Best Of

Morning all

I'm in a minority here (as usual) - I think Starmer is doing reasonably well - but the problem is the contempt is so embedded among some it will always come out as opposition. Even when Starmer gets it right, plenty will say he's getting it wrong and that's probably going to be the case to the minute he leaves 10 Downing Street and some will be still having a go as his car reaches the Palace.

Clipped for reply....
Ive never liked him and i know im a bit of a waspish wasp, however to explain where i think the contempt comes from....
There is zero accountability with him. Nothing ever crosses his desk, nothing is his fault. Or, worse, he says 'i take responsibility' (mandy appointment) and then has his CoS removed and says the "process' wasnt robust enough. Then follow a more robust one! If theres a rickety bridge over a gorge with no handrail you dont just assume its safe because 'thats the process for crossing'
Nothing crosses his desk, everything is a chance to talk about his alleged hardships, everybody else pays and process trumps all, even results.
His inability to deal with problems because he has to follow process will be his epitaph. He will walk to his own political demise because there was a signpost telling him he must

I simply don't share that view.

I have been disappointed inasmuch as, like Blair, he had a real mandate for change (you can whinge and call it a "loveless landslide" if you like but in this country elections are won by seats not votes - if, under a PR system, he'd ended up with 250 seats in the Commons, it would have been different).

Yet I was under no illusions "change" meant anything - he had no ideological programme for radical change - in truth, the centre left is as bankrupt as the centre right and has been since 2008 in terms of a practical growth-inspiring economic policy (to be fair, the populists have no answers either even though they claim they do).

MY hope was he and his administration would manage the quasi-social democratic post-Thatcherite concensus better than the Conservatives who in 14 years of leading the Government achieved little or nothing and whose antics in 2020 have destroyed the public finances as effectively as Brown did in the run up to 2008.

How accountable is any Prime Minister in truth - to Cabinet, to Parliament, ultimately only to the electorate? When you have a huge majority of MPs beholden to you, you have serious power.

I don't think "process" as you and @Malmesbury term it, began on July 5th 2024. I'm not exactly sure what your problem with "process" is apart from it takes longer to do things. If you have unregulated and uncontrolled activity you end up with situations like the Eastgate building near Woking Station:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c338k2d6ev4o

The problem comes when Process becomes the end, and not the means.

The classic put-down, these days is that “no process = chaos”. Yes it does. But excessive love of process above outcomes leads to chaos as well.

Grenfell burnt down with metric tons of docs proving it was environmentally friendly, planned well, rebuilt brilliantly. Oh, and was completely tip top on the fire angle. But “The Forms Were Obeyed”

Starmer’s problem is that he seems to exist as an implementer of process. His job, according the U.K. constitution is to re-write process, where required.

Watching as parts of the house building sector stall, during a housing crisis, is a negative.

See the recent decisions on the nuclear power station planning regieme for a positive.

Edit: on the building you linked to. The documentation for the build was tip top as well. The problem with the concrete is a widespread issue. Buildings are being found with inadequate structure all the time. Because testing samples of the concrete during construction didn’t happen. Instead we have rooms full of paper saying it’s all great.

But just saying the problem with Grenfell was too much process seems simplistic, a grand narrative in search of an example. It's the details that matter. What particular circumstances led those involved to miss the dangers?

The obsession, in the building industry (as with other areas) is regulation without enforcement.

When you create a regulation, it isn’t free. You are trying to spend other people’s money.

Without enforcement, the bad drives out good.

Even with large, supposedly reputable firms. In the case of the big builders, they subcontract everything. Which in turn is subcontracted. So they have little or no legal liability - “the contract said enforce all laws and regulations”. At the same time, the cheapest contractor gets the bid.

So we have brand new houses with inadequate foundations and missing insulation. Or apartment blocks with concrete that starts to fail before people move in.

Because there is little or no enforcement, the mass of documents serves to make it look superficially ok. Any enquiry is met with - “read this room full of paper”.

Too much of the *wrong* process is not merely valueless. It create a hiding place - just like complex tax laws.

Many people trying to get justice for such failed building work find that they are priced out of the courts, by the cost getting lawyers to read a mountain of garbage.

So, that seems like a good argument for...

a) More enforcement

b) Less subcontracting as a mechanism to avoid responsbility

Rather than an argument for less process.

The process is part of the problem - it imposes huge costs, which provide the motivation to evade it.

Much of it doesn’t add value in any way, shape or form.

For example, for a domestic loft project, your builder should create a whole document on mitigating the issue of people tripping/slipping on site. Many don’t bother - and break the regulations. No one reads them, anyway. Certainly not the actual workers

The actual answer is “a tidy workplace”. If your builder brings in the Henrys with the kettle*, then he’s probably going to do it right.

*first item installed on any site

Morning all

I'm in a minority here (as usual) - I think Starmer is doing reasonably well - but the problem is the contempt is so embedded among some it will always come out as opposition. Even when Starmer gets it right, plenty will say he's getting it wrong and that's probably going to be the case to the minute he leaves 10 Downing Street and some will be still having a go as his car reaches the Palace.

Clipped for reply....
Ive never liked him and i know im a bit of a waspish wasp, however to explain where i think the contempt comes from....
There is zero accountability with him. Nothing ever crosses his desk, nothing is his fault. Or, worse, he says 'i take responsibility' (mandy appointment) and then has his CoS removed and says the "process' wasnt robust enough. Then follow a more robust one! If theres a rickety bridge over a gorge with no handrail you dont just assume its safe because 'thats the process for crossing'
Nothing crosses his desk, everything is a chance to talk about his alleged hardships, everybody else pays and process trumps all, even results.
His inability to deal with problems because he has to follow process will be his epitaph. He will walk to his own political demise because there was a signpost telling him he must

...

