I wonder how that will play out if it gains more attention.
By pulling out of the project itself, the Labour government certainly dropped the PO in it.
And if it ever emerges that there was political pressure to choose ICL, despite all the reservations from the PO’s internal experts, then they are more culpable still.
But that’s ancient history and, even if the PO were forced to buy a pup, they’ve had a hundred chances subsequently to recognise that fact and come clean.
I’m kind of angry and how badly Davey has managed / is managing this “scandal”.
Why the hell didn’t he just apologise? It is not necessary to personally culpable to apologise, and nor does - I think - open one up to prosecution or litigation.
Berk.
General question. Should people with a public profile apologise when they think they haven't done anything wrong? My personal rule is not to. I do apologise quite freely when I do think I'm at fault and I show empathy when others have been hurt and are frustrated.
Government ministers used to resign when something went wrong in their department, even if they hadn't done anything wrong personally.
"You know, in certain older civilized cultures, when men failed as entirely as you have, they would throw themselves on their swords."
Whisky. Revolver. Library. Duty. Chaps. I'll just leave you think it over Carruthers. Close the door. Single shot.
All countries have elites, Britain’s issue is that they are primarily drawn from the same class, universities, and geography.
This is exactly the same in France. In fact, it's worse.
That makes it okay then?
The contention was that Britain had a unique issue.
It doesn't.
Britain is better than France as far as I know, but so what. France is notoriously hierarchical and elitist.
So it’s not saying much.
Britain is actually going backward on these measures. I posted before that Wales - for example - sends hardly anyone to Oxbridge anymore, to which someone said, so what?
London rental prices today are crowding out anyone apart from those born upper middle class from the professions.
Sunak’s domestic problems will get worse when detailed seat-by-seat polling is published showing that Labour is on course to win even previously safe Tory seats. The MRP poll, funded by a wealthy Tory donor, will be released in stages and is expected to cause panic on the backbenches when MPs with huge paper majorities learn that they are on course to lose their seats.
Perhaps this is true, but it feels unlikely that the panic is new. Even Tory backbenchers can, like me, do the most primitive form of Baxtering on their abacus. and I am sure at the moment they do little else. As the latest YouGov poll Baxters to roughly the Tories losing 299 seats (leaving 77) one would think there is little new to panic about. Except that Gavin Williamson is among the Gallant 77. Rishi only loses by a bit. Tories should take comfort from the fact that on these figures Labour fall short of the 500 seat target, but not by much.
Tories will not be cheered by my view that, despite all that, NOM remains the value bet.
Tories should take my view that if they are going to get hammered, waiting till January 2025 is best.
Sunak’s domestic problems will get worse when detailed seat-by-seat polling is published showing that Labour is on course to win even previously safe Tory seats. The MRP poll, funded by a wealthy Tory donor, will be released in stages and is expected to cause panic on the backbenches when MPs with huge paper majorities learn that they are on course to lose their seats.
Perhaps this is true, but it feels unlikely that the panic is new. Even Tory backbenchers can, like me, do the most primitive form of Baxtering on their abacus. and I am sure at the moment they do little else. As the latest YouGov poll Baxters to roughly the Tories losing 299 seats (leaving 77) one would think there is little new to panic about. Except that Gavin Williamson is among the Gallant 77. Rishi only loses by a bit. Tories should take comfort from the fact that on these figures Labour fall short of the 500 seat target, but not by much.
Tories will not be cheered by my view that, despite all that, NOM remains the value bet.
Tories should take my view that if they are going to get hammered, waiting till January 2025 is best.
What about the Thursday between Christmas and New Year. Only the over 75s would be arsed to vote.
I’m kind of angry and how badly Davey has managed / is managing this “scandal”.
Why the hell didn’t he just apologise? It is not necessary to personally culpable to apologise, and nor does - I think - open one up to prosecution or litigation.
Berk.
