Nicola Sturgeon’s request for the UK’s highest court to give her clarity on the legality of her planned Scottish independence referendum should be rejected, the UK Government has said.
In its initial submission to the Supreme Court, which has been asked to decide the issue, its lawyers argue that the case should be thrown out as premature.
They believe that the decision on the legality of the proposed legislation cannot be made until after it is introduced, scrutinised and passed at Holyrood.
What has the UK government got to fear? Let the legal experts clear that one up seems okay, it will likely take them best part of 15 years.
AIUI, the Lord Advocate had not advised SG on legality yet.
Punting it back to SG forces LA to make a judgement which could be challenged in a Scottish court. Much better optics for team UK.
The Lord Advocate has said
"The Lord Advocate needs to have the necessary degree of confidence that a Bill would be within devolved competence in order to 'clear' such a statement.
“In the present case, the Lord Advocate does not have the necessary degree of confidence."
Julie Bindel @bindelj I would rather give Donald Trump a massage than vote Tory, but if you want to know who I'd back to be the next PM? @KemiBadenoch all the way. She has her head screwed on. Only real grown up in the room. Save your breath telling me what she believes/has done that you don't like.
We could be at the start of something truly extraordinary here. Imagine the reverberations around the world if KB became the next PM.
If (big IF) Kemi were to win this I do think it will be enough of a change for the Conservatives that it probably resets the dial once again and people will view it as an entirely new government despite Con being in power for 12 years.
A Kemi government would neuter "time for a change" and would likely be a big problem for Labour...
The next PM is going to be one of Rishi, Penny, Liz or Kemi.
Kemi is the “they’ve gone nuts” option. The wildcard option. Some might even say the irresponsible option, given her lack of experience. Personally, I think she needs more experience, I think at the moment she is too green.
But there has to be a chance that she could do it. It’s a small chance, but there is the tantalising grain of something exciting building around her, and you never know where momentum might lead….
None of the leadership contenders seems to be talking about levelling up. Focus seems to be on shrinking the state, which helps London and the SE. Have the Tories given up on the Red Wall, or do they hope that going large on Chicks with Dicks will obscure the abandonment of levelling up as a policy objective?
That isn't going to work when I suspect the Labour manifesto will feature HS2E, NPR and quite possibly given the state of Parliament a plan to move Parliament to Manchester
* Can't really be Birmingham for reasons and as others have pointed out if you move it to a small place it will total dominate the town / city but would leave whole piles of things in London.
Why couldn't it be Birmingham ?
The romantic in me would like Colchester, York or Winchester but none of those will happen.
Too near London especially with HS2 - you would end up with Parliament in Birmingham and most things left where they were.
And the whole point of the change would be to change the focus of the country away from being London centric.
Am I missing something? Since when was it Labour policy to move parliament out of London? It’s a pretty extraordinary move
I didn't say it was policy - but given the state of Parliament it makes sense to firstly have a discussion about it and secondly whether there are votes in it.
And up North knocking London down a peg or 2 is probably worth a fair few votes.
The Palace of Westminster will need to be repaired whether or not it remains the home of Parliament.
A permanent move to another city doesn't take away the need to repair the existing buildings
Why would it need to be repaired if it's no longer home of Parliament.
But the cost of repairing an empty building is X or Y times cheaper than doing repairs when the building is being used.
Because it is a major historic landmark. It is iconic and an important part of our national heritage.
The idea of it being allowed to slowly disintegrate or even be demolished would be cultural vandalism
As Andrea Leadsome said in a recent article about the refurb (and she is in charge of it) “the Houses of Parliament is one of the most famous buildings in the world, like the Taj Mahal, it is also a World Heritage site, it belongs to humanity, but it is our job to look after it, however awkward”
Hard to argue with that
If you compile a list of the ten most iconic, instantly recognisable buildings in the world Westminster is on there
Rough list:
Pyramids Parthenon Tower of Pisa Taj Mahal Empire State Bldg Eiffel Tower Palace of Westminster Sydney Opera House Burj
Number ten can be disputed between Stonehenge, Statue of Liberty, The Pantheon, Hagia Sophia, Gobekli Tepe (should be top of the top ten really), Notre Dame, St Basil’s Cathedral, et al, depending on your definition of “building”
No Colloseum?!
Good one, yes. Clean forgot. That’s the tenth
The White House? I know it isn't exactly imposing, but still...
Assuming he does win the vote (which he won't), how does it actually achieve his aim of getting a new PM more quickly?
In the same way that Callaghan remained as PM after he lost the VONC in 1979, Johnson would remain as PM.
The process to elect a new leader of the Conservative Party is already underway and any general election, the timing of which would still be set by the current administration and so would see a polling date set for later in September.
So nothing in his cunning plan would achieve the result he seeks. Who is advising Starmer???
Do you honestly think he has any expectations of winning the vote? At all? Or of replacing the government?
+1 - it's point scoring designed to provide another attack line for possible use at the next General election.
While there's been much focus on Kemi's views on wokeness and the trans issues, there's been less focus on her promise to abandon net zero, roll back the state, cut education expenditure and so on.
I can see her winning the Tory membership over. I'm less persuaded that abandoning net zero and rolling back the state so drastically will win over the typical floating voter.
I think her Net Zero position is that it needs to be in lock-step with other major economies otherwise it has little effect on climate but severely damages UK. That is a realistic, numerate analysis.
None of the leadership contenders seems to be talking about levelling up. Focus seems to be on shrinking the state, which helps London and the SE. Have the Tories given up on the Red Wall, or do they hope that going large on Chicks with Dicks will obscure the abandonment of levelling up as a policy objective?
That isn't going to work when I suspect the Labour manifesto will feature HS2E, NPR and quite possibly given the state of Parliament a plan to move Parliament to Manchester
* Can't really be Birmingham for reasons and as others have pointed out if you move it to a small place it will total dominate the town / city but would leave whole piles of things in London.
Why couldn't it be Birmingham ?
The romantic in me would like Colchester, York or Winchester but none of those will happen.
Too near London especially with HS2 - you would end up with Parliament in Birmingham and most things left where they were.
And the whole point of the change would be to change the focus of the country away from being London centric.
Am I missing something? Since when was it Labour policy to move parliament out of London? It’s a pretty extraordinary move
I didn't say it was policy - but given the state of Parliament it makes sense to firstly have a discussion about it and secondly whether there are votes in it.
And up North knocking London down a peg or 2 is probably worth a fair few votes.
The Palace of Westminster will need to be repaired whether or not it remains the home of Parliament.
A permanent move to another city doesn't take away the need to repair the existing buildings
Why would it need to be repaired if it's no longer home of Parliament.
But the cost of repairing an empty building is X or Y times cheaper than doing repairs when the building is being used.
Because it is a major historic landmark. It is iconic and an important part of our national heritage.
The idea of it being allowed to slowly disintegrate or even be demolished would be cultural vandalism
Albeit somewhat symbolic of the rot in the body politic itself. I note JRM opposed moving out, but honestly, the costs of not doing so are just huge.
Assuming he does win the vote (which he won't), how does it actually achieve his aim of getting a new PM more quickly?
In the same way that Callaghan remained as PM after he lost the VONC in 1979, Johnson would remain as PM.
The process to elect a new leader of the Conservative Party is already underway and any general election, the timing of which would still be set by the current administration and so would see a polling date set for later in September.
So nothing in his cunning plan would achieve the result he seeks. Who is advising Starmer???
He wants all the Tories who so openly and publicly blew up Johnson to give him their confidence. That's all. Will look great on a leaflet apparently.
They wouldn't be. They would be giving confidence to the governing party.
Nope. Every leaflet will have the MP and all the quotes where they have supported the crook.
That won't carry much weight in 2 years time when the election actually happens.
He would have been far better to have a big opposition debate on the cost of living setting out his positive steps for change
Nicola Sturgeon’s request for the UK’s highest court to give her clarity on the legality of her planned Scottish independence referendum should be rejected, the UK Government has said.
In its initial submission to the Supreme Court, which has been asked to decide the issue, its lawyers argue that the case should be thrown out as premature.
They believe that the decision on the legality of the proposed legislation cannot be made until after it is introduced, scrutinised and passed at Holyrood.
What has the UK government got to fear? Let the legal experts clear that one up seems okay, it will likely take them best part of 15 years.
I raised this at the time she said she was doing this. In the case about the UN Convention on the rights of the Child the SC unanimously explained the procedure set out in the Scotland Act. There are a number of sequential safeguards. The first of these is that the bill should be signed off by the law officers. The Lord Advocate has refused to do that. The second is that it is put before the Presiding Officer who is supposed to certify it as competent. This has not been done. Thirdly, the bill is scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament. That may, of course, change its nature. Finally, once there is a determined bill, the matter may be remitted to the SC for a ruling.
Nicola has tried to short circuit this because her own Lord Advocate has reservations as to its competency. That would not be in accordance with the Act. Courts generally refuse to answer hypothetical questions. We do not know what the final version of this bill will look like. I suspect the SC will refuse to give a ruling at this stage.
Indeed. Is it the case that the legal thinking for not answering such hypotheticals is that gets too near the political line? - that judging the legality of a piece of actual legislation in respect to the body of law is one thing, but pronouncing areas of potential legislation legal or illegal would be pre-empting the politicians?
After a prolonged hiatus, we finally have a new coalition in Tallinn. The new, three-party government consists of Kaja Kallas´s Reform (Liberal), the Social Democrats and the Conservative Isamaa. Although the populists of Centre and the nationalist populists of EKRE have been excluded, it has come at a price for the Prime Minister. Each party has the same number of ministers, so Reform have lost two ministers. Nevertheless, the government will be strong enough to survive until the elections on March 5th and although Isamaa have driven a hard bargain, the interests of the Kremlin continue to be blunted in Estonia. The new government programme will focus on the cost of living, the integration of Russian language education into the Estonian system, and- of course- defence. The new LNG plant should be online before the winter and the Estonian electrical grid will dephase from the Russian frequency, which may cause peak load problems in the Leningradskaya Oblast/City of St. Petersburg region, but the breakdown of economic links between Russia and the outside world is becoming near total. The rather hollow gloating from the Kemlin merely makes the Estonians shrug. "Who laughs last, laughs loudest", but criticism of Germany, though muted is becoming stronger. Berlin is not preparing for the next moves from the Kremlin, it is being said, and the Putinists will launch further economic and other hybrid attacks on EU targets. Incidentally some of the chaos at world airports is being put down to Russian cyber attacks, and significant attacks on the global financial system are apparently underway as well.
The departure of Boris Johnson has been noted without too much regret here, since the asumption is that whoever emerges at the new British Prime Minister is unlikely to rock the NATO boat and it seems a given that support for Ukraine will also continue. The number of UA refugees continues to rise, and there is s certain frustration that more help is not being given by other countries.
The situation in Russia is continuing to deteriorate and trade across the border is at a standstill. There are many Russians who are looking to sit out the war here and there is no doubt that the economic and political outlook for the Russian Federation is increasingly bleak. The news of some Ukrainian success on the battlefield is seen as the beginning of the next phase of the war. Rumours abound of serious problems in the Russian armed forces, but the Estonians are taking no chances. Underground shelters are now prepared in the City of Tallinn and the armed forces remain at a high state of readiness. The continuing arrival of further NATO forces now includes a squadron of USAF F-35s.
As Kaja Kallas lives to fight another day, we get used to the new normal: Preparations to prevent any Russian moves in this direction and hope that the bear does not actually collapse, despite the disaster that they have unleashed upon themselves and on the world.
The Letters from Tallinnn continue to educate and inform
None of the leadership contenders seems to be talking about levelling up. Focus seems to be on shrinking the state, which helps London and the SE. Have the Tories given up on the Red Wall, or do they hope that going large on Chicks with Dicks will obscure the abandonment of levelling up as a policy objective?
That isn't going to work when I suspect the Labour manifesto will feature HS2E, NPR and quite possibly given the state of Parliament a plan to move Parliament to Manchester
* Can't really be Birmingham for reasons and as others have pointed out if you move it to a small place it will total dominate the town / city but would leave whole piles of things in London.
Why couldn't it be Birmingham ?
The romantic in me would like Colchester, York or Winchester but none of those will happen.
Too near London especially with HS2 - you would end up with Parliament in Birmingham and most things left where they were.
And the whole point of the change would be to change the focus of the country away from being London centric.
