Started reading "the email" but got bored of it halfway through.
Just seems to be an amalgamation of catty links that were all already in the public domain with some bitchy comments attached. Skimmed to the end and again link after link all in the public domain already.
Seems to be something anyone could have written without knowing anything original or anyone involved or having anything to say.
I did wonder if the person behind it had written two drafts, one supporting the Union and one pushing for a split and held off publishing to the last minute.
What union? The UK? RMU? Tolpuddle Farm Workers'? English-Speaking Union? I didn't spot that.
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
Despite the "devastating blow to the UK economy" we have full employment.
We also have the best correction in house prices for over a decade and first time buyers making an increasing proportion of mortgage applications which is what happens when house prices fall - as their savings equal a bigger deposit and so a smaller LTV needed, and they're no longer getting outbid by people using their inflated equity in an existing house to fund their deposit instead.
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
It isn't the 'ERG Right Wing Path' that the Tories might go down, its absolutely necessary that they do. Statist Blairism doesn't work - that it what we have at the moment. We need radical approaches to reducing the costs of the nation.
Cutting the state (and then taxes) is absolutely imperative. This will cause lots of whinging from comfortably off do-gooders who want their pet projects protected (much like Brexit did). But it has to happen.
It will either be forced as part of an IMF bailout, or voluntary under a proper Conservative Govt.
A nightmare on Downing Street!
Your idealogical panacea of no state intervention means the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That ultimately results in totalitarian of one form or another, either by revolution or by counter-revolution.
Why can't we just try to make the mixed economy work for all of us?
No state intervention? What are you talking about. Cutting the state and allowing the private sector to grow is the solution.
The state is bigger than ever, the countryis broke with creditors demanding ever high premiums on loans, and we're likely heading for recession. How is that mixed economy working out for you?!
It would appear that Osborne has 'something of the shite' about him. That will not shock anyone.
@Peck, I am not sure how easy it is to repackage and relaunch Sunak. The most decisive 're-launch' would be to jettison Hunt and 'go for growth' with a new COE, but firstly, Hunt may not appreciate being dispatched to the back benches with the ills of the Sunak's managed decline policy being hung around his neck, and secondly, would anyone buy that? Bit like Truss sacking Kwarteng and installing Hunt - not a particularly effective relaunch of her Government.
I don't think it can be done without massive personnel change.
Started reading "the email" but got bored of it halfway through.
Just seems to be an amalgamation of catty links that were all already in the public domain with some bitchy comments attached. Skimmed to the end and again link after link all in the public domain already.
Seems to be something anyone could have written without knowing anything original or anyone involved or having anything to say.
The only thing I could derive from is was it was put together by someone with a deep personal animus towards Osborne. It would have been not a small task to put together all those links and I wonder who could really have been bothered. It's extremely interesting if you know Osborne personally or have a penchant for gossip, but other than that...
Yeah, personal not political. And feels like ages since Osborne actually chancellor regardless.
We often talk about new builds and building standards on here. I came across this on my morning run - and it's not the only one. This brickwork is probably going to be rendered over, but even so, using different styles of bricks like this is an absolute abomination.
Yes, there was a triple lock on the post Brexit deal- it had to have majority support in the Commons, the Conservative Party and the EU. And with the 2017 parliament, that turned out to be a Venn diagram with no intersection.
The Brexit Brexiteers expected, the Brexit voters voted for and the Brexit we got is still a Venn diagram with no intersection.
Only when we abandon Brexit can the Nation come together.
In a poll posted by yourself yesterday
For joining was 29%
Against was 24%
But the clear winner with 31% was most likely to vote for a party that prioritises other issues first
You dream is not going to happen even on your own poll
Standard MOE makes 29 indistinguishable from 31, doesn't it?
And more generally, you're making the same mistake as our friend from Essex, assuming that something that's true at one moment is true always.
Either Brexit makes people's lives better, or it does. Not tomorrow, not in the next parliament.
Started reading "the email" but got bored of it halfway through.
Just seems to be an amalgamation of catty links that were all already in the public domain with some bitchy comments attached. Skimmed to the end and again link after link all in the public domain already.
Seems to be something anyone could have written without knowing anything original or anyone involved or having anything to say.
Yawn away, no doubt you have seen it all before and it's terribly tedious (although not sufficiently so for you to desist from publishing your thoughts about it) - but it's how you put stuff together that counts, and how you time what you do with it. They weren't competing for an academic essay prize, or for an emotional calmness medal.
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
Despite the "devastating blow to the UK economy" we have full employment.
It is increasingly a divided society of winners and losers with little in between. And not just divided by £££ incomes but also age and place.
Increasing? Its been like that for decades now.
Actually that gap may be starting to narrow, despite not because of the actions of the Prime Minister in my eyes, and so the winners of the past couple of decades are now increasingly complaining as they find 'inflation' going into costs they have to pay rather than just their so-called 'assets', which of course are costs others have to pay.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
The next election will either be 1997, 2010 or if the Tories are really lucky 1992. One thing it will certainly not be is 2019 again.
Sunak, an ex Goldman Sachs banker with an Oxford 1st is also bright on any definition
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
10 May 1940 ?
{the Air Ministry, and certain aircraft manufacturers have entered the chat}
Not to mention tank manufacturers.
The tank design fuckups were a combination of poor design and specifications that were all over the place.
The aircraft industry was definitely being manipulated in terms of the Air Ministry favouring certain manufacturers. The reasons for this are complex and mostly lost.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
I really don't think "Rwanda" is going to pull the Tories nuts out of the fire. All it does is remind voters of another failed soundbite policy of the government that didn't work.
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
Despite the "devastating blow to the UK economy" we have full employment.
We also have the best correction in house prices for over a decade and first time buyers making an increasing proportion of mortgage applications which is what happens when house prices fall - as their savings equal a bigger deposit and so a smaller LTV needed, and they're no longer getting outbid by people using their inflated equity in an existing house to fund their deposit instead.
I wonder what those who say we are in an economic crisis now would consider the early 1980's when there was no work at all, people left school and went on the dole for years.
I would love to think that in 2016-2019 a reasonable Brexit approach was possible. The divisions in the HoC suggest that there was no decent approach that would have commanded a majority whatever anyone did.
We got very close at a few brief times. Allowing the cabinet to vote rather than forced abstentions was likely enough in the indicative votes for example.
I felt at the time and still think now that we might have got an outcome more reflective of what most people could live with if the HoC had used a sensible voting process for "we need to do one of these N possible things, which is least worst/is somewhat acceptable to the most MPs" rather than having a series of yes/no votes that encourage everybody to vote no to anything that's not their one ideal unicorn. But all the institutional processes were completely unfit for purpose -- they only work at all most of the time because the government can whip its majority through the lobby and so the actual voting part of the commons is not where the real decisionmaking happens.
Yes, there was a triple lock on the post Brexit deal- it had to have majority support in the Commons, the Conservative Party and the EU. And with the 2017 parliament, that turned out to be a Venn diagram with no intersection.
The Brexit Brexiteers expected, the Brexit voters voted for and the Brexit we got is still a Venn diagram with no intersection.
Only when we abandon Brexit can the Nation come together.
In a poll posted by yourself yesterday
For joining was 29%
Against was 24%
But the clear winner with 31% was most likely to vote for a party that prioritises other issues first
You dream is not going to happen even on your own poll
Standard MOE makes 29 indistinguishable from 31, doesn't it?
And more generally, you're making the same mistake as our friend from Essex, assuming that something that's true at one moment is true always.
Either Brexit makes people's lives better, or it does. Not tomorrow, not in the next parliament.
But bad policies get reversed.
29% for rejoining is not a base to expect it will come about anytime soon
We often talk about new builds and building standards on here. I came across this on my morning run - and it's not the only one. This brickwork is probably going to be rendered over, but even so, using different styles of bricks like this is an absolute abomination.
Haven't seen anything like that since I was about 6, done in Lego by a younger child. And I can still remember all those years later how disgusted I was.
Started reading "the email" but got bored of it halfway through.
Just seems to be an amalgamation of catty links that were all already in the public domain with some bitchy comments attached. Skimmed to the end and again link after link all in the public domain already.
Seems to be something anyone could have written without knowing anything original or anyone involved or having anything to say.
I did wonder if the person behind it had written two drafts, one supporting the Union and one pushing for a split and held off publishing to the last minute.
What union? The UK? RMU? Tolpuddle Farm Workers'? English-Speaking Union? I didn't spot that.
It was a poor attempt at humour, sorry, Union as in wedding and the EU.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
The next election will either be 1997, 2010 or if the Tories are really lucky 1992. One thing it will certainly mot be is 2019 again.
Sunak, an ex Goldman Sachs banker with an Oxford 1st is also bright on any definition
The next election will likely be a lot like 2024, or 2023 or 2025 at the outside.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
I disagree with that. She could have gone for a more reasonable Brexit approach but instead she sought to out-loon the loons. She never actually understood Brexit or its drivers and instead went for some cartoon version that no body was actually looking for.
Mrs May wasn't the most skilled or persuasive of politicians but I cut her some slack on Brexit. She was in a tough to impossible place after losing the Con majority in the election she foolishly called. And she'd have been deposed by the Party if she hadn't rejected Free Movement (and therefore SM membership).
She either believed in it and should therefore be judged accordingly, or she didn't believe in it but did it anyway to stay in power, and should be judged accordingly.
In my mind there's not a lot of slack to be cut for the Conservatives of that era, and I'm not wasting an inch of it on that wretch.
Bit binary, that, for me.
She disgraced herself as Home Sec, then went on to lead a government whose principle policy she knew was wrong. Along the way she paved the way for Boris to come to power.
These days some people want to rehabilitate as a victim of Boris and hapless holder of a poisoned chalice. But she had agency, and she was amoral and self-serving. Fuck her.
No, I'm not a fan to put it at its mildest. But I don't think people always either believe in something or not. That's what I meant by 'bit binary for me'. 100% agree with you about this Tory Party - they're political criminals - but just on the specific single topic of trying to get a Brexit deal done post GE17 I have some time for Mrs May.
Started reading "the email" but got bored of it halfway through.
Just seems to be an amalgamation of catty links that were all already in the public domain with some bitchy comments attached. Skimmed to the end and again link after link all in the public domain already.
Seems to be something anyone could have written without knowing anything original or anyone involved or having anything to say.
I did wonder if the person behind it had written two drafts, one supporting the Union and one pushing for a split and held off publishing to the last minute.
What union? The UK? RMU? Tolpuddle Farm Workers'? English-Speaking Union? I didn't spot that.
It was a poor attempt at humour, sorry, Union as in wedding and the EU.
