would come in scope for GDPR. The aim of the adequacy assessment is to remove the need to put controls on EU data going to the UK because all data in the UK is handled to EU standards. It may come down to a distinction between the capture of the data (you can have cameras in the UK but not in the EU) and the processing of that captured data (you can have cameras in both places but you can't parse that data for facial recognition). If it's the second, and I think it probably is, I would expect it to be disallowed for UK captured data as well as EU captured data.

    No, it really wouldn’t. The UK is going for a Canada type deal with the EU. Or even lighter than that,

    Will the EU be able to force Canada to turn off face recog tech used in Canada by Canadians on Canadians? No, of course not.

    The EU is a “regulatory superpower” but it isn’t an omnipotent global hegemon
    To explain a bit more. (This is related to my day job). The key thing for the EU is that individuals can sue organisations that break the rules. So the Berlin Council operates CCTV cameras and gets a German company to do some (we suppose) illegal facial recognition on people passing by. Someone affected by this can then sue both Berlin Council and the processor company. Suppose Berlin Council ships the data to a company in fully Brexited Britain. That individual can't sue the British company because it didn't do anything illegal under UK law. The EU therefore requires a "Standard Contractual Clause" (SCC) to be in place before that data gets shipped to Britain in any form at all. The SCC sets out precisely what the UK company will do and makes the company liable to the individual for any breach.

    Problems with SCCs are that they are expensive (I have seen £10000 per SCC suggested) and inflexible: you need new ones for any change of purpose, the UK company can't pass the data onto a subcontractor, Stuttgart, Paris need their own SCCs etc. Much better if your country can get a data adequacy assessment then data can flow freely to it. But you are obliged to fully meet EU DP standards. Canada, which has strict DP regs does have an EU data adequacy agreement, which in theory would mean Toronto Council couldn't send data any more freely to the UK than Berlin can.
    Data flows betwixt and between the UK and the EU will dwindle
    They will. It should also be said that the EU isn't straining at the bit to accord data adequacy to the UK. But above all this is going to cause HUGE problems for UK companies that process any EU personal information, whether it's customers they are selling to, Fintech, AI, web sales. marketing.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 675

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    So incompetent they don't deserve to survive. They could have given Meghan everything she wanted in the guise of a slimming down of the monarchy and a consequent demotion, and simultaneously seen off the appalling Andrew and his porcine spawn, after the Andrew tv interview.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 31,937

    My boy Burgon isn't peaking too early.

    Backing Burgon is a clinical madness, but who are the 1 in 8 who want Butler?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 23,376
    Byronic said:

    Starmer is going to be the Labour Michael Howard

    This is good news, for Labour, as RLB would have been IDS

    Getting past IDS more quickly would surely have been better news for Labour.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,690
    To put that poll in perspective, if Starmer went on to win with 63%, he would have secured a higher level of support from the membership than Corbyn did with 61.8% in 2016.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    FF43 said:

    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:

    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:


    Interesting point. I think it probably would come in scope for GDPR. The aim of the adequacy assessment is to remove the need to put controls on EU data going to the UK because all data in the UK is handled to EU standards. It may come down to a distinction between the capture of the data (you can have cameras in the UK but not in the EU) and the processing of that captured data (you can have cameras in both places but you can't parse that data for facial recognition). If it's the second, and I think it probably is, I would expect it to be disallowed for UK captured data as well as EU captured data.

    No, it really wouldn’t. The UK is going for a Canada type deal with the EU. Or even lighter than that,

    Will the EU be able to force Canada to turn off face recog tech used in Canada by Canadians on Canadians? No, of course not.

    The EU is a “regulatory superpower” but it isn’t an omnipotent global hegemon
    To explain a bit more. (This is related to my day job). The key thing for the EU is that individuals can sue can get a data adequacy assessment then data can flow freely to it. But you are obliged to fully meet EU DP standards. Canada, which has strict DP regs does have an EU data adequacy agreement, which in theory would mean Toronto Council couldn't send data any more freely to the UK than Berlin can.
    Data flows betwixt and between the UK and the EU will dwindle
    They will. It should also be said that the EU isn't straining at the bit to accord data adequacy to the UK. But above all this is going to cause HUGE problems for UK companies that process any EU personal information, whether it's customers they are selling to, Fintech, AI, web sales. marketing.
    Yep. I’ve been reading up. I confess I hadn’t realised just how intrusive the EU has become in its regulation overseas.. Classic imperialism

    It’s only made me more Brexity.

    Mark Carney is right. We do not want to endure their terrible regulation. It will be painful but we are better off self governing, and exploiting the EU’s many flaws.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 31,937
    nico67 said:

    Hopefully sanity prevails and Keir Starmer wins the Labour leadership .

    The big problem for RLB is even if she was pretty close in the first round she will never see enough support moving over from the candidates who have been knocked out .

    Yup.

    The only way the next LotO isn't Keith Stormer would require footage of him clearly aroused, stomping on kittens in an under-sized kimono.....
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 17,868
    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:

    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:

    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:


    Interesting point. I think it probably would come in scope for GDPR. The aim of the adequacy assessment is to remove the need to put controls on EU data going to the UK because all data in the UK is handled to EU standards. It may come down to a distinction between the capture of the data (you can have cameras in the UK but not in the EU) and the processing of that captured data (you can have cameras in both places but you can't parse that data for facial recognition). If it's the second, and I think it probably is, I would expect it to be disallowed for UK captured data as well as EU captured data.

    No, it really wouldn’t. The UK is going for a Canada type deal with the EU. Or even lighter than that,

    Will the EU be able to force Canada to turn off face recog tech used in Canada by Canadians on Canadians? No, of course not.