Am I missing something? Since when was it Labour policy to move parliament out of London? It’s a pretty extraordinary move
I didn't say it was policy - but given the state of Parliament it makes sense to firstly have a discussion about it and secondly whether there are votes in it.
And up North knocking London down a peg or 2 is probably worth a fair few votes.
The Palace of Westminster will need to be repaired whether or not it remains the home of Parliament.
A permanent move to another city doesn't take away the need to repair the existing buildings
Why would it need to be repaired if it's no longer home of Parliament.
But the cost of repairing an empty building is X or Y times cheaper than doing repairs when the building is being used.
Because it is a major historic landmark. It is iconic and an important part of our national heritage.
The idea of it being allowed to slowly disintegrate or even be demolished would be cultural vandalism
As Andrea Leadsome said in a recent article about the refurb (and she is in charge of it) “the Houses of Parliament is one of the most famous buildings in the world, like the Taj Mahal, it is also a World Heritage site, it belongs to humanity, but it is our job to look after it, however awkward”
Hard to argue with that
If you compile a list of the ten most iconic, instantly recognisable buildings in the world Westminster is on there
Rough list:
Pyramids Parthenon Tower of Pisa Taj Mahal Empire State Bldg Eiffel Tower Palace of Westminster Sydney Opera House Burj
Number ten can be disputed between Stonehenge, Statue of Liberty, The Pantheon, Hagia Sophia, Gobekli Tepe (should be top of the top ten really), Notre Dame, St Basil’s Cathedral, et al, depending on your definition of “building”
No Colloseum?!
And everyone knows that the Chrysler Building is what most people think is the Empire State Building (and is much more impressive).
While there's been much focus on Kemi's views on wokeness and the trans issues, there's been less focus on her promise to abandon net zero, roll back the state, cut education expenditure and so on.
I can see her winning the Tory membership over. I'm less persuaded that abandoning net zero and rolling back the state so drastically will win over the typical floating voter.
I want the Tories removed a long long way from office. Whichever candidate they select as PM. But it is encouraging to think that people like Badenoch can actually be a serious contender for *the Tories*.
The threat to Labour is simple. She is far more confident, articulate and sane that so many of the various prominent BAME equivalents are in Labour. A black woman who is a successful migrant saying lets cut the crap and focus on people's priorities goes way beyond what Labour can offer.
Julie Bindel @bindelj I would rather give Donald Trump a massage than vote Tory, but if you want to know who I'd back to be the next PM? @KemiBadenoch all the way. She has her head screwed on. Only real grown up in the room. Save your breath telling me what she believes/has done that you don't like.
Julie Bindel @bindelj I would rather give Donald Trump a massage than vote Tory, but if you want to know who I'd back to be the next PM? @KemiBadenoch all the way. She has her head screwed on. Only real grown up in the room. Save your breath telling me what she believes/has done that you don't like.
We could be at the start of something truly extraordinary here. Imagine the reverberations around the world if KB became the next PM.
If (big IF) Kemi were to win this I do think it will be enough of a change for the Conservatives that it probably resets the dial once again and people will view it as an entirely new government despite Con being in power for 12 years.
A Kemi government would neuter "time for a change" and would likely be a big problem for Labour...
The next PM is going to be one of Rishi, Penny, Liz or Kemi.
Kemi is the “they’ve gone nuts” option. The wildcard option. Some might even say the irresponsible option, given her lack of experience. Personally, I think she needs more experience, I think at the moment she is too green.
But there has to be a chance that she could do it. It’s a small chance, but there is the tantalising grain of something exciting building around her, and you never know where momentum might lead….
She's the Rory Stewart of this contest...and I expect she'll do about as well.
While there's been much focus on Kemi's views on wokeness and the trans issues, there's been less focus on her promise to abandon net zero, roll back the state, cut education expenditure and so on.
I can see her winning the Tory membership over. I'm less persuaded that abandoning net zero and rolling back the state so drastically will win over the typical floating voter.
I think her Net Zero position is that it needs to be in lock-step with other major economies otherwise it has little effect on climate but severely damages UK. That is a realistic, numerate analysis.
It's not - we could use a sprint to Net Zero to build up expertise and skills we can use around the world in the post net zero future.
Our current problem is a lack of productivity - one source of productivity comes from world class knowledge which allows us to do things better than others.
And on the grounds that people need to get to the capital, it's more normal for the capital to be somewhere central, rather than tucked away right down in the bottom corner.
Really? If anything, it seems more normal for a capital to be tucked into one corner of the country, not least because capitals were often initially chosen for water connectivity and/or countries went out and acquired vast swathes of territory after picking them. Berlin, Copenhagen, Vienna, the Hague, Lisbon, Bern, Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki, Athens, Bucharest, Sofia, Moscow (and of course St Petersburg originally), Ottawa, Washington DC, Havana, New Delhi, Beijing, Buenos Aires, Baku, Damascus, Kabul, Tunis, Algiers...
While there's been much focus on Kemi's views on wokeness and the trans issues, there's been less focus on her promise to abandon net zero, roll back the state, cut education expenditure and so on.
I can see her winning the Tory membership over. I'm less persuaded that abandoning net zero and rolling back the state so drastically will win over the typical floating voter.
Maybe she plans to replace net zero with a more pragmatic and effective policy.
I wouldn't expect her to have no policy on the environment other than scrapping net zero
While there's been much focus on Kemi's views on wokeness and the trans issues, there's been less focus on her promise to abandon net zero, roll back the state, cut education expenditure and so on.
I can see her winning the Tory membership over. I'm less persuaded that abandoning net zero and rolling back the state so drastically will win over the typical floating voter.
The interesting thing is she is going for the “I have integrity, this is what I believe and what I want to do. You might disagree with it but I’ll be honest with you” angle. Which no-one has really tried to play since Thatcher.
A curious tactic in the internet age, where spin and media relations is all pervasive. But possibly another reason why people are finding her refreshing.
Assuming he does win the vote (which he won't), how does it actually achieve his aim of getting a new PM more quickly?
In the same way that Callaghan remained as PM after he lost the VONC in 1979, Johnson would remain as PM.
The process to elect a new leader of the Conservative Party is already underway and any general election, the timing of which would still be set by the current administration and so would see a polling date set for later in September.
So nothing in his cunning plan would achieve the result he seeks. Who is advising Starmer???
Do you honestly think he has any expectations of winning the vote? At all? Or of replacing the government?
+1 - it's point scoring designed to provide another attack line for possible use at the next General election.
It's also to dictate what is discussed in Parliament. It isn't as though they are busy.
Assuming he does win the vote (which he won't), how does it actually achieve his aim of getting a new PM more quickly?
In the same way that Callaghan remained as PM after he lost the VONC in 1979, Johnson would remain as PM.
The process to elect a new leader of the Conservative Party is already underway and any general election, the timing of which would still be set by the current administration and so would see a polling date set for later in September.
So nothing in his cunning plan would achieve the result he seeks. Who is advising Starmer???
I assume the point is to get all the leadership candidates to vote that they have confidence in Boris.
Tories will argue that it makes sense not to have a change of leader, or election, while the campaign is going on, but it's an easy win for Labour if they can present it as a simple vote on Boris.
Clearly it would be daft for any Tory to vote to bring down the govt., but Labour will no doubt have plenty of facebook ads ready with Sunak, Truss and the rest voting "to Keep Boris in Number 10".
Julie Bindel @bindelj I would rather give Donald Trump a massage than vote Tory, but if you want to know who I'd back to be the next PM? @KemiBadenoch all the way. She has her head screwed on. Only real grown up in the room. Save your breath telling me what she believes/has done that you don't like.
We could be at the start of something truly extraordinary here. Imagine the reverberations around the world if KB became the next PM.
If (big IF) Kemi were to win this I do think it will be enough of a change for the Conservatives that it probably resets the dial once again and people will view it as an entirely new government despite Con being in power for 12 years.
A Kemi government would neuter "time for a change" and would likely be a big problem for Labour...
The next PM is going to be one of Rishi, Penny, Liz or Kemi.
Kemi is the “they’ve gone nuts” option. The wildcard option. Some might even say the irresponsible option, given her lack of experience. Personally, I think she needs more experience, I think at the moment she is too green.
But there has to be a chance that she could do it. It’s a small chance, but there is the tantalising grain of something exciting building around her, and you never know where momentum might lead….
It's the Brexit red button. Don't push it. So people push it.
I'm warming to KB need to do some more research.
Not that I have a vote (in the leadership election, albeit I have one in the GE).
Julie Bindel @bindelj I would rather give Donald Trump a massage than vote Tory, but if you want to know who I'd back to be the next PM? @KemiBadenoch all the way. She has her head screwed on. Only real grown up in the room. Save your breath telling me what she believes/has done that you don't like.
None of the leadership contenders seems to be talking about levelling up. Focus seems to be on shrinking the state, which helps London and the SE. Have the Tories given up on the Red Wall, or do they hope that going large on Chicks with Dicks will obscure the abandonment of levelling up as a policy objective?
That isn't going to work when I suspect the Labour manifesto will feature HS2E, NPR and quite possibly given the state of Parliament a plan to move Parliament to Manchester
* Can't really be Birmingham for reasons and as others have pointed out if you move it to a small place it will total dominate the town / city but would leave whole piles of things in London.
Why couldn't it be Birmingham ?
The romantic in me would like Colchester, York or Winchester but none of those will happen.
Too near London especially with HS2 - you would end up with Parliament in Birmingham and most things left where they were.
And the whole point of the change would be to change the focus of the country away from being London centric.
Am I missing something? Since when was it Labour policy to move parliament out of London? It’s a pretty extraordinary move
I didn't say it was policy - but given the state of Parliament it makes sense to firstly have a discussion about it and secondly whether there are votes in it.
And up North knocking London down a peg or 2 is probably worth a fair few votes.
The Palace of Westminster will need to be repaired whether or not it remains the home of Parliament.
A permanent move to another city doesn't take away the need to repair the existing buildings
Why would it need to be repaired if it's no longer home of Parliament.
But the cost of repairing an empty building is X or Y times cheaper than doing repairs when the building is being used.
Because it is a major historic landmark. It is iconic and an important part of our national heritage.
The idea of it being allowed to slowly disintegrate or even be demolished would be cultural vandalism
As Andrea Leadsome said in a recent article about the refurb (and she is in charge of it) “the Houses of Parliament is one of the most famous buildings in the world, like the Taj Mahal, it is also a World Heritage site, it belongs to humanity, but it is our job to look after it, however awkward”
Hard to argue with that
If you compile a list of the ten most iconic, instantly recognisable buildings in the world Westminster is on there
Rough list:
Pyramids Parthenon Tower of Pisa Taj Mahal Empire State Bldg Eiffel Tower Palace of Westminster Sydney Opera House Burj
Number ten can be disputed between Stonehenge, Statue of Liberty, The Pantheon, Hagia Sophia, Gobekli Tepe (should be top of the top ten really), Notre Dame, St Basil’s Cathedral, et al, depending on your definition of “building”
No Colloseum?!
Good one, yes. Clean forgot. That’s the tenth
The White House? I know it isn't exactly imposing, but still...
One of my criteria was: ideally, it should be artistically notable and technologically innovative
I considered the White House and the Capitol but they are neither artistically impressive nor technological achievements. Whereas the Houses of Parliament are both - people forget these structures were great engineering feats of their time
None of the leadership contenders seems to be talking about levelling up. Focus seems to be on shrinking the state, which helps London and the SE. Have the Tories given up on the Red Wall, or do they hope that going large on Chicks with Dicks will obscure the abandonment of levelling up as a policy objective?
That isn't going to work when I suspect the Labour manifesto will feature HS2E, NPR and quite possibly given the state of Parliament a plan to move Parliament to Manchester
* Can't really be Birmingham for reasons and as others have pointed out if you move it to a small place it will total dominate the town / city but would leave whole piles of things in London.
Why couldn't it be Birmingham ?
The romantic in me would like Colchester, York or Winchester but none of those will happen.
Too near London especially with HS2 - you would end up with Parliament in Birmingham and most things left where they were.
And the whole point of the change would be to change the focus of the country away from being London centric.
Am I missing something? Since when was it Labour policy to move parliament out of London? It’s a pretty extraordinary move
I didn't say it was policy - but given the state of Parliament it makes sense to firstly have a discussion about it and secondly whether there are votes in it.
And up North knocking London down a peg or 2 is probably worth a fair few votes.
The Palace of Westminster will need to be repaired whether or not it remains the home of Parliament.