General question. Should people with a public profile apologise when they think they haven't done anything wrong? My personal rule is not to. I do apologise quite freely when I do think I'm at fault and I show empathy when others have been hurt and are frustrated.
Government ministers used to resign when something went wrong in their department, even if they hadn't done anything wrong personally.
Ed Davey left that role two decades ago, so he can't resign from it and in any case there's no particular reason to pick him out from a dozen other people. If he were to resign from leadership of the Lib Dems it would be for political reasons. He's now become a drag on their political fortunes and needs to go.
I was really interested in whether people in public roles should apologise when they don't think they are fault. (I do think Davey could have handled it better, but I'm interested if there's any value in a non-apology apology, which is what people seem to be calling for)
Theresa May’s government pushed through a CBE for Paula Vennells, the disgraced former Post Office boss, despite concerns raised on the honours committee about the Horizon IT scandal.
Sir Ian Cheshire, now chairman of Channel 4, chaired the sub-committee that recommended Vennells for the most prestigious honour below a knighthood or damehood.
Sources said she was nominated by the Department for Business, although Greg Clark, then business secretary, was not involved. Her name was discussed by the main honours committee, chaired by Sir Jonathan Stephens — then the civil servant responsible for Northern Ireland — in October 2018....
...At least one member of the main honours committee questioned the wisdom of making Vennells a CBE, alluding to the growing noise surrounding the organisation’s mistreatment of sub-postmasters and pointing out that she was still in the role, whereas honours candidates tend to have retired...
...A source close to Cheshire, a former chairman of Debenhams and boss of the DIY chain Kingfisher, said that both the economy sub-committee and the main honours committee decided to recommend Vennells for her CBE after there was “quite a lot of push for her” from the government. The source said that while the committees were aware of the litigation brought by the sub-postmasters at the time, Whitehall officials advised that it was not enough to warrant blocking the honour because a judgment had not yet gone against the Post Office. “That decision turned out to be wrong.”
All countries have elites, Britain’s issue is that they are primarily drawn from the same class, universities, and geography.
This is exactly the same in France. In fact, it's worse.
That makes it okay then?
The contention was that Britain had a unique issue.
It doesn't.
Britain is better than France as far as I know, but so what. France is notoriously hierarchical and elitist.
So it’s not saying much.
Britain is actually going backward on these measures. I posted before that Wales - for example - sends hardly anyone to Oxbridge anymore, to which someone said, so what?
London rental prices today are crowding out anyone apart from those born upper middle class from the professions.
Not really, if you are a graduate from a lower middle class or working class background and get a job in a London law firm or accountancy firm or tech company or bank you can certainly afford a London rental. In outer London certainly
Theresa May’s government pushed through a CBE for Paula Vennells, the disgraced former Post Office boss, despite concerns raised on the honours committee about the Horizon IT scandal.
Sir Ian Cheshire, now chairman of Channel 4, chaired the sub-committee that recommended Vennells for the most prestigious honour below a knighthood or damehood.
Sources said she was nominated by the Department for Business, although Greg Clark, then business secretary, was not involved. Her name was discussed by the main honours committee, chaired by Sir Jonathan Stephens — then the civil servant responsible for Northern Ireland — in October 2018....
...At least one member of the main honours committee questioned the wisdom of making Vennells a CBE, alluding to the growing noise surrounding the organisation’s mistreatment of sub-postmasters and pointing out that she was still in the role, whereas honours candidates tend to have retired...
...A source close to Cheshire, a former chairman of Debenhams and boss of the DIY chain Kingfisher, said that both the economy sub-committee and the main honours committee decided to recommend Vennells for her CBE after there was “quite a lot of push for her” from the government. The source said that while the committees were aware of the litigation brought by the sub-postmasters at the time, Whitehall officials advised that it was not enough to warrant blocking the honour because a judgment had not yet gone against the Post Office. “That decision turned out to be wrong.”