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
It isn't the 'ERG Right Wing Path' that the Tories might go down, its absolutely necessary that they do. Statist Blairism doesn't work - that it what we have at the moment. We need radical approaches to reducing the costs of the nation.
Cutting the state (and then taxes) is absolutely imperative. This will cause lots of whinging from comfortably off do-gooders who want their pet projects protected (much like Brexit did). But it has to happen.
It will either be forced as part of an IMF bailout, or voluntary under a proper Conservative Govt.
A nightmare on Downing Street!
Your idealogical panacea of no state intervention means the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That ultimately results in totalitarian of one form or another, either by revolution or by counter-revolution.
Why can't we just try to make the mixed economy work for all of us?
No state intervention? What are you talking about. Cutting the state and allowing the private sector to grow is the solution.
The state is bigger than ever, the countryis broke with creditors demanding ever high premiums on loans, and we're likely heading for recession. How is that mixed economy working out for you?!
This argument, while excellent in principle, does require the location of, let us say, £200bn of public expenditure cuts. That's about the size of the NHS.
At the moment I cannot identify a single area of state managed expenditure which is not crying out for substantial additional expenditure. (Can anyone?)
So the challenge is to locate that £200bn with reasonable accuracy, and of course to get it through the HoC and win the next election.
Answers on a postcard to 11 Downing St. Jeremy Hunt wants to know
Yes, there was a triple lock on the post Brexit deal- it had to have majority support in the Commons, the Conservative Party and the EU. And with the 2017 parliament, that turned out to be a Venn diagram with no intersection.
The Brexit Brexiteers expected, the Brexit voters voted for and the Brexit we got is still a Venn diagram with no intersection.
Only when we abandon Brexit can the Nation come together.
The Brexit that Brexiteers expected is a Venn Diagram that has an intersection and that intersection has been achieved.
Lets look at the 5 pledges of what Vote Leave promised and see if we put it into a Venn Diagram whether its been achieved or not.
1. Take back control of our money 2. Take back control of our borders 3. We can control immigration 4. Free to sign trade deals 5. Can make our own laws
And what do we have.
Control of money? ✔ Control of borders? ✔ Control of migration? ✔ Can sign trade deals? ✔ Can make our own laws? ✔
Full Venn diagram intersection. Its only your own bullshit you're projecting that lacks an intersection.
I would love to think that in 2016-2019 a reasonable Brexit approach was possible. The divisions in the HoC suggest that there was no decent approach that would have commanded a majority whatever anyone did.
We got very close at a few brief times. Allowing the cabinet to vote rather than forced abstentions was likely enough in the indicative votes for example.
I felt at the time and still think now that we might have got an outcome more reflective of what most people could live with if the HoC had used a sensible voting process for "we need to do one of these N possible things, which is least worst/is somewhat acceptable to the most MPs" rather than having a series of yes/no votes that encourage everybody to vote no to anything that's not their one ideal unicorn. But all the institutional processes were completely unfit for purpose -- they only work at all most of the time because the government can whip its majority through the lobby and so the actual voting part of the commons is not where the real decisionmaking happens.
On a similar theme I think the correct second referendum should have been:
A. Accept Mays Deal B. Go back to negotiation table for another 12 months
Pretty sure A would have won, and it would have given it legitimacy.
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
Despite the "devastating blow to the UK economy" we have full employment.
We also have the best correction in house prices for over a decade and first time buyers making an increasing proportion of mortgage applications which is what happens when house prices fall - as their savings equal a bigger deposit and so a smaller LTV needed, and they're no longer getting outbid by people using their inflated equity in an existing house to fund their deposit instead.
I wonder what those who say we are in an economic crisis now would consider the early 1980's when there was no work at all, people left school and went on the dole for years.
The problem today is not so much that the unemployed can't afford to live in a state of at least basic comfort. Neither can the employed. Now you may claim if people overstretched themselves that is their problem not the Government's. They might not see it like that.
I would love to think that in 2016-2019 a reasonable Brexit approach was possible. The divisions in the HoC suggest that there was no decent approach that would have commanded a majority whatever anyone did.
We got very close at a few brief times. Allowing the cabinet to vote rather than forced abstentions was likely enough in the indicative votes for example.
I felt at the time and still think now that we might have got an outcome more reflective of what most people could live with if the HoC had used a sensible voting process for "we need to do one of these N possible things, which is least worst/is somewhat acceptable to the most MPs" rather than having a series of yes/no votes that encourage everybody to vote no to anything that's not their one ideal unicorn. But all the institutional processes were completely unfit for purpose -- they only work at all most of the time because the government can whip its majority through the lobby and so the actual voting part of the commons is not where the real decisionmaking happens.
On a similar theme I think the correct second referendum should have been:
A. Accept Mays Deal B. Go back to negotiation table for another 12 months
Pretty sure A would have won, and it would have given it legitimacy.
A referendum bill would have needed to get through the HoC first. Doubtful.
Yes, there was a triple lock on the post Brexit deal- it had to have majority support in the Commons, the Conservative Party and the EU. And with the 2017 parliament, that turned out to be a Venn diagram with no intersection.
The Brexit Brexiteers expected, the Brexit voters voted for and the Brexit we got is still a Venn diagram with no intersection.
Only when we abandon Brexit can the Nation come together.
The Brexit that Brexiteers expected is a Venn Diagram that has an intersection and that intersection has been achieved.
Lets look at the 5 pledges of what Vote Leave promised and see if we put it into a Venn Diagram whether its been achieved or not.
1. Take back control of our money 2. Take back control of our borders 3. We can control immigration 4. Free to sign trade deals 5. Can make our own laws
And what do we have.
Control of money? ✔ Control of borders? ✔ Control of migration? ✔ Can sign trade deals? ✔ Can make our own laws? ✔
Full Venn diagram intersection. Its only your own bullshit you're projecting that lacks an intersection.
I would love to think that in 2016-2019 a reasonable Brexit approach was possible. The divisions in the HoC suggest that there was no decent approach that would have commanded a majority whatever anyone did.
We got very close at a few brief times. Allowing the cabinet to vote rather than forced abstentions was likely enough in the indicative votes for example.
I felt at the time and still think now that we might have got an outcome more reflective of what most people could live with if the HoC had used a sensible voting process for "we need to do one of these N possible things, which is least worst/is somewhat acceptable to the most MPs" rather than having a series of yes/no votes that encourage everybody to vote no to anything that's not their one ideal unicorn. But all the institutional processes were completely unfit for purpose -- they only work at all most of the time because the government can whip its majority through the lobby and so the actual voting part of the commons is not where the real decisionmaking happens.
On a similar theme I think the correct second referendum should have been:
A. Accept Mays Deal B. Go back to negotiation table for another 12 months
Pretty sure A would have won, and it would have given it legitimacy.
And if B had won, in what direction should the negotiations have proceeded? Closer ties with the EU, or looser?
Started reading "the email" but got bored of it halfway through.
Just seems to be an amalgamation of catty links that were all already in the public domain with some bitchy comments attached. Skimmed to the end and again link after link all in the public domain already.
Seems to be something anyone could have written without knowing anything original or anyone involved or having anything to say.
Yawn away, no doubt you have seen it all before and it's terribly tedious (although not sufficiently so for you to desist from publishing your thoughts about it) - but it's how you put stuff together that counts, and how you time what you do with it. They weren't competing for an academic essay prize, or for an emotional calmness medal.
No, I've not seen any of it before since I don't read Daily Mail gossip or any other bullshit like that. So every single bit of it was new to me.
And not at all interesting, since I couldn't care less about Daily Mail gossip and other bullshit like that. Which is why I don't read it in the first place.
Started reading "the email" but got bored of it halfway through.
Just seems to be an amalgamation of catty links that were all already in the public domain with some bitchy comments attached. Skimmed to the end and again link after link all in the public domain already.
Seems to be something anyone could have written without knowing anything original or anyone involved or having anything to say.
The only thing I could derive from is was it was put together by someone with a deep personal animus towards Osborne. It would have been not a small task to put together all those links and I wonder who could really have been bothered. It's extremely interesting if you know Osborne personally or have a penchant for gossip, but other than that...
Pretty much. I doubt it comes from the encrusted keyboard of B. Johnson, as has been suggested - I credit him with being able to write reasonably well; the anonymous grass here is reaching a bit with their style.
I would love to think that in 2016-2019 a reasonable Brexit approach was possible. The divisions in the HoC suggest that there was no decent approach that would have commanded a majority whatever anyone did.
We got very close at a few brief times. Allowing the cabinet to vote rather than forced abstentions was likely enough in the indicative votes for example.
I felt at the time and still think now that we might have got an outcome more reflective of what most people could live with if the HoC had used a sensible voting process for "we need to do one of these N possible things, which is least worst/is somewhat acceptable to the most MPs" rather than having a series of yes/no votes that encourage everybody to vote no to anything that's not their one ideal unicorn. But all the institutional processes were completely unfit for purpose -- they only work at all most of the time because the government can whip its majority through the lobby and so the actual voting part of the commons is not where the real decisionmaking happens.
On a similar theme I think the correct second referendum should have been:
A. Accept Mays Deal B. Go back to negotiation table for another 12 months
Pretty sure A would have won, and it would have given it legitimacy.
A, which put us in a position where we could not actually leave without permission? That deal?
FWIW I think the Tories will lose all the by-elections. They are an utter shambles.
In more important news, the Post Office - their senior management - need to be sacked without any compensation and various other vengeances applied to them. They are beyond a disgrace, rivalling the Met for incompetence, bad faith, mulish obstinacy, disregard for the law and any standards of common decency.
Two months ago one of the key witnesses from Fujitsu, Gareth Jenkins, was due to give evidence. His appearance was delayed because of delays in disclosure. He was due to appear yesterday and at ca. 10 pm the night before the Post Office revealed that it had still not given full disclosure of key documents which had been asked for months beforehand and that it had suddenly found about 47,000 of them.47,000! So yet another delay, yet another example of the Post Office's utter failure to comply with its legal obligations or take this inquiry seriously. The judge is pissed off of course. Though he should be raging with fury at this.
And every day that the Business Secretary does fuck all about this is another day proving that she's not fit to be in her position let alone leader of her party or PM.
We often talk about new builds and building standards on here. I came across this on my morning run - and it's not the only one. This brickwork is probably going to be rendered over, but even so, using different styles of bricks like this is an absolute abomination.
You can't move, nor indeed build a house without it needing to be in the vernacular so it is possible that the planners have decided that it fits in with the local style. It is a pastiche and it's amazing sometimes what the planners think or are allowed to permit.
