Best Of

US Agriculture minister to visit UK on Monday. So they must have got something on that score.

Well, he can leave his stinking chlorinated chickens back home...

(It'll probably be on the menu at Downing Street....)

The millions of column inches devoted to chlorinated chicken...I bet even if they did allow them in any deal (which they won't) we would hardly see it in the UK anyway. The US isn't cheap for food production these days, the big supermarkets and wholesalers can already go out and get cheap chicken from Thailand (the whole business model of Iceland is built on factory farming meat / fish in Thailand), same as loads of beef comes from Brazil because its cheap.

Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.

Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.

Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.

Telegraph

Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.

The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.

I think the WFA is totemic of the government's inability to win the political debate.

It's not enough for the government to do something right, it also has to persuade the voters that they have done something right.

I think it's the defining feature of the Starmer government. Their skills of persuasion are sorely lacking. I don't suppose I've been following British politics as closely as I once would, but has the government won a single political argument in it's first ten months? I can't think of any.

From a distance there already seems to be a stench of doom emanating from this government's corpse. They're heading for a defeat that will make Sunak look like a political giant. Farage is a much more dangerous leader of the opposition than Starmer ever was. He has a lot of time to put the boot in - giving Britain yet another useless chancer as PM.

Right; the reason that doing something about the WFA was perpetually on the Treasury's list of suggestions they put to new CofEs and why successive CofEs ignored the suggestion (according to Osborne) is that it makes sense in economic terms but is a hard sell politically. There was I think a case that the government could have made for the WFA changes, but it would have required them to do it and sell it as part of a wider range of changes, so voters could see both the "this is what it's going to cost and overall where we're increasing the burden" and the "and this is what it will allow us to do that you voted us in to improve" side. As it was, the WFA change appeared as a standalone single thing that was easy for opponents to paint as a heartless removal of a benefit from vulnerable older people.

There's that mental image of an elderly person huddled up in a cold house not able to put the heating on. If you're a right wing national populist, it's an open goal for spurious emotive comparisons:

"Our own people who've worked hard all their lives can't keep warm because we're spending all the money on putting big strapping migrants, young men of fighting age, into luxury hotels."

The core message being Britain is "broken" and only when it's "fixed" can we spare any thought or resource for outsiders. Charity begins at home. I think that sentiment is common (both meanings) and is a powerful driver of RUK and Farage support.

Presumably you agree with Starmer that "charity begins abroad", and Britons should come last in every deal and instance where the British government can manage it

Labour cut the overseas aid budget. It's now less than half what it was under the Conservatives.

Doesn't most of it now go on housing asylum seekers anyway? I believe the Tories rather deviously categorised that as "overseas aid"

Most of the cut was on exactly that - aid for asylum seekers within the UK.

I guess this is evidence for why it's not worth Labour doing much about small boats etc - in a social media world, it's simply swallowed up by misinformation or the next thing the Telegraph gets upset about. Whackamole.

What utterly ridiculous advice. "There's no point in doing anything about it coz even if we succeed people will lie"

No, do it. Get it done. If Labour reduce the boats by 80%, so you can go weeks without one, PEOPLE WILL NOTICE. Farage won't be able to go to Dover and say "look, another one" - because the next one might be a fortnight away. Locals will say "yes it's much better". Numbers will visibly drop on our TVs and in the stats

Voters want things to get better and will believe good evidence if they see it. Yours is a total counsel of despair. What is the fucking point in being in politics if they have your attitude

But you were on here getting upset about overseas aid even though we now spend only 0.3% of GDP on it. And you're better informed than about 95% of people.

I think you would need to get small boats down to literally zero for a few years for it to penetrate at all. And yes, I am pretty depressed, mainly due to the reaction to WFP.

Well, you shouldn't be depressed to the point of suicidal ennui, which is what this sounds like

"Doing anything is pointless because they lie"

When did Blair ever believe that? Thatcher? Yes I know the media is hostile but also the public WANTS a reason to be optimistic, and if they can see visible improvements in life they will ignore Farage and GBNews and vote Labour again

I genuinely believe that if Labour do my six point plan, or something like it, people will forget about WFP - it will be a stupid thing you missold four years ago, it's not like you went to war illegally (and Blair got re-elected after THAT).

Come on. Buck up. I've given you a plan, now get to it. Thank me later

Actually, I agree with the general tone. I just think they should choose a different battlefield to small boats, which Reform will always win. The NHS and interest rates are probably the best things to go on. A bit of energy market reform too.

My idea about smashing the black economy - you could frame it as progressive. Go after the abusers and make them pay restitution to the immigrants they've abused.

It would gut the market for illegal immigration.

Yes, but asylum seekers are not illegals, and can legally work after either getting Leave to Remain or after one year. So how would it stop the boats?

The only way to stop the boats is to rewrite our asylum laws, which means leaving the conventions, or getting a major rewrite of them (something that would get a lot of international support).

The people coming on the boats are seeking asylum in the UK as a backstop, when they get caught. The intention is to end up working here.

Most are a mix of economics and social (asylum reasons).