Theresa May’s government pushed through a CBE for Paula Vennells, the disgraced former Post Office boss, despite concerns raised on the honours committee about the Horizon IT scandal.
Sir Ian Cheshire, now chairman of Channel 4, chaired the sub-committee that recommended Vennells for the most prestigious honour below a knighthood or damehood.
Sources said she was nominated by the Department for Business, although Greg Clark, then business secretary, was not involved. Her name was discussed by the main honours committee, chaired by Sir Jonathan Stephens — then the civil servant responsible for Northern Ireland — in October 2018....
...At least one member of the main honours committee questioned the wisdom of making Vennells a CBE, alluding to the growing noise surrounding the organisation’s mistreatment of sub-postmasters and pointing out that she was still in the role, whereas honours candidates tend to have retired...
...A source close to Cheshire, a former chairman of Debenhams and boss of the DIY chain Kingfisher, said that both the economy sub-committee and the main honours committee decided to recommend Vennells for her CBE after there was “quite a lot of push for her” from the government. The source said that while the committees were aware of the litigation brought by the sub-postmasters at the time, Whitehall officials advised that it was not enough to warrant blocking the honour because a judgment had not yet gone against the Post Office. “That decision turned out to be wrong.”
Sunak’s domestic problems will get worse when detailed seat-by-seat polling is published showing that Labour is on course to win even previously safe Tory seats. The MRP poll, funded by a wealthy Tory donor, will be released in stages and is expected to cause panic on the backbenches when MPs with huge paper majorities learn that they are on course to lose their seats.
Most agree that 2nd May makes most sense. But indecision is the easiest decision, so they will delay. Osbrown talking up 14th November, with an announcement in Sunak's conference speech.
But they will get there still facing armageddon. Letting parliament expire and rolling the dice with a Christmas campaign wildcard may feel like the better option...
Theresa May’s government pushed through a CBE for Paula Vennells, the disgraced former Post Office boss, despite concerns raised on the honours committee about the Horizon IT scandal.
Sir Ian Cheshire, now chairman of Channel 4, chaired the sub-committee that recommended Vennells for the most prestigious honour below a knighthood or damehood.
Sources said she was nominated by the Department for Business, although Greg Clark, then business secretary, was not involved. Her name was discussed by the main honours committee, chaired by Sir Jonathan Stephens — then the civil servant responsible for Northern Ireland — in October 2018....
...At least one member of the main honours committee questioned the wisdom of making Vennells a CBE, alluding to the growing noise surrounding the organisation’s mistreatment of sub-postmasters and pointing out that she was still in the role, whereas honours candidates tend to have retired...
...A source close to Cheshire, a former chairman of Debenhams and boss of the DIY chain Kingfisher, said that both the economy sub-committee and the main honours committee decided to recommend Vennells for her CBE after there was “quite a lot of push for her” from the government. The source said that while the committees were aware of the litigation brought by the sub-postmasters at the time, Whitehall officials advised that it was not enough to warrant blocking the honour because a judgment had not yet gone against the Post Office. “That decision turned out to be wrong.”
It was Sir Ian Cheshire who recommended her for the honour and civil servants in the Business Department who nominated her
A second source, a senior civil servant at the time, recalled that there had been a view among some in government that Vennells had “inherited” the Horizon scandal and was “clearing up rather than being the cause”.
and
It is understood that May’s government nominated Vennells for a CBE in 2018 before her name made its way to the honours sub-committee chaired at the time by Cheshire, which focuses on business and the economy.
All countries have elites, Britain’s issue is that they are primarily drawn from the same class, universities, and geography.
This is exactly the same in France. In fact, it's worse.
That makes it okay then?
The contention was that Britain had a unique issue.
It doesn't.
Britain is better than France as far as I know, but so what. France is notoriously hierarchical and elitist.
So it’s not saying much.
Britain is actually going backward on these measures. I posted before that Wales - for example - sends hardly anyone to Oxbridge anymore, to which someone said, so what?