Or as you say it will be plastered over with pebbledash...
Yes, there was a triple lock on the post Brexit deal- it had to have majority support in the Commons, the Conservative Party and the EU. And with the 2017 parliament, that turned out to be a Venn diagram with no intersection.
The Brexit Brexiteers expected, the Brexit voters voted for and the Brexit we got is still a Venn diagram with no intersection.
Only when we abandon Brexit can the Nation come together.
The Brexit that Brexiteers expected is a Venn Diagram that has an intersection and that intersection has been achieved.
Lets look at the 5 pledges of what Vote Leave promised and see if we put it into a Venn Diagram whether its been achieved or not.
1. Take back control of our money 2. Take back control of our borders 3. We can control immigration 4. Free to sign trade deals 5. Can make our own laws
And what do we have.
Control of money? ✔ Control of borders? ✔ Control of migration? ✔ Can sign trade deals? ✔ Can make our own laws? ✔
Full Venn diagram intersection. Its only your own bullshit you're projecting that lacks an intersection.
I have now read the Osborne email and I thought it was poorly written. Therefore, if I had to place a bet on the author I would go for his ex-wife as I read one of her books and thought it was badly written.
We often talk about new builds and building standards on here. I came across this on my morning run - and it's not the only one. This brickwork is probably going to be rendered over, but even so, using different styles of bricks like this is an absolute abomination.
You can't move, nor indeed build a house without it needing to be in the vernacular so it is possible that the planners have decided that it fits in with the local style. It is a pastiche and it's amazing sometimes what the planners think or are allowed to permit.
Or as you say it will be plastered over with pebbledash...
Its clearly getting rendered, see the house extreme left for an example.
We often talk about new builds and building standards on here. I came across this on my morning run - and it's not the only one. This brickwork is probably going to be rendered over, but even so, using different styles of bricks like this is an absolute abomination.
Haven't seen anything like that since I was about 6, done in Lego by a younger child. And I can still remember all those years later how disgusted I was.
There are, I reckon, three different styles of brick used in that. They've just taken whatever pallet of bricks they had laying about and built them. The building next door is in a similar state.
Yes, it's going to be rendered over (I assume; I've seen similar abominations rendered over), but it's just a crass lack of care and attention. You can bet they're cutting similar corners in other places the buyer cannot see.
We often talk about new builds and building standards on here. I came across this on my morning run - and it's not the only one. This brickwork is probably going to be rendered over, but even so, using different styles of bricks like this is an absolute abomination.
The side elevation looks a bit like an attempt at dazzle camouflage.
Yes, there was a triple lock on the post Brexit deal- it had to have majority support in the Commons, the Conservative Party and the EU. And with the 2017 parliament, that turned out to be a Venn diagram with no intersection.
The Brexit Brexiteers expected, the Brexit voters voted for and the Brexit we got is still a Venn diagram with no intersection.
Only when we abandon Brexit can the Nation come together.
The Brexit that Brexiteers expected is a Venn Diagram that has an intersection and that intersection has been achieved.
Lets look at the 5 pledges of what Vote Leave promised and see if we put it into a Venn Diagram whether its been achieved or not.
1. Take back control of our money 2. Take back control of our borders 3. We can control immigration 4. Free to sign trade deals 5. Can make our own laws
And what do we have.
Control of money? ✔ Control of borders? ✔ Control of migration? ✔ Can sign trade deals? ✔ Can make our own laws? ✔
Full Venn diagram intersection. Its only your own bullshit you're projecting that lacks an intersection.
While true in a sense, this misunderstands the nature of politics. The idea of pledges is to distil complex stuff into a few words. It leaves out all the stuff about achieving it without blowing up the planet or putting 20,000,000 children into slavery.
North Korea fulfils the Vote Leave 5 pledges as listed here. But before we send UKIP members and Boris to live there there are other considerations.
We often talk about new builds and building standards on here. I came across this on my morning run - and it's not the only one. This brickwork is probably going to be rendered over, but even so, using different styles of bricks like this is an absolute abomination.
Haven't seen anything like that since I was about 6, done in Lego by a younger child. And I can still remember all those years later how disgusted I was.
Which is why you failed in life, instead founding a major house building organisation.
Started reading "the email" but got bored of it halfway through.
Just seems to be an amalgamation of catty links that were all already in the public domain with some bitchy comments attached. Skimmed to the end and again link after link all in the public domain already.
Seems to be something anyone could have written without knowing anything original or anyone involved or having anything to say.
I did wonder if the person behind it had written two drafts, one supporting the Union and one pushing for a split and held off publishing to the last minute.
What union? The UK? RMU? Tolpuddle Farm Workers'? English-Speaking Union? I didn't spot that.
It was a poor attempt at humour, sorry, Union as in wedding and the EU.
THanks - was wondering what subtlety you had spotted that I had missed!
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
I really don't think "Rwanda" is going to pull the Tories nuts out of the fire. All it does is remind voters of another failed soundbite policy of the government that didn't work.
If there isn’t an actual daily flight to Rwanda, full of boat arrivals, by the time of the election, then the policy is going to be seen as a failure by the electorate.
"Professor Lesley Sawers, the 64-year-old Equalities and Human Rights Commissioner for Scotland, has been with RBS for 32 years but two weeks ago, she and her husband Allan McKechnie were told it would be shut next month."
Yes, there was a triple lock on the post Brexit deal- it had to have majority support in the Commons, the Conservative Party and the EU. And with the 2017 parliament, that turned out to be a Venn diagram with no intersection.
The Brexit Brexiteers expected, the Brexit voters voted for and the Brexit we got is still a Venn diagram with no intersection.
Only when we abandon Brexit can the Nation come together.
The Brexit that Brexiteers expected is a Venn Diagram that has an intersection and that intersection has been achieved.
Lets look at the 5 pledges of what Vote Leave promised and see if we put it into a Venn Diagram whether its been achieved or not.
1. Take back control of our money 2. Take back control of our borders 3. We can control immigration 4. Free to sign trade deals 5. Can make our own laws
And what do we have.
Control of money? ✔ Control of borders? ✔ Control of migration? ✔ Can sign trade deals? ✔ Can make our own laws? ✔
Full Venn diagram intersection. Its only your own bullshit you're projecting that lacks an intersection.
While true in a sense, this misunderstands the nature of politics. The idea of pledges is to distil complex stuff into a few words. It leaves out all the stuff about achieving it without blowing up the planet or putting 20,000,000 children into slavery.
North Korea fulfils the Vote Leave 5 pledges as listed here. But before we send UKIP members and Boris to live there there are other considerations.
North Korea does fulfil the Vote Leave 5 pledges, and if we'd ended up as North Korea then the intersection would equally have been met.
Whether that would have been a good thing or not is a totally different matter. The claim was the intersection wasn't met, and that claim is false. Actually Vote Leave's pledges were pretty anodyne and were easy to meet with a simple trade deal, which is what we have, so has been met in full. Whether you wanted that is a different issue and was one to be debated in 2016 when we had the referendum in the first place, or for future elections to debate if you want to re-open the issue.
We often talk about new builds and building standards on here. I came across this on my morning run - and it's not the only one. This brickwork is probably going to be rendered over, but even so, using different styles of bricks like this is an absolute abomination.
The side elevation looks a bit like an attempt at dazzle camouflage.
Or modern digital block camoulfage, too, for that matter.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
May had a majority in spring 2017, but what she wanted was a big enough majority in her own party to override the ERG headbanging and deliver a more soft Brexit. Obviously it didn't work out, not least because others wanted to stop Brexit entirely.
She will be remembered as a tragic figure, but at least not a stupid one.
We often talk about new builds and building standards on here. I came across this on my morning run - and it's not the only one. This brickwork is probably going to be rendered over, but even so, using different styles of bricks like this is an absolute abomination.
Haven't seen anything like that since I was about 6, done in Lego by a younger child. And I can still remember all those years later how disgusted I was.
There are, I reckon, three different styles of brick used in that. They've just taken whatever pallet of bricks they had laying about and built them. The building next door is in a similar state.
Yes, it's going to be rendered over (I assume; I've seen similar abominations rendered over), but it's just a crass lack of care and attention. You can bet they're cutting similar corners in other places the buyer cannot see.
The other thing that worries me is if some of the bricks are to inferior specs (eg for garden walls). But IANAE.
I would love to think that in 2016-2019 a reasonable Brexit approach was possible. The divisions in the HoC suggest that there was no decent approach that would have commanded a majority whatever anyone did.
We got very close at a few brief times. Allowing the cabinet to vote rather than forced abstentions was likely enough in the indicative votes for example.
I felt at the time and still think now that we might have got an outcome more reflective of what most people could live with if the HoC had used a sensible voting process for "we need to do one of these N possible things, which is least worst/is somewhat acceptable to the most MPs" rather than having a series of yes/no votes that encourage everybody to vote no to anything that's not their one ideal unicorn. But all the institutional processes were completely unfit for purpose -- they only work at all most of the time because the government can whip its majority through the lobby and so the actual voting part of the commons is not where the real decisionmaking happens.
On a similar theme I think the correct second referendum should have been:
A. Accept Mays Deal B. Go back to negotiation table for another 12 months
Pretty sure A would have won, and it would have given it legitimacy.
A, which put us in a position where we could not actually leave without permission? That deal?
Brexit meant Brexit!
My suggestion was not about whether you or I approve the deal, clearly neither of us does for quite different reasons, but how the government could have proceeded without creating deadlock and the chaos that has followed.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
May had a majority in spring 2017, but what she wanted was a big enough majority in h
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
I really don't think "Rwanda" is going to pull the Tories nuts out of the fire. All it does is remind voters of another failed soundbite policy of the government that didn't work.
If there isn’t an actual daily flight to Rwanda, full of boat arrivals, by the time of the election, then the policy is going to be seen as a failure by the electorate.
Nailed on then, as the policy is limited to 120. Not even half a plane full.
FWIW I think the Tories will lose all the by-elections. They are an utter shambles.
In more important news, the Post Office - their senior management - need to be sacked without any compensation and various other vengeances applied to them. They are beyond a disgrace, rivalling the Met for incompetence, bad faith, mulish obstinacy, disregard for the law and any standards of common decency.
Two months ago one of the key witnesses from Fujitsu, Gareth Jenkins, was due to give evidence. His appearance was delayed because of delays in disclosure. He was due to appear yesterday and at ca. 10 pm the night before the Post Office revealed that it had still not given full disclosure of key documents which had been asked for months beforehand and that it had suddenly found about 47,000 of them.47,000! So yet another delay, yet another example of the Post Office's utter failure to comply with its legal obligations or take this inquiry seriously. The judge is pissed off of course. Though he should be raging with fury at this.