    The EU is a “regulatory superpower” but it isn’t an omnipotent global hegemon
    To explain a bit more. (This is related to my day job). The key thing for the EU is that individuals can sue can get a data adequacy assessment then data can flow freely to it. But you are obliged to fully meet EU DP standards. Canada, which has strict DP regs does have an EU data adequacy agreement, which in theory would mean Toronto Council couldn't send data any more freely to the UK than Berlin can.
    Data flows betwixt and between the UK and the EU will dwindle
    They will. It should also be said that the EU isn't straining at the bit to accord data adequacy to the UK. But above all this is going to cause HUGE problems for UK companies that process any EU personal information, whether it's customers they are selling to, Fintech, AI, web sales. marketing.
    Yep. I’ve been reading up. I confess I hadn’t realised just how intrusive the EU has become in its regulation overseas.. Classic imperialism

    It’s only made me more Brexity.

    Mark Carney is right. We do not want to endure their terrible regulation. It will be painful but we are better off self governing, and exploiting the EU’s many flaws.
    Is your refreshed Brexit courage anything to do with the (tiny) uptick in house prices by any chance?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,418
    Byronic said:

    Starmer is going to be the Labour Michael Howard

    This is good news, for Labour, as RLB would have been IDS

    Jeremy Corbyn was the Labour IDS. RLB would be the Labour Clement Davies.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,991
    IshmaelZ said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    So incompetent they don't deserve to survive. They could have given Meghan everything she wanted in the guise of a slimming down of the monarchy and a consequent demotion, and simultaneously seen off the appalling Andrew and his porcine spawn, after the Andrew tv interview.
    A bit of empathy wouldn't have gone amiss. Clearly Harry and Meghan's setup wasn't working out. Why couldn't they have said, let's discuss it and see if we can get something that works.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:

    Starmer is going to be the Labour Michael Howard

    This is good news, for Labour, as RLB would have been IDS

    Jeremy Corbyn was the Labour IDS. RLB would be the Labour Clement Davies.
    Whoosh over my head I’m afraid! Clement Davies?!
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,690

    If SKS wins hopefully he gives Nandy a high profile role.

    There will be vacancies for Shadow Chancellor and Shadow Home Sec. I suggest the latter.

    Who gets the former will be interesting. And where does he put RLB?
    She deserves Shadow Sec of State for NI - mirroring Corbyn's treatment of Owen Smith.

    In practice, Starmer will do his best to unite the party, so he won't do anything as provocative as that.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:

    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:

    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:


    Interesting point. I think it probably would come in scope for GDPR. The aim of the adequacy assessment is to remove the need to put controls on EU data going to the UK because all data in the UK is handled to EU standards. It may come down to a distinction between the capture of the data (you can have cameras in the UK but not in the EU) and the processing of that captured data (you can have cameras in both places but you can't parse that data for facial recognition). If it's the second, and I think it probably is, I would expect it to be disallowed for UK captured data as well as EU captured data.

    No, it really wouldn’t. The UK is going for a Canada type deal with the EU. Or even lighter than that,

    Will the EU be able to force Canada to turn off face recog tech used in Canada by Canadians on Canadians? No, of course not.

    The EU is a “regulatory superpower” but it isn’t an omnipotent global hegemon
    To explain a bit more. (This is related to my day job). The key thing for the EU is that individuals can sue can get a data adequacy assessment then data can flow freely to it. But you are obliged to fully meet EU DP standards. Canada, which has strict DP regs does have an EU data adequacy agreement, which in theory would mean Toronto Council couldn't send data any more freely to the UK than Berlin can.
    Data flows betwixt and between the UK and the EU will dwindle
    They will. It should also be said that the EU isn't straining at the bit to accord data adequacy to the UK. But above all this is going to cause HUGE problems for UK companies that process any EU personal information, whether it's customers they are selling to, Fintech, AI, web sales. marketing.
    Yep. I’ve been reading up. I confess I hadn’t realised just how intrusive the EU has become in its regulation overseas.. Classic imperialism

    It’s only made me more Brexity.

    Mark Carney is right. We do not want to endure their terrible regulation. It will be painful but we are better off self governing, and exploiting the EU’s many flaws.
    Is your refreshed Brexit courage anything to do with the (tiny) uptick in house prices by any chance?
    How does Starmer play in Scotland? No hope at all? Another boring north London English lefty, like Ed Miliband?

    That’s how Starmer plays chez Byronic. Starmer is a ship steadier. He will reunite a neurotic and divided party. He will quietly whack the Marxists, but still be “radical”

    The Labour leader after him will be the next Labour PM. The Opposition is slowly returning to sanity. Good.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,710
    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing the royal family of being sexist and racist. If she does that, she will be believed by many. And the effect won’t be neutral, going back to how things were five years ago.

    Rather than being the asset she was seen to be in 2018 as modernising and broadening the appeal of the Royal Family in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,908
    FPT @Casino_Royale

    You asked what to do with £40k. You have bought a new house so I don't know if it is a bad time to suggest it, but in normal circs I would think about converting the attic to another bedroom. If you can get it done within budget and you get a proper job done (structural engineer, new staircase, etc) it makes a real difference. However I must emphasise it has to be a proper job. Bodge it and you can easily destroy the house: I've seen it happen.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,710
    FF43 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    So incompetent they don't deserve to survive. They could have given Meghan everything she wanted in the guise of a slimming down of the monarchy and a consequent demotion, and simultaneously seen off the appalling Andrew and his porcine spawn, after the Andrew tv interview.
    A bit of empathy wouldn't have gone amiss. Clearly Harry and Meghan's setup wasn't working out. Why couldn't they have said, let's discuss it and see if we can get something that works.
    They did. The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were working on this well before their ‘newsflash’.