London rental prices today are crowding out anyone apart from those born upper middle class from the professions.
Which is consistent with the Oxbridge point, in a sad way.
You've got a first from Footlights College Cambridge?
Your family is from not-London?
Lovely. You're not going to get on the housing ladder in the capital, babes.
All countries have elites, Britain’s issue is that they are primarily drawn from the same class, universities, and geography.
This is exactly the same in France. In fact, it's worse.
That makes it okay then?
The contention was that Britain had a unique issue.
It doesn't.
Britain is better than France as far as I know, but so what. France is notoriously hierarchical and elitist.
So it’s not saying much.
Britain is actually going backward on these measures. I posted before that Wales - for example - sends hardly anyone to Oxbridge anymore, to which someone said, so what?
London rental prices today are crowding out anyone apart from those born upper middle class from the professions.
Not really, if you are a graduate from a lower middle class or working class background and get a job in a London law firm or accountancy firm or tech company or bank you can certainly afford a London rental. In outer London certainly
As if you’d know anything about it. There is a quiet exodus of the young and economically aspirant away from London.
All countries have elites, Britain’s issue is that they are primarily drawn from the same class, universities, and geography.
This is exactly the same in France. In fact, it's worse.
That makes it okay then?
The contention was that Britain had a unique issue.
It doesn't.
Britain is better than France as far as I know, but so what. France is notoriously hierarchical and elitist.
So it’s not saying much.
Britain is actually going backward on these measures. I posted before that Wales - for example - sends hardly anyone to Oxbridge anymore, to which someone said, so what?
London rental prices today are crowding out anyone apart from those born upper middle class from the professions.
Which is consistent with the Oxbridge point, in a sad way.
You've got a first from Footlights College Cambridge?
Your family is from not-London?
Lovely. You're not going to get on the housing ladder in the capital, babes.
I know a working class girl from Gosport way who got a first class degree from Oxford and is now a trainee barrister. She is moving to…Margate.
All countries have elites, Britain’s issue is that they are primarily drawn from the same class, universities, and geography.
This is exactly the same in France. In fact, it's worse.
That makes it okay then?
The contention was that Britain had a unique issue.
It doesn't.
Britain is better than France as far as I know, but so what. France is notoriously hierarchical and elitist.
So it’s not saying much.
Britain is actually going backward on these measures. I posted before that Wales - for example - sends hardly anyone to Oxbridge anymore, to which someone said, so what?
London rental prices today are crowding out anyone apart from those born upper middle class from the professions.
Not really, if you are a graduate from a lower middle class or working class background and get a job in a London law firm or accountancy firm or tech company or bank you can certainly afford a London rental. In outer London certainly
Rental in Wormwood Scrubs isn't going to cut it, mate. Especially not for 40 years.
Theresa May’s government pushed through a CBE for Paula Vennells, the disgraced former Post Office boss, despite concerns raised on the honours committee about the Horizon IT scandal.
Sir Ian Cheshire, now chairman of Channel 4, chaired the sub-committee that recommended Vennells for the most prestigious honour below a knighthood or damehood.
Sources said she was nominated by the Department for Business, although Greg Clark, then business secretary, was not involved. Her name was discussed by the main honours committee, chaired by Sir Jonathan Stephens — then the civil servant responsible for Northern Ireland — in October 2018....
...At least one member of the main honours committee questioned the wisdom of making Vennells a CBE, alluding to the growing noise surrounding the organisation’s mistreatment of sub-postmasters and pointing out that she was still in the role, whereas honours candidates tend to have retired...
...A source close to Cheshire, a former chairman of Debenhams and boss of the DIY chain Kingfisher, said that both the economy sub-committee and the main honours committee decided to recommend Vennells for her CBE after there was “quite a lot of push for her” from the government. The source said that while the committees were aware of the litigation brought by the sub-postmasters at the time, Whitehall officials advised that it was not enough to warrant blocking the honour because a judgment had not yet gone against the Post Office. “That decision turned out to be wrong.”