A permanent move to another city doesn't take away the need to repair the existing buildings
Why would it need to be repaired if it's no longer home of Parliament.
But the cost of repairing an empty building is X or Y times cheaper than doing repairs when the building is being used.
Because it is a major historic landmark. It is iconic and an important part of our national heritage.
The idea of it being allowed to slowly disintegrate or even be demolished would be cultural vandalism
Currently the Government is trying to avoid spending £2bn future proofing the Manchester end of HS2..
Agreed.
I wonder what would be the cost of preservation if it were empty, and Parliament moved elsewhere ? I would guess you could easily halve that £22bn, even allowing for creating a modern replacement. (which would also be far cheaper to run and easier to work in).
While there's been much focus on Kemi's views on wokeness and the trans issues, there's been less focus on her promise to abandon net zero, roll back the state, cut education expenditure and so on.
I can see her winning the Tory membership over. I'm less persuaded that abandoning net zero and rolling back the state so drastically will win over the typical floating voter.
I want the Tories removed a long long way from office. Whichever candidate they select as PM. But it is encouraging to think that people like Badenoch can actually be a serious contender for *the Tories*.
The threat to Labour is simple. She is far more confident, articulate and sane that so many of the various prominent BAME equivalents are in Labour. A black woman who is a successful migrant saying lets cut the crap and focus on people's priorities goes way beyond what Labour can offer.
Yes but. Are people's priorities sacking all teaching assistants and banning unisex toilets?
Julie Bindel @bindelj I would rather give Donald Trump a massage than vote Tory, but if you want to know who I'd back to be the next PM? @KemiBadenoch all the way. She has her head screwed on. Only real grown up in the room. Save your breath telling me what she believes/has done that you don't like.
We could be at the start of something truly extraordinary here. Imagine the reverberations around the world if KB became the next PM.
If (big IF) Kemi were to win this I do think it will be enough of a change for the Conservatives that it probably resets the dial once again and people will view it as an entirely new government despite Con being in power for 12 years.
A Kemi government would neuter "time for a change" and would likely be a big problem for Labour...
The next PM is going to be one of Rishi, Penny, Liz or Kemi.
Kemi is the “they’ve gone nuts” option. The wildcard option. Some might even say the irresponsible option, given her lack of experience. Personally, I think she needs more experience, I think at the moment she is too green.
But there has to be a chance that she could do it. It’s a small chance, but there is the tantalising grain of something exciting building around her, and you never know where momentum might lead….
"...fresh opportunities for disasters..." as someone once said.
In Ukraine news wither the NASA satellites are not able to pickup fires in Ukraine at the moment or there has been a near complete cessation of Russian Artillery strikes in the East.
The only thing that seems to be showing up at the mo is Russian ammo dumps being destroyed.
While there's been much focus on Kemi's views on wokeness and the trans issues, there's been less focus on her promise to abandon net zero, roll back the state, cut education expenditure and so on.
I can see her winning the Tory membership over. I'm less persuaded that abandoning net zero and rolling back the state so drastically will win over the typical floating voter.
Yeah, she'd be a PM with L plates on too. She'll struggle for a good few months as she adapts to the role, all the while we have a cost of living crisis and a war in the Ukraine, as well the mess with the NI protocol. She definitely will have to rely on Gove a lot, which Labour can certainly capitalise on give the man's popularity (or lack of) with the public.
Julie Bindel @bindelj I would rather give Donald Trump a massage than vote Tory, but if you want to know who I'd back to be the next PM? @KemiBadenoch all the way. She has her head screwed on. Only real grown up in the room. Save your breath telling me what she believes/has done that you don't like.
We could be at the start of something truly extraordinary here. Imagine the reverberations around the world if KB became the next PM.
If (big IF) Kemi were to win this I do think it will be enough of a change for the Conservatives that it probably resets the dial once again and people will view it as an entirely new government despite Con being in power for 12 years.
A Kemi government would neuter "time for a change" and would likely be a big problem for Labour...
The next PM is going to be one of Rishi, Penny, Liz or Kemi.
Kemi is the “they’ve gone nuts” option. The wildcard option. Some might even say the irresponsible option, given her lack of experience. Personally, I think she needs more experience, I think at the moment she is too green.
But there has to be a chance that she could do it. It’s a small chance, but there is the tantalising grain of something exciting building around her, and you never know where momentum might lead….
She has more ministerial experience than either Cameron or Blair had when they became PM. She is slightly younger than Cameron was and a bit younger than Blair.
Is it because she’s a woman she’s “inexperienced”, or because she isn’t Public School / Oxford educated?
Julie Bindel @bindelj I would rather give Donald Trump a massage than vote Tory, but if you want to know who I'd back to be the next PM? @KemiBadenoch all the way. She has her head screwed on. Only real grown up in the room. Save your breath telling me what she believes/has done that you don't like.
We could be at the start of something truly extraordinary here. Imagine the reverberations around the world if KB became the next PM.
If (big IF) Kemi were to win this I do think it will be enough of a change for the Conservatives that it probably resets the dial once again and people will view it as an entirely new government despite Con being in power for 12 years.
A Kemi government would neuter "time for a change" and would likely be a big problem for Labour...
The next PM is going to be one of Rishi, Penny, Liz or Kemi.
Kemi is the “they’ve gone nuts” option. The wildcard option. Some might even say the irresponsible option, given her lack of experience. Personally, I think she needs more experience, I think at the moment she is too green.
But there has to be a chance that she could do it. It’s a small chance, but there is the tantalising grain of something exciting building around her, and you never know where momentum might lead….
She has more ministerial experience than either Cameron or Blair had when they became PM. She is slightly younger than Cameron was and a bit younger than Blair.
Is it because she’s a woman she’s “inexperienced”, or because she isn’t Public School / Oxford educated?
What's the difference between "slightly" and "a bit"?
None of the leadership contenders seems to be talking about levelling up. Focus seems to be on shrinking the state, which helps London and the SE. Have the Tories given up on the Red Wall, or do they hope that going large on Chicks with Dicks will obscure the abandonment of levelling up as a policy objective?
That isn't going to work when I suspect the Labour manifesto will feature HS2E, NPR and quite possibly given the state of Parliament a plan to move Parliament to Manchester
* Can't really be Birmingham for reasons and as others have pointed out if you move it to a small place it will total dominate the town / city but would leave whole piles of things in London.
Why couldn't it be Birmingham ?
The romantic in me would like Colchester, York or Winchester but none of those will happen.
Too near London especially with HS2 - you would end up with Parliament in Birmingham and most things left where they were.
And the whole point of the change would be to change the focus of the country away from being London centric.
Am I missing something? Since when was it Labour policy to move parliament out of London? It’s a pretty extraordinary move
I didn't say it was policy - but given the state of Parliament it makes sense to firstly have a discussion about it and secondly whether there are votes in it.
And up North knocking London down a peg or 2 is probably worth a fair few votes.
The Palace of Westminster will need to be repaired whether or not it remains the home of Parliament.
A permanent move to another city doesn't take away the need to repair the existing buildings
Why would it need to be repaired if it's no longer home of Parliament.
But the cost of repairing an empty building is X or Y times cheaper than doing repairs when the building is being used.
Because it is a major historic landmark. It is iconic and an important part of our national heritage.
The idea of it being allowed to slowly disintegrate or even be demolished would be cultural vandalism
As Andrea Leadsome said in a recent article about the refurb (and she is in charge of it) “the Houses of Parliament is one of the most famous buildings in the world, like the Taj Mahal, it is also a World Heritage site, it belongs to humanity, but it is our job to look after it, however awkward”
Hard to argue with that
If you compile a list of the ten most iconic, instantly recognisable buildings in the world Westminster is on there
Rough list:
Pyramids Parthenon Tower of Pisa Taj Mahal Empire State Bldg Eiffel Tower Palace of Westminster Sydney Opera House Burj
Number ten can be disputed between Stonehenge, Statue of Liberty, The Pantheon, Hagia Sophia, Gobekli Tepe (should be top of the top ten really), Notre Dame, St Basil’s Cathedral, et al, depending on your definition of “building”
No Colloseum?!
Good one, yes. Clean forgot. That’s the tenth
The White House? I know it isn't exactly imposing, but still...
Julie Bindel @bindelj I would rather give Donald Trump a massage than vote Tory, but if you want to know who I'd back to be the next PM? @KemiBadenoch all the way. She has her head screwed on. Only real grown up in the room. Save your breath telling me what she believes/has done that you don't like.
We could be at the start of something truly extraordinary here. Imagine the reverberations around the world if KB became the next PM.
Why would there be reverberations around the world?
If the UK PM met EU leaders and Commissioners it would be decidedly striking…..nasty racist Little Britain…..with the only ethnic minority leader in the whole line up….
Nasty racist Little Britain certainly does exist. But it's a smallish minority thankfully and not representative of Britain as a whole. All those hard-won progressive social attitudes hold sway for the majority.
While there's been much focus on Kemi's views on wokeness and the trans issues, there's been less focus on her promise to abandon net zero, roll back the state, cut education expenditure and so on.
I can see her winning the Tory membership over. I'm less persuaded that abandoning net zero and rolling back the state so drastically will win over the typical floating voter.
I want the Tories removed a long long way from office. Whichever candidate they select as PM. But it is encouraging to think that people like Badenoch can actually be a serious contender for *the Tories*.
The threat to Labour is simple. She is far more confident, articulate and sane that so many of the various prominent BAME equivalents are in Labour. A black woman who is a successful migrant saying lets cut the crap and focus on people's priorities goes way beyond what Labour can offer.
Yes but. Are people's priorities sacking all teaching assistants and banning unisex toilets?
From my past experience of schools a lot of people don't see the point of teaching assistants until they discover the consequences of removing them...
So, as someone who wouldn't vote for a Kemi led Tory party, I'm all in favour of that policy being implemented anytime before the next General Election - as within weeks all parents will be complaining about the consequences.
Julie Bindel @bindelj I would rather give Donald Trump a massage than vote Tory, but if you want to know who I'd back to be the next PM? @KemiBadenoch all the way. She has her head screwed on. Only real grown up in the room. Save your breath telling me what she believes/has done that you don't like.
The betting markets seem to not be taking into account Sunak's weakness with the electorate that matters. And that is puzzling
Yes, having seen that ConHome poll I am much less certain of Sunak than I was 20 minutes ago
Tory members don’t want him as leader, not sure how he gets around that, unless he can herd the cats of the Tory parliamentary party into giving him a patsy opponent like Hunt
And there won’t be a coronation. The party is too divided and embittered for that
I don't see Sunak as a viable leader.
There is no gravitas. There is no depth. There is no broad policy agenda.
And I know it is trivial, but he is just too shiny. It gives him an artificial plastic appearance that makes him too much of an estate agent or car salesman.
Just can't take to him.
You could say the same about Cameron.
In fact, there is a great little scene in 'Coalition', the 2015 TV movie about the 2010 election. Mark Gatiss as Peter Mandelson turns to Ian Grieve as Gordon Brown and says, "Don't worry about him. All he has is brill cream and a smile." Could say very much the same about Sunak.
Of course, Cameron won every election he fought.... he just wasn't quite so good at referendums....
And on the grounds that people need to get to the capital, it's more normal for the capital to be somewhere central, rather than tucked away right down in the bottom corner.
Really? If anything, it seems more normal for a capital to be tucked into one corner of the country, not least because capitals were often initially chosen for water connectivity and/or countries went out and acquired vast swathes of territory after picking them. Berlin, Copenhagen, Vienna, the Hague, Lisbon, Bern, Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki, Athens, Bucharest, Sofia, Moscow (and of course St Petersburg originally), Ottawa, Washington DC, Havana, New Delhi, Beijing, Buenos Aires, Baku, Damascus, Kabul, Tunis, Algiers...
Hah yes. Good list
Moreover, the capitals that are more geographically central are often deeply unpopular, sometimes because they are contrived
The Suella backers are confusing me. The sort of things she’s saying are similar to Kemi. But Kemi is at least ten times more articulate and I’m sorry to say, much cleverer.
Surely you have to switch horses?
Suella was quicker out of the blocks, and she is slightly more recognisable. Kemi's momentum will have surprised many. And you do run the risk of looking a bit of a dick if you switch horses in midstream like this. Unless you have to switch, stay where you are and just switch in the second round.
Isn't the MP vote by secret ballot? So a Tory can say one thing, and actually do another.
In other words, as per usual. (Not unknown among non-Tories, so I've heard.)