    They’ve bent over backwards to help Meghan and Harry fit in.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,710
    IshmaelZ said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    So incompetent they don't deserve to survive. They could have given Meghan everything she wanted in the guise of a slimming down of the monarchy and a consequent demotion, and simultaneously seen off the appalling Andrew and his porcine spawn, after the Andrew tv interview.
    Meghan can basically ask for whatever she likes, and get it, as she knows she has the Royal Family over a barrel and can go nuclear any time she likes.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,661
    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:

    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:

    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:


    Interesting point. I think it probably would come in scope for GDPR. The aim of the adequacy assessment is to remove the need to put controls on EU data going to the UK because all data in the UK is handled to EU standards. It may come down to a distinction between the capture of the data (you can have cameras in the UK but not in the EU) and the processing of that captured data (you can have cameras in both places but you can't parse that data for facial recognition). If it's the second, and I think it probably is, I would expect it to be disallowed for UK captured data as well as EU captured data.

    No, it really wouldn’t. The UK is going for a Canada type deal with the EU. Or even lighter than that,

    Will the EU be able to force Canada to turn off face recog tech used in Canada by Canadians on Canadians? No, of course not.

    The EU is a “regulatory superpower” but it isn’t an omnipotent global hegemon
    To explain a bit more. (This is related to my day job). The key thing for the EU is that individuals can sue can get a data adequacy assessment then data can flow freely to it. But you are obliged to fully meet EU DP standards. Canada, which has strict DP regs does have an EU data adequacy agreement, which in theory would mean Toronto Council couldn't send data any more freely to the UK than Berlin can.
    Data flows betwixt and between the UK and the EU will dwindle
    They will. It should also be said that the EU isn't straining at the bit to accord data adequacy to the UK. But above all this is going to cause HUGE problems for UK companies that process any EU personal information, whether it's customers they are selling to, Fintech, AI, web sales. marketing.

    It’s only made me more Brexity.

    Mark Carney is right. We do not want to endure their terrible regulation. It will be painful but we are better off self governing, and exploiting the EU’s many flaws.
    Is your refreshed Brexit courage anything to do with the (tiny) uptick in house prices by any chance?
    How does Starmer play in Scotland? No hope at all? Another boring north London English lefty, like Ed Miliband?

    That’s how Starmer plays chez Byronic. Starmer is a ship steadier. He will reunite a neurotic and divided party. He will quietly whack the Marxists, but still be “radical”

    The Labour leader after him will be the next Labour PM. The Opposition is slowly returning to sanity. Good.
    Isn’t Starmer Sean T’s MP? Or was? If your paths happen to cross, it would be interesting to have his take on the local dimension.
  • Today’s poll offers important insights into the views of Labour members after the party’s worst election drubbing since 1935. Asked to rank Jeremy Corbyn’s performance out of ten, 16 per cent echo Ms Long Bailey in giving the soon-to-be ex-leader maximum marks. At the other end of the scale 8 per cent ranked him at zero.

    While not a surprise that Ms Long Bailey is backed by those who approved of Mr Corbyn’s four years in charge of the Labour Party, the scale is still startling. A full 97 per cent of those backing the shadow business secretary say that Mr Corbyn performed very or fairly well as leader. The equivalent figure for Mr Starmer is 36 per cent, with 62 per cent believing that Mr Corbyn performed badly.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,991
    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:

    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:

    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:


    Interesting point. I think it probably would come in scope for GDPR. The aim of the adequacy assessment is to remove the need to put controls on EU data going to the UK because all data in the UK is handled to EU standards. It may come down to a distinction between the capture of the data (you can have cameras in the UK but not in the EU) and the processing of that captured data (you can have cameras in both places but you can't parse that data for facial recognition). If it's the second, and I think it probably is, I would expect it to be disallowed for UK captured data as well as EU captured data.

    No, it really wouldn’t. The UK is going for a Canada type deal with the EU. Or even lighter than that,

    Will the EU be able to force Canada to turn off face recog tech used in Canada by Canadians on Canadians? No, of course not.

    The EU is a “regulatory superpower” but it isn’t an omnipotent global hegemon
    To explain a bit more. (This is related to my day job). The key thing for the EU is that individuals can sue can get a data adequacy assessment then data can flow freely to it. But you are obliged to fully meet EU DP standards. Canada, which has strict DP regs does have an EU data adequacy agreement, which in theory would mean Toronto Council couldn't send data any more freely to the UK than Berlin can.
    Data flows betwixt and between the UK and the EU will dwindle
    They will. It should also be said that the EU isn't straining at the bit to accord data adequacy to the UK. But above all this is going to cause HUGE problems for UK companies that process any EU personal information, whether it's customers they are selling to, Fintech, AI, web sales. marketing.
    Yep. I’ve been reading up. I confess I hadn’t realised just how intrusive the EU has become in its regulation overseas.. Classic imperialism

    It’s only made me more Brexity.

    Mark Carney is right. We do not want to endure their terrible regulation. It will be painful but we are better off self governing, and exploiting the EU’s many flaws.
    As far as data is concerned, I expect to see three silos: (1) China that effectively doesn't allow any of its data outside the country; (2) The EU and possibly associated countries such as Japan, Canada and eventually the UK; (3) the US, which currently has lax DP rules but could tighten up.

    AI will almost certainly drive to greater data regulation. I think the UK will want to be in a silo. It might just choose the US silo rather than the EU one. Problem though is the EU should be a bigger market for the UK generally than the US and the US can be at least as protectionist as the EU.
  • isamisam Posts: 29,946
    IshmaelZ said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    So incompetent they don't deserve to survive. They could have given Meghan everything she wanted in the guise of a slimming down of the monarchy and a consequent demotion, and simultaneously seen off the appalling Andrew and his porcine spawn, after the Andrew tv interview.
    I wonder if it was that interview, and the behaviour of Andrew in general that made Meghan's mind up?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,710
    viewcode said:

    FPT @Casino_Royale

    You asked what to do with £40k. You have bought a new house so I don't know if it is a bad time to suggest it, but in normal circs I would think about converting the attic to another bedroom. If you can get it done within budget and you get a proper job done (structural engineer, new staircase, etc) it makes a real difference. However I must emphasise it has to be a proper job. Bodge it and you can easily destroy the house: I've seen it happen.