It was Sir Ian Cheshire who recommended her for the honour and civil servants in the Business Department who nominated her
A second source, a senior civil servant at the time, recalled that there had been a view among some in government that Vennells had “inherited” the Horizon scandal and was “clearing up rather than being the cause”.
and
It is understood that May’s government nominated Vennells for a CBE in 2018 before her name made its way to the honours sub-committee chaired at the time by Cheshire, which focuses on business and the economy.
So? It was still the Business Dept civil servants pushing the nomination and if there were serious concerns at the time the honours sub cttee should have vetoed it.
I would have thought Lord Mandelson also had questions to answer after he reassured Tony Blair it was OK to go ahead with the Horizon IT system despite questions about its reliability
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
Hubris, thy name is AverageNinja. It’s not that long ago that people wondered if labour would ever govern again. I doubt labour has the answers to transform the U.K., so when the shine starts to come off the polls will turn. It may not be just one term, but history suggests that defeated Tories go away and reinvent themselves to get back to power. That’s where the money is, after all…
All countries have elites, Britain’s issue is that they are primarily drawn from the same class, universities, and geography.
This is exactly the same in France. In fact, it's worse.
That makes it okay then?
The contention was that Britain had a unique issue.
It doesn't.
Britain is better than France as far as I know, but so what. France is notoriously hierarchical and elitist.
So it’s not saying much.
Britain is actually going backward on these measures. I posted before that Wales - for example - sends hardly anyone to Oxbridge anymore, to which someone said, so what?
London rental prices today are crowding out anyone apart from those born upper middle class from the professions.
Which is consistent with the Oxbridge point, in a sad way.
You've got a first from Footlights College Cambridge?
Your family is from not-London?
Lovely. You're not going to get on the housing ladder in the capital, babes.
I know a working class girl from Gosport way who got a first class degree from Oxford and is now a trainee barrister. She is moving to…Margate.
Moving to Margate??
Can you provide me with her name so I can report her to the Bar Standards Board.
All countries have elites, Britain’s issue is that they are primarily drawn from the same class, universities, and geography.
This is exactly the same in France. In fact, it's worse.
That makes it okay then?
The contention was that Britain had a unique issue.
It doesn't.
Britain is better than France as far as I know, but so what. France is notoriously hierarchical and elitist.
So it’s not saying much.
Britain is actually going backward on these measures. I posted before that Wales - for example - sends hardly anyone to Oxbridge anymore, to which someone said, so what?
London rental prices today are crowding out anyone apart from those born upper middle class from the professions.
Not really, if you are a graduate from a lower middle class or working class background and get a job in a London law firm or accountancy firm or tech company or bank you can certainly afford a London rental. In outer London certainly
Rental in Wormwood Scrubs isn't going to cut it, mate. Especially not for 40 years.
If you are a trainee in a corporate law firm you can soon afford rental in Finchley let alone the likes of Enfield, Bromley etc.
Wormwood Scrubs the government pays you rental and board
All countries have elites, Britain’s issue is that they are primarily drawn from the same class, universities, and geography.
This is exactly the same in France. In fact, it's worse.
That makes it okay then?
The contention was that Britain had a unique issue.
It doesn't.
Britain is better than France as far as I know, but so what. France is notoriously hierarchical and elitist.
So it’s not saying much.
Britain is actually going backward on these measures. I posted before that Wales - for example - sends hardly anyone to Oxbridge anymore, to which someone said, so what?
London rental prices today are crowding out anyone apart from those born upper middle class from the professions.
Which is consistent with the Oxbridge point, in a sad way.
You've got a first from Footlights College Cambridge?
Your family is from not-London?
Lovely. You're not going to get on the housing ladder in the capital, babes.
I know a working class girl from Gosport way who got a first class degree from Oxford and is now a trainee barrister. She is moving to…Margate.