And many (most?) work illegally while their claims are being assessed.

No, the vast majority of boat arrivals claim asylum immediately upon landing, so have legal status in that category.

People working illegally are a mix, but mostly of tax dodging Britons, visa overstayers, and those working while on other forms of visitor visas.

The claim that they pretty much all claim asylum on landing doesn't match the accounts (by BBC reports, police etc) of large numbers who run for it. What seems to happen is that they claim asylum if caught, otherwise head into the black economy, if they can.

Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.

Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.

Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.

Telegraph

Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.

The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.

I think the WFA is totemic of the government's inability to win the political debate.

It's not enough for the government to do something right, it also has to persuade the voters that they have done something right.

I think it's the defining feature of the Starmer government. Their skills of persuasion are sorely lacking. I don't suppose I've been following British politics as closely as I once would, but has the government won a single political argument in it's first ten months? I can't think of any.

From a distance there already seems to be a stench of doom emanating from this government's corpse. They're heading for a defeat that will make Sunak look like a political giant. Farage is a much more dangerous leader of the opposition than Starmer ever was. He has a lot of time to put the boot in - giving Britain yet another useless chancer as PM.

Right; the reason that doing something about the WFA was perpetually on the Treasury's list of suggestions they put to new CofEs and why successive CofEs ignored the suggestion (according to Osborne) is that it makes sense in economic terms but is a hard sell politically. There was I think a case that the government could have made for the WFA changes, but it would have required them to do it and sell it as part of a wider range of changes, so voters could see both the "this is what it's going to cost and overall where we're increasing the burden" and the "and this is what it will allow us to do that you voted us in to improve" side. As it was, the WFA change appeared as a standalone single thing that was easy for opponents to paint as a heartless removal of a benefit from vulnerable older people.

There's that mental image of an elderly person huddled up in a cold house not able to put the heating on. If you're a right wing national populist, it's an open goal for spurious emotive comparisons:

"Our own people who've worked hard all their lives can't keep warm because we're spending all the money on putting big strapping migrants, young men of fighting age, into luxury hotels."

The core message being Britain is "broken" and only when it's "fixed" can we spare any thought or resource for outsiders. Charity begins at home. I think that sentiment is common (both meanings) and is a powerful driver of RUK and Farage support.

Presumably you agree with Starmer that "charity begins abroad", and Britons should come last in every deal and instance where the British government can manage it

Labour cut the overseas aid budget. It's now less than half what it was under the Conservatives.

Doesn't most of it now go on housing asylum seekers anyway? I believe the Tories rather deviously categorised that as "overseas aid"

Most of the cut was on exactly that - aid for asylum seekers within the UK.

I guess this is evidence for why it's not worth Labour doing much about small boats etc - in a social media world, it's simply swallowed up by misinformation or the next thing the Telegraph gets upset about. Whackamole.

What utterly ridiculous advice. "There's no point in doing anything about it coz even if we succeed people will lie"

No, do it. Get it done. If Labour reduce the boats by 80%, so you can go weeks without one, PEOPLE WILL NOTICE. Farage won't be able to go to Dover and say "look, another one" - because the next one might be a fortnight away. Locals will say "yes it's much better". Numbers will visibly drop on our TVs and in the stats

Voters want things to get better and will believe good evidence if they see it. Yours is a total counsel of despair. What is the fucking point in being in politics if they have your attitude

But you were on here getting upset about overseas aid even though we now spend only 0.3% of GDP on it. And you're better informed than about 95% of people.

I think you would need to get small boats down to literally zero for a few years for it to penetrate at all. And yes, I am pretty depressed, mainly due to the reaction to WFP.

Well, you shouldn't be depressed to the point of suicidal ennui, which is what this sounds like

"Doing anything is pointless because they lie"

When did Blair ever believe that? Thatcher? Yes I know the media is hostile but also the public WANTS a reason to be optimistic, and if they can see visible improvements in life they will ignore Farage and GBNews and vote Labour again

I genuinely believe that if Labour do my six point plan, or something like it, people will forget about WFP - it will be a stupid thing you missold four years ago, it's not like you went to war illegally (and Blair got re-elected after THAT).

Come on. Buck up. I've given you a plan, now get to it. Thank me later

Actually, I agree with the general tone. I just think they should choose a different battlefield to small boats, which Reform will always win. The NHS and interest rates are probably the best things to go on. A bit of energy market reform too.

My idea about smashing the black economy - you could frame it as progressive. Go after the abusers and make them pay restitution to the immigrants they've abused.

It would gut the market for illegal immigration.

Yes, but asylum seekers are not illegals, and can legally work after either getting Leave to Remain or after one year. So how would it stop the boats?

The only way to stop the boats is to rewrite our asylum laws, which means leaving the conventions, or getting a major rewrite of them (something that would get a lot of international support).

The people coming on the boats are seeking asylum in the UK as a backstop, when they get caught. The intention is to end up working here.

Most are a mix of economics and social (asylum reasons).

And many (most?) work illegally while their claims are being assessed.

