16-JUL 2023 : LAB: 46% / CON: 26% / LDEM: 11% / REF: 6%

[steve]

Danny
I don't normally agree with your conspiracy theory posts but frankly your post regarding the Brexit time line seems entirely plausible.

[steve]

"you really dont get it. Cptpp is no different to the eu. Just smaller."
And Further away.
Attachment Deleted

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 22, 2023 0:10:13 GMT mercian said:

Jul 21, 2023 18:23:58 GMT James E said:

We've just joined CPTPP without any referendum, so there is a recent  precedent. 

Big difference. One is a trade deal, the other involves becoming part of a supra-national entity.

Technically we could Rejoin EU without a referendum (as per Major signing Maastricht). Parliament is Sovereign.

However, I'd agree that there is a huge difference between a 'trade deal' (eg CPTPP) and what the EU has become. LDEM tried to 'Get Brexit Gone' via Revoke, in the 'Final Say' (as Remainers wanted to call it) of GE'19 and that didn't go down well.

If so many people are desperate to Rejoin EU when why does the party called 'Rejoin.EU' do so badly in elections?

We live in a democracy, so if folks want to Rejoin.EU (with/without a referendum), then they can vote for a party that states they will Rejoin.EU and ensure they don't vote for a party that has accepted Brexit and wants to 'Make Brexit Work'. 

Although it is of course easier for Rejoiners to simply 'Carry on Moaning' 

[alec]

When there are negatives to deal with CPTPP is 'just a trade deal'.

When it's time to hype it up a bit, CPTPP is a 'major, irreversible strategic and political re-alignment and close integration with a fast growing economic region'.

Have we got this?

Reality: no, CPTPP is not the same as the SM. It is much shallower in terms of political alignment, but also with much more limited gains. While the scope and depth of regulatory alignment is much less than the SM, CPTPP does infringe on UK sovereignty in some areas and will limit parliament's ability to pass laws, as the SM does. If that's a thing for you, you won't like the CPTPP. But I'm sure some will exhibit memory gaps in their efforts to promote CPTPP.

[Deleted]

Jul 22, 2023 0:10:13 GMT mercian said:

Jul 21, 2023 18:23:58 GMT James E said:

We've just joined CPTPP without any referendum, so there is a recent  precedent. 

Big difference. One is a trade deal, the other involves becoming part of a supra-national entity.

You wonder whether some of them understand the difference between the SM and the EU. Let alone the EZ ! ?

[Deleted]

Jul 22, 2023 7:43:47 GMT Danny said:

Jul 22, 2023 0:10:13 GMT mercian said:

Big difference. One is a trade deal, the other involves becoming part of a supra-national entity.

you really dont get it. Cptpp is no different to the eu. Just smaller.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_and_Progressive_Agreement_for_Trans-Pacific_Partnership

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_single_market

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurozone

[Deleted]

Jul 21, 2023 23:19:29 GMT mercian said:

Jul 21, 2023 9:20:05 GMT domjg said:

I spent the first part of my childhood in this kind of irredeemably tory outer London region (Spelthorne) and still have wider family there.
In many ways the culture and attitudes of a lot of people there are, to be blunt, not very nice.

Presumably that means they disagree with your views?

I keep meaning to ask him if there are any small pockets of English citizenry which domjg considers to be "nice".

And if so , where they are hiding.

[crossbat11]

Jul 22, 2023 7:41:17 GMT steve said:

moby
Corbyn reached the peak of his contribution to Westminster as being without a doubt the best father Christmas at the annual Westminster children's party.
He came with his own beard and outfit.
He did have a propensity to offer yearly membership of the drain hole cover appreciation society in his secret Santa 🎅 gifts but no one's without fault.

I come not to mock but to offer an honest personal appraisal of Corbyn instead, Purely to pledge my troth and then to say no more. We've done the subject to death on here, really.

Mainly because I'm a daft soft-hearted Labour loyalist when push comes to shove, I rallied to Corbyn when he became leader, despite my political misgivings. Someone more of a UKPR archivist and historian than me may dredge up the posts I wrote, circa the 2017 election, saying how I quite liked the man and his quintessentially English personal qualities. That was true then and still is now, although I despaired of his political limitations, mainly because I sensed they were damaging the party I desperately wanted to win. I bore no personal antagonisms to him at all. Still don't really, although I'm very pleased he is no longer the Labour leader.