Yet I was under no illusions "change" meant anything - he had no ideological programme for radical change - in truth, the centre left is as bankrupt as the centre right and has been since 2008 in terms of a practical growth-inspiring economic policy (to be fair, the populists have no answers either even though they claim they do).

...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c338k2d6ev4o

There's one policy which does lead to increased investment, increased housing and increased subsequent economic activity.

Road building.

Its also something this country has done little of since 2000.

Take a look though at the places where new roads have been built and you see alongside the new roads new housing, new business parks, new industrial estates, new leisure facilities.,

Banksy unmasked.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/16/banksys-true-identity-revealed-in-25-year-old-arrest-record/

Entirely boring story. It would only be exciting if Bansksy turned out to be someone who the public already knew, such as Thora Heard, or Nigel Farage...

If he was Thora Hird theres been some serious progress in deceased art, lol

Amusing to imagine who would be the least likely living person to be Banksy?

Starmer comes to mind. Nipping out from No 10 in the dead of night.

This is why of course there is never any new Banksy artwork completed over a Friday night.

Its Dido Harding. Obvs

Wouldn't the artworks be only half finished?

Morning all

I'm in a minority here (as usual) - I think Starmer is doing reasonably well - but the problem is the contempt is so embedded among some it will always come out as opposition. Even when Starmer gets it right, plenty will say he's getting it wrong and that's probably going to be the case to the minute he leaves 10 Downing Street and some will be still having a go as his car reaches the Palace.

Clipped for reply....
Ive never liked him and i know im a bit of a waspish wasp, however to explain where i think the contempt comes from....
There is zero accountability with him. Nothing ever crosses his desk, nothing is his fault. Or, worse, he says 'i take responsibility' (mandy appointment) and then has his CoS removed and says the "process' wasnt robust enough. Then follow a more robust one! If theres a rickety bridge over a gorge with no handrail you dont just assume its safe because 'thats the process for crossing'
Nothing crosses his desk, everything is a chance to talk about his alleged hardships, everybody else pays and process trumps all, even results.
His inability to deal with problems because he has to follow process will be his epitaph. He will walk to his own political demise because there was a signpost telling him he must

I simply don't share that view.

I have been disappointed inasmuch as, like Blair, he had a real mandate for change (you can whinge and call it a "loveless landslide" if you like but in this country elections are won by seats not votes - if, under a PR system, he'd ended up with 250 seats in the Commons, it would have been different).

Yet I was under no illusions "change" meant anything - he had no ideological programme for radical change - in truth, the centre left is as bankrupt as the centre right and has been since 2008 in terms of a practical growth-inspiring economic policy (to be fair, the populists have no answers either even though they claim they do).

MY hope was he and his administration would manage the quasi-social democratic post-Thatcherite concensus better than the Conservatives who in 14 years of leading the Government achieved little or nothing and whose antics in 2020 have destroyed the public finances as effectively as Brown did in the run up to 2008.

How accountable is any Prime Minister in truth - to Cabinet, to Parliament, ultimately only to the electorate? When you have a huge majority of MPs beholden to you, you have serious power.

I don't think "process" as you and @Malmesbury term it, began on July 5th 2024. I'm not exactly sure what your problem with "process" is apart from it takes longer to do things. If you have unregulated and uncontrolled activity you end up with situations like the Eastgate building near Woking Station:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c338k2d6ev4o

The problem comes when Process becomes the end, and not the means.

The classic put-down, these days is that “no process = chaos”. Yes it does. But excessive love of process above outcomes leads to chaos as well.

Grenfell burnt down with metric tons of docs proving it was environmentally friendly, planned well, rebuilt brilliantly. Oh, and was completely tip top on the fire angle. But “The Forms Were Obeyed”

Starmer’s problem is that he seems to exist as an implementer of process. His job, according the U.K. constitution is to re-write process, where required.

Watching as parts of the house building sector stall, during a housing crisis, is a negative.

See the recent decisions on the nuclear power station planning regieme for a positive.

Edit: on the building you linked to. The documentation for the build was tip top as well. The problem with the concrete is a widespread issue. Buildings are being found with inadequate structure all the time. Because testing samples of the concrete during construction didn’t happen. Instead we have rooms full of paper saying it’s all great.

But just saying the problem with Grenfell was too much process seems simplistic, a grand narrative in search of an example. It's the details that matter. What particular circumstances led those involved to miss the dangers?

The obsession, in the building industry (as with other areas) is regulation without enforcement.

When you create a regulation, it isn’t free. You are trying to spend other people’s money.

Without enforcement, the bad drives out good.

Even with large, supposedly reputable firms. In the case of the big builders, they subcontract everything. Which in turn is subcontracted. So they have little or no legal liability - “the contract said enforce all laws and regulations”. At the same time, the cheapest contractor gets the bid.

So we have brand new houses with inadequate foundations and missing insulation. Or apartment blocks with concrete that starts to fail before people move in.

Because there is little or no enforcement, the mass of documents serves to make it look superficially ok. Any enquiry is met with - “read this room full of paper”.

Too much of the *wrong* process is not merely valueless. It create a hiding place - just like complex tax laws.

Many people trying to get justice for such failed building work find that they are priced out of the courts, by the cost getting lawyers to read a mountain of garbage.

So, that seems like a good argument for...

a) More enforcement

b) Less subcontracting as a mechanism to avoid responsbility

Rather than an argument for less process.

What I find notable is that if the original design of the building hadn't been changed the disaster couldn't have happened because concrete isn't flammable.