Edwin Hayward
@edwinhayward.com
Author and commentator. Book: 'Slaying Brexit Unicorns'. Busy AI coding.
Topics: AI & fun geeky stuff, Brexit & UK politics. Expect facts & stats, sarcasm and gallows humour.
Handy tools: https://www.superuseful.com/
Me: https://www.edwinhayward.com/
Topics: AI & fun geeky stuff, Brexit & UK politics. Expect facts & stats, sarcasm and gallows humour.
Handy tools: https://www.superuseful.com/
Me: https://www.edwinhayward.com/
And that's fine. Everyone has their own priorities.
I use BlueSky and Twitter for different purposes. For me, each has a productive but unique role.
I use BlueSky and Twitter for different purposes. For me, each has a productive but unique role.
December 4, 2025 at 11:31 PM
And that's fine. Everyone has their own priorities.
I use BlueSky and Twitter for different purposes. For me, each has a productive but unique role.
I use BlueSky and Twitter for different purposes. For me, each has a productive but unique role.
That's ludicrously low.
But somewhere between £10,000 and £50,000 feels about right.
(At the moment there's no limit so that would still constitute a huge restriction at the top end of the donation spectrum. It means no single rich person can ever carry a party, or dominate its focus.)
But somewhere between £10,000 and £50,000 feels about right.
(At the moment there's no limit so that would still constitute a huge restriction at the top end of the donation spectrum. It means no single rich person can ever carry a party, or dominate its focus.)
December 4, 2025 at 11:11 PM
That's ludicrously low.
But somewhere between £10,000 and £50,000 feels about right.
(At the moment there's no limit so that would still constitute a huge restriction at the top end of the donation spectrum. It means no single rich person can ever carry a party, or dominate its focus.)
But somewhere between £10,000 and £50,000 feels about right.
(At the moment there's no limit so that would still constitute a huge restriction at the top end of the donation spectrum. It means no single rich person can ever carry a party, or dominate its focus.)
I find Twitter at least 20x more useful for keeping abreast of news than BlueSky is, and that's probably understating it.
It's fine to be pure, but there are enormous unavoidable consequences to doing do.
It's fine to be pure, but there are enormous unavoidable consequences to doing do.
December 4, 2025 at 11:08 PM
I find Twitter at least 20x more useful for keeping abreast of news than BlueSky is, and that's probably understating it.
It's fine to be pure, but there are enormous unavoidable consequences to doing do.
It's fine to be pure, but there are enormous unavoidable consequences to doing do.
Unlikely. Facebook has a lot of targeting options available to advertisers, so if Reform are smart (and they have the £££ to buy in expertise) the ads need not be that expensive, because they are only shown to a curated audience.
December 4, 2025 at 8:19 PM
Unlikely. Facebook has a lot of targeting options available to advertisers, so if Reform are smart (and they have the £££ to buy in expertise) the ads need not be that expensive, because they are only shown to a curated audience.
I can understand why people are frustrated.
But frustration alone is patently insufficient to turn a legal thing illegal.
But frustration alone is patently insufficient to turn a legal thing illegal.
December 4, 2025 at 6:59 PM
I can understand why people are frustrated.
But frustration alone is patently insufficient to turn a legal thing illegal.
But frustration alone is patently insufficient to turn a legal thing illegal.
The music stops in 2029.
December 4, 2025 at 6:57 PM
The music stops in 2029.
Nothing to investigate, is there? Just some incredibly rich guy giving a tiny fraction of his wealth to Reform. Currently perfectly legal under party financing laws.
December 4, 2025 at 6:52 PM
Nothing to investigate, is there? Just some incredibly rich guy giving a tiny fraction of his wealth to Reform. Currently perfectly legal under party financing laws.
So why not apply the same logic to the immigrant-haters Labour are vigorously courting?
December 4, 2025 at 9:13 AM
So why not apply the same logic to the immigrant-haters Labour are vigorously courting?
The discussion lasted about 5 minutes. It was a big chunk of time.
December 4, 2025 at 9:13 AM
The discussion lasted about 5 minutes. It was a big chunk of time.
December 4, 2025 at 9:12 AM
December 4, 2025 at 9:11 AM
Yes. And more and more people are abandoning their BlueSky accounts and reverting exclusively to Twitter.
December 4, 2025 at 1:24 AM
Yes. And more and more people are abandoning their BlueSky accounts and reverting exclusively to Twitter.
Yes. And I seem to remember they all tried to claim charges of sexism to deflect from their own ineptitude. (Though less so in May's case.)
It should be possible to offer gender-free criticism based on someone's track record. If it's terrible, their gender is irrelevant.
It should be possible to offer gender-free criticism based on someone's track record. If it's terrible, their gender is irrelevant.
December 3, 2025 at 7:16 PM
Yes. And I seem to remember they all tried to claim charges of sexism to deflect from their own ineptitude. (Though less so in May's case.)
It should be possible to offer gender-free criticism based on someone's track record. If it's terrible, their gender is irrelevant.
It should be possible to offer gender-free criticism based on someone's track record. If it's terrible, their gender is irrelevant.
Agreed. Reeves is bad at her job because she's bad at her job, not because she's a woman.
December 3, 2025 at 5:00 PM
Agreed. Reeves is bad at her job because she's bad at her job, not because she's a woman.