In the 2017 general election campaign, we saw the best of the man and I sipped quite a bit of the Jeremy Koolaid too. In retrospect, I think what we saw too were the very things that were always going to prevent him being elected. His natural role in politics appears to be the besieged underdog, railing against injustice and iniquity. Noble ideals, and effective campaigning weaponry, but he never convinced enough voters that he had a prescription for solving these problems in government. In truth, I don't think Corbyn ever thought he had too, but he was in his element swinging punches and exciting crowds on the stump. This was his comfort zone, I think. Power with accountability may well have not have been.

This may not be saying much, but I suspect Corbyn is a much more decent human being than politicians like Cameron Johnson and May, his opposite numbers whilst he was leader, but the UK electorate makes for a harsh and unforgiving jury and he failed to convince them that he was a better PM than two of them; May and Johnson.

I saw the old boy interviewed on Peston the other day. He was as happy as Larry and back on form. In his comfort zone, making the odd decent point too. He's well out of it and we shouldn't feel sorry for him. I expect he's loving the return to his old maverick ways. Sticking it to the Labour leadership and causing a bit of mischief for Starmer in both the Commons and in his constituency.

Maybe he secretly doesn't want to be rehabilitated. These could well be his salad days and vintage twilight years. Raging against the establishment wherever he finds it and playing the role of beleaguered underdog.

The rather inexplicable cultism surrounding him should fade in time too. I suspect "Jeremy" will be very pleased when it does. It was always a little silly and, in many ways, the sort of nonsense that Corbyn would dislike I suspect. I think he was sincere when he said that policies were far more important than personalities.

The tragedy for Corbyn, and the party he led for very nearly five years, was that the messianic myth that grew around Corbyn got in the way of his much better qualities. Voters are usually suspicious of messiahs and their zealous followers.

[Deleted]

UK well and truly out from under the protective skirts of Central Bank Asset Purchases :-

"The cost of insuring UK government debt has soared amid investors’ fears over rapidly rising interest rates piling pressure on the public finances.
Insurance against a default, as reflected by credit default swaps, jumped by 106 per cent in the year to the end of May, a rise beaten only by debt-stricken Pakistan and Ecuador, according to data compiled by Bloomberg and Chaucer, an insurance agency.
Credit default swaps are financial instruments designed to pay out in the event of a sovereign or corporate default. In the modern era Britain has never defaulted on its obligations, which is reflected in the low price it has paid historically.
British credit default swap price rises eclipsed those of the United States, where the cost of insuring against default also rose in the wake of Washington’s debt ceiling stand-off this year. Average US credit default swap prices have risen by 85 per cent over the past year.

Jonathan Bint, a senior analyst at Chaucer, said: “The risk of defaults is not just confined to developing countries. Major global economic players are increasingly facing the prospect of prolonged economic difficulty.
“Although the likelihood of countries such as the UK or US actually defaulting is low, that’s not to say that there is no risk for creditors.”"

Times

[Deleted]

Very sad to read this in today's Times :-

"Rishi Sunak is preparing to launch a more aggressive political campaign in an attempt to shift Labour’s lead in the polls with divisive policies on crime, migrant boats and transgender rights."



The Leading Article in the same paper observes that Europe is increasingly subject to "disillusion with big government, enforced social inclusivity, new environmental restrictions and immigration have awakened atavistic fears and boosted the right. Throughout Europe, policies and ideologies seen as toxic are becoming ever more mainstream, shaping the agendas of traditional parties and steadily gaining electoral appeal."

Sweden/Spain/Hungary/Poland/Finland/Greece/Italy/Germany/France/Netherlands...

The Times Leader concludes with :-

"Ironically, as mainstream parties seek to embrace policies of the far right, hoping to rob them of supporters, they make those parties more respectable. Politics must now wrestle with this phenomenon that is changing the face of Europe."

[Danny]

Jul 22, 2023 6:54:56 GMT alec said:

Nothing we can't ignore.

I do have some sympathy for your views on covid. You are absolutely correct, the mistake was always over reacting to covid and we would have been very much better to have reacted much much less and taken the traditional approach of ignoring it. Governments have quietly rolled back to th at position.

Someone this morning was talking about the importance of preventing cross infection in hospitals. She was absolutely correct, and not just about covid. This is a very long established problem. Had we got this under control previously then the covud death toll would have been slashed.