    Thanks viewcode. Interesting idea.

    Maybe one for 5-10 years once our family expands?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,945
    edited January 17
    Byronic said:

    Starmer is going to be the Labour Michael Howard

    This is good news, for Labour, as RLB would have been IDS

    I doubt Michael Howard did much better than IDS would have done in 2005, he got 33%, the Tories were on 34% in the final Yougov before IDS was ousted. It was Cameron who got the Tories in the 35 to 40% range May and Boris then built on.

    It is not impossible however to imagine Starmer becoming PM after the next general election in coalition with the Les if, as this poll suggests, he does win the Labour membership vote. It is hard to see how RLB could beat Boris however, Remain voting Tories might consider Starmer in a way they did not Corbyn and would not Long Bailey and they also would be more likely to risk voting LD.


    Tories should avoid complacency if Starmer wins
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,418
    Byronic said:

    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:

    Starmer is going to be the Labour Michael Howard

    This is good news, for Labour, as RLB would have been IDS

    Jeremy Corbyn was the Labour IDS. RLB would be the Labour Clement Davies.
    Whoosh over my head I’m afraid! Clement Davies?!
    There you are, that’s a statement of how effective he was as party leader:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Davies
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,945

    My boy Burgon isn't peaking too early.

    So Labour List and Yougov agree Rayner is ahead for Deputy but disagree on who is ahead for leader
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing the royal family of being sexist and racist. If she does that, she will be believed by many. And the effect won’t be neutral, going back to how things were five years ago.

    Rather than being the asset she was seen to be in 2018 as modernising and broadening the appeal of the Royal Family in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly

    I don’t want to be mean to her, but I don’t buy her victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,945
    edited January 17
    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly

    I don’t want to be mean to her, but I don’t buy her victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do best to fade into the background with Harry and make some money if she does not want to do royal duties, if she wants to take on the Royal brand she should be assured they will respond without mercy, raking over her private life and her sources of income and high spending with tabloid support, there will only be one winner and it won't be her reputation
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 28,750
    Just give it to the man. They always do. As there is no choice of man a lot of time is being wasted.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,710
    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing the royal family of being sexist and racist. If she does that, she will be believed by many. And the effect won’t be neutral, going back to how things were five years ago.

    Rather than being the asset she was seen to be in 2018 as modernising and broadening the appeal of the Royal Family in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly

    I don’t want to be mean to her, but I don’t buy her victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Yes, I think that’s sage advice.

    The friend of yours who made that catastrophic prediction about Meghan a couple of years ago now seems quite prophetic.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,710
    edited January 17
    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly

    I don’t want to be mean to her, but I don’t buy her victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do best to fade into the background with Harry and make some money if she does not want to do royal duties, if she wants to take on the Royal brand she should be assured they will respond without mercy, raking over her private life and her sources of income and high spending with tabloid support, there will only be one winner and it won't be her reputation
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 17,868
    Byronic said:


    How does Starmer play in Scotland? No hope at all? Another boring north London English lefty, like Ed Miliband?

    That’s how Starmer plays chez Byronic. Starmer is a ship steadier. He will reunite a neurotic and divided party. He will quietly whack the Marxists, but still be “radical”

    The Labour leader after him will be the next Labour PM. The Opposition is slowly returning to sanity. Good.

    As reported by Randall Flagg last night he won the Shettleston (east end of Glasgow) CLP. I have a feeling centrist (potential) winner might play better than someone bellowing how much they love the Union.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,072
    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew ? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing the royal family of being sexist and racist. If she does that, she will be believed by many. And the effect won’t be neutral, going back to how things were five years ago.

    Rather than being the asset she was seen to be in 2018 as modernising and broadening the appeal of the Royal Family in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly

    I don’t want to be mean to her, but I don’t buy her victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Have you seen how long people can look good these days, especially rich actresses? Waiting for looks to fade might take a long time.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,040
    It has been so long since we had one that I have genuinely forgotten what a decent Labour leader looks like. In and of itself it would make a huge difference to the entire political environment. A proper opposition holding the Tories to account. Can you imagine?
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 1,085

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly

    I don’t want to be mean to her, but I don’t buy her victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do best to fade into the background with Harry and make some money if she does not want to do royal duties, if she wants to take on the Royal brand she should be assured they will respond without mercy, raking over her private life and her sources of income and high spending with tabloid support, there will only be one winner and it won't be her reputation
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    I think that might happen quite quickly (in this country) if people see her to have been unfair to Her Majesty. The Palace seems to be playing this quite well to me. I’d be more worried about a “what did they know and when did they know it” narrative if something gets real traction with Prince Andrew.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,656
    IshmaelZ said:

    There is a lot of idiot cunning, and not much else, in that kind of claim, because who seriously seeks to influence national outcomes by publishing random musings on here? I say Starmer is boring because I think he is boring.

    Well you would never do that obviously. You do what it says on the tin. But there are people - eg those who paid the £3 just to vote for who they judged would make the WORST Labour leader - who do get a cheap thrill from this sort of thing.