And every day that the Business Secretary does fuck all about this is another day proving that she's not fit to be in her position let alone leader of her party or PM.
The tactics smack of deliberate prevarication. If not, then they should be sacked for incompetence in any event, and a team of investigators sent in.
If it's left to the judge, as it seems it will be, then contempt proceedings ?
I've noticed that tweets are back again without having signed on to twitter (or even being a member in my case). Presumably the protests reached even Musk, particularly with the advent of a potential competitor in nuclear war and the end of the world as we know it or Threads for short.
I would love to think that in 2016-2019 a reasonable Brexit approach was possible. The divisions in the HoC suggest that there was no decent approach that would have commanded a majority whatever anyone did.
We got very close at a few brief times. Allowing the cabinet to vote rather than forced abstentions was likely enough in the indicative votes for example.
I felt at the time and still think now that we might have got an outcome more reflective of what most people could live with if the HoC had used a sensible voting process for "we need to do one of these N possible things, which is least worst/is somewhat acceptable to the most MPs" rather than having a series of yes/no votes that encourage everybody to vote no to anything that's not their one ideal unicorn. But all the institutional processes were completely unfit for purpose -- they only work at all most of the time because the government can whip its majority through the lobby and so the actual voting part of the commons is not where the real decisionmaking happens.
On a similar theme I think the correct second referendum should have been:
A. Accept Mays Deal B. Go back to negotiation table for another 12 months
Pretty sure A would have won, and it would have given it legitimacy.
And if B had won, in what direction should the negotiations have proceeded? Closer ties with the EU, or looser?
Up to the govt. Govts do negotiating with foreign parties. What was missing was clear democratic consent which was hard to obtain for anything in the HoC and given the instruction came from a referendum, a confirmatory referendum (without the option to go backwards) was appropriate.
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
It isn't the 'ERG Right Wing Path' that the Tories might go down, its absolutely necessary that they do. Statist Blairism doesn't work - that it what we have at the moment. We need radical approaches to reducing the costs of the nation.
Cutting the state (and then taxes) is absolutely imperative. This will cause lots of whinging from comfortably off do-gooders who want their pet projects protected (much like Brexit did). But it has to happen.
It will either be forced as part of an IMF bailout, or voluntary under a proper Conservative Govt.
A nightmare on Downing Street!
Your idealogical panacea of no state intervention means the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That ultimately results in totalitarian of one form or another, either by revolution or by counter-revolution.
Why can't we just try to make the mixed economy work for all of us?
No state intervention? What are you talking about. Cutting the state and allowing the private sector to grow is the solution.
The state is bigger than ever, the countryis broke with creditors demanding ever high premiums on loans, and we're likely heading for recession. How is that mixed economy working out for you?!
This argument, while excellent in principle, does require the location of, let us say, £200bn of public expenditure cuts. That's about the size of the NHS.
At the moment I cannot identify a single area of state managed expenditure which is not crying out for substantial additional expenditure. (Can anyone?)
So the challenge is to locate that £200bn with reasonable accuracy, and of course to get it through the HoC and win the next election.
Answers on a postcard to 11 Downing St. Jeremy Hunt wants to know
The state mostly spends money on things that are necessary for the economy and the country to thrive, like public services, infrastructure, security and social insurance. The idea that we just have to slash the state and the economy will grow is just the same old reheated Thatcherism that governments have been following for decades without notable success. The focus should be on spending money more wisely to enable the economy to grow and spread prosperity throughout the population.
We often talk about new builds and building standards on here. I came across this on my morning run - and it's not the only one. This brickwork is probably going to be rendered over, but even so, using different styles of bricks like this is an absolute abomination.
The side elevation looks a bit like an attempt at dazzle camouflage.
Are there any precedents in any country for health provision being the major issue in a national election campaign?
Countless, in many countries.
Healthcare is a major issue in almost every developed nation, regardless of what system of healthcare they have.
Healthcare has been a major issue in almost every UK election I can ever recall, and not just the UK though, see eg arguments over 'Obamacare' in the US etc - health provision is always an issue.
I have now read the Osborne email and I thought it was poorly written. Therefore, if I had to place a bet on the author I would go for his ex-wife as I read one of her books and thought it was badly written.
Different genres. First-order consideration says it's her or someone very close to her. The more fascinating possibility is that it's not her but was written to give this impression.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
The next election will either be 1997, 2010 or if the Tories are really lucky 1992. One thing it will certainly not be is 2019 again.
Sunak, an ex Goldman Sachs banker with an Oxford 1st is also bright on any definition
It won't be any of those. It'll be 2024 - not being glib, I just don't get why any given election has to be a repeat of a previous one. Or in 1997 did we talk about it being another 1945?
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
May had a majority in spring 2017, but what she wanted was a big enough majority in h
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
I really don't think "Rwanda" is going to pull the Tories nuts out of the fire. All it does is remind voters of another failed soundbite policy of the government that didn't work.
If there isn’t an actual daily flight to Rwanda, full of boat arrivals, by the time of the election, then the policy is going to be seen as a failure by the electorate.
Nailed on then, as the policy is limited to 120. Not even half a plane full.
There is nothing preventing that 120 being lifted.
Its far from unprecedented when starting a new system to trial with a small number, then once the kinks are out to lift that number or even remove the cap altogether.
We often talk about new builds and building standards on here. I came across this on my morning run - and it's not the only one. This brickwork is probably going to be rendered over, but even so, using different styles of bricks like this is an absolute abomination.
Haven't seen anything like that since I was about 6, done in Lego by a younger child. And I can still remember all those years later how disgusted I was.
There are, I reckon, three different styles of brick used in that. They've just taken whatever pallet of bricks they had laying about and built them. The building next door is in a similar state.
Yes, it's going to be rendered over (I assume; I've seen similar abominations rendered over), but it's just a crass lack of care and attention. You can bet they're cutting similar corners in other places the buyer cannot see.
The other thing that worries me is if some of the bricks are to inferior specs (eg for garden walls). But IANAE.
Well-laid bricks are a thing of beauty. The guy who did our kitchen extension - reclaimed bricks, Flemish bond - did an incredible job. The pointing... I wish I'd ever done anything as well as he built that wall.
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
It isn't the 'ERG Right Wing Path' that the Tories might go down, its absolutely necessary that they do. Statist Blairism doesn't work - that it what we have at the moment. We need radical approaches to reducing the costs of the nation.
Cutting the state (and then taxes) is absolutely imperative. This will cause lots of whinging from comfortably off do-gooders who want their pet projects protected (much like Brexit did). But it has to happen.
It will either be forced as part of an IMF bailout, or voluntary under a proper Conservative Govt.
A nightmare on Downing Street!
Your idealogical panacea of no state intervention means the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That ultimately results in totalitarian of one form or another, either by revolution or by counter-revolution.
Why can't we just try to make the mixed economy work for all of us?
No state intervention? What are you talking about. Cutting the state and allowing the private sector to grow is the solution.
The state is bigger than ever, the countryis broke with creditors demanding ever high premiums on loans, and we're likely heading for recession. How is that mixed economy working out for you?!
Privatisation you say. Thames Water says hello.
There you go again!
I didn't say privatisation. Letting the private sector grow. Getting rid of useless regulations. Reducing taxes. Reducing the civil service numbers (they've crept up to Brownite levels and beyond, I believe.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
May had a majority in spring 2017, but what she wanted was a big enough majority in h
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
I really don't think "Rwanda" is going to pull the Tories nuts out of the fire. All it does is remind voters of another failed soundbite policy of the government that didn't work.
If there isn’t an actual daily flight to Rwanda, full of boat arrivals, by the time of the election, then the policy is going to be seen as a failure by the electorate.
Nailed on then, as the policy is limited to 120. Not even half a plane full.
There is nothing preventing that 120 being lifted.
Its far from unprecedented when starting a new system to trial with a small number, then once the kinks are out to lift that number or even remove the cap altogether.
Apart from the small issue of Rwanda being a sovereign country in control of its own borders.
Yes, there was a triple lock on the post Brexit deal- it had to have majority support in the Commons, the Conservative Party and the EU. And with the 2017 parliament, that turned out to be a Venn diagram with no intersection.
The Brexit Brexiteers expected, the Brexit voters voted for and the Brexit we got is still a Venn diagram with no intersection.
Only when we abandon Brexit can the Nation come together.
The Brexit that Brexiteers expected is a Venn Diagram that has an intersection and that intersection has been achieved.
Lets look at the 5 pledges of what Vote Leave promised and see if we put it into a Venn Diagram whether its been achieved or not.
1. Take back control of our money 2. Take back control of our borders 3. We can control immigration 4. Free to sign trade deals 5. Can make our own laws
And what do we have.
Control of money? ✔ Control of borders? ✔ Control of migration? ✔ Can sign trade deals? ✔ Can make our own laws? ✔
Full Venn diagram intersection. Its only your own bullshit you're projecting that lacks an intersection.
While true in a sense, this misunderstands the nature of politics. The idea of pledges is to distil complex stuff into a few words. It leaves out all the stuff about achieving it without blowing up the planet or putting 20,000,000 children into slavery.
North Korea fulfils the Vote Leave 5 pledges as listed here. But before we send UKIP members and Boris to live there there are other considerations.
North Korea does fulfil the Vote Leave 5 pledges, and if we'd ended up as North Korea then the intersection would equally have been met.
Whether that would have been a good thing or not is a totally different matter...
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
May had a majority in spring 2017, but what she wanted was a big enough majority in h
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
I really don't think "Rwanda" is going to pull the Tories nuts out of the fire. All it does is remind voters of another failed soundbite policy of the government that didn't work.
If there isn’t an actual daily flight to Rwanda, full of boat arrivals, by the time of the election, then the policy is going to be seen as a failure by the electorate.
Nailed on then, as the policy is limited to 120. Not even half a plane full.
There is nothing preventing that 120 being lifted.
Its far from unprecedented when starting a new system to trial with a small number, then once the kinks are out to lift that number or even remove the cap altogether.
All you have to do is massively increase the capacity of the Rwandan legal system to process a planeful of asylum cases a day. Because the UK is going to process those cases properly, isn't it?
Oh, and you have to do it as a temporary surge. You will need all those assylum lawyers for a few weeks, but then the flow of boat people is going to fall to a trickle and they won't be needed any more.
The whole thing is a blag, and as Sandpit has pointed out, a number of right wing voters are going to be awfully unhappy when the blaginess of the scheme becomes clear.