While there's been much focus on Kemi's views on wokeness and the trans issues, there's been less focus on her promise to abandon net zero, roll back the state, cut education expenditure and so on.
I can see her winning the Tory membership over. I'm less persuaded that abandoning net zero and rolling back the state so drastically will win over the typical floating voter.
Maybe she plans to replace net zero with a more pragmatic and effective policy.
I wouldn't expect her to have no policy on the environment other than scrapping net zero
Maybe. But everything she says seems to be cut and paste out of the Piers Morgan dictionary of anti-woke, only delivered more articulately than Suella or JRM manage.
Climate scepticism is, sadly, the latest culture war import from the Anglosphere which we’d seemed to manage to avoid until now.
None of the leadership contenders seems to be talking about levelling up. Focus seems to be on shrinking the state, which helps London and the SE. Have the Tories given up on the Red Wall, or do they hope that going large on Chicks with Dicks will obscure the abandonment of levelling up as a policy objective?
That isn't going to work when I suspect the Labour manifesto will feature HS2E, NPR and quite possibly given the state of Parliament a plan to move Parliament to Manchester
* Can't really be Birmingham for reasons and as others have pointed out if you move it to a small place it will total dominate the town / city but would leave whole piles of things in London.
Thanks for rescuing my comment from the old thread graveyard. I do think it extraordinary that the Tories' main offer to Red Wall voters seems to be getting jettisoned. Seems a risky strategy, and also pretty dishonest.
Despite the bollocks they've spouted as regards the "Red Wall", there's a vanishingly small percentage of their members living there. Most have probably never even been there.
Do you have the numbers?
Here are the numbers pre-last election ie September 2019. It seems reasonable to suggest that Red Wall members have increased since then.
Average age for UK parties at that time: Con 57, Lab 53, SNP 54, LD 52
Those aren't Red Wall figures. They are regional. What proportion of the membership in the NW and Yorkshire lives in already long term super safe seats?
I live in a marginal seat in the North West, and, even here, you almost never see any Tory campaigning - so if they do have members they're not exactly active. Even at Election time, you see pictures of the Tory candidate out with the same half a dozen people, compared with hundreds gathering for the Labour candidate.
It was a top target in 2017, but the only time I saw any real campaigning, it was about a dozen 20somethings who I spotted getting out of a minibus, and looking very out of place.
None of the leadership contenders seems to be talking about levelling up. Focus seems to be on shrinking the state, which helps London and the SE. Have the Tories given up on the Red Wall, or do they hope that going large on Chicks with Dicks will obscure the abandonment of levelling up as a policy objective?
That isn't going to work when I suspect the Labour manifesto will feature HS2E, NPR and quite possibly given the state of Parliament a plan to move Parliament to Manchester
* Can't really be Birmingham for reasons and as others have pointed out if you move it to a small place it will total dominate the town / city but would leave whole piles of things in London.
Why couldn't it be Birmingham ?
The romantic in me would like Colchester, York or Winchester but none of those will happen.
Too near London especially with HS2 - you would end up with Parliament in Birmingham and most things left where they were.
And the whole point of the change would be to change the focus of the country away from being London centric.
Am I missing something? Since when was it Labour policy to move parliament out of London? It’s a pretty extraordinary move
I didn't say it was policy - but given the state of Parliament it makes sense to firstly have a discussion about it and secondly whether there are votes in it.
And up North knocking London down a peg or 2 is probably worth a fair few votes.
The Palace of Westminster will need to be repaired whether or not it remains the home of Parliament.
A permanent move to another city doesn't take away the need to repair the existing buildings
Why would it need to be repaired if it's no longer home of Parliament.
But the cost of repairing an empty building is X or Y times cheaper than doing repairs when the building is being used.
Because it is a major historic landmark. It is iconic and an important part of our national heritage.
The idea of it being allowed to slowly disintegrate or even be demolished would be cultural vandalism
As Andrea Leadsome said in a recent article about the refurb (and she is in charge of it) “the Houses of Parliament is one of the most famous buildings in the world, like the Taj Mahal, it is also a World Heritage site, it belongs to humanity, but it is our job to look after it, however awkward”
Hard to argue with that
If you compile a list of the ten most iconic, instantly recognisable buildings in the world Westminster is on there
Rough list:
Pyramids Parthenon Tower of Pisa Taj Mahal Empire State Bldg Eiffel Tower Palace of Westminster Sydney Opera House Burj
Number ten can be disputed between Stonehenge, Statue of Liberty, The Pantheon, Hagia Sophia, Gobekli Tepe (should be top of the top ten really), Notre Dame, St Basil’s Cathedral, et al, depending on your definition of “building”
No Colloseum?!
Good one, yes. Clean forgot. That’s the tenth
The White House? I know it isn't exactly imposing, but still...
Assuming he does win the vote (which he won't), how does it actually achieve his aim of getting a new PM more quickly?
In the same way that Callaghan remained as PM after he lost the VONC in 1979, Johnson would remain as PM.
The process to elect a new leader of the Conservative Party is already underway and any general election, the timing of which would still be set by the current administration and so would see a polling date set for later in September.
So nothing in his cunning plan would achieve the result he seeks. Who is advising Starmer???
He wants all the Tories who so openly and publicly blew up Johnson to give him their confidence. That's all. Will look great on a leaflet apparently.
They wouldn't be. They would be giving confidence to the governing party.
Nope. Every leaflet will have the MP and all the quotes where they have supported the crook.
Julie Bindel @bindelj I would rather give Donald Trump a massage than vote Tory, but if you want to know who I'd back to be the next PM? @KemiBadenoch all the way. She has her head screwed on. Only real grown up in the room. Save your breath telling me what she believes/has done that you don't like.
We could be at the start of something truly extraordinary here. Imagine the reverberations around the world if KB became the next PM.
Why would there be reverberations around the world?
This is not an Obama situation. Badenoch is not a liberal. I think she has much in common with Ron de Santis, actually.
How many other lucid, charismatic and courageous young black female conservative world leaders do you know?
I don't know Kemi, so none. Then again I don't know any boorish, white, fat, lazy, lying toads who think they have a right to be PM but we've had to put up with one for the past three years.
Assuming he does win the vote (which he won't), how does it actually achieve his aim of getting a new PM more quickly?
In the same way that Callaghan remained as PM after he lost the VONC in 1979, Johnson would remain as PM.
The process to elect a new leader of the Conservative Party is already underway and any general election, the timing of which would still be set by the current administration and so would see a polling date set for later in September.
So nothing in his cunning plan would achieve the result he seeks. Who is advising Starmer???
I assume the point is to get all the leadership candidates to vote that they have confidence in Boris.
Tories will argue that it makes sense not to have a change of leader, or election, while the campaign is going on, but it's an easy win for Labour if they can present it as a simple vote on Boris.
Clearly it would be daft for any Tory to vote to bring down the govt., but Labour will no doubt have plenty of facebook ads ready with Sunak, Truss and the rest voting "to Keep Boris in Number 10".
The media will be focussed on the first round of the leadership vote tomorrow. Not Labour playing games with Parliamentary procedure.
I get the need to be an opposition. But this is just petty posturing and a waste of time.if I were the Tory whips, I would tell members not to make speeches or interventions other than the official responses and let the opposition just vent for a few hours. Then the vote isn't carried and life continues for the final few days before the recess
While there's been much focus on Kemi's views on wokeness and the trans issues, there's been less focus on her promise to abandon net zero, roll back the state, cut education expenditure and so on.
I can see her winning the Tory membership over. I'm less persuaded that abandoning net zero and rolling back the state so drastically will win over the typical floating voter.
I want the Tories removed a long long way from office. Whichever candidate they select as PM. But it is encouraging to think that people like Badenoch can actually be a serious contender for *the Tories*.
The threat to Labour is simple. She is far more confident, articulate and sane that so many of the various prominent BAME equivalents are in Labour. A black woman who is a successful migrant saying lets cut the crap and focus on people's priorities goes way beyond what Labour can offer.
Yes but. Are people's priorities sacking all teaching assistants and banning unisex toilets?
From my past experience of schools a lot of people don't see the point of teaching assistants until they discover the consequences of removing them...
So, as someone who wouldn't vote for a Kemi led Tory party, I'm all in favour of that policy being implemented anytime before the next General Election - as within weeks all parents will be complaining about the consequences.
That might happen anyway. The recruitment situation for teachers is bad, but for TAs (paid peanuts, and on termtime only contracts, so they only get about 3/4 of those peanuts) it's far worse.
The biggest problem that the government will have with mass WFH work is that it will make a lot of public sector jobs a lot less attractive.
Julie Bindel @bindelj I would rather give Donald Trump a massage than vote Tory, but if you want to know who I'd back to be the next PM? @KemiBadenoch all the way. She has her head screwed on. Only real grown up in the room. Save your breath telling me what she believes/has done that you don't like.
We could be at the start of something truly extraordinary here. Imagine the reverberations around the world if KB became the next PM.
If (big IF) Kemi were to win this I do think it will be enough of a change for the Conservatives that it probably resets the dial once again and people will view it as an entirely new government despite Con being in power for 12 years.
A Kemi government would neuter "time for a change" and would likely be a big problem for Labour...
The next PM is going to be one of Rishi, Penny, Liz or Kemi.
Kemi is the “they’ve gone nuts” option. The wildcard option. Some might even say the irresponsible option, given her lack of experience. Personally, I think she needs more experience, I think at the moment she is too green.
But there has to be a chance that she could do it. It’s a small chance, but there is the tantalising grain of something exciting building around her, and you never know where momentum might lead….
But she’s gambling for the William Hague spot when surely if she bides her time she could truly make history for our country. If she has any sense she will be using this for a leg up the ladder, not to actually win?
If she gets the gig now, she’ll be badly advised and end up campaigning on some updated equivalent of “four weeks to save the £”, and sink from the history books almost without trace.
Julie Bindel @bindelj I would rather give Donald Trump a massage than vote Tory, but if you want to know who I'd back to be the next PM? @KemiBadenoch all the way. She has her head screwed on. Only real grown up in the room. Save your breath telling me what she believes/has done that you don't like.
We could be at the start of something truly extraordinary here. Imagine the reverberations around the world if KB became the next PM.
If (big IF) Kemi were to win this I do think it will be enough of a change for the Conservatives that it probably resets the dial once again and people will view it as an entirely new government despite Con being in power for 12 years.
A Kemi government would neuter "time for a change" and would likely be a big problem for Labour...
The next PM is going to be one of Rishi, Penny, Liz or Kemi.
Kemi is the “they’ve gone nuts” option. The wildcard option. Some might even say the irresponsible option, given her lack of experience. Personally, I think she needs more experience, I think at the moment she is too green.
But there has to be a chance that she could do it. It’s a small chance, but there is the tantalising grain of something exciting building around her, and you never know where momentum might lead….
She has more ministerial experience than either Cameron or Blair had when they became PM. She is slightly younger than Cameron was and a bit younger than Blair.
Is it because she’s a woman she’s “inexperienced”, or because she isn’t Public School / Oxford educated?
It’s one thing stepping into the LOTO and having a few years run up into becoming PM and becoming PM from being a junior minister. LOTO gives you experience in media scrutiny, ‘cabinet’ and party management and policy development. There is a reason why traditionally parties have only placed FS/CoE/HS holders into the prime ministership in government…
It has nothing to do with her gender or education.
Still waiting for a better PM than Blair. He left office in 2007…
We've had 2 better PM's than Blair already since then. Cameron and Boris.
But if you're wanting a better Labour PM, you might need to wait until Labour are popular again. Perhaps Starmer's successor might do it?
ROFL Cameron and Johnson don’t have a candle on Blair. He did actual levelling up and actual positive change.
Johnson and Cameron divided the country and oversaw the largest stagnation in society in 100 years.
This would be the stagnation that has led to record low unemployment?
Record low but Kemi says more people are sitting around and doing nothing. Makes no sense.
Full employment where 40% of people on benefits are IN WORK.
As @BartholomewRoberts would point out if he was here - if you are on benefits there is absolutely zero point working beyond the point income is clawed back...
Problem is there is no easy way to fix that without seriously increasing the cut off point at which people can no longer claim benefits (probably to something like £40-45,000 from £30,000).
In idle moments, I try and think of ways of *temporarily increasing benefits* to those who earn money while on benefits.
If insane marginal tax rates are just about dissuading people to work more, what would doubling the money they earn do?
The problem is to prevent it being gamed.
UBI with progressive taxation. Ensures nobody should be in poverty, can't be gamed and always an incentive to work.