The statistical bottom line with covid has always been it is dangerous only to already sick people. And of course hospitals and care hones are stuffed with such people.

[Dave]

Jul 21, 2023 19:28:13 GMT graham said:

Jul 21, 2023 19:22:55 GMT Dave said:

Oh, you didn't respond to this bit of the post that you responded to ....

"You said the other day you’d vote green or not vote at all. Had you lived in Uxbridge, you’d have contributed to a Tory win. Are you happy with that"?


Of course you don't have to respond but a yes or no would be appreciated.   For me, now more than ever, it's time to take sides or carp from the sidelines and risk forever being side-lined by those who tried. 

I would probably have voted Green rather than Tory or NeoTory.

You've avoided my question.  Honestly, a yes or no would do - but I'd appreciate a straight, non-evasive answer to the bit I've now highlighted in my original post.

[Deleted]

Jul 22, 2023 5:48:49 GMT steve said:

Regarding Starmer's Labour I think he's been a severe disappointment in terms of a chronic lack of ambition.

However there's no denying that he's placed Labour in a position after the two defeats under Corbyn the most recent the worst General election performance by Labour since the 1930's where in less than a parliament they are 20 points ahead of the incumbents and massive odds on favourites to be the next government.
He has of course been aided and abetted by the worst UK government since the introduction of universal suffrage.

The anyone but Tory, especially these Tories vote is huge.

The recent local and by elections have flagged up some elements that are from my point of view hopeful and could mitigate the negativity of a overwhelming majority for Labour based on a minority of the votes cast.

It seems to me both disaffected middle ground Tories see more positives in voting for the liberal democrats than a switch to Labour and Green supporters understand that if they ever want more representation than the one Brighton MP they need a party with influence committed to fair voting reform and the only game in town U.K. wide is the liberal democrats.
In addition where the liberal democrats are perceived as in with the best chance of winning Labour supporters have had no difficulty in lending us their votes , given that we stand for more Labour principles than the current Labour party leadership, not remotely surprising.

These elements mean there's a chance , I wouldn't put it higher than that of something unique at the next general election, where despite a substantial lead in the national opinion polls over all other parties, in the 90 odd seats where the liberal democrats are second to the Tories or even when they are perceived as the most likely to dislodge them even if currently in third place that voting patterns are different.

Somerton was 57th on the liberal democrat target list if similar focus on the most plausible anti Tory vote occurs at the general election we could see the electorate play the first past the post system and see our party with around 15% of the national vote actually return an appropriate number of MPs.
I don't think it likely but this could produce 80+ wins and makes the possibility of a Labour minority government having to give serious thought to far more progressive policies on voting and our relationship with Europe.
Most Labour supporters and a fair few Tories wouldn't have any problem with that outcome either.

Not sure about 80+ LDEM gains, but I certainly get your basic premise that, following the Local Elections and especially S&F and S&A, ABCON as a concept seems to be becoming increasingly embraced by a good chunk of the electorate. Very bad news for CON if this plays out widely in the UKGE next year.

[alec]

Danny - "The statistical bottom line with covid has always been it is dangerous only to already sick people."

Very silly, as ever. I'll post some actual data on the covid thread in a bit, with another study from Finland showing how the health of younger people has deteriorated the most following the pandemic, and how that is causing increased pressure on healthcare services.

[John Chanin]

Jul 22, 2023 8:44:40 GMT crossbat11 said:

I come not to mock but to offer an honest personal appraisal of Corbyn instead, Purely to pledge my troth and then to say no more. We've done the subject to death on here, really.

Mainly because I'm a daft soft-hearted Labour loyalist when push comes to shove, I rallied to Corbyn when he became leader, despite my political misgivings. Someone more of a UKPR archivist and historian than me may dredge up the posts I wrote, circa the 2017 election, saying how I quite liked the man and his quintessentially English personal qualities. That was true then and still is now, although I despaired of his political limitations, mainly because I sensed they were damaging the party I desperately wanted to win. I bore no personal antagonisms to him at all. Still don't really, although I'm very pleased he is no longer the Labour leader.