Saying it's a policy drawn in crayon is an insult to toddlers who draw in crayon. They usually manage to get the number of arms and legs right. Sometimes the nose is even in roughly the right place.
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
It isn't the 'ERG Right Wing Path' that the Tories might go down, its absolutely necessary that they do. Statist Blairism doesn't work - that it what we have at the moment. We need radical approaches to reducing the costs of the nation.
Cutting the state (and then taxes) is absolutely imperative. This will cause lots of whinging from comfortably off do-gooders who want their pet projects protected (much like Brexit did). But it has to happen.
It will either be forced as part of an IMF bailout, or voluntary under a proper Conservative Govt.
A nightmare on Downing Street!
Your idealogical panacea of no state intervention means the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That ultimately results in totalitarian of one form or another, either by revolution or by counter-revolution.
Why can't we just try to make the mixed economy work for all of us?
No state intervention? What are you talking about. Cutting the state and allowing the private sector to grow is the solution.
The state is bigger than ever, the countryis broke with creditors demanding ever high premiums on loans, and we're likely heading for recession. How is that mixed economy working out for you?!
Privatisation you say. Thames Water says hello.
There you go again!
I didn't say privatisation. Letting the private sector grow. Getting rid of useless regulations. Reducing taxes. Reducing the civil service numbers (they've crept up to Brownite levels and beyond, I believe.
Civil service numbers have gone up because of Brexit - taking back control involves employing people to control things. More border checks, repatriation of competencies from Brussels etc, it all involves bureaucrats.
I've noticed that tweets are back again without having signed on to twitter (or even being a member in my case). Presumably the protests reached even Musk, particularly with the advent of a potential competitor in nuclear war and the end of the world as we know it or Threads for short.
Non-account holders can now see individual tweets but cannot see threads nor the high-level collection of threads for an individual: you cannot see them nor scroll thru them. @CarlottaVance posted a twitter thread recently which I could not read past the first post. It was annoying.
"Professor Lesley Sawers, the 64-year-old Equalities and Human Rights Commissioner for Scotland, has been with RBS for 32 years but two weeks ago, she and her husband Allan McKechnie were told it would be shut next month."
I've recently got in touch with solicitors on a potential litigation matter. One of their subbed out AML checks flagged a couple of hits up on my name. My partner works in compliance so was far less worried about the issue compared to myself pointing out they were partial matches and likely to be different people. Nevertheless I checked with the AML service and they didn't have me on their system. So all was well for me on this front, despite no doubt racking up a slightly larger bill. But what if they did, and they hadn't acquiesced to my mail asking to be removed from their system; or the solicitors (Whose AML regs are no doubt quite similar to banks) had decided the partial matches rendered me unable to be dealt with. What then - pursuing a bank or solicitors through the courts would be extremely difficult because perhaps all banks/solicitors might use similar checking services - and if you're on one in error you might be on others in error. Someone could have stolen your ID somewhere along the line and even though you've been convicted of no crime being on one of these systems could literally ruin your life - such is the necessity of credit in life these days. And if these systems perhaps scan to controversial social media posts for the future - now being embarrassed as a cricketer or being deselected as a candidate for an MP's office is one thing but being potentially blacklisted by anyone who needs a AML or compliance check is quite another for an off comment from 5 years ago on twitter. The courts are far too full to deal with this shite, and it'll be difficult if solicitors and so forth won't act for you anyway. But the entire apparatus of AML and discrimination legislation seems far too weighted in favour of protecting institutions and controversial or unlucky individuals be damned.
We drove to S Germany thro France avoiding giving the Froggies any toll money. The European Air traffic controllers are going on strike yet again. Notes of import. Germans are generally v nice and helpful, French less so even though I can speak the language to a certain extent.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
May had a majority in spring 2017, but what she wanted was a big enough majority in h
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
I really don't think "Rwanda" is going to pull the Tories nuts out of the fire. All it does is remind voters of another failed soundbite policy of the government that didn't work.
If there isn’t an actual daily flight to Rwanda, full of boat arrivals, by the time of the election, then the policy is going to be seen as a failure by the electorate.
Nailed on then, as the policy is limited to 120. Not even half a plane full.
There is nothing preventing that 120 being lifted.
Its far from unprecedented when starting a new system to trial with a small number, then once the kinks are out to lift that number or even remove the cap altogether.
Apart from the small issue of Rwanda being a sovereign country in control of its own borders.
Yes, so if we write Rwanda a big enough cheque they are sovereign and able to agree to take more than 120, aren't they?
As they already do for other nations and the UNHRC itself let's not forget.
FWIW I think the Tories will lose all the by-elections. They are an utter shambles.
In more important news, the Post Office - their senior management - need to be sacked without any compensation and various other vengeances applied to them. They are beyond a disgrace, rivalling the Met for incompetence, bad faith, mulish obstinacy, disregard for the law and any standards of common decency.
Two months ago one of the key witnesses from Fujitsu, Gareth Jenkins, was due to give evidence. His appearance was delayed because of delays in disclosure. He was due to appear yesterday and at ca. 10 pm the night before the Post Office revealed that it had still not given full disclosure of key documents which had been asked for months beforehand and that it had suddenly found about 47,000 of them.47,000! So yet another delay, yet another example of the Post Office's utter failure to comply with its legal obligations or take this inquiry seriously. The judge is pissed off of course. Though he should be raging with fury at this.
And every day that the Business Secretary does fuck all about this is another day proving that she's not fit to be in her position let alone leader of her party or PM.
The tactics smack of deliberate prevarication. If not, then they should be sacked for incompetence in any event, and a team of investigators sent in.
If it's left to the judge, as it seems it will be, then contempt proceedings ?
The GC has been giving evidence and his explanations for the failures of disclosure, not just in this inquiry but throughout the prosecutions were pitiful and embarrassing. He shames his profession.
I am ashamed to see lawyers and in-house investigators behave in such an appallingly unprofessional way. People killed themselves because of their lack of professionalism. How they sleep at night, I don't know.
In unrelated news I see that Tom Hayes's conviction is being referred to the Court of Appeal. I am bound by confidentiality obligations but if I weren't ......
Yes, there was a triple lock on the post Brexit deal- it had to have majority support in the Commons, the Conservative Party and the EU. And with the 2017 parliament, that turned out to be a Venn diagram with no intersection.
The Brexit Brexiteers expected, the Brexit voters voted for and the Brexit we got is still a Venn diagram with no intersection.
Only when we abandon Brexit can the Nation come together.
The Brexit that Brexiteers expected is a Venn Diagram that has an intersection and that intersection has been achieved.
Lets look at the 5 pledges of what Vote Leave promised and see if we put it into a Venn Diagram whether its been achieved or not.
1. Take back control of our money 2. Take back control of our borders 3. We can control immigration 4. Free to sign trade deals 5. Can make our own laws
And what do we have.
Control of money? ✔ Control of borders? ✔ Control of migration? ✔ Can sign trade deals? ✔ Can make our own laws? ✔
Full Venn diagram intersection. Its only your own bullshit you're projecting that lacks an intersection.
While true in a sense, this misunderstands the nature of politics. The idea of pledges is to distil complex stuff into a few words. It leaves out all the stuff about achieving it without blowing up the planet or putting 20,000,000 children into slavery.
North Korea fulfils the Vote Leave 5 pledges as listed here. But before we send UKIP members and Boris to live there there are other considerations.
North Korea does fulfil the Vote Leave 5 pledges, and if we'd ended up as North Korea then the intersection would equally have been met.
Whether that would have been a good thing or not is a totally different matter...
And a rather more important one.
Aye, but for some reason @Scott_xP insists on claiming bullshit like "Venn diagram with no intersection" when the intersection has already been found and met in full.
Whether that intersection we have is a good thing is a more important issue to debate than whether its there or not, but we already have that intersection. Indeed, that should make it easier to accept if you desire change since you can say "we have what you said you wanted, so if you don't like it then change it".
To quote Douglas Adams with the infinite improbability drive: We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem.
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
It isn't the 'ERG Right Wing Path' that the Tories might go down, its absolutely necessary that they do. Statist Blairism doesn't work - that it what we have at the moment. We need radical approaches to reducing the costs of the nation.
Cutting the state (and then taxes) is absolutely imperative. This will cause lots of whinging from comfortably off do-gooders who want their pet projects protected (much like Brexit did). But it has to happen.
It will either be forced as part of an IMF bailout, or voluntary under a proper Conservative Govt.
A nightmare on Downing Street!
Your idealogical panacea of no state intervention means the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That ultimately results in totalitarian of one form or another, either by revolution or by counter-revolution.
Why can't we just try to make the mixed economy work for all of us?
No state intervention? What are you talking about. Cutting the state and allowing the private sector to grow is the solution.
The state is bigger than ever, the countryis broke with creditors demanding ever high premiums on loans, and we're likely heading for recession. How is that mixed economy working out for you?!
This argument, while excellent in principle, does require the location of, let us say, £200bn of public expenditure cuts. That's about the size of the NHS.
At the moment I cannot identify a single area of state managed expenditure which is not crying out for substantial additional expenditure. (Can anyone?)
So the challenge is to locate that £200bn with reasonable accuracy, and of course to get it through the HoC and win the next election.
Answers on a postcard to 11 Downing St. Jeremy Hunt wants to know
The state mostly spends money on things that are necessary for the economy and the country to thrive, like public services, infrastructure, security and social insurance. The idea that we just have to slash the state and the economy will grow is just the same old reheated Thatcherism that governments have been following for decades without notable success. The focus should be on spending money more wisely to enable the economy to grow and spread prosperity throughout the population.
The intelligent approach is to study productivity. Productivity increases are at the heart of the astonishing growth in prosperity in the 20th and 21st centuries, around the the world
What we need to do, it to apply this to much of the system of government.
At the same time, we need to restructure government services. In many cases, they are stilled defined by 1950s producer led "The Man From The Ministry tells you what to do". Times have changed - expecting people to like such service provision, is like expecting women to act like 1950s housewives in adverts from the that time.
Some politicians talk, dimly of "John Lewis" style service. What they are reaching for is customer focused services. This is often expressed (in popular organisations) by customer story "trees" where no outcome is customer left unanswered and un-helped.
By combining both approaches the actual cost of state can be reduced - both in the direct cost of the services (a smaller number of higher paid people supervising a more automated system) and in the ability for people and companies to quickly attain the results they require.
Before anyone talks of the loss of human contact - it is worth considering the experiments McDonalds did in automating their kitchens. They put more staff out front to interact with their customers. Similarly, automation can be used to deal with 95% of simple stuff (think simple driving license renewal - shouldn't require human touch), leaving humans with more time to deal with the 5% of edge cases.