UBI would require the country to be wealthier than it is now - given the growth curves, within our lifetimes...
The we can do this
1) UBI replaces benefits, tax free allowance, state pension. 2) All income above that taxed. 3) Single income tax (NI abolished)
The tax code can be written on a postcard.
For all the positive theory of UBI, it is certainty that politicians will get hold of it and then we will get the Gordon Brown effect, oh I have found such and such group of people who I think would benefit from some extra funding, so I am going to have a special extra UBI payment for ....and in doing so a group of people who don't need it also get extra....5-10 years down the line and you back in their perverse situation where some people because of unique circumstances are getting extra + extra + extra on their UBI.
Even worse, the politicians at the election would be arguing over who would increase the basic UBI - for everyone - the most.
The big unsolvable problem with UBI is how to deal with the wildly different housing costs in different parts of the country. It would be totally impossible to live in London, on UBI and a minimum wage job.
My solution is . . . don't.
Don't solve the problem. If people can't afford to live in London they could afford elsewhere. Nobody has a 'right' to live in London.
The Government shouldn't be in the business of paying people's rent, varying upon where they live.
None of the leadership contenders seems to be talking about levelling up. Focus seems to be on shrinking the state, which helps London and the SE. Have the Tories given up on the Red Wall, or do they hope that going large on Chicks with Dicks will obscure the abandonment of levelling up as a policy objective?
That isn't going to work when I suspect the Labour manifesto will feature HS2E, NPR and quite possibly given the state of Parliament a plan to move Parliament to Manchester
* Can't really be Birmingham for reasons and as others have pointed out if you move it to a small place it will total dominate the town / city but would leave whole piles of things in London.
Why couldn't it be Birmingham ?
The romantic in me would like Colchester, York or Winchester but none of those will happen.
Too near London especially with HS2 - you would end up with Parliament in Birmingham and most things left where they were.
And the whole point of the change would be to change the focus of the country away from being London centric.
Am I missing something? Since when was it Labour policy to move parliament out of London? It’s a pretty extraordinary move
I didn't say it was policy - but given the state of Parliament it makes sense to firstly have a discussion about it and secondly whether there are votes in it.
And up North knocking London down a peg or 2 is probably worth a fair few votes.
Ah, OK
Phew. I don’t think it will ever happen, nor should it happen; it would be an act of self harm
The UK has one great World City. London. It might be the greatest city on earth, it is easily in the top 5
No other city in the UK is in the top 100 for “greatness”, probably not even Edinburgh (which is exceedingly handsome but too small for greatness)
Taking politics out of London would damage our politics and diminish the city at the same time. Stupid
Top 5 include London, New York, Paris. Where else
Tokyo i reckon, but that’s 4th or 5th, and I’d say Shanghai
It has the absolute swagger of a world city, if you go there. A muscle memory of greatness now returning. The commercial, business and cultural capital of China, the new superpower
And manages to do it without being the political capital.
To be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating moving the capital; I'm thinking out loud. It's a fun thought experiment.
Moving parliament out of London is a total non-starter. Given how our transport networks are built radiating out from the capital, the net increase in transport time from the average constituency would be prohibitive. The only potential alternative is Birmingham, but that is so close to London as to raise the question of why bother. Of course Parliament could be moved permanently out of the Palace of Westminster if that was a lower cost solution than refurbishing the building as a working parliamentary building. Even with the cost of building a new parliament that might be the case.
Really - granted those down South would have a longer journey to Manchester but it would be easier for virtually everyone outside the East and South East.
Regions that can get to Manchester easier: Scotland, NE, NW, Y&H: 22 million people. Regions that can get to London easier: London, SE, SW, Eastern England: 30 million people. East and West Midlands, Wales and NI look about equal (with big split between South and North Wales).
None of the leadership contenders seems to be talking about levelling up. Focus seems to be on shrinking the state, which helps London and the SE. Have the Tories given up on the Red Wall, or do they hope that going large on Chicks with Dicks will obscure the abandonment of levelling up as a policy objective?
That isn't going to work when I suspect the Labour manifesto will feature HS2E, NPR and quite possibly given the state of Parliament a plan to move Parliament to Manchester
* Can't really be Birmingham for reasons and as others have pointed out if you move it to a small place it will total dominate the town / city but would leave whole piles of things in London.
Why couldn't it be Birmingham ?
The romantic in me would like Colchester, York or Winchester but none of those will happen.
Too near London especially with HS2 - you would end up with Parliament in Birmingham and most things left where they were.
And the whole point of the change would be to change the focus of the country away from being London centric.
Am I missing something? Since when was it Labour policy to move parliament out of London? It’s a pretty extraordinary move
I didn't say it was policy - but given the state of Parliament it makes sense to firstly have a discussion about it and secondly whether there are votes in it.
And up North knocking London down a peg or 2 is probably worth a fair few votes.
The Palace of Westminster will need to be repaired whether or not it remains the home of Parliament.
A permanent move to another city doesn't take away the need to repair the existing buildings
Why would it need to be repaired if it's no longer home of Parliament.
But the cost of repairing an empty building is X or Y times cheaper than doing repairs when the building is being used.
Because it is a major historic landmark. It is iconic and an important part of our national heritage.
The idea of it being allowed to slowly disintegrate or even be demolished would be cultural vandalism
Currently the Government is trying to avoid spending £2bn future proofing the Manchester end of HS2..
Agreed.
I wonder what would be the cost of preservation if it were empty, and Parliament moved elsewhere ? I would guess you could easily halve that £22bn, even allowing for creating a modern replacement. (which would also be far cheaper to run and easier to work in).
Why don’t they just move to County Hall for a decade: that is a large, noble and dignified building, within eyesight of the Palace of W, right opposite on the river, meaning there would be minimal need for shifting things apart from people
For a few million they could literally rebuild the green benches inside, if that’s what they want
Julie Bindel @bindelj I would rather give Donald Trump a massage than vote Tory, but if you want to know who I'd back to be the next PM? @KemiBadenoch all the way. She has her head screwed on. Only real grown up in the room. Save your breath telling me what she believes/has done that you don't like.
We could be at the start of something truly extraordinary here. Imagine the reverberations around the world if KB became the next PM.
If (big IF) Kemi were to win this I do think it will be enough of a change for the Conservatives that it probably resets the dial once again and people will view it as an entirely new government despite Con being in power for 12 years.
A Kemi government would neuter "time for a change" and would likely be a big problem for Labour...
The next PM is going to be one of Rishi, Penny, Liz or Kemi.
Kemi is the “they’ve gone nuts” option. The wildcard option. Some might even say the irresponsible option, given her lack of experience. Personally, I think she needs more experience, I think at the moment she is too green.
But there has to be a chance that she could do it. It’s a small chance, but there is the tantalising grain of something exciting building around her, and you never know where momentum might lead….
She has more ministerial experience than either Cameron or Blair had when they became PM. She is slightly younger than Cameron was and a bit younger than Blair.
Is it because she’s a woman she’s “inexperienced”, or because she isn’t Public School / Oxford educated?
Blair and Cameron had been LotO for a few years prior to becoming PM. Pretty much point of that job is for it to be a dress rehearsal for being PM.
None of the leadership contenders seems to be talking about levelling up. Focus seems to be on shrinking the state, which helps London and the SE. Have the Tories given up on the Red Wall, or do they hope that going large on Chicks with Dicks will obscure the abandonment of levelling up as a policy objective?
That isn't going to work when I suspect the Labour manifesto will feature HS2E, NPR and quite possibly given the state of Parliament a plan to move Parliament to Manchester
* Can't really be Birmingham for reasons and as others have pointed out if you move it to a small place it will total dominate the town / city but would leave whole piles of things in London.
Why couldn't it be Birmingham ?
The romantic in me would like Colchester, York or Winchester but none of those will happen.
Too near London especially with HS2 - you would end up with Parliament in Birmingham and most things left where they were.
And the whole point of the change would be to change the focus of the country away from being London centric.
Am I missing something? Since when was it Labour policy to move parliament out of London? It’s a pretty extraordinary move
I didn't say it was policy - but given the state of Parliament it makes sense to firstly have a discussion about it and secondly whether there are votes in it.
And up North knocking London down a peg or 2 is probably worth a fair few votes.
The Palace of Westminster will need to be repaired whether or not it remains the home of Parliament.
A permanent move to another city doesn't take away the need to repair the existing buildings
Why would it need to be repaired if it's no longer home of Parliament.
But the cost of repairing an empty building is X or Y times cheaper than doing repairs when the building is being used.
Because it is a major historic landmark. It is iconic and an important part of our national heritage.
The idea of it being allowed to slowly disintegrate or even be demolished would be cultural vandalism
As Andrea Leadsome said in a recent article about the refurb (and she is in charge of it) “the Houses of Parliament is one of the most famous buildings in the world, like the Taj Mahal, it is also a World Heritage site, it belongs to humanity, but it is our job to look after it, however awkward”
Hard to argue with that
If you compile a list of the ten most iconic, instantly recognisable buildings in the world Westminster is on there
Rough list:
Pyramids Parthenon Tower of Pisa Taj Mahal Empire State Bldg Eiffel Tower Palace of Westminster Sydney Opera House Burj
Number ten can be disputed between Stonehenge, Statue of Liberty, The Pantheon, Hagia Sophia, Gobekli Tepe (should be top of the top ten really), Notre Dame, St Basil’s Cathedral, et al, depending on your definition of “building”
No Colloseum?!
Good one, yes. Clean forgot. That’s the tenth
The White House? I know it isn't exactly imposing, but still...
The White House isn't even in the top two most significant landmarks in its own country. Both the Statue of Liberty and Golden Gate Bridge are surely higher.
Assuming he does win the vote (which he won't), how does it actually achieve his aim of getting a new PM more quickly?
In the same way that Callaghan remained as PM after he lost the VONC in 1979, Johnson would remain as PM.
The process to elect a new leader of the Conservative Party is already underway and any general election, the timing of which would still be set by the current administration and so would see a polling date set for later in September.
So nothing in his cunning plan would achieve the result he seeks. Who is advising Starmer???
I assume the point is to get all the leadership candidates to vote that they have confidence in Boris.
Tories will argue that it makes sense not to have a change of leader, or election, while the campaign is going on, but it's an easy win for Labour if they can present it as a simple vote on Boris.
Clearly it would be daft for any Tory to vote to bring down the govt., but Labour will no doubt have plenty of facebook ads ready with Sunak, Truss and the rest voting "to Keep Boris in Number 10".
There's a technical point here. Labour has two options - they can move a vote of no confidence in Boris personally, or they can move a VONC in the Government. The former can be boycotted by the Tories (claiming it's a stunt, etc.) and will pass, but with no practical effect. The latter triggers a General Election, which is why the Tories will vote against. However, it enables Labour to say of any Tory MP seeking reelection, even the most anti-Boris, that when it came to it they voted to keep him as PM rather than face the voters.
Julie Bindel @bindelj I would rather give Donald Trump a massage than vote Tory, but if you want to know who I'd back to be the next PM? @KemiBadenoch all the way. She has her head screwed on. Only real grown up in the room. Save your breath telling me what she believes/has done that you don't like.
We could be at the start of something truly extraordinary here. Imagine the reverberations around the world if KB became the next PM.
If (big IF) Kemi were to win this I do think it will be enough of a change for the Conservatives that it probably resets the dial once again and people will view it as an entirely new government despite Con being in power for 12 years.
A Kemi government would neuter "time for a change" and would likely be a big problem for Labour...
The next PM is going to be one of Rishi, Penny, Liz or Kemi.
Kemi is the “they’ve gone nuts” option. The wildcard option. Some might even say the irresponsible option, given her lack of experience. Personally, I think she needs more experience, I think at the moment she is too green.
But there has to be a chance that she could do it. It’s a small chance, but there is the tantalising grain of something exciting building around her, and you never know where momentum might lead….
But she’s gambling for the William Hague spot when surely if she bides her time she could truly make history for our country. If she has any sense she will be using this for a leg up the ladder, not to actually win?
It's not the William Hague slot - it's 15 months to 28 months as PM minimum unless she is stupid enough to call an election this Autumn.
None of the leadership contenders seems to be talking about levelling up. Focus seems to be on shrinking the state, which helps London and the SE. Have the Tories given up on the Red Wall, or do they hope that going large on Chicks with Dicks will obscure the abandonment of levelling up as a policy objective?