In the 2017 general election campaign, we saw the best of the man and I sipped quite a bit of the Jeremy Koolaid too. In retrospect, I think what we saw too were the very things that were always going to prevent him being elected. His natural role in politics appears to be the besieged underdog, railing against injustice and iniquity. Noble ideals, and effective campaigning weaponry, but he never convinced enough voters that he had a prescription for solving these problems in government. In truth, I don't think Corbyn ever thought he had too, but he was in his element swinging punches and exciting crowds on the stump. This was his comfort zone, I think. Power with accountability may well have not have been.

This may not be saying much, but I suspect Corbyn is a much more decent human being than politicians like Cameron Johnson and May, his opposite numbers whilst he was leader, but the UK electorate makes for a harsh and unforgiving jury and he failed to convince them that he was a better PM than two of them; May and Johnson.

I saw the old boy interviewed on Peston the other day. He was as happy as Larry and back on form. In his comfort zone, making the odd decent point too. He's well out of it and we shouldn't feel sorry for him. I expect he's loving the return to his old maverick ways. Sticking it to the Labour leadership and causing a bit of mischief for Starmer in both the Commons and in his constituency.

Maybe he secretly doesn't want to be rehabilitated. These could well be his salad days and vintage twilight years. Raging against the establishment wherever he finds it and playing the role of beleaguered underdog.

The rather inexplicable cultism surrounding him should fade in time too. I suspect "Jeremy" will be very pleased when it does. It was always a little silly and, in many ways, the sort of nonsense that Corbyn would dislike I suspect. I think he was sincere when he said that policies were far more important than personalities.

The tragedy for Corbyn, and the party he led for very nearly five years, was that the messianic myth that grew around Corbyn got in the way of his much better qualities. Voters are usually suspicious of messiahs and their zealous followers.

Yes Corbyn is a really nice bloke, honest and sincere, but completely out of his depth as a party leader, a job he never really wanted.

[leftieliberal]

Anoosh Chakelian in New Statesman on Khan's re-election campaign as London Mayor
www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour/2023/07/sadiq-khans-ulez-london-re-election-campaign
A couple of comments from the article

A complicating factor in outer west London politics is the sizeable British Indian population, where hostility to Khan has been stirred up by some figures looking to exploit Gujarati Hindu political preferences.

This is something that we have been very aware of in Harrow where the odious Bob Blackman played this card. It is probably the main reason that the Tories won back control of Harrow Council last year against the swing to Labour in other parts of London. It is something not to be underestimated.

Khan, who won by a tighter margin than expected against a weak Conservative candidate in 2021, is due to run for a record third term as London Mayor next year. His tenure has not been easy; City Hall’s resources were drained by the pandemic, and since he was first elected in 2016, he has faced an uncooperative central government. (Indeed, a senior Transport for London source told me last year that the “urgency” to expand Ulez was financial rather than environmental.)
www.newstatesman.com/politics/2022/03/frustrated-ambitions-inside-sadiq-khans-city-hall

[James E]

Jul 22, 2023 8:27:47 GMT alec said:

When there are negatives to deal with CPTPP is 'just a trade deal'.

When it's time to hype it up a bit, CPTPP is a 'major, irreversible strategic and political re-alignment and close integration with a fast growing economic region'.

Have we got this?

Reality: no, CPTPP is not the same as the SM. It is much shallower in terms of political alignment, but also with much more limited gains. While the scope and depth of regulatory alignment is much less than the SM, CPTPP does infringe on UK sovereignty in some areas and will limit parliament's ability to pass laws, as the SM does. If that's a thing for you, you won't like the CPTPP. But I'm sure some will exhibit memory gaps in their efforts to promote CPTPP.

Exactly. The reality is that all Trade Deals involve regulatory agreement, which by definition is an infringement of 'sovereignty'.

After all the guff about sovereignty in relation to the single market, it seems that the infringement of Parliamentary sovereignty to any non-European country or trading group is now acceptable to the Sovereigntists. 

See, for example:

www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/free-trade-deal-is-a-major-threat-to-uk-public-health-warn-experts/

www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/brexit-uk-malaysia-palm-oil-deal-b2301538.html

[steve]

Test cricket at its finest.

Attachment Deleted

[neilj]

Thinking about the Uxbridge results, I agree that ULEZ was the primary reason the tories won. However that does not translate to a majority not wanting ULEZ, the majority voted for parties that supported ULEZ in one form or another
It's the 2019 election all over again, only instead of Brexit it's ULEZ

[Deleted]

Jul 21, 2023 19:45:49 GMT EmCat said:

Jul 21, 2023 11:01:06 GMT lens said:

Firstly, I ... own a 17 year old diesel. 