To do this requires investment, though. Real investment.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
May had a majority in spring 2017, but what she wanted was a big enough majority in h
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
I really don't think "Rwanda" is going to pull the Tories nuts out of the fire. All it does is remind voters of another failed soundbite policy of the government that didn't work.
If there isn’t an actual daily flight to Rwanda, full of boat arrivals, by the time of the election, then the policy is going to be seen as a failure by the electorate.
Nailed on then, as the policy is limited to 120. Not even half a plane full.
There is nothing preventing that 120 being lifted.
Its far from unprecedented when starting a new system to trial with a small number, then once the kinks are out to lift that number or even remove the cap altogether.
All you have to do is massively increase the capacity of the Rwandan legal system to process a planeful of asylum cases a day. Because the UK is going to process those cases properly, isn't it?
Oh, and you have to do it as a temporary surge. You will need all those assylum lawyers for a few weeks, but then the flow of boat people is going to fall to a trickle and they won't be needed any more.
The whole thing is a blag, and as Sandpit has pointed out, a number of right wing voters are going to be awfully unhappy when the blaginess of the scheme becomes clear.
Saying it's a policy drawn in crayon is an insult to toddlers who draw in crayon. They usually manage to get the number of arms and legs right. Sometimes the nose is even in roughly the right place.
Yes indeed. Regardless of your stance on asylum and migration it is just a rubbish policy that our increasingly stupid government is doubling down on despite not even standing up to basic scrutiny.
FWIW I think the Tories will lose all the by-elections. They are an utter shambles.
In more important news, the Post Office - their senior management - need to be sacked without any compensation and various other vengeances applied to them. They are beyond a disgrace, rivalling the Met for incompetence, bad faith, mulish obstinacy, disregard for the law and any standards of common decency.
Two months ago one of the key witnesses from Fujitsu, Gareth Jenkins, was due to give evidence. His appearance was delayed because of delays in disclosure. He was due to appear yesterday and at ca. 10 pm the night before the Post Office revealed that it had still not given full disclosure of key documents which had been asked for months beforehand and that it had suddenly found about 47,000 of them.47,000! So yet another delay, yet another example of the Post Office's utter failure to comply with its legal obligations or take this inquiry seriously. The judge is pissed off of course. Though he should be raging with fury at this.
And every day that the Business Secretary does fuck all about this is another day proving that she's not fit to be in her position let alone leader of her party or PM.
The tactics smack of deliberate prevarication. If not, then they should be sacked for incompetence in any event, and a team of investigators sent in.
If it's left to the judge, as it seems it will be, then contempt proceedings ?
The GC has been giving evidence and his explanations for the failures of disclosure, not just in this inquiry but throughout the prosecutions were pitiful and embarrassing. He shames his profession.
I am ashamed to see lawyers and in-house investigators behave in such an appallingly unprofessional way. People killed themselves because of their lack of professionalism. How they sleep at night, I don't know.
In unrelated news I see that Tom Hayes's conviction is being referred to the Court of Appeal. I am bound by confidentiality obligations but if I weren't ......
🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Already US courts have said Tom Hayes did nothing illegal on the law at the time, I hope our Court of Appeal decide similar given the years he spent in jail.
Hayes was convincing on Newsnight last night and David Davis is raising the matter in Parliament
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
May had a majority in spring 2017, but what she wanted was a big enough majority in h
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
I really don't think "Rwanda" is going to pull the Tories nuts out of the fire. All it does is remind voters of another failed soundbite policy of the government that didn't work.
If there isn’t an actual daily flight to Rwanda, full of boat arrivals, by the time of the election, then the policy is going to be seen as a failure by the electorate.
Nailed on then, as the policy is limited to 120. Not even half a plane full.
There is nothing preventing that 120 being lifted.
Its far from unprecedented when starting a new system to trial with a small number, then once the kinks are out to lift that number or even remove the cap altogether.
All you have to do is massively increase the capacity of the Rwandan legal system to process a planeful of asylum cases a day. Because the UK is going to process those cases properly, isn't it?
Oh, and you have to do it as a temporary surge. You will need all those assylum lawyers for a few weeks, but then the flow of boat people is going to fall to a trickle and they won't be needed any more.
The whole thing is a blag, and as Sandpit has pointed out, a number of right wing voters are going to be awfully unhappy when the blaginess of the scheme becomes clear.
Saying it's a policy drawn in crayon is an insult to toddlers who draw in crayon. They usually manage to get the number of arms and legs right. Sometimes the nose is even in roughly the right place.
Why would you need Rwanda to process them in a day? The UK doesn't process them in a day.
All you need is Rwanda to agree to house them and process them eventually, which is what the UK does already. No need for them to be processed within 24 hours of arrival.
That's a completely different matter. And as you say, then the flow will fall to a trickle and the planes won't be needed anymore.
I've noticed that tweets are back again without having signed on to twitter (or even being a member in my case). Presumably the protests reached even Musk, particularly with the advent of a potential competitor in nuclear war and the end of the world as we know it or Threads for short.
What are the reporting deadlines for this stuff? Is it possible that the SNP reporting is incomplete and/or late? Given their accounts situation, this seems possible.
Yes, there was a triple lock on the post Brexit deal- it had to have majority support in the Commons, the Conservative Party and the EU. And with the 2017 parliament, that turned out to be a Venn diagram with no intersection.
The Brexit Brexiteers expected, the Brexit voters voted for and the Brexit we got is still a Venn diagram with no intersection.
Only when we abandon Brexit can the Nation come together.
In a poll posted by yourself yesterday
For joining was 29%
Against was 24%
But the clear winner with 31% was most likely to vote for a party that prioritises other issues first
You dream is not going to happen even on your own poll
Standard MOE makes 29 indistinguishable from 31, doesn't it?
And more generally, you're making the same mistake as our friend from Essex, assuming that something that's true at one moment is true always.
Either Brexit makes people's lives better, or it does. Not tomorrow, not in the next parliament.
But bad policies get reversed.
How, realistically, will people judge if Brexit has made their lives better or not?
There are a range of factors influencing long term prosperity, of which membership or otherwise of the European Union is just one. In ten years time, if the economy isn't going well (say) some people might say "bloody Brexit" but a lot of people will probably say "bloody Starmer" or "bloody net zero" or whatever their thing is.
Ultimately, you need to judge against a counterfactual (staying in) that didn't happen, and that's incredibly difficult to do with any degree of precision.
Are there any precedents in any country for health provision being the major issue in a national election campaign?
Countless, in many countries.
Healthcare is a major issue in almost every developed nation, regardless of what system of healthcare they have.
Healthcare has been a major issue in almost every UK election I can ever recall, and not just the UK though, see eg arguments over 'Obamacare' in the US etc - health provision is always an issue.
Every election has featured "24 hours to save the NHS from The Evul Toooories" or some variation thereof.
In the 80s, Margret Thatcher completely destroyed the NHS on a number of occasions. I still recall, at a young age, listening to a surgeon on R4, denouncing the first of these, that I recall. It was fascinating how he managed to convey the impression of being red faced and dressed entirely in tweed, over the radio.
Are there any precedents in any country for health provision being the major issue in a national election campaign?
Countless, in many countries.
Healthcare is a major issue in almost every developed nation, regardless of what system of healthcare they have.
Healthcare has been a major issue in almost every UK election I can ever recall, and not just the UK though, see eg arguments over 'Obamacare' in the US etc - health provision is always an issue.
Every election has featured "24 hours to save the NHS from The Evul Toooories" or some variation thereof.
Last time out it was The Tories wanting to sell the NHS, lock stock and barrel, to Donald Trump.
Yes, there was a triple lock on the post Brexit deal- it had to have majority support in the Commons, the Conservative Party and the EU. And with the 2017 parliament, that turned out to be a Venn diagram with no intersection.
The Brexit Brexiteers expected, the Brexit voters voted for and the Brexit we got is still a Venn diagram with no intersection.
Only when we abandon Brexit can the Nation come together.
In a poll posted by yourself yesterday
For joining was 29%
Against was 24%
But the clear winner with 31% was most likely to vote for a party that prioritises other issues first
You dream is not going to happen even on your own poll
Standard MOE makes 29 indistinguishable from 31, doesn't it?
And more generally, you're making the same mistake as our friend from Essex, assuming that something that's true at one moment is true always.
Either Brexit makes people's lives better, or it does. Not tomorrow, not in the next parliament.
But bad policies get reversed.
How, realistically, will people judge if Brexit has made their lives better or not?
There are a range of factors influencing long term prosperity, of which membership or otherwise of the European Union is just one. In ten years time, if the economy isn't going well (say) some people might say "bloody Brexit" but a lot of people will probably say "bloody Starmer" or "bloody net zero" or whatever their thing is.
Ultimately, you need to judge against a counterfactual (staying in) that didn't happen, and that's incredibly difficult to do with any degree of precision.
Yes people have already moved on from Brexit, apart from a few Hiroo Onoda obsessives like @Scott_xP
Even Sir Keir Starmer has moved on. He doesn't want people to say "bloody Brexit", he wants people to say "bloody Tories".
As for a counterfactual, one kind of exists and its not a happy one for people who want to reopen the psychodrama. If the EU is considerably outgrowing the UK and the UK is left as the sick man of Europe, then we might end up wanting to rejoin.
However the opposite has happened. Despite not joining the Euro the UK grew faster than the Eurozone in the first decade of this century, and despite having the Brexit referendum in the middle of it we also grew faster than the Eurozone in the second decade of this century too.
Are there any precedents in any country for health provision being the major issue in a national election campaign?
Countless, in many countries.
Healthcare is a major issue in almost every developed nation, regardless of what system of healthcare they have.
Healthcare has been a major issue in almost every UK election I can ever recall, and not just the UK though, see eg arguments over 'Obamacare' in the US etc - health provision is always an issue.
Every election has featured "24 hours to save the NHS from The Evul Toooories" or some variation thereof.
Last time out it was The Tories wanting to sell the NHS, lock stock and barrel, to Donald Trump.
But Thatcher privatised the entire NHS, in 1983. How could the Tories sell it twice?
Mind you, if they could see the same thing twice, and get a good price for doing so, I would be fairly impressed.
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
It isn't the 'ERG Right Wing Path' that the Tories might go down, its absolutely necessary that they do. Statist Blairism doesn't work - that it what we have at the moment. We need radical approaches to reducing the costs of the nation.
Cutting the state (and then taxes) is absolutely imperative. This will cause lots of whinging from comfortably off do-gooders who want their pet projects protected (much like Brexit did). But it has to happen.
