Best Of

Like this cover

Tickets available 1st July, by the way:

https://www.britishmuseum.org/exhibitions/bayeux-tapestry

£33 for a ticket. I think I paid €10 when I saw it in Bayeaux a couple of years ago.

Ouch!

But will still probably have to go, when in the UK for a couple of weeks in the summer.

Edit: or maybe not, doesn’t start until mid-September. Perhaps next year, by which time the queues might have died down a little!

I've got the same problem - down in London the week before it begins for a comedy show that my wife has insisted tagging herself along to (Guy Montgomery's Guy Mont-Spelling Bee for anyone who cares). I'm in London for work, she's just going to see the show and do things while I work.

When I say the tapestry in March 2025 it was €16 each, but given that the evening meal was €160 it didn't seem that important..

Is the Bayeux Tapestry worth looking at, or just cultural FOMO?

I'd say that, if you only see one piece of eleventh century embroidery this year, you must make it this one.

The UK Statistics Authority calls out Kemi Badenoch for being a liar.

https://uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/letter-from-penny-young-to-kemi-badenoch-mp-welfare-spending/

What a pompous arse she is (Penny Young). A political debate is not a lecture in statistics (unless done by Gordon Brown of course).

The truth matters or we end up in a Trumpian world with alternative facts.

And the fact that benefit spending exceeded IT receipts was the truth. It may not have been novel but it was the truth and it is a vivid way of highlighting the problem. As for the promise this is going to change in the near future, well, lets see if Penny was telling the truth about that.

Does it highlight a problem.

If we decide to cut income tax but not benefits that will see the balance between them shift but that doesn't mean we need to cut benefits.

If you want to introduce some form of direct hypothecation, where you can only spend on "X" the revenue from "Y" then fine, but other than that it's comparing Apples and Oranges.

We raise what we want to how we want to in Taxes and we spend what we want how we want to.

We need to strike a balance between the two and make choices but we don't have to directly link parts of one to parts of the other.

Peter.

The UK Statistics Authority calls out Kemi Badenoch for being a liar.

https://uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/letter-from-penny-young-to-kemi-badenoch-mp-welfare-spending/

What a pompous arse she is (Penny Young). A political debate is not a lecture in statistics (unless done by Gordon Brown of course).

Jeez-Louise dude, she's chair of the UK Statistics Authority (the statistical cops), second only to the National Statistician (God).

And whilst you are correct that a political debate is not a lecture in statistics, it must be informed by statistics to tie it to the real world and it is to be fervently hoped that they are accurate. Hence Penny's intervention

The letter isn't great, but neither is the use of the statistic. The claim does have shock value, but income taxes being higher than welfare payments is not automatically a good thing - I am sure Kemi would be the first to object if they were raised to do just that. Benefits are going up, and so are taxes. So I'm with Pompous Interim Penny on this one.

Excluding Liz Truss who is Scottish, Andy Burnham is first bona fide Northerner to become PM in 50 years.

Jessica Elgot
@jessicaelgot
·
58m
I’m really sorry to do this but the last Northern PM was actually Roundhay’s Liz Truss - as much as she tried to disown our great city.

https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/2069701020280561709

She was born in Oxford, that rules her out as a bona fide Northerner.

As the most bona fide Northerner on PB I can tell you we Northerners take this stuff very seriously.

I'm not quibbling with your overall conclusion, but how does that make her Scottish?

In 1977 Truss and her parents moved to Warsaw in Poland, but returned to Britain after John and Priscilla found it "quite grim".

After living briefly in Kidderminster, Worcestershire, the family moved to Paisley in Scotland when Truss was four years old, where she attended West Primary School. In 1985 they moved south to Leeds,

And this makes her Scottish?? Not even the SRU would claim that.

She spent her formative years in Scotland (ages 4 to 10), if that's not Scottish then I don't know what is.

Some Scots don't even accept Tony Blair was Scottish, I mean born in Edinburgh, educated in Scotland...

To some Scots, if a Scot has ever left Scotland for more than a holiday they are no longer scottish.

There’s 50,000 of them in Miami right now!

You would have a problem with my wife who traces herself back through generations of North East Scotland fishermen and retains her lovely accent despite coming to North Wales in 1965

Though I do accept there are some who have that view

Not me personally. My father grew up in Glasgow, got on a plane to London aged 20 in 1970 and never went back!

He must have been rich to afford the air fare in 1970, cost nearly as much as a house.

Like this cover

Tickets available 1st July, by the way:

https://www.britishmuseum.org/exhibitions/bayeux-tapestry

£33 for a ticket. I think I paid €10 when I saw it in Bayeaux a couple of years ago.

Ouch!

But will still probably have to go, when in the UK for a couple of weeks in the summer.

Edit: or maybe not, doesn’t start until mid-September. Perhaps next year, by which time the queues might have died down a little!

I've got the same problem - down in London the week before it begins for a comedy show that my wife has insisted tagging herself along to (Guy Montgomery's Guy Mont-Spelling Bee for anyone who cares). I'm in London for work, she's just going to see the show and do things while I work.

When I say the tapestry in March 2025 it was €16 each, but given that the evening meal was €160 it didn't seem that important..