    As for Starmer being IYO boring, I believe you completely but would just probe a little. Do you mean he bores you as almost all mainstream politicians do? Or is it more that you have a bar for the level of stimulation you expect from a politician and Starmer fails to reach it?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 31,937
    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:

    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:

    Starmer is going to be the Labour Michael Howard

    This is good news, for Labour, as RLB would have been IDS

    Jeremy Corbyn was the Labour IDS. RLB would be the Labour Clement Davies.
    Whoosh over my head I’m afraid! Clement Davies?!
    There you are, that’s a statement of how effective he was as party leader:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Davies
    "Davies was an alcoholic for decades, which left him in a weakened state of health, particularly by the time he took on the burden of party leadership. For two of his three general election campaigns as leader, for example, he was hospitalised."

    They really were different times!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,945

    It has been so long since we had one that I have genuinely forgotten what a decent Labour leader looks like. In and of itself it would make a huge difference to the entire political environment. A proper opposition holding the Tories to account. Can you imagine?

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 675
    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly

    I don’t want to be mean to her, but I don’t buy her victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do best to fade into the background with Harry and make some money if she does not want to do royal duties, if she wants to take on the Royal brand she should be assured they will respond without mercy, raking over her private life and her sources of income and high spending with tabloid support, there will only be one winner and it won't be her reputation
    You may be right about the malignancy of the royal family -I wouldn't know - but what is this curtain-twitching shit about the family of Andrew Windsor destroying someone else's "reputation"?
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through
    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, an’t buy her victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do best to fade into the background with Harry and make some money if she does not want to do royal duties, if she wants to take on the Royal brand she should be assured they will respond without mercy, raking over her private life and her sources of income and high spending with tabloid support, there will only be one winner and it won't be her reputation
    I saw an amazing graph today. It was on Twitter: I wish I could find it again.

    It related to press/media interest generated by various EU countries, in all ways (politics, culture, sport etc) around the world, in the last year

    The UK was way way ahead. France was a distant second, then Germany, the rest were nowhere. (Bit tough on Spain, where I think the graph came from, but hey)

    Partly this is just the English language. Also, I am sure, the potency of the English Premier League. But another factor is the royal family. If you go on Twitter you will find Americans, Nigerians, South Africans, Brazilians, saying “the royal family should do this” or “the Queen must do that”. There is no indication who they are talking about, because it is not necessary. THE Queen is the Queen of England. THE Royal Family is the Royal Family of the UK.

    It’s daft, but this is a massive asset for the UK. Britain would be mad to abolish it in a fit of irritation. Meghan Markle must be gently and generously defused.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,040
    edited January 17

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    The Queen, who is a truly extraordinary woman, is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting for the royal family. When she is gone, we may find that a lot of support for the monarchy as an institution was actually support for her.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,991

    FF43 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    So incompetent they don't deserve to survive. They could have given Meghan everything she wanted in the guise of a slimming down of the monarchy and a consequent demotion, and simultaneously seen off the appalling Andrew and his porcine spawn, after the Andrew tv interview.
    A bit of empathy wouldn't have gone amiss. Clearly Harry and Meghan's setup wasn't working out. Why couldn't they have said, let's discuss it and see if we can get something that works.
    They did. The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were working on this well before their ‘newsflash’.

    They’ve bent over backwards to help Meghan and Harry fit in.
    I realise I don't know enough or care enough about the topic to comment. I am just seeing the topline stuff. If Markle takes a palace is sexist and racist line, I wouldn't go, Wow! I never knew that!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 31,937
    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    There is a lot of idiot cunning, and not much else, in that kind of claim, because who seriously seeks to influence national outcomes by publishing random musings on here? I say Starmer is boring because I think he is boring.

    Well you would never do that obviously. You do what it says on the tin. But there are people - eg those who paid the £3 just to vote for who they judged would make the WORST Labour leader - who do get a cheap thrill from this sort of thing.

    As for Starmer being IYO boring, I believe you completely but would just probe a little. Do you mean he bores you as almost all mainstream politicians do? Or is it more that you have a bar for the level of stimulation you expect from a politician and Starmer fails to reach it?
    Starmer was the face of Labour's Brexit policy.

    Can you honestly recall a thing he said about Brexit? The biggest issue of our times. And he was a void.

    Just imagine when he starts doing detail.....
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,040

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    There is a lot of idiot cunning, and not much else, in that kind of claim, because who seriously seeks to influence national outcomes by publishing random musings on here? I say Starmer is boring because I think he is boring.

    Well you would never do that obviously. You do what it says on the tin. But there are people - eg those who paid the £3 just to vote for who they judged would make the WORST Labour leader - who do get a cheap thrill from this sort of thing.

    As for Starmer being IYO boring, I believe you completely but would just probe a little. Do you mean he bores you as almost all mainstream politicians do? Or is it more that you have a bar for the level of stimulation you expect from a politician and Starmer fails to reach it?
    Starmer was the face of Labour's Brexit policy.

    Can you honestly recall a thing he said about Brexit? The biggest issue of our times. And he was a void.

    Just imagine when he starts doing detail.....

    Barry Gardiner and Richard Burgon were the faces of Labour's Brexit policy. Starmer was deliberately kept out of the media by the current leadership.

  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,045

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    The monarchy is a genetic lottery - Lizzie was generally acceptable but we could have ended up with Handy Andy. Sooner or later, we’ll get a rotten egg.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,908

    viewcode said:

    FPT @Casino_Royale

    You asked what to do with £40k. You have bought a new house so I don't know if it is a bad time to suggest it, but in normal circs I would think about converting the attic to another bedroom. If you can get it done within budget and you get a proper job done (structural engineer, new staircase, etc) it makes a real difference. However I must emphasise it has to be a proper job. Bodge it and you can easily destroy the house: I've seen it happen.

    Thanks viewcode. Interesting idea.