No, the vast majority of boat arrivals claim asylum immediately upon landing, so have legal status in that category.

People working illegally are a mix, but mostly of tax dodging Britons, visa overstayers, and those working while on other forms of visitor visas.

I wonder how many of our homeless would like to claim asylum if they got treated the same way....I suspect a lot

Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.

Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.

Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.

Telegraph

Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.

The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.

I think the WFA is totemic of the government's inability to win the political debate.

It's not enough for the government to do something right, it also has to persuade the voters that they have done something right.

I think it's the defining feature of the Starmer government. Their skills of persuasion are sorely lacking. I don't suppose I've been following British politics as closely as I once would, but has the government won a single political argument in it's first ten months? I can't think of any.

From a distance there already seems to be a stench of doom emanating from this government's corpse. They're heading for a defeat that will make Sunak look like a political giant. Farage is a much more dangerous leader of the opposition than Starmer ever was. He has a lot of time to put the boot in - giving Britain yet another useless chancer as PM.

Right; the reason that doing something about the WFA was perpetually on the Treasury's list of suggestions they put to new CofEs and why successive CofEs ignored the suggestion (according to Osborne) is that it makes sense in economic terms but is a hard sell politically. There was I think a case that the government could have made for the WFA changes, but it would have required them to do it and sell it as part of a wider range of changes, so voters could see both the "this is what it's going to cost and overall where we're increasing the burden" and the "and this is what it will allow us to do that you voted us in to improve" side. As it was, the WFA change appeared as a standalone single thing that was easy for opponents to paint as a heartless removal of a benefit from vulnerable older people.

There's that mental image of an elderly person huddled up in a cold house not able to put the heating on. If you're a right wing national populist, it's an open goal for spurious emotive comparisons:

"Our own people who've worked hard all their lives can't keep warm because we're spending all the money on putting big strapping migrants, young men of fighting age, into luxury hotels."

The core message being Britain is "broken" and only when it's "fixed" can we spare any thought or resource for outsiders. Charity begins at home. I think that sentiment is common (both meanings) and is a powerful driver of RUK and Farage support.

Presumably you agree with Starmer that "charity begins abroad", and Britons should come last in every deal and instance where the British government can manage it

Labour cut the overseas aid budget. It's now less than half what it was under the Conservatives.

Doesn't most of it now go on housing asylum seekers anyway? I believe the Tories rather deviously categorised that as "overseas aid"

Most of the cut was on exactly that - aid for asylum seekers within the UK.

I guess this is evidence for why it's not worth Labour doing much about small boats etc - in a social media world, it's simply swallowed up by misinformation or the next thing the Telegraph gets upset about. Whackamole.

What utterly ridiculous advice. "There's no point in doing anything about it coz even if we succeed people will lie"

No, do it. Get it done. If Labour reduce the boats by 80%, so you can go weeks without one, PEOPLE WILL NOTICE. Farage won't be able to go to Dover and say "look, another one" - because the next one might be a fortnight away. Locals will say "yes it's much better". Numbers will visibly drop on our TVs and in the stats

Voters want things to get better and will believe good evidence if they see it. Yours is a total counsel of despair. What is the fucking point in being in politics if they have your attitude

But you were on here getting upset about overseas aid even though we now spend only 0.3% of GDP on it. And you're better informed than about 95% of people.

I think you would need to get small boats down to literally zero for a few years for it to penetrate at all. And yes, I am pretty depressed, mainly due to the reaction to WFP.

Well, you shouldn't be depressed to the point of suicidal ennui, which is what this sounds like

"Doing anything is pointless because they lie"

When did Blair ever believe that? Thatcher? Yes I know the media is hostile but also the public WANTS a reason to be optimistic, and if they can see visible improvements in life they will ignore Farage and GBNews and vote Labour again

I genuinely believe that if Labour do my six point plan, or something like it, people will forget about WFP - it will be a stupid thing you missold four years ago, it's not like you went to war illegally (and Blair got re-elected after THAT).

Come on. Buck up. I've given you a plan, now get to it. Thank me later

Actually, I agree with the general tone. I just think they should choose a different battlefield to small boats, which Reform will always win. The NHS and interest rates are probably the best things to go on. A bit of energy market reform too.

My idea about smashing the black economy - you could frame it as progressive. Go after the abusers and make them pay restitution to the immigrants they've abused.

It would gut the market for illegal immigration.

Yes, but asylum seekers are not illegals, and can legally work after either getting Leave to Remain or after one year. So how would it stop the boats?

The only way to stop the boats is to rewrite our asylum laws, which means leaving the conventions, or getting a major rewrite of them (something that would get a lot of international support).

The people coming on the boats are seeking asylum in the UK as a backstop, when they get caught. The intention is to end up working here.

Most are a mix of economics and social (asylum reasons).

And many (most?) work illegally while their claims are being assessed.

No, the vast majority of boat arrivals claim asylum immediately upon landing, so have legal status in that category.

People working illegally are a mix, but mostly of tax dodging Britons, visa overstayers, and those working while on other forms of visitor visas.