It's interesting how long a vehicle is expected to last has changed.

Back in th 1970s, and many cars (except Volvo - they built their reputation on longevity) were not expected to last 10 years. Even in the 80s, it was still unusual for cars to last that long (In 1983, when the year prefix registration scheme replaced the year suffix scheme, seeing an 'L' registered car from 1973 was uncommon. In 1993  - now an L prefix - seeing an A prefix car was almost as unusual).

When the scrapple scheme was introduced in around 2010 for cars over 10 years old, such was the uptake that even though cars were in general more reliable, the uptake was such to make them uncommon again.

That iit is now almost expected that cars will just last shows how much things have improved

That makes Isa, now 44 years old, something of a rarity! To be fair, surviving MG Midgets are far more numerous than many of their peer models, some of which sold in far higher numbers at the time, but are now as rare as rocking horse droppings, and with prices to match!

When did you last see an Austin 1100, Ford Cortina or Vauxhall Victor on the road, for example?

[neilj]

The other thing about ULEZ its due to go ahead on 29 August unless the current legal challenge succeeds
If it is put in place come the next election it will be a done deal and those that needed to change vehicles would of
I strongly suspect it will no longer be a salient issue in the London area

[alec]

colin - "Very sad to read this in today's Times :-"

I'm struggling to see why the sadness?

You've been backing a party doing this for years now?

[Deleted]

Jul 22, 2023 10:32:52 GMT neilj said:

Thinking about the Uxbridge results, I agree that ULEZ was the primary reason the tories won. However that does not translate to a majority not wanting ULEZ, the majority voted for parties that supported ULEZ in one form or another
It's the 2019 election all over again, only instead of Brexit it's ULEZ

Indeed. What I would say, though, is that ULEZ, for example, is a factor directly relevant in only a small number of seats, whereas Brexit was an issue nationwide. The good burghers of Somerton and Frome and Selby and Ainsty merrily went about their business on Thursday on the basis of more generic issues, I would suggest.

[moby]

Jul 22, 2023 8:53:36 GMT colin said:

Very sad to read this in today's Times :-

"Rishi Sunak is preparing to launch a more aggressive political campaign in an attempt to shift Labour’s lead in the polls with divisive policies on crime, migrant boats and transgender rights."



The Leading Article in the same paper observes that Europe is increasingly subject to "disillusion with big government, enforced social inclusivity, new environmental restrictions and immigration have awakened atavistic fears and boosted the right. Throughout Europe, policies and ideologies seen as toxic are becoming ever more mainstream, shaping the agendas of traditional parties and steadily gaining electoral appeal."

Sweden/Spain/Hungary/Poland/Finland/Greece/Italy/Germany/France/Netherlands...

The Times Leader concludes with :-

"Ironically, as mainstream parties seek to embrace policies of the far right, hoping to rob them of supporters, they make those parties more respectable. Politics must now wrestle with this phenomenon that is changing the face of Europe."

It's not a new phenomenon. Its always been like this. Atavistic forces always try and hold back the ideals of the progressives. Its fundamentally fear of change and resentment at having to share status and power. The challenge to white male entitlement and privilege are obvious examples. Other interest groups are increasingly gaining their voice, the law and social mores are being challenged and there is always going to be a reaction 'backlash' from traditional vested interests. As a white male myself it is something I am keenly aware of and am struggling through. Ultimately though we do get through these phases and one day we may live in a society similar to Ian Bainks 'Culture' world in which everyone feels included and we will be able to choose what colour, sex or gender we want to be that day by just popping a little pill. 

[Mark]

Jul 21, 2023 20:16:55 GMT domjg said:

Jul 21, 2023 20:13:05 GMT catmanjeff said:

Why would it go to waste?

It could sold to vast areas of the country without ULEZ rules.

At the moment yes, but I'm imagining what would happen if other cities across the country followed suit. That would immediately make such vehicles nearly worthless. In fact there will no doubt be a sudden glut of them on the second hand market being sold by people in London to other parts of the country.

This is correct.

While those in Uxbridge, for example, have the option of buying a second hand compliant car (or selling a non-compliant one) elsewhere exists, it won't exist for those in areas that would be last to haze sch zones if they were rolled out nationwise.