It will either be forced as part of an IMF bailout, or voluntary under a proper Conservative Govt.
A nightmare on Downing Street!
Your idealogical panacea of no state intervention means the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That ultimately results in totalitarian of one form or another, either by revolution or by counter-revolution.
Why can't we just try to make the mixed economy work for all of us?
No state intervention? What are you talking about. Cutting the state and allowing the private sector to grow is the solution.
The state is bigger than ever, the countryis broke with creditors demanding ever high premiums on loans, and we're likely heading for recession. How is that mixed economy working out for you?!
Privatisation you say. Thames Water says hello.
There you go again!
I didn't say privatisation. Letting the private sector grow. Getting rid of useless regulations. Reducing taxes. Reducing the civil service numbers (they've crept up to Brownite levels and beyond, I believe.
Civil service numbers have gone up because of Brexit - taking back control involves employing people to control things. More border checks, repatriation of competencies from Brussels etc, it all involves bureaucrats.
God forbid we should allow people and businesses more freedoms, when there is a civil service beast to feed, eh?
An example.
I can send a book worth £49k overseas without the Govt. sticking their beak in.
An autograph letter worth £5 which is more than 50 years old? Well, you need to fill in a form and get the Arts Council to approve the export.
I've noticed that tweets are back again without having signed on to twitter (or even being a member in my case). Presumably the protests reached even Musk, particularly with the advent of a potential competitor in nuclear war and the end of the world as we know it or Threads for short.
What are the reporting deadlines for this stuff? Is it possible that the SNP reporting is incomplete and/or late? Given their accounts situation, this seems possible.
Not only can people report late, they frequently do. This makes funding difficult to use as a predictor.
Political donation in the UK has three subdivisions
Funding of the individual MP
Funding of the individual party
Funding of the individual cause
Each have different reporting requirements and thresholds. My swiss-cheese memory keeps whispering "three months" but I don't know how reliable that is
1) He never read his mail/e-mail from the bank. He had cash in it, so no real need to or so he thought. 2) The bank informed him it was going to close his account due to lack of funds by mail/e-mail. He obviously never read this. 3) When they closed his account the person he spoke to wasn't able to give him further info because general customer service didn't know or was unable within the bank's framework of who can say what wasn't able to tell him the reason his account was being closed. 4) Since he got immediately on the media about it every bank knew he had a bank account closed by another bank for whatever reasons. 5) Because he'd now had a bank account closed without his permission every bank now raised a red flag on him opening an account with them. 6) So his attempts to open accounts with others were stymied because of 5). 7) Even though the story (At least that which everyone understands and is in the public domain) has been solved, I'd bet many banks are keeping the red flag up on him because they're paranoid the truth might have been an AML issue Natwest/Coutts flagged up which they might want to keep confidential.
I've noticed that tweets are back again without having signed on to twitter (or even being a member in my case). Presumably the protests reached even Musk, particularly with the advent of a potential competitor in nuclear war and the end of the world as we know it or Threads for short.
What are the reporting deadlines for this stuff? Is it possible that the SNP reporting is incomplete and/or late? Given their accounts situation, this seems possible.
Not only can people report late, they frequently do. This makes funding difficult to use as a predictor.
Political donation in the UK has three subdivisions
Funding of the individual MP
Funding of the individual party
Funding of the individual cause
Each have different reporting requirements and thresholds. My swiss-cheese memory keeps whispering "three months" but I don't know how reliable that is
It does seem quite hard to find the deadlines online. I did find multiple references to parties being fined for late reporting, though.
"Professor Lesley Sawers, the 64-year-old Equalities and Human Rights Commissioner for Scotland, has been with RBS for 32 years but two weeks ago, she and her husband Allan McKechnie were told it would be shut next month."
I've recently got in touch with solicitors on a potential litigation matter. One of their subbed out AML checks flagged a couple of hits up on my name. My partner works in compliance so was far less worried about the issue compared to myself pointing out they were partial matches and likely to be different people. Nevertheless I checked with the AML service and they didn't have me on their system. So all was well for me on this front, despite no doubt racking up a slightly larger bill. But what if they did, and they hadn't acquiesced to my mail asking to be removed from their system; or the solicitors (Whose AML regs are no doubt quite similar to banks) had decided the partial matches rendered me unable to be dealt with. What then - pursuing a bank or solicitors through the courts would be extremely difficult because perhaps all banks/solicitors might use similar checking services - and if you're on one in error you might be on others in error. Someone could have stolen your ID somewhere along the line and even though you've been convicted of no crime being on one of these systems could literally ruin your life - such is the necessity of credit in life these days. And if these systems perhaps scan to controversial social media posts for the future - now being embarrassed as a cricketer or being deselected as a candidate for an MP's office is one thing but being potentially blacklisted by anyone who needs a AML or compliance check is quite another for an off comment from 5 years ago on twitter. The courts are far too full to deal with this shite, and it'll be difficult if solicitors and so forth won't act for you anyway. But the entire apparatus of AML and discrimination legislation seems far too weighted in favour of protecting institutions and controversial or unlucky individuals be damned.
All the official government guidance says nice things like be balanced, proportionate and protect the customer.
If the banks/other businesses do that they get no credit. If someone slips through the net they get massive fines. If they close down anyone who might possibly conceivably be a risk somewhere they lose a fraction of their profits, but small numbers compared to the massive fines. The big time money launderers know how to game the system anyway.
Yes, there was a triple lock on the post Brexit deal- it had to have majority support in the Commons, the Conservative Party and the EU. And with the 2017 parliament, that turned out to be a Venn diagram with no intersection.
The Brexit Brexiteers expected, the Brexit voters voted for and the Brexit we got is still a Venn diagram with no intersection.
Only when we abandon Brexit can the Nation come together.
In a poll posted by yourself yesterday
For joining was 29%
Against was 24%
But the clear winner with 31% was most likely to vote for a party that prioritises other issues first
You dream is not going to happen even on your own poll
Standard MOE makes 29 indistinguishable from 31, doesn't it?
And more generally, you're making the same mistake as our friend from Essex, assuming that something that's true at one moment is true always.
Either Brexit makes people's lives better, or it does. Not tomorrow, not in the next parliament.
But bad policies get reversed.
How, realistically, will people judge if Brexit has made their lives better or not?
There are a range of factors influencing long term prosperity, of which membership or otherwise of the European Union is just one. In ten years time, if the economy isn't going well (say) some people might say "bloody Brexit" but a lot of people will probably say "bloody Starmer" or "bloody net zero" or whatever their thing is.
Ultimately, you need to judge against a counterfactual (staying in) that didn't happen, and that's incredibly difficult to do with any degree of precision.
You can't- not to any degree of precision. But that's true of pretty much any decision taken in a democratic society. We hardly ever get to do a gold-standard RCT of different policy approaches. The nearest we can get is probably when similar areas under different political control try different policy ideas. Which is one reason why the centralisation of the UK is probably a bad thing. But no- we can never tell whether voting for someone else would have led to better or worse outcomes. Which is what makes it fun to talk about.
What you can have is the wollier intuition of "this has mostly worked and should be absorbed into the understanding of how to do things" (it will trigger some people, but some form of NHS is in that category) versus "this hasn't worked and ought to be undone" (the Poll Tax is a stark example of that). Those intuitions aren't always right, but they are all we've got. And fairly or not, the public intuitions about Brexit are that it was probably a mistake, and the public intutions about Brapprochment, even Brejoin, are that it's probably a good idea.
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
Yes, but more. Labels help because they reify a set of traits, making it easier to connect with other people with a similar experience and to look up information. (I say that as someone with a physical health spectrum disorder.)
Sure, labelling can be useful, but it can also be restricting. People sometimes use it as an excuse to avoid an activity, rather than a spur to work harder than most at an activity.
Some people find reading and writing difficult, some people find social interaction difficult, some people find unpredictability difficult, some people find noise difficult. Labelling these personality traits can help people mitigate the traits, but it can also cause people to retreat from their potential.
In any case, a lot of people do search for these medical labels. No one is allowed to simply be "eccentric" any more.
Very good post. Everyone must be categorised, and it can be used as an excuse not to develop because you are X and that's that.
I've noticed that tweets are back again without having signed on to twitter (or even being a member in my case). Presumably the protests reached even Musk, particularly with the advent of a potential competitor in nuclear war and the end of the world as we know it or Threads for short.
I think direct links work but you cannot just browse?
Comments
@Peck, I am not sure how easy it is to repackage and relaunch Sunak. The most decisive 're-launch' would be to jettison Hunt and 'go for growth' with a new COE, but firstly, Hunt may not appreciate being dispatched to the back benches with the ills of the Sunak's managed decline policy being hung around his neck, and secondly, would anyone buy that? Bit like Truss sacking Kwarteng and installing Hunt - not a particularly effective relaunch of her Government.
I don't think it can be done without massive personnel change.
And more generally, you're making the same mistake as our friend from Essex, assuming that something that's true at one moment is true always.
Either Brexit makes people's lives better, or it does. Not tomorrow, not in the next parliament.
But bad policies get reversed.
Actually that gap may be starting to narrow, despite not because of the actions of the Prime Minister in my eyes, and so the winners of the past couple of decades are now increasingly complaining as they find 'inflation' going into costs they have to pay rather than just their so-called 'assets', which of course are costs others have to pay.
Sunak, an ex Goldman Sachs banker with an Oxford 1st is also bright on any definition
The aircraft industry was definitely being manipulated in terms of the Air Ministry favouring certain manufacturers. The reasons for this are complex and mostly lost.
At the moment I cannot identify a single area of state managed expenditure which is not crying out for substantial additional expenditure. (Can anyone?)
So the challenge is to locate that £200bn with reasonable accuracy, and of course to get it through the HoC and win the next election.
Answers on a postcard to 11 Downing St. Jeremy Hunt wants to know
Lets look at the 5 pledges of what Vote Leave promised and see if we put it into a Venn Diagram whether its been achieved or not.
1. Take back control of our money
2. Take back control of our borders
3. We can control immigration
4. Free to sign trade deals
5. Can make our own laws
And what do we have.
Control of money? ✔
Control of borders? ✔
Control of migration? ✔
Can sign trade deals? ✔
Can make our own laws? ✔
Full Venn diagram intersection. Its only your own bullshit you're projecting that lacks an intersection.
A. Accept Mays Deal
B. Go back to negotiation table for another 12 months
Pretty sure A would have won, and it would have given it legitimacy.
And not at all interesting, since I couldn't care less about Daily Mail gossip and other bullshit like that. Which is why I don't read it in the first place.