    Maybe one for 5-10 years once our family expands?
    No probs. Moving house is a good way to improve but there are limits and it's traumatic. Home improvements are easier and (if you select the right improvements) cost effective. However as you have just had a little one and consequently got about a decade of getting crayon off the walls and sick off the carpet to look forward to, you might not have the headspace right now.

    40k. Hmm. I believe you've already mentioned a stocks and shares ISA. You've rejected paying off the mortgage. You could consider moving to an offset mortgage and putting the money in there while you think about what to do it. £40K in an offset reduces the payments by £70-100pcm and you can take the money back out in emergencies. Other possibilities include:

    1) get your teeth properly done: cleaned, filings replaced with white ones, loose ones reinforced, etc.
    2) get a full body health check for you and your family every five or ten years: blood tests, body scanner, the works. Its amazing how many common diseases (diabetes, osteoporosis, cancer, hypothyroidism) can be far less serious if detected early.
    3) if applicable: hair transplants to the crown.

    I'll stop now ... :(
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,045

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    “Caught”? Is being sceptical of the monarchy something to be ashamed of? You cap-doffing types aren’t really in a position to judge TBH.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,045
    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:

    Starmer is going to be the Labour Michael Howard

    This is good news, for Labour, as RLB would have been IDS

    Jeremy Corbyn was the Labour IDS. RLB would be the Labour Clement Davies.
    Keir Starmer is the Labour Keir Starmer
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    en, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly

    I don’t want to be mean to her, but I don’t buy her victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do best to fade into the background with Harry and make some money if she does not want to do royal duties, if she wants to take on the Royal brand she should be assured they will respond without mercy, raking over her private life and her sources of income and high spending with tabloid support, there will only be one winner and it won't be her reputation
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    If she sits in the witness box v Assoc News she will be eviscerated by the opposition QC. "So, why did your friends plant all these negative stories with the press against X and Y in the royal family?"

    The Mail journalists will know all the gory details and times of where and when it was done by who.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,072
    HYUFD said:

    It has been so long since we had one that I have genuinely forgotten what a decent Labour leader looks like. In and of itself it would make a huge difference to the entire political environment. A proper opposition holding the Tories to account. Can you imagine?

    Anyone pushing that nonsense surely has to leave the party if he wins.

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    The Queen, who is a truly extraordinary woman, is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting for the royal family. When she is gone, we may find that a lot of support for the monarchy as an institution was actually support for her.

    Indeed - Charles may have had his image improve, but when there is an epochal change as will unfortunately happen not that far into the future, it may turn out that that support is not as solid as it seems, especially as despite not caring that much about changing systems now, other places will surely take the opportunity to at least ask the question if it should continue.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 315

    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:

    Starmer is going to be the Labour Michael Howard

    This is good news, for Labour, as RLB would have been IDS

    Jeremy Corbyn was the Labour IDS. RLB would be the Labour Clement Davies.
    Keir Starmer is the Labour Keir Starmer
    Worse, he might end up being Labour's Theresa May: a superficially prime-ministerial candidate chosen to provide reassurance in a time of crisis, but who turns out to be a charisma vacuum who's not quite up to it.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,045

    viewcode said:

    FPT @Casino_Royale

    You asked what to do with £40k. You have bought a new house so I don't know if it is a bad time to suggest it, but in normal circs I would think about converting the attic to another bedroom. If you can get it done within budget and you get a proper job done (structural engineer, new staircase, etc) it makes a real difference. However I must emphasise it has to be a proper job. Bodge it and you can easily destroy the house: I've seen it happen.

    Thanks viewcode. Interesting idea.

    Maybe one for 5-10 years once our family expands?
    Do it now if you have the chance. You can always use it as an office, or something else (home cinema?) It doubles in value and is remarkably non-disruptive. They knock through once it’s all boarded out and suddenly you have an extra floor.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,945

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    The Queen, who is a truly extraordinary woman, is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting for the royal family. When she is gone, we may find that a lot of support for the monarchy as an institution was actually support for her.

    69% now approve of William, higher than the 66% who approve of the Queen

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7874669/Majority-Britons-say-Harry-Meghan-treated-Queen-shoddily.html
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,045

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly

    I don’t want to be mean to her, but I don’t buy her victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do best to fade into the background with Harry and make some money if she does not want to do royal duties, if she wants to take on the Royal brand she should be assured they will respond without mercy, raking over her private life and her sources of income and high spending with tabloid support, there will only be one winner and it won't be her reputation
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,945
    Byronic said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through
    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, an’t buy her victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do best to fade into the background with Harry and make some money if she does not want to do er reputation
    I saw an amazing graph today. It was on Twitter: I wish I could find it again.

    It related to press/media interest generated by various EU countries, in all ways (politics, culture, sport etc) around the world, in the last year

    The UK was way way ahead. France was a distant second, then Germany, the rest were nowhere. (Bit tough on Spain, where I think the graph came from, but hey)

    Partly this is just the English language. Also, I am sure, the potency of the English Premier League. But another factor is the royal family. If you go on Twitter you will find Americans, Nigerians, South Africans, Brazilians, saying “the royal family should do this” or “the Queen must do that”. There is no indication who they are talking about, because it is not necessary. THE Queen is the Queen of England. THE Royal Family is the Royal Family of the UK.

    It’s daft, but this is a massive asset for the UK. Britain would be mad to abolish it in a fit of irritation. Meghan Markle must be gently and generously defused.