That isn't going to work when I suspect the Labour manifesto will feature HS2E, NPR and quite possibly given the state of Parliament a plan to move Parliament to Manchester
* Can't really be Birmingham for reasons and as others have pointed out if you move it to a small place it will total dominate the town / city but would leave whole piles of things in London.
Why couldn't it be Birmingham ?
The romantic in me would like Colchester, York or Winchester but none of those will happen.
Too near London especially with HS2 - you would end up with Parliament in Birmingham and most things left where they were.
And the whole point of the change would be to change the focus of the country away from being London centric.
Am I missing something? Since when was it Labour policy to move parliament out of London? It’s a pretty extraordinary move
I didn't say it was policy - but given the state of Parliament it makes sense to firstly have a discussion about it and secondly whether there are votes in it.
And up North knocking London down a peg or 2 is probably worth a fair few votes.
Ah, OK
Phew. I don’t think it will ever happen, nor should it happen; it would be an act of self harm
The UK has one great World City. London. It might be the greatest city on earth, it is easily in the top 5
No other city in the UK is in the top 100 for “greatness”, probably not even Edinburgh (which is exceedingly handsome but too small for greatness)
Taking politics out of London would damage our politics and diminish the city at the same time. Stupid
Top 5 include London, New York, Paris. Where else
Tokyo i reckon, but that’s 4th or 5th, and I’d say Shanghai
It has the absolute swagger of a world city, if you go there. A muscle memory of greatness now returning. The commercial, business and cultural capital of China, the new superpower
And manages to do it without being the political capital.
To be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating moving the capital; I'm thinking out loud. It's a fun thought experiment.
Moving parliament out of London is a total non-starter. Given how our transport networks are built radiating out from the capital, the net increase in transport time from the average constituency would be prohibitive. The only potential alternative is Birmingham, but that is so close to London as to raise the question of why bother. Of course Parliament could be moved permanently out of the Palace of Westminster if that was a lower cost solution than refurbishing the building as a working parliamentary building. Even with the cost of building a new parliament that might be the case.
It's an interesting point. I wonder where in the UK would yield the lowest connectivity times for MPs.
Does London's hub location for rail and air out balance it's non central location.
Plenty would find Birmingham barely better, it would be bad for numerous far southern MPs, for Highland MPs, even for many Northern MPs XC Vs LNER doesn't give the benefit that cutting 100 miles befits.
Nicola Sturgeon’s request for the UK’s highest court to give her clarity on the legality of her planned Scottish independence referendum should be rejected, the UK Government has said.
In its initial submission to the Supreme Court, which has been asked to decide the issue, its lawyers argue that the case should be thrown out as premature.
They believe that the decision on the legality of the proposed legislation cannot be made until after it is introduced, scrutinised and passed at Holyrood.
What has the UK government got to fear? Let the legal experts clear that one up seems okay, it will likely take them best part of 15 years.
I raised this at the time she said she was doing this. In the case about the UN Convention on the rights of the Child the SC unanimously explained the procedure set out in the Scotland Act. There are a number of sequential safeguards. The first of these is that the bill should be signed off by the law officers. The Lord Advocate has refused to do that. The second is that it is put before the Presiding Officer who is supposed to certify it as competent. This has not been done. Thirdly, the bill is scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament. That may, of course, change its nature. Finally, once there is a determined bill, the matter may be remitted to the SC for a ruling.
Nicola has tried to short circuit this because her own Lord Advocate has reservations as to its competency. That would not be in accordance with the Act. Courts generally refuse to answer hypothetical questions. We do not know what the final version of this bill will look like. I suspect the SC will refuse to give a ruling at this stage.
Indeed. Is it the case that the legal thinking for not answering such hypotheticals is that gets too near the political line? - that judging the legality of a piece of actual legislation in respect to the body of law is one thing, but pronouncing areas of potential legislation legal or illegal would be pre-empting the politicians?
In a word, yes. The court is not there to give advice. It is there to give answers to clear, specific, concrete questions.
While there's been much focus on Kemi's views on wokeness and the trans issues, there's been less focus on her promise to abandon net zero, roll back the state, cut education expenditure and so on.
I can see her winning the Tory membership over. I'm less persuaded that abandoning net zero and rolling back the state so drastically will win over the typical floating voter.
I want the Tories removed a long long way from office. Whichever candidate they select as PM. But it is encouraging to think that people like Badenoch can actually be a serious contender for *the Tories*.
The threat to Labour is simple. She is far more confident, articulate and sane that so many of the various prominent BAME equivalents are in Labour. A black woman who is a successful migrant saying lets cut the crap and focus on people's priorities goes way beyond what Labour can offer.
Yes but. Are people's priorities sacking all teaching assistants and banning unisex toilets?
From my past experience of schools a lot of people don't see the point of teaching assistants until they discover the consequences of removing them...
So, as someone who wouldn't vote for a Kemi led Tory party, I'm all in favour of that policy being implemented anytime before the next General Election - as within weeks all parents will be complaining about the consequences.
That might happen anyway. The recruitment situation for teachers is bad, but for TAs (paid peanuts, and on termtime only contracts, so they only get about 3/4 of those peanuts) it's far worse.
The biggest problem that the government will have with mass WFH work is that it will make a lot of public sector jobs a lot less attractive.
You typical public sector job isn't that attractive in the first place - pay is appalling compared to the private sector rate for most skillsets.
None of the leadership contenders seems to be talking about levelling up. Focus seems to be on shrinking the state, which helps London and the SE. Have the Tories given up on the Red Wall, or do they hope that going large on Chicks with Dicks will obscure the abandonment of levelling up as a policy objective?
That isn't going to work when I suspect the Labour manifesto will feature HS2E, NPR and quite possibly given the state of Parliament a plan to move Parliament to Manchester
* Can't really be Birmingham for reasons and as others have pointed out if you move it to a small place it will total dominate the town / city but would leave whole piles of things in London.
Why couldn't it be Birmingham ?
The romantic in me would like Colchester, York or Winchester but none of those will happen.
Too near London especially with HS2 - you would end up with Parliament in Birmingham and most things left where they were.
And the whole point of the change would be to change the focus of the country away from being London centric.
Am I missing something? Since when was it Labour policy to move parliament out of London? It’s a pretty extraordinary move
I didn't say it was policy - but given the state of Parliament it makes sense to firstly have a discussion about it and secondly whether there are votes in it.
And up North knocking London down a peg or 2 is probably worth a fair few votes.
The Palace of Westminster will need to be repaired whether or not it remains the home of Parliament.
A permanent move to another city doesn't take away the need to repair the existing buildings
Why would it need to be repaired if it's no longer home of Parliament.
But the cost of repairing an empty building is X or Y times cheaper than doing repairs when the building is being used.
Because it is a major historic landmark. It is iconic and an important part of our national heritage.
The idea of it being allowed to slowly disintegrate or even be demolished would be cultural vandalism
Currently the Government is trying to avoid spending £2bn future proofing the Manchester end of HS2..
Agreed.
I wonder what would be the cost of preservation if it were empty, and Parliament moved elsewhere ? I would guess you could easily halve that £22bn, even allowing for creating a modern replacement. (which would also be far cheaper to run and easier to work in).
Why don’t they just move to County Hall for a decade: that is a large, noble and dignified building, within eyesight of the Palace of W, right opposite on the river, meaning there would be minimal need for shifting things apart from people
For a few million they could literally rebuild the green benches inside, if that’s what they want
While there's been much focus on Kemi's views on wokeness and the trans issues, there's been less focus on her promise to abandon net zero, roll back the state, cut education expenditure and so on.
I can see her winning the Tory membership over. I'm less persuaded that abandoning net zero and rolling back the state so drastically will win over the typical floating voter.
I think her Net Zero position is that it needs to be in lock-step with other major economies otherwise it has little effect on climate but severely damages UK. That is a realistic, numerate analysis.
It's not - we could use a sprint to Net Zero to build up expertise and skills we can use around the world in the post net zero future.
Our current problem is a lack of productivity - one source of productivity comes from world class knowledge which allows us to do things better than others.
There is also the disruptive effect - the transition to electric cars offers a chance to kick the existing car manufactures off their thrones, for example.
You want to cry? When the remake of the Italian Job was made in 2003, some of the minis were converted to electric drive (fumes in tunnels issue), by the custom auto-electrifiers in LA. The resulting cars had astonishing performance and fair bit of range - being custom, they cost a lot. The makers of the Mini were offered a chance to look at the result - they refused on the grounds that electric cars weren't interesting....
The gliders fro the original Tesla Roadsters were made by Lotus. When it was suggested, internally, that Lotus launch it's own electric sports car using the knowledge gained the people who suggested it were asked to leave the company. Now, https://www.lotuscars.com/en-GB/evija/
The interesting thing is she is going for the “I have integrity, this is what I believe and what I want to do. You might disagree with it but I’ll be honest with you” angle. Which no-one has really tried to play since Thatcher.
A curious tactic in the internet age, where spin and media relations is all pervasive. But possibly another reason why people are finding her refreshing.
Assuming he does win the vote (which he won't), how does it actually achieve his aim of getting a new PM more quickly?
In the same way that Callaghan remained as PM after he lost the VONC in 1979, Johnson would remain as PM.
The process to elect a new leader of the Conservative Party is already underway and any general election, the timing of which would still be set by the current administration and so would see a polling date set for later in September.
So nothing in his cunning plan would achieve the result he seeks. Who is advising Starmer???
He wants all the Tories who so openly and publicly blew up Johnson to give him their confidence. That's all. Will look great on a leaflet apparently.
They wouldn't be. They would be giving confidence to the governing party.
Nope. Every leaflet will have the MP and all the quotes where they have supported the crook.
So it's nothing more than playing party politics?
Never understand that point. What else are political parties supposed to play?
Assuming he does win the vote (which he won't), how does it actually achieve his aim of getting a new PM more quickly?
In the same way that Callaghan remained as PM after he lost the VONC in 1979, Johnson would remain as PM.
The process to elect a new leader of the Conservative Party is already underway and any general election, the timing of which would still be set by the current administration and so would see a polling date set for later in September.
So nothing in his cunning plan would achieve the result he seeks. Who is advising Starmer???
He wants all the Tories who so openly and publicly blew up Johnson to give him their confidence. That's all. Will look great on a leaflet apparently.
They wouldn't be. They would be giving confidence to the governing party.
Nope. Every leaflet will have the MP and all the quotes where they have supported the crook.
So it's nothing more than playing party politics?
I am shocked, shocked, to discover politics going on in the Houses of Parliament.
None of the leadership contenders seems to be talking about levelling up. Focus seems to be on shrinking the state, which helps London and the SE. Have the Tories given up on the Red Wall, or do they hope that going large on Chicks with Dicks will obscure the abandonment of levelling up as a policy objective?
That isn't going to work when I suspect the Labour manifesto will feature HS2E, NPR and quite possibly given the state of Parliament a plan to move Parliament to Manchester
* Can't really be Birmingham for reasons and as others have pointed out if you move it to a small place it will total dominate the town / city but would leave whole piles of things in London.
Why couldn't it be Birmingham ?
The romantic in me would like Colchester, York or Winchester but none of those will happen.
Or Northampton.
Colchester, York and Winchester are all fine. They don't need the extra pressure. And while I'll always bang the gong for Manchester, it's doing ok, and house prices are already too high. Manchester's doing fine; as is Birmnigham (though both have old industrial areas close to the city centre ripe for redevelopment).
But I think we need somewhere which is central, accessible, and which would benefit from the investment.
Stoke.
My other alternative is Coventry. I suggested this to a senior civil servant a few years back, who almost cried at the suggestion. But five minutes later she was bemoaning that a senior civil servant can afford nothing better in London than a 2 bed flat in Streatham, and she took my point when I pointed out the connection. She did, however, bargain for Birmingham rather than Cov.
Why can't Parliament tour around the country while they do the renovations? 6 months in each city.
We've just had decades of Tories whining about the EU dping that.
Re: fixing up Houses of Parliament (not in the usual way!) yours truly remembers very well touring the innards of Washington State Capitol (aka Legislative Building) a quarter-century ago. Tour was given to legislators and staff, in hopes of getting the former to authorize need repairs, renovations, restorations, etc., etc., hopefully before the place collapsed in a heap one less-than-fine day.
Place looked OK from outside, but behind the exterior - JFC! Result of over a century of maintenance deferred ad infinitum.
Legislature did NOT do a damn. UNTIL the Nisqually Earthquake nearly knocked the dome off, forcing the powers-that-be to finally get their finger out.