Let's put that into perspectie though.

Realistically, if there was a nationwise rollout, it wouldn't happen for at least a couple of years.

While those driving non-compliant diesel cars could, with some justification, feel cheated, for petrol cars, non-compliat cars, by that time, would be 20 years old. Even without ULEZ, how much, realistically would you expectt to get for a 20 year old car?

The scrappage scheme needs to be more generous, yes. Maybe as a minimum, the scrappage value would be equivalent to the second hand sale value, or even double that.

To put things further into perspective, compare to other, fairly big ticket, bit, considered essential items by most - a computer and a TV that are from the same era.

If you had a fully working Windows 7 machine, you wouldn't get more that, say, £20 for it, even though it is capable of doing all that most would require of it.

On a similar timescale, a TV with a scart socket for Freeview was the in-demand piece of kit, such models being pretty much obselete now.

There is an argument that we, increasingly live in a throwaway society and that, due to faster technological innovation, this has accelorated. Indeed this is an argument that I have often made in the past.

It could also, therefore be argued that this, in and of itself, s bad for the environment.

The answer should, therefore, involve how to mitigate this. If we are to live in a sciety where many of the things we take for granted are replaced, not through obsalescence, but, through innovation - and often includes situations where it is cheaper and easier to buy new (or at least secondhand) when something breaks down.

[mercian]

Jul 22, 2023 6:40:35 GMT Danny said:

Government spokesman says by elections show result of next election is 'open'.

Just need to concentrate on issues like boat people and Rwanda.


I thought it interesting how he concentrated on the same issue under two different names. Which is a constructed issue where the government seems unlikely to be able to carry out its plan and so will claim at the time of an election it could have solved this problem if only it had not been thwarted by evil judges.

The other suggestion seems to be to exploit the split in labour on the london pollution zone. Whichever side you are on mayor says good while candidate says bad. Ironic if after trying to not scare voters, labour falls over on incompetently applying a green issue when in general these are popular.

Labours biggest problem remains that it has no cause. Blair essentially invented a cause which i dont recall existing of education. Cameron adopted brexit and pushed it through. Brown slagged off horrible women. Corbyn could only half heartedly suport remain. (Though probably his mps are to blame there too)

You keep getting this wrong. Cameron campaigned for Remain and resigned immediately when he lost.

[EmCat]

Jul 22, 2023 10:42:24 GMT @isa said:

Jul 21, 2023 19:45:49 GMT EmCat said:

It's interesting how long a vehicle is expected to last has changed.

Back in th 1970s, and many cars (except Volvo - they built their reputation on longevity) were not expected to last 10 years. Even in the 80s, it was still unusual for cars to last that long (In 1983, when the year prefix registration scheme replaced the year suffix scheme, seeing an 'L' registered car from 1973 was uncommon. In 1993  - now an L prefix - seeing an A prefix car was almost as unusual).

When the scrapple scheme was introduced in around 2010 for cars over 10 years old, such was the uptake that even though cars were in general more reliable, the uptake was such to make them uncommon again.

That iit is now almost expected that cars will just last shows how much things have improved

That makes Isa, now 44 years old, something of a rarity! To be fair, surviving MG Midgets are far more numerous than many of their peer models, some of which sold in far higher numbers at the time, but are now as rare as rocking horse droppings, and with prices to match!

When did you last see an Austin 1100, Ford Cortina or Vauxhall Victor on the road, for example?

There are some cars that people like, and some that are just means of transport. MGs are definitely in the former category. The "How Many Left" site shows there are around 9,500 MG Midget still registered with the DVLA (and another 5,700 registered as "off the road", so either museum or long term restoration projects)

There are under 400 Austin 1100 registered, a bit over 4,600 Ford Cortina (all models, from the 1960s Mark 1 to the 1980s Mark 4 / 5), and around 850 Vauxhall Victor., showing that they are all in the latter category - mass produced at the time, but largely not cherished, and hence scrapped. The successor to the Cortina, the Sierra, is far rarer -only 1,800, including the ones desired at the time, the RS Cosworth and XR4i, which account for fully one third of all the Sierras still registered

A couple of months ago, and someone was excited seeing an Austin Maxi. Which, it turns out, is rarer than a Lamborghini Aventador (119 vs 513)

[graham]

Jul 22, 2023 5:12:26 GMT steve said:

graham

I thought I'd provide a detailed and comprehensive list of the achievements in Government of Labour under those icons of the left Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn.