    Indeed, the Queen is the 2nd most famous Head of State after Trump, with Putin or maybe Macron 3rd. Who has heard of the president of Germany or India or Ireland? Very few
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 675

    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:

    Starmer is going to be the Labour Michael Howard

    This is good news, for Labour, as RLB would have been IDS

    Jeremy Corbyn was the Labour IDS. RLB would be the Labour Clement Davies.
    Keir Starmer is the Labour Keir Starmer
    Worse, he might end up being Labour's Theresa May: a superficially prime-ministerial candidate chosen to provide reassurance in a time of crisis, but who turns out to be a charisma vacuum who's not quite up to it.
    I find that hindsight is not being kind to Theresa May. The further GE 2017 recedes in the mirror the more dreadful it looks. I am not a Starmer fan, but I cannot see him managing anything one tenth as awful as the dementia tax/nothing has changed fiasco.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,045
    Weed, coke and mandy are right for Becky, Sir Keir and Thorners respectively. If you were forced into a drug for Lisa and Jess, it would be tea (Lisa) and lager (Jess).
  • isamisam Posts: 29,946
    edited January 17
    If Starmer wins, as looks likely, I have a feeling the Green party will see a surge in membership and do relatively well next time there are elections. It is probably wrong to assume the hard left will fall in line behind Sir Keir now they've had a taste of power
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,991
    As far as I can tell, Starmer is both competent and honest. The incumbent at No 10 is neither of those things. But is it enough? I'm not sure it is. Johnson is held to different, and lower, standards than anyone else.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,045
    isam said:

    If Starmer wins, as looks likely, I have a feeling the Green party will see a surge in membership and do relatively well next time there are elections. It is probably wrong to assume the hard left will fall in line behind Sir Keir now they've had a taste of power

    Maybe. But they certainly won’t have any subsequent tastes of power in the Greens!

    Some will stick around. The Labour brand must be one of the most resilient brands in Britain. Despite the fact its product is utterly shite and has disappointed and angered millions of its customers, it still gets 10 million votes - even with Stig of the Dump as CEO.
  • A convicted football hooligan launched an unprovoked attack on Guardian columnist and left-wing activist Owen Jones because of his sexuality and political views, a judge has ruled.

    James Healy, 40, admitted assaulting Mr Jones outside a pub in August last year, but claimed he "had the hump" because the victim had bumped into him and spilled his drink.

    But the Chelsea FC fan - who has a string of convictions for football-related violence - denied being motivated by Mr Jones sexuality or political campaigning, claiming he didn’t even know who he was.

    Assaults deemed to be hate crimes can attract significantly longer sentences from the courts.

    Following his arrest, a search of Healy’s home found a number of items connected to far-right ideology including a collection of pin badges linked to white supremacist groups.

    Following a two-day hearing to determine Healy’s motive, Recorder Judge Anne Studd QC ruled on Friday the unprovoked attack could only be motivated by Mr Jones’s media profile as a left-wing polemicist.

    https://www.itv.com/news/2020-01-17/football-hooligan-convicted-of-attacking-guardian-columnist-over-political-views/
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,287
    It’s ridiculous for some in Labour to blame their defeat on their policy of a second EU vote .

    Given the membership is overwhelmingly pro EU and Labour voters in all polls would stay in the EU by a huge margin just what planet do those people inhabit who keep peddling the fantasy that the second vote ruined their election chances .

    They’re now trying to trash Keir Starmer when the reality is Corbyn was the main problem together with the manifesto .
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,755

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    The monarchy is a genetic lottery - Lizzie was generally acceptable but we could have ended up with Handy Andy. Sooner or later, we’ll get a rotten egg.
    Didn't we get one in the 1930s, complete with fascist sympathies?!

    He abdicated in 1936 due to his love life but it seems to have been a lot of trouble and he had to be paid for Balmoral and Sandringham which were his personal property. It changed the line of succession too.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,045

    A convicted football hooligan launched an unprovoked attack on Guardian columnist and left-wing activist Owen Jones because of his sexuality and political views, a judge has ruled.

    James Healy, 40, admitted assaulting Mr Jones outside a pub in August last year, but claimed he "had the hump" because the victim had bumped into him and spilled his drink.

    But the Chelsea FC fan - who has a string of convictions for football-related violence - denied being motivated by Mr Jones sexuality or political campaigning, claiming he didn’t even know who he was.

    Assaults deemed to be hate crimes can attract significantly longer sentences from the courts.

    Following his arrest, a search of Healy’s home found a number of items connected to far-right ideology including a collection of pin badges linked to white supremacist groups.

    Following a two-day hearing to determine Healy’s motive, Recorder Judge Anne Studd QC ruled on Friday the unprovoked attack could only be motivated by Mr Jones’s media profile as a left-wing polemicist.

    https://www.itv.com/news/2020-01-17/football-hooligan-convicted-of-attacking-guardian-columnist-over-political-views/

    Chelsea haven’t changed as much as people think since the 1980s.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,945
    isam said:

    If Starmer wins, as looks likely, I have a feeling the Green party will see a surge in membership and do relatively well next time there are elections. It is probably wrong to assume the hard left will fall in line behind Sir Keir now they've had a taste of power

    UKIP of course got a surge of membership in the Cameron years, so quite possible
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,945

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly

    I don’t want to be mean to her, but I don’t buy her victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do on
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers?
    If she trashes the Royal family in a tv interview after all the perks she has had from them she is not a decent human being and what goes around comes around
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,379

    isam said:

    If Starmer wins, as looks likely, I have a feeling the Green party will see a surge in membership and do relatively well next time there are elections. It is probably wrong to assume the hard left will fall in line behind Sir Keir now they've had a taste of power

    Maybe. But they certainly won’t have any subsequent tastes of power in the Greens!

    Some will stick around. The Labour brand must be one of the most resilient brands in Britain. Despite the fact its product is utterly shite and has disappointed and angered millions of its customers, it still gets 10 million votes - even with Stig of the Dump as CEO.
    Starmer as Leader would attract me back.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 675
    nico67 said:

    It’s ridiculous for some in Labour to blame their defeat on their policy of a second EU vote .