Is the Bayeux Tapestry worth looking at, or just cultural FOMO?

oh it's worth it but again I do cross stitch and it's a period of history where I like the misinformation around it (and the tapestry is a source of some of that misunderstanding).

Equally I won't be rushing to see it in London wll probably visit Bayeux again when it's back there.

Interesting piece from the BBC on how young people don't care about the EU:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0ml2kle2ko

"Being so young when we did leave, I've personally not seen any change," says 19-year-old Tegan Smith.

For her, the EU is a distant concept.

"My life is normal – this is how it would always have been.

"You don't really think about what's going on worldwide... so I've not really had any thought into it," Tegan says.

She sounds like your normal young person now, vacuous and empty headed, unable of cogent thoughts. The stupid name says it all, dumb cluck.

Apparently Tegan is an Australian name that became known here via a Dr Who companion in the 1980s.

Yes and no. Tegan Jovanka was a companion in the show from 1981 to 1984. Ms Smith would have been born in 2007-ish. It is true that her parents may have been fans of the show. But they may also have been fans of the Canadian indie pop duo "Tegan and Sara" who would have been popular at the time. Well, popular by Canadian indie pop standards.

'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.

Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.

As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.

Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."

He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cwyewjpwgk9t

"Please give me a cabinet post."

If the party "wants to get behind Burnham", why does Carns want to waste a couple of months for him with a leadership election ?

In order to consider a leadership bid, you still need >80 other Labour MPs to think it is a wizard wheeze, don't you?

An interesting question.
I suspect he doesn't, but OTOH there might just be enough pissed off Starmerites to grasp the opportunity of throwing a spanner into the works ?

I think it would be fairly irresponsible at this point, FWIW.

Burnham is facing a pretty steep learning curve as it is.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/23/burnham-and-starmer-hold-frosty-meeting-to-thrash-out-transition-of-power
...Allies of Starmer said that although he was serious about an orderly handover, he had no qualms in denying Burnham – who had initially hoped to take over in September – a long coronation in order to prepare for government.

“There was a strong push from the Burnham camp to be given longer. But why should they tell Keir they want him out, then expect him to manage the ship through a potentially difficult summer? Keir will of course cooperate on transition, but it will be through gritted teeth,” one said.

Some in Burnham’s team were exasperated about the shorter timetable. “The last lot had years to prepare and still fucked it up. We’ll just have to do it in three weeks,” one senior source said. “The length of the transition will focus minds.”.

Yes must be a complete surprise to team Andy that he has become PM.

TBF, that's not really the point.
No doubt he has at least some idea of what he wants to do (at least I hope so), but developing detailed policy that can quickly be implemented at government level requires civil service resources.

I think that point is overblown and a cheap excuse from politicians. The reason for inertia in government is not a lack of policy options but a lack of political will, money and consensus. I doubt Burnham will change much.

Ah the lack of Will. What was it Reagan said;

"There are simple answers to the nation's problems, but not easy ones. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right."

He was of course wrong.

What he offered weren't simple solutions but simpistic ones.

He put the practical difficulties of implimenting policy down to it being the governments fault and red tape. Take that away and we'll be fine. They weren't.

All of this from "Drain the Swamp!" to the "Blob" just comes down to peoples frustrations about how challenging Government and change are, and that they can't just decree change and make it happen.

Peter.

I disagree, I think the answers are generally quite simple. Invest, invest, invest. Create a vision and then build it rather than fiddling by focus group. We don't invest because the lifespan of a PM is now a couple of years, for them what is the point of thinking about 10-25 years ahead?

This is the cabinet from just 10 years ago:

May, Hammond, Rudd, Johnson, Fallon, Truss, Greening, Davis, Fox, Clark, Hunt, Green, Evans, Grayling, Javid, Lidington, Mundell, Cairns, Brokenshire, Leadsom, Patel, Bradley.

How many of those are still involved bar the odd TV or media interview, if that?

We already have 100% debt and struggle to pay teh interest in that. We could have before teh crash when it was 40% but the orthadoxy then was to keep it low. We also left investment to teh city not the "Dead Hand of Government!"

Thatcher folllowed Reagan and Blair followed Thatcher.
We can only Invest if we can afford the cost of teh borrowing and right now we struggle to do that.
Good idea 20 years ago but I think we have largely misssed that boat.

Peter.

Those that say we need to borrow more to invest need to explain how the return on that investment is going to pay the interest and, hopefully, a little bit more. As gilt rates go up this gets more and more difficult. Sometimes that forces us to be penny wise and pound foolish but that is the price of poverty and current overspending. See Vimes boots.

The problem is that 100% worth of U.K. GDP has been invested already.

This is why people are dubious about promises to “invest”.

No, its been spent which is entirely different.

When asked, the politicians always resort to “investing in the…”

This is because, in politics, “investing” means “pay for what I want to do”, not “putting money into things that will yield a return”

One remembers Gordon Brown’s “Investment” in PFI Skools’n’Ospitals, followed by his “Investment in tax credits.

Politicians still don’t understand the difference between CapEx and OpEx, none of them would last five minutes working as a department head in the private sector.