Here it is:




Harold Wilson and Callaghan had a very high opinion of Michael Foot - as did David Steel. Perhaps such comments are to be expected from those who who threw in their lot with the architects of Austerity.










Truly impressive.

[graham]

Jul 22, 2023 8:44:40 GMT crossbat11 said:

Jul 22, 2023 7:41:17 GMT steve said:

moby
Corbyn reached the peak of his contribution to Westminster as being without a doubt the best father Christmas at the annual Westminster children's party.
He came with his own beard and outfit.
He did have a propensity to offer yearly membership of the drain hole cover appreciation society in his secret Santa 🎅 gifts but no one's without fault.

I come not to mock but to offer an honest personal appraisal of Corbyn instead, Purely to pledge my troth and then to say no more. We've done the subject to death on here, really.

Mainly because I'm a daft soft-hearted Labour loyalist when push comes to shove, I rallied to Corbyn when he became leader, despite my political misgivings. Someone more of a UKPR archivist and historian than me may dredge up the posts I wrote, circa the 2017 election, saying how I quite liked the man and his quintessentially English personal qualities. That was true then and still is now, although I despaired of his political limitations, mainly because I sensed they were damaging the party I desperately wanted to win. I bore no personal antagonisms to him at all. Still don't really, although I'm very pleased he is no longer the Labour leader.

In the 2017 general election campaign, we saw the best of the man and I sipped quite a bit of the Jeremy Koolaid too. In retrospect, I think what we saw too were the very things that were always going to prevent him being elected. His natural role in politics appears to be the besieged underdog, railing against injustice and iniquity. Noble ideals, and effective campaigning weaponry, but he never convinced enough voters that he had a prescription for solving these problems in government. In truth, I don't think Corbyn ever thought he had too, but he was in his element swinging punches and exciting crowds on the stump. This was his comfort zone, I think. Power with accountability may well have not have been.

This may not be saying much, but I suspect Corbyn is a much more decent human being than politicians like Cameron Johnson and May, his opposite numbers whilst he was leader, but the UK electorate makes for a harsh and unforgiving jury and he failed to convince them that he was a better PM than two of them; May and Johnson.

I saw the old boy interviewed on Peston the other day. He was as happy as Larry and back on form. In his comfort zone, making the odd decent point too. He's well out of it and we shouldn't feel sorry for him. I expect he's loving the return to his old maverick ways. Sticking it to the Labour leadership and causing a bit of mischief for Starmer in both the Commons and in his constituency.

Maybe he secretly doesn't want to be rehabilitated. These could well be his salad days and vintage twilight years. Raging against the establishment wherever he finds it and playing the role of beleaguered underdog.

The rather inexplicable cultism surrounding him should fade in time too. I suspect "Jeremy" will be very pleased when it does. It was always a little silly and, in many ways, the sort of nonsense that Corbyn would dislike I suspect. I think he was sincere when he said that policies were far more important than personalities.

The tragedy for Corbyn, and the party he led for very nearly five years, was that the messianic myth that grew around Corbyn got in the way of his much better qualities. Voters are usually suspicious of messiahs and their zealous followers.

I agree with most of that. Despite never having been a Corbynite , I have no doubt he is a better human being than Blair or Starmer.

[EmCat]

Jul 21, 2023 23:31:16 GMT mercian said:

Jul 21, 2023 10:14:08 GMT steve said:

went on to say how terrible Brexit was. When I challenged him as to how he had been negatively affected he couldn't come up with anything.

In may ways, the impact of Brexit is hard to spot directly. For those who have family who had been planning to live / work in the EU, then there is a clear dis-benefit. For those working for companies that used to conduct a significant proportion of their business as either exporting to or importing from the EU, again the disadvantages (such as increased paperwork, and potential for tariffs that didn't previously exist) are clear.

However, there are others who are not directly impacted - perhaps they work in a sector that does not rely specifically on EU produced goods, or is part of the service industry where they are directly supplying to those locally (such as decorators) rather than globally. For them, other than a general malaise (or perhaps prices being higher, or some source goods being slightly harder to obtain), then those negative impacts are harder to spot