    Given the membership is overwhelmingly pro EU and Labour voters in all polls would stay in the EU by a huge margin just what planet do those people inhabit who keep peddling the fantasy that the second vote ruined their election chances .

    They’re now trying to trash Keir Starmer when the reality is Corbyn was the main problem together with the manifesto .

    yougov says otherwise. Labour voters abandoned Labour because of Corbyn first, Brexit second, policy (manifesto) third.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7826295/Voters-ditched-Labour-Jeremy-Corbyns-leadership-neutral-Brexit-stance-poll-says.html
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,045
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly

    I don’t want to be mean to her, but I don’t buy her victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do on
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers?
    If she trashes the Royal family in a tv interview after all the perks she has had from them she is not a decent human being and what goes around comes around
    You don’t think she might have a point in some cases then?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 675
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly

    I don’t want to be mean to her, but I don’t buy her victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do on
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers?
    If she trashes the Royal family in a tv interview after all the perks she has had from them she is not a decent human being and what goes around comes around
    She should tolerate racist and sexist humiliation because of "perks"?

    You are ridiculous.
  • isamisam Posts: 29,946

    isam said:

    If Starmer wins, as looks likely, I have a feeling the Green party will see a surge in membership and do relatively well next time there are elections. It is probably wrong to assume the hard left will fall in line behind Sir Keir now they've had a taste of power

    Maybe. But they certainly won’t have any subsequent tastes of power in the Greens!

    Some will stick around. The Labour brand must be one of the most resilient brands in Britain. Despite the fact its product is utterly shite and has disappointed and angered millions of its customers, it still gets 10 million votes - even with Stig of the Dump as CEO.
    It got fewer without him!
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 17,868
    HYUFD said:

    she is not a decent human being and what goes around comes around

    Feck off.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,945
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do on
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers?
    If she trashes the Royal family in a tv interview after all the perks she has had from them she is not a decent human being and what goes around comes around
    She should tolerate racist and sexist humiliation because of "perks"?

    You are ridiculous.
    There is no racist and sexist humiliation other than her determination to play the victim card then go off and make a shed load of money having raised her profile on the back of the Royal brand
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,408
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly

    I don’t want to be mean to her, but I don’t buy her victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do on
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers?
    If she trashes the Royal family in a tv interview after all the perks she has had from them she is not a decent human being and what goes around comes around
    So, if someone recieves (say) "perks" from their boss, they can't ever say anything nasty about them? Or does this only apply to the Royal Family?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,189
    edited January 17
    I think I can guess the broad contours of how a royal family referendum would go......
    It might not end up 52-48 BUT...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,945
    edited January 17
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s aughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly

    I don’t want to be mean to her, but I don’t buy her victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do on
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers?
    If she trashes the Royal family in a tv interview after all the perks she has had from them she is not a decent human being and what goes around comes around
    So, if someone recieves (say) "perks" from their boss, they can't ever say anything nasty about them? Or does this only apply to the Royal Family?
    If you are a highly paid employee of an organisation, then leave it and trash it in the media then your former employee can sue you and trash your reputation in court
  • stodgestodge Posts: 6,154
    Evening all :)

    I don't usually comment on the Royal Family because I don't really care that much but I have some sympathy for Harry who is facing "second son syndrome".

    There have been second sons who have become King - Henry VIII, James II and George VI to name but three and all under very different circumstances and in their time Andrew and Harry were respectively second and third in line but times have changed and neither has any realistic chance of accession.

    That doesn't stop them having a life to live and there is a struggle to find an identity and a sense of purpose. Perhaps Harry wants to forge a life and existence beyond his brother and his mother's shadow and I can only wish him and Meghan well.

    By the by, while I see the right has found a new folk hero in Laurence Fox, I did agree the racism angle was being overplayed. Traditional suspicion of American divorcees notwithstanding, Meghan has found how quickly the worm of "media opinion" can turn if you don't do and say the right things.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,908
    Just going thru Battersea. Damn but this place is turning into Blade Runner. Construction, light, massive residential towers too packed together: if this place ever catches fire thousands will die. I don't know whether to be impressed or repelled. Difficult not to him Vangelis, tho
  • stodgestodge Posts: 6,154
    HYUFD said:


    There is no racist and sexist humiliation other than her determination to play the victim card then go off and make a shed load of money having raised her profile on the back of the Royal brand

    On two unrelated issues, I see we've failed to stop the cuts in Central Line services which will be coming in on the 26th.

    You were also commenting on two-tier local Government - there are many models out there ranging from Cornwall via Cheshire to Northamptonshire. Assuming Essex would become a unitary council in any re-organisation is misguided - there are other options available.
  • Just came across RLB live speech in Manchester and I have to query whether labour are even remotely serious in considering her as leader. She came over to me as someone who is wholly unsuitable for any serious political office, sounding like she has just left school and would be an utter disaster

    She makes Starmer look prime ministerial in comparison and to be honest I have little confidence he will succeed, especially in the northern areas

    Labour are in a mess and how they think they can recover 123 seats for a majority of 1 in 2024 is beyond me
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 675
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do on
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers?
    If she trashes the Royal family in a tv interview after all the perks she has had from them she is not a decent human being and what goes around comes around
    She should tolerate racist and sexist humiliation because of "perks"?

    You are ridiculous.
    There is no racist and sexist humiliation other than her determination to play the victim card then go off and make a shed load of money having raised her profile on the back of the Royal brand
    You have no way of knowing that. If you automatically rule it out, when we are talking about a family ruled by Philip "slitty eyes" D of E and including Andrew D of Y, there must be some rather questionable prejudices at work.
This discussion has been closed.