None of the leadership contenders seems to be talking about levelling up. Focus seems to be on shrinking the state, which helps London and the SE. Have the Tories given up on the Red Wall, or do they hope that going large on Chicks with Dicks will obscure the abandonment of levelling up as a policy objective?
That isn't going to work when I suspect the Labour manifesto will feature HS2E, NPR and quite possibly given the state of Parliament a plan to move Parliament to Manchester
* Can't really be Birmingham for reasons and as others have pointed out if you move it to a small place it will total dominate the town / city but would leave whole piles of things in London.
Why couldn't it be Birmingham ?
The romantic in me would like Colchester, York or Winchester but none of those will happen.
Too near London especially with HS2 - you would end up with Parliament in Birmingham and most things left where they were.
And the whole point of the change would be to change the focus of the country away from being London centric.
Am I missing something? Since when was it Labour policy to move parliament out of London? It’s a pretty extraordinary move
I didn't say it was policy - but given the state of Parliament it makes sense to firstly have a discussion about it and secondly whether there are votes in it.
And up North knocking London down a peg or 2 is probably worth a fair few votes.
The Palace of Westminster will need to be repaired whether or not it remains the home of Parliament.
A permanent move to another city doesn't take away the need to repair the existing buildings
Why would it need to be repaired if it's no longer home of Parliament.
But the cost of repairing an empty building is X or Y times cheaper than doing repairs when the building is being used.
Because it is a major historic landmark. It is iconic and an important part of our national heritage.
The idea of it being allowed to slowly disintegrate or even be demolished would be cultural vandalism
As Andrea Leadsome said in a recent article about the refurb (and she is in charge of it) “the Houses of Parliament is one of the most famous buildings in the world, like the Taj Mahal, it is also a World Heritage site, it belongs to humanity, but it is our job to look after it, however awkward”
Hard to argue with that
If you compile a list of the ten most iconic, instantly recognisable buildings in the world Westminster is on there
Rough list:
Pyramids Parthenon Tower of Pisa Taj Mahal Empire State Bldg Eiffel Tower Palace of Westminster Sydney Opera House Burj
Number ten can be disputed between Stonehenge, Statue of Liberty, The Pantheon, Hagia Sophia, Gobekli Tepe (should be top of the top ten really), Notre Dame, St Basil’s Cathedral, et al, depending on your definition of “building”
No Colloseum?!
Good one, yes. Clean forgot. That’s the tenth
The White House? I know it isn't exactly imposing, but still...
The White House isn't even in the top two most significant landmarks in its own country. Both the Statue of Liberty and Golden Gate Bridge are surely higher.
Neither of them are buildings, are they?
Although the Eiffel Tower isn't really a building either, being pedantic.
Assuming he does win the vote (which he won't), how does it actually achieve his aim of getting a new PM more quickly?
In the same way that Callaghan remained as PM after he lost the VONC in 1979, Johnson would remain as PM.
The process to elect a new leader of the Conservative Party is already underway and any general election, the timing of which would still be set by the current administration and so would see a polling date set for later in September.
So nothing in his cunning plan would achieve the result he seeks. Who is advising Starmer???
Do you honestly think he has any expectations of winning the vote? At all? Or of replacing the government?
+1 - it's point scoring designed to provide another attack line for possible use at the next General election.
It's also to dictate what is discussed in Parliament. It isn't as though they are busy.
The libdems are on this too. What’s probably swung it is opportunity to press Tories on some of things emerged in last week, Boris and the KGB, Boris as Harvey Weinstein etc. The two psrties seem to have divided things up between them, libdems getting the Weinstein attack.
While there's been much focus on Kemi's views on wokeness and the trans issues, there's been less focus on her promise to abandon net zero, roll back the state, cut education expenditure and so on.
I can see her winning the Tory membership over. I'm less persuaded that abandoning net zero and rolling back the state so drastically will win over the typical floating voter.
I want the Tories removed a long long way from office. Whichever candidate they select as PM. But it is encouraging to think that people like Badenoch can actually be a serious contender for *the Tories*.
The threat to Labour is simple. She is far more confident, articulate and sane that so many of the various prominent BAME equivalents are in Labour. A black woman who is a successful migrant saying lets cut the crap and focus on people's priorities goes way beyond what Labour can offer.
And all that despite not ever having benefited from a single quota or "all-X" shortlist, eh?
None of the leadership contenders seems to be talking about levelling up. Focus seems to be on shrinking the state, which helps London and the SE. Have the Tories given up on the Red Wall, or do they hope that going large on Chicks with Dicks will obscure the abandonment of levelling up as a policy objective?
That isn't going to work when I suspect the Labour manifesto will feature HS2E, NPR and quite possibly given the state of Parliament a plan to move Parliament to Manchester
* Can't really be Birmingham for reasons and as others have pointed out if you move it to a small place it will total dominate the town / city but would leave whole piles of things in London.
Why couldn't it be Birmingham ?
The romantic in me would like Colchester, York or Winchester but none of those will happen.
Too near London especially with HS2 - you would end up with Parliament in Birmingham and most things left where they were.
And the whole point of the change would be to change the focus of the country away from being London centric.
Am I missing something? Since when was it Labour policy to move parliament out of London? It’s a pretty extraordinary move
I didn't say it was policy - but given the state of Parliament it makes sense to firstly have a discussion about it and secondly whether there are votes in it.
And up North knocking London down a peg or 2 is probably worth a fair few votes.
The Palace of Westminster will need to be repaired whether or not it remains the home of Parliament.
A permanent move to another city doesn't take away the need to repair the existing buildings
Why would it need to be repaired if it's no longer home of Parliament.
But the cost of repairing an empty building is X or Y times cheaper than doing repairs when the building is being used.
Because it is a major historic landmark. It is iconic and an important part of our national heritage.
The idea of it being allowed to slowly disintegrate or even be demolished would be cultural vandalism
Currently the Government is trying to avoid spending £2bn future proofing the Manchester end of HS2..
Agreed.
I wonder what would be the cost of preservation if it were empty, and Parliament moved elsewhere ? I would guess you could easily halve that £22bn, even allowing for creating a modern replacement. (which would also be far cheaper to run and easier to work in).
Why don’t they just move to County Hall for a decade: that is a large, noble and dignified building, within eyesight of the Palace of W, right opposite on the river, meaning there would be minimal need for shifting things apart from people
For a few million they could literally rebuild the green benches inside, if that’s what they want
Isn't it a hotel now (Marriott?).
And an aquarium. But I’m sure a hundred mill would entice them to leave
The sums being bruited about in terms of revamping the Houses of P are so insane £100m seems like peanuts
Like you I find them hard to believe, and I am sure it would be cheaper if they just moved everyone out for 10 years
Nicola Sturgeon’s request for the UK’s highest court to give her clarity on the legality of her planned Scottish independence referendum should be rejected, the UK Government has said.
In its initial submission to the Supreme Court, which has been asked to decide the issue, its lawyers argue that the case should be thrown out as premature.
They believe that the decision on the legality of the proposed legislation cannot be made until after it is introduced, scrutinised and passed at Holyrood.
What has the UK government got to fear? Let the legal experts clear that one up seems okay, it will likely take them best part of 15 years.
I raised this at the time she said she was doing this. In the case about the UN Convention on the rights of the Child the SC unanimously explained the procedure set out in the Scotland Act. There are a number of sequential safeguards. The first of these is that the bill should be signed off by the law officers. The Lord Advocate has refused to do that. The second is that it is put before the Presiding Officer who is supposed to certify it as competent. This has not been done. Thirdly, the bill is scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament. That may, of course, change its nature. Finally, once there is a determined bill, the matter may be remitted to the SC for a ruling.
Nicola has tried to short circuit this because her own Lord Advocate has reservations as to its competency. That would not be in accordance with the Act. Courts generally refuse to answer hypothetical questions. We do not know what the final version of this bill will look like. I suspect the SC will refuse to give a ruling at this stage.
I think I understand know, but please correct me if I havn’t caught up, she is asking the top courts for a sort of blank cheque that gazumps attacks from others, but top courts don’t give blank cheques - you have to abide by a more fuller process to get something in writing from them?
Indeed she is. By referring the matter herself at this point she is stopping others from referring it later and her losing at that stage. It's clever but not in accordance with the Act.
Assuming he does win the vote (which he won't), how does it actually achieve his aim of getting a new PM more quickly?
In the same way that Callaghan remained as PM after he lost the VONC in 1979, Johnson would remain as PM.
The process to elect a new leader of the Conservative Party is already underway and any general election, the timing of which would still be set by the current administration and so would see a polling date set for later in September.
So nothing in his cunning plan would achieve the result he seeks. Who is advising Starmer???
I assume the point is to get all the leadership candidates to vote that they have confidence in Boris.
Tories will argue that it makes sense not to have a change of leader, or election, while the campaign is going on, but it's an easy win for Labour if they can present it as a simple vote on Boris.
Clearly it would be daft for any Tory to vote to bring down the govt., but Labour will no doubt have plenty of facebook ads ready with Sunak, Truss and the rest voting "to Keep Boris in Number 10".
There's a technical point here. Labour has two options - they can move a vote of no confidence in Boris personally, or they can move a VONC in the Government. The former can be boycotted by the Tories (claiming it's a stunt, etc.) and will pass, but with no practical effect. The latter triggers a General Election, which is why the Tories will vote against. However, it enables Labour to say of any Tory MP seeking reelection, even the most anti-Boris, that when it came to it they voted to keep him as PM rather than face the voters.
While there's been much focus on Kemi's views on wokeness and the trans issues, there's been less focus on her promise to abandon net zero, roll back the state, cut education expenditure and so on.
I can see her winning the Tory membership over. I'm less persuaded that abandoning net zero and rolling back the state so drastically will win over the typical floating voter.
I want the Tories removed a long long way from office. Whichever candidate they select as PM. But it is encouraging to think that people like Badenoch can actually be a serious contender for *the Tories*.
The threat to Labour is simple. She is far more confident, articulate and sane that so many of the various prominent BAME equivalents are in Labour. A black woman who is a successful migrant saying lets cut the crap and focus on people's priorities goes way beyond what Labour can offer.
And all that despite not ever having benefited from a single quota or "all-X" shortlist, eh?
That's not really true. She benefited from the Cameron era policy of boosting candidates from minority groups, a policy which was extremely successful incidentally even if attacked at the time by trad Tories.
She has more ministerial experience than either Cameron or Blair had when they became PM. She is slightly younger than Cameron was and a bit younger than Blair.
Is it because she’s a woman she’s “inexperienced”, or because she isn’t Public School / Oxford educated?
That's extremely misleading. Cameron didn't have ministerial experience, of course, but he had (with Osborne) oodles of experience at the centre of events as a SPAD, and he had five years of LOTO experience before becoming PM. He'd also surrounded himself with an excellent team which spent a lot of effort learning about how to do government. He was extremely well prepared for office, as was Blair, who also spent his time as a shadow minister and then LOTO very wisely.
That's completely different from being catapulted into the PM position from a minor role whilst the party is in government.
The interesting thing is she is going for the “I have integrity, this is what I believe and what I want to do. You might disagree with it but I’ll be honest with you” angle. Which no-one has really tried to play since Thatcher.
A curious tactic in the internet age, where spin and media relations is all pervasive. But possibly another reason why people are finding her refreshing.
Julie Bindel @bindelj I would rather give Donald Trump a massage than vote Tory, but if you want to know who I'd back to be the next PM? @KemiBadenoch all the way. She has her head screwed on. Only real grown up in the room. Save your breath telling me what she believes/has done that you don't like.
We could be at the start of something truly extraordinary here. Imagine the reverberations around the world if KB became the next PM.
If (big IF) Kemi were to win this I do think it will be enough of a change for the Conservatives that it probably resets the dial once again and people will view it as an entirely new government despite Con being in power for 12 years.
A Kemi government would neuter "time for a change" and would likely be a big problem for Labour...
The next PM is going to be one of Rishi, Penny, Liz or Kemi.
Kemi is the “they’ve gone nuts” option. The wildcard option. Some might even say the irresponsible option, given her lack of experience. Personally, I think she needs more experience, I think at the moment she is too green.
But there has to be a chance that she could do it. It’s a small chance, but there is the tantalising grain of something exciting building around her, and you never know where momentum might lead….
She has more ministerial experience than either Cameron or Blair had when they became PM. She is slightly younger than Cameron was and a bit younger than Blair.