In more important news, the Post Office - their senior management - need to be sacked without any compensation and various other vengeances applied to them. They are beyond a disgrace, rivalling the Met for incompetence, bad faith, mulish obstinacy, disregard for the law and any standards of common decency.
Two months ago one of the key witnesses from Fujitsu, Gareth Jenkins, was due to give evidence. His appearance was delayed because of delays in disclosure. He was due to appear yesterday and at ca. 10 pm the night before the Post Office revealed that it had still not given full disclosure of key documents which had been asked for months beforehand and that it had suddenly found about 47,000 of them.47,000! So yet another delay, yet another example of the Post Office's utter failure to comply with its legal obligations or take this inquiry seriously. The judge is pissed off of course. Though he should be raging with fury at this.
And every day that the Business Secretary does fuck all about this is another day proving that she's not fit to be in her position let alone leader of her party or PM.
Or as you say it will be plastered over with pebbledash...
Though we're not anyway
UK GDP per capita:
2016: 41,146.08
2021: 46,510.28
Funny definition of worse off in my eyes.
Yes, it's going to be rendered over (I assume; I've seen similar abominations rendered over), but it's just a crass lack of care and attention. You can bet they're cutting similar corners in other places the buyer cannot see.
North Korea fulfils the Vote Leave 5 pledges as listed here. But before we send UKIP members and Boris to live there there are other considerations.
🤪
"Professor Lesley Sawers, the 64-year-old Equalities and Human Rights Commissioner for Scotland, has been with RBS for 32 years but two weeks ago, she and her husband Allan McKechnie were told it would be shut next month."
Whether that would have been a good thing or not is a totally different matter. The claim was the intersection wasn't met, and that claim is false. Actually Vote Leave's pledges were pretty anodyne and were easy to meet with a simple trade deal, which is what we have, so has been met in full. Whether you wanted that is a different issue and was one to be debated in 2016 when we had the referendum in the first place, or for future elections to debate if you want to re-open the issue.
She will be remembered as a tragic figure, but at least not a stupid one.
My suggestion was not about whether you or I approve the deal, clearly neither of us does for quite different reasons, but how the government could have proceeded without creating deadlock and the chaos that has followed.
If not, then they should be sacked for incompetence in any event, and a team of investigators sent in.
If it's left to the judge, as it seems it will be, then contempt proceedings ?
https://www.manchesterbrick.com/brick-imports-rising-in-the-uk/
We are the largest importers of bricks in the world and 15th largest exporters
https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/bricks/reporter/gbr?redirect=true#:~:text=The fastest growing export markets,of Bricks in the world.
Healthcare is a major issue in almost every developed nation, regardless of what system of healthcare they have.
Healthcare has been a major issue in almost every UK election I can ever recall, and not just the UK though, see eg arguments over 'Obamacare' in the US etc - health provision is always an issue.
There’s definitely very few Western countries where the government and “the doctors” would be at loggerheads.
That’s because almost nowhere else does the government employ doctors.
Its far from unprecedented when starting a new system to trial with a small number, then once the kinks are out to lift that number or even remove the cap altogether.
I didn't say privatisation. Letting the private sector grow. Getting rid of useless regulations. Reducing taxes. Reducing the civil service numbers (they've crept up to Brownite levels and beyond, I believe.
Our changing travel – how people’s travel choices are changing
Study of the travel behaviour of people in England following the COVID-19 pandemic and during a period of rising cost of living.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/our-changing-travel-how-peoples-travel-choices-are-changing
Oh, and you have to do it as a temporary surge. You will need all those assylum lawyers for a few weeks, but then the flow of boat people is going to fall to a trickle and they won't be needed any more.
The whole thing is a blag, and as Sandpit has pointed out, a number of right wing voters are going to be awfully unhappy when the blaginess of the scheme becomes clear.
Saying it's a policy drawn in crayon is an insult to toddlers who draw in crayon. They usually manage to get the number of arms and legs right. Sometimes the nose is even in roughly the right place.
But what if they did, and they hadn't acquiesced to my mail asking to be removed from their system; or the solicitors (Whose AML regs are no doubt quite similar to banks) had decided the partial matches rendered me unable to be dealt with. What then - pursuing a bank or solicitors through the courts would be extremely difficult because perhaps all banks/solicitors might use similar checking services - and if you're on one in error you might be on others in error. Someone could have stolen your ID somewhere along the line and even though you've been convicted of no crime being on one of these systems could literally ruin your life - such is the necessity of credit in life these days.
And if these systems perhaps scan to controversial social media posts for the future - now being embarrassed as a cricketer or being deselected as a candidate for an MP's office is one thing but being potentially blacklisted by anyone who needs a AML or compliance check is quite another for an off comment from 5 years ago on twitter.
The courts are far too full to deal with this shite, and it'll be difficult if solicitors and so forth won't act for you anyway. But the entire apparatus of AML and discrimination legislation seems far too weighted in favour of protecting institutions and controversial or unlucky individuals be damned.
Notes of import. Germans are generally v nice and helpful, French less so even though I can speak the language to a certain extent.
As they already do for other nations and the UNHRC itself let's not forget.
I am ashamed to see lawyers and in-house investigators behave in such an appallingly unprofessional way. People killed themselves because of their lack of professionalism. How they sleep at night, I don't know.
In unrelated news I see that Tom Hayes's conviction is being referred to the Court of Appeal. I am bound by confidentiality obligations but if I weren't ......
🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Whether that intersection we have is a good thing is a more important issue to debate than whether its there or not, but we already have that intersection. Indeed, that should make it easier to accept if you desire change since you can say "we have what you said you wanted, so if you don't like it then change it".
To quote Douglas Adams with the infinite improbability drive: We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem.
What we need to do, it to apply this to much of the system of government.
At the same time, we need to restructure government services. In many cases, they are stilled defined by 1950s producer led "The Man From The Ministry tells you what to do". Times have changed - expecting people to like such service provision, is like expecting women to act like 1950s housewives in adverts from the that time.
Some politicians talk, dimly of "John Lewis" style service. What they are reaching for is customer focused services. This is often expressed (in popular organisations) by customer story "trees" where no outcome is customer left unanswered and un-helped.
By combining both approaches the actual cost of state can be reduced - both in the direct cost of the services (a smaller number of higher paid people supervising a more automated system) and in the ability for people and companies to quickly attain the results they require.
Before anyone talks of the loss of human contact - it is worth considering the experiments McDonalds did in automating their kitchens. They put more staff out front to interact with their customers. Similarly, automation can be used to deal with 95% of simple stuff (think simple driving license renewal - shouldn't require human touch), leaving humans with more time to deal with the 5% of edge cases.
To do this requires investment, though. Real investment.
Hayes was convincing on Newsnight last night and David Davis is raising the matter in Parliament
All you need is Rwanda to agree to house them and process them eventually, which is what the UK does already. No need for them to be processed within 24 hours of arrival.
That's a completely different matter. And as you say, then the flow will fall to a trickle and the planes won't be needed anymore.
What are the reporting deadlines for this stuff? Is it possible that the SNP reporting is incomplete and/or late? Given their accounts situation, this seems possible.
There are a range of factors influencing long term prosperity, of which membership or otherwise of the European Union is just one. In ten years time, if the economy isn't going well (say) some people might say "bloody Brexit" but a lot of people will probably say "bloody Starmer" or "bloody net zero" or whatever their thing is.
Ultimately, you need to judge against a counterfactual (staying in) that didn't happen, and that's incredibly difficult to do with any degree of precision.
In the 80s, Margret Thatcher completely destroyed the NHS on a number of occasions. I still recall, at a young age, listening to a surgeon on R4, denouncing the first of these, that I recall. It was fascinating how he managed to convey the impression of being red faced and dressed entirely in tweed, over the radio.
Even Sir Keir Starmer has moved on. He doesn't want people to say "bloody Brexit", he wants people to say "bloody Tories".
As for a counterfactual, one kind of exists and its not a happy one for people who want to reopen the psychodrama. If the EU is considerably outgrowing the UK and the UK is left as the sick man of Europe, then we might end up wanting to rejoin.
However the opposite has happened. Despite not joining the Euro the UK grew faster than the Eurozone in the first decade of this century, and despite having the Brexit referendum in the middle of it we also grew faster than the Eurozone in the second decade of this century too.
Mind you, if they could see the same thing twice, and get a good price for doing so, I would be fairly impressed.
An example.
I can send a book worth £49k overseas without the Govt. sticking their beak in.
An autograph letter worth £5 which is more than 50 years old? Well, you need to fill in a form and get the Arts Council to approve the export.
Seriously.
Americans laugh at this when told....
Political donation in the UK has three subdivisions
- Funding of the individual MP
- Funding of the individual party
- Funding of the individual cause
Each have different reporting requirements and thresholds. My swiss-cheese memory keeps whispering "three months" but I don't know how reliable that is1) He never read his mail/e-mail from the bank. He had cash in it, so no real need to or so he thought.
2) The bank informed him it was going to close his account due to lack of funds by mail/e-mail. He obviously never read this.
3) When they closed his account the person he spoke to wasn't able to give him further info because general customer service didn't know or was unable within the bank's framework of who can say what wasn't able to tell him the reason his account was being closed.
4) Since he got immediately on the media about it every bank knew he had a bank account closed by another bank for whatever reasons.
5) Because he'd now had a bank account closed without his permission every bank now raised a red flag on him opening an account with them.
6) So his attempts to open accounts with others were stymied because of 5).
7) Even though the story (At least that which everyone understands and is in the public domain) has been solved, I'd bet many banks are keeping the red flag up on him because they're paranoid the truth might have been an AML issue Natwest/Coutts flagged up which they might want to keep confidential.
If the banks/other businesses do that they get no credit.
If someone slips through the net they get massive fines.
If they close down anyone who might possibly conceivably be a risk somewhere they lose a fraction of their profits, but small numbers compared to the massive fines.
The big time money launderers know how to game the system anyway.
This circle just doesn't work for anyone.
He can still say he wants it to be speedy - people do that all the time in standards matters
What you can have is the wollier intuition of "this has mostly worked and should be absorbed into the understanding of how to do things" (it will trigger some people, but some form of NHS is in that category) versus "this hasn't worked and ought to be undone" (the Poll Tax is a stark example of that). Those intuitions aren't always right, but they are all we've got. And fairly or not, the public intuitions about Brexit are that it was probably a mistake, and the public intutions about Brapprochment, even Brejoin, are that it's probably a good idea.
Labour lead at 25 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times
CON 22 (-2)
LAB 47 (+1)
LIB DEM 9 (-1)
REF UK 9 (+1)
GREEN 7 (=)
Fieldwork 5-6 July