Is it because she’s a woman she’s “inexperienced”, or because she isn’t Public School / Oxford educated?
It’s one thing stepping into the LOTO and having a few years run up into becoming PM and becoming PM from being a junior minister. LOTO gives you experience in media scrutiny, ‘cabinet’ and party management and policy development. There is a reason why traditionally parties have only placed FS/CoE/HS holders into the prime ministership in government…
It has nothing to do with her gender or education.
Gordon Brown was Chancellor for years before becoming Labour leader and PM, and it still didn't stop him from being utterly unsuited to the job of party leader and PM. Ditto Theresa May.
Assuming he does win the vote (which he won't), how does it actually achieve his aim of getting a new PM more quickly?
In the same way that Callaghan remained as PM after he lost the VONC in 1979, Johnson would remain as PM.
The process to elect a new leader of the Conservative Party is already underway and any general election, the timing of which would still be set by the current administration and so would see a polling date set for later in September.
So nothing in his cunning plan would achieve the result he seeks. Who is advising Starmer???
He wants all the Tories who so openly and publicly blew up Johnson to give him their confidence. That's all. Will look great on a leaflet apparently.
They wouldn't be. They would be giving confidence to the governing party.
Nope. Every leaflet will have the MP and all the quotes where they have supported the crook.
So it's nothing more than playing party politics?
Never understand that point. What else are political parties supposed to play?
If you believe them, they're supposed to think about the good of the country...
Is the feeling beginning to develop that we might see a surprise Kemi victory??
I think Mordaunt wins if she makes the last 2, if she doesn't then Badenoch may do so.
There is no real enthusiasm for Sunak or Truss in the party that I can see.
The key is Truss. If she unites the “Stop Rishi” front she will be in the final 2. If she doesn’t, then Penny (more likely) or Kemi (less likely) have the opportunity to get a look in.
I see likelihood of final rounds being Rishi v Truss, Rishi v Penny and Rishi v Kemi, in that order. An outside chance of Truss v Penny, but only if Rishi implodes.
Assuming he does win the vote (which he won't), how does it actually achieve his aim of getting a new PM more quickly?
In the same way that Callaghan remained as PM after he lost the VONC in 1979, Johnson would remain as PM.
The process to elect a new leader of the Conservative Party is already underway and any general election, the timing of which would still be set by the current administration and so would see a polling date set for later in September.
So nothing in his cunning plan would achieve the result he seeks. Who is advising Starmer???
He wants all the Tories who so openly and publicly blew up Johnson to give him their confidence. That's all. Will look great on a leaflet apparently.
They wouldn't be. They would be giving confidence to the governing party.
Nope. Every leaflet will have the MP and all the quotes where they have supported the crook.
So it's nothing more than playing party politics?
I am shocked, shocked, to discover politics going on in the Houses of Parliament.
Tis a bit of a bombshell after the last few years of high minded principle and nonpartisan playing by the book.
Nicola Sturgeon’s request for the UK’s highest court to give her clarity on the legality of her planned Scottish independence referendum should be rejected, the UK Government has said.
In its initial submission to the Supreme Court, which has been asked to decide the issue, its lawyers argue that the case should be thrown out as premature.
They believe that the decision on the legality of the proposed legislation cannot be made until after it is introduced, scrutinised and passed at Holyrood.
What has the UK government got to fear? Let the legal experts clear that one up seems okay, it will likely take them best part of 15 years.
I raised this at the time she said she was doing this. In the case about the UN Convention on the rights of the Child the SC unanimously explained the procedure set out in the Scotland Act. There are a number of sequential safeguards. The first of these is that the bill should be signed off by the law officers. The Lord Advocate has refused to do that. The second is that it is put before the Presiding Officer who is supposed to certify it as competent. This has not been done. Thirdly, the bill is scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament. That may, of course, change its nature. Finally, once there is a determined bill, the matter may be remitted to the SC for a ruling.
Nicola has tried to short circuit this because her own Lord Advocate has reservations as to its competency. That would not be in accordance with the Act. Courts generally refuse to answer hypothetical questions. We do not know what the final version of this bill will look like. I suspect the SC will refuse to give a ruling at this stage.
Indeed. Is it the case that the legal thinking for not answering such hypotheticals is that gets too near the political line? - that judging the legality of a piece of actual legislation in respect to the body of law is one thing, but pronouncing areas of potential legislation legal or illegal would be pre-empting the politicians?
In a word, yes. The court is not there to give advice. It is there to give answers to clear, specific, concrete questions.
True, but not reviewing it implicitly leaves Sturgeon free to legislate for her "advisory" referendum.
And on the grounds that people need to get to the capital, it's more normal for the capital to be somewhere central, rather than tucked away right down in the bottom corner.
Really? If anything, it seems more normal for a capital to be tucked into one corner of the country, not least because capitals were often initially chosen for water connectivity and/or countries went out and acquired vast swathes of territory after picking them. Berlin, Copenhagen, Vienna, the Hague, Lisbon, Bern, Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki, Athens, Bucharest, Sofia, Moscow (and of course St Petersburg originally), Ottawa, Washington DC, Havana, New Delhi, Beijing, Buenos Aires, Baku, Damascus, Kabul, Tunis, Algiers...
Hah yes. Good list
Moreover, the capitals that are more geographically central are often deeply unpopular, sometimes because they are contrived
Washington DC manages to be both. Stuck out on one edge of the country and deeply unpopular because it is contrived.
Anti capital city that isn't large enough to be a major city in its own right will struggle. Manchester is probably big enough to be okay, but making somewhere like York the capital would ruin the place.
Comments
*Well, in its own terms - if it won’t do the sensible thing and just recognise the legitimacy of the request for another referendum.
Kemi is the “they’ve gone nuts” option. The wildcard option. Some might even say the irresponsible option, given her lack of experience. Personally, I think she needs more experience, I think at the moment she is too green.
But there has to be a chance that she could do it. It’s a small chance, but there is the tantalising grain of something exciting building around her, and you never know where momentum might lead….
Nor will bald Saj "The Jav"
He would have been far better to have a big opposition debate on the cost of living setting out his positive steps for change
But then he would need real policies
Aitäh
The threat to Labour is simple. She is far more confident, articulate and sane that so many of the various prominent BAME equivalents are in Labour. A black woman who is a successful migrant saying lets cut the crap and focus on people's priorities goes way beyond what Labour can offer.
In particular the ones with handles.
Our current problem is a lack of productivity - one source of productivity comes from world class knowledge which allows us to do things better than others.
I wouldn't expect her to have no policy on the environment other than scrapping net zero
A curious tactic in the internet age, where spin and media relations is all pervasive. But possibly another reason why people are finding her refreshing.
Tories will argue that it makes sense not to have a change of leader, or election, while the campaign is going on, but it's an easy win for Labour if they can present it as a simple vote on Boris.
Clearly it would be daft for any Tory to vote to bring down the govt., but Labour will no doubt have plenty of facebook ads ready with Sunak, Truss and the rest voting "to Keep Boris in Number 10".
I'm warming to KB need to do some more research.
Not that I have a vote (in the leadership election, albeit I have one in the GE).
I considered the White House and the Capitol but they are neither artistically impressive nor technological achievements. Whereas the Houses of Parliament are both - people forget these structures were great engineering feats of their time
I wonder what would be the cost of preservation if it were empty, and Parliament moved elsewhere ?
I would guess you could easily halve that £22bn, even allowing for creating a modern replacement. (which would also be far cheaper to run and easier to work in).
Are people's priorities sacking all teaching assistants and banning unisex toilets?
The only thing that seems to be showing up at the mo is Russian ammo dumps being destroyed.
Is it because she’s a woman she’s “inexperienced”, or because she isn’t Public School / Oxford educated?
TOMMY TUGENDHAT on the drift.
Red Wall Voting Intention (11 July):
Labour 46% (–)
Conservative 32% (-3)
Reform UK 7% (+4)
Liberal Democrat 10% (+2)
Green 4% (–)
Plaid Cymru 0% (-1)
Other 1% (-1)
Changes +/- 26-27 June
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-red-wall-voting-intention-11-july-2022 https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1546841838904041472/photo/1
So, as someone who wouldn't vote for a Kemi led Tory party, I'm all in favour of that policy being implemented anytime before the next General Election - as within weeks all parents will be complaining about the consequences.
How we yearn for those simpler days…
In fact, there is a great little scene in 'Coalition', the 2015 TV movie about the 2010 election. Mark Gatiss as Peter Mandelson turns to Ian Grieve as Gordon Brown and says, "Don't worry about him. All he has is brill cream and a smile."
Could say very much the same about Sunak.
Of course, Cameron won every election he fought.... he just wasn't quite so good at referendums....
Link if you want: https://youtu.be/5ep6TUfprGc?t=118
Moreover, the capitals that are more geographically central are often deeply unpopular, sometimes because they are contrived
Brasília, Naypyidaw, Madrid, Nur-Sultan, Canberra…
In other words, as per usual. (Not unknown among non-Tories, so I've heard.)
Climate scepticism is, sadly, the latest culture war import from the Anglosphere which we’d seemed to manage to avoid until now.
It was a top target in 2017, but the only time I saw any real campaigning, it was about a dozen 20somethings who I spotted getting out of a minibus, and looking very out of place.
It’s currently a party in government without a map, and trying to draw one on the hoof.
I get the need to be an opposition. But this is just petty posturing and a waste of time.if I were the Tory whips, I would tell members not to make speeches or interventions other than the official responses and let the opposition just vent for a few hours. Then the vote isn't carried and life continues for the final few days before the recess
The biggest problem that the government will have with mass WFH work is that it will make a lot of public sector jobs a lot less attractive.
If she gets the gig now, she’ll be badly advised and end up campaigning on some updated equivalent of “four weeks to save the £”, and sink from the history books almost without trace.
It has nothing to do with her gender or education.
Don't solve the problem. If people can't afford to live in London they could afford elsewhere. Nobody has a 'right' to live in London.
The Government shouldn't be in the business of paying people's rent, varying upon where they live.
For a few million they could literally rebuild the green benches inside, if that’s what they want
The Callaghan VONC did indeed trigger a General Election, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_vote_of_no_confidence_in_the_Callaghan_ministry
Does London's hub location for rail and air out balance it's non central location.
Plenty would find Birmingham barely better, it would be bad for numerous far southern MPs, for Highland MPs, even for many Northern MPs XC Vs LNER doesn't give the benefit that cutting 100 miles befits.
There is no real enthusiasm for Sunak or Truss in the party that I can see.
You want to cry? When the remake of the Italian Job was made in 2003, some of the minis were converted to electric drive (fumes in tunnels issue), by the custom auto-electrifiers in LA. The resulting cars had astonishing performance and fair bit of range - being custom, they cost a lot. The makers of the Mini were offered a chance to look at the result - they refused on the grounds that electric cars weren't interesting....
The gliders fro the original Tesla Roadsters were made by Lotus. When it was suggested, internally, that Lotus launch it's own electric sports car using the knowledge gained the people who suggested it were asked to leave the company. Now, https://www.lotuscars.com/en-GB/evija/
What else are political parties supposed to play?
Place looked OK from outside, but behind the exterior - JFC! Result of over a century of maintenance deferred ad infinitum.
Legislature did NOT do a damn. UNTIL the Nisqually Earthquake nearly knocked the dome off, forcing the powers-that-be to finally get their finger out.
Wonder IF you Brits will be that lucky?
Although the Eiffel Tower isn't really a building either, being pedantic.
The sums being bruited about in terms of revamping the Houses of P are so insane £100m seems like peanuts
Like you I find them hard to believe, and I am sure it would be cheaper if they just moved everyone out for 10 years
@DPJHodges
Understand from Truss camp that "almost half" of Shapps supporters have moved across to them. (He had 8 declared).
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1546843261020606465
That's completely different from being catapulted into the PM position from a minor role whilst the party is in government.
I see likelihood of final rounds being Rishi v Truss, Rishi v Penny and Rishi v Kemi, in that order. An outside chance of Truss v Penny, but only if Rishi implodes.
3.25 Penny Mordaunt 30%
4.4 Liz Truss 22%
15 Kemi Badenoch 6%
26 Tom Tugendhat
100 Jeremy Hunt
120 Sajid Javid
140 Suella Braverman
200 Nadhim Zahawi
260 Dominic Raab
Anti capital city that isn't large enough to be a major city in its own right will struggle. Manchester is probably big enough to be okay, but making somewhere like York the capital would ruin the place.