Criminal barrister pupillages have always paid far less than their commercial colleagues and nothing wrong with Margate, has a beach and excellent art centre
All countries have elites, Britain’s issue is that they are primarily drawn from the same class, universities, and geography.
This is exactly the same in France. In fact, it's worse.
That makes it okay then?
The contention was that Britain had a unique issue.
It doesn't.
Britain is better than France as far as I know, but so what. France is notoriously hierarchical and elitist.
So it’s not saying much.
Britain is actually going backward on these measures. I posted before that Wales - for example - sends hardly anyone to Oxbridge anymore, to which someone said, so what?
London rental prices today are crowding out anyone apart from those born upper middle class from the professions.
Not really, if you are a graduate from a lower middle class or working class background and get a job in a London law firm or accountancy firm or tech company or bank you can certainly afford a London rental. In outer London certainly
As if you’d know anything about it. There is a quiet exodus of the young and economically aspirant away from London.
The closure of schools is part of the same story.
Well if some of the economically aspirant wish to go to Manchester or Birmingham or Cardiff or Edinburgh or Leeds rather than London and spread talent around a bit, so what?
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
Don't be silly, no party will of in a healthy democracy ever should be in government forever. The Tories will come around again (and if not them, another party on the right, but they have no credible rival).
However a larger majority for Labour than in 1997 is certainly possible. Unlikely (I still think ~80 seat majority) but its a possibility.
Sunak is certainly doing everything he can to ensure a triple-digit Labour majority.
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
Hubris, thy name is AverageNinja. It’s not that long ago that people wondered if labour would ever govern again. I doubt labour has the answers to transform the U.K., so when the shine starts to come off the polls will turn. It may not be just one term, but history suggests that defeated Tories go away and reinvent themselves to get back to power. That’s where the money is, after all…
Fair play to Starmer for not displaying hubris.
Another senior adviser to Starmer has told friends he has mentally written the newspaper reports that explain how Labour blew its 20-point lead and lost a fifth consecutive election.
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
Hubris, thy name is AverageNinja. It’s not that long ago that people wondered if labour would ever govern again. I doubt labour has the answers to transform the U.K., so when the shine starts to come off the polls will turn. It may not be just one term, but history suggests that defeated Tories go away and reinvent themselves to get back to power. That’s where the money is, after all…
Man, I read that post and time travelled back to 1996.
Remind me, when Blair dragged Labour just over the line, did the Conservatives regroup and smash the next election out of the park, or were they unelectable for over a decade?
All countries have elites, Britain’s issue is that they are primarily drawn from the same class, universities, and geography.
This is exactly the same in France. In fact, it's worse.
That makes it okay then?
The contention was that Britain had a unique issue.
It doesn't.
Britain is better than France as far as I know, but so what. France is notoriously hierarchical and elitist.
So it’s not saying much.
Britain is actually going backward on these measures. I posted before that Wales - for example - sends hardly anyone to Oxbridge anymore, to which someone said, so what?
London rental prices today are crowding out anyone apart from those born upper middle class from the professions.
Not really, if you are a graduate from a lower middle class or working class background and get a job in a London law firm or accountancy firm or tech company or bank you can certainly afford a London rental. In outer London certainly
As if you’d know anything about it. There is a quiet exodus of the young and economically aspirant away from London.
The closure of schools is part of the same story.
Well if some of the economically aspirant wish to go to Manchester or Birmingham rather than London and spread talent around a bit, so what?
If Britain worked in a way which allowed you to join the elite from a Manchester- or Birmingham- based professional career, then indeed, so what.
The problem is that it mostly, and increasingly, doesn’t.
All countries have elites, Britain’s issue is that they are primarily drawn from the same class, universities, and geography.
This is exactly the same in France. In fact, it's worse.
That makes it okay then?
The contention was that Britain had a unique issue.
It doesn't.
Britain is better than France as far as I know, but so what. France is notoriously hierarchical and elitist.
So it’s not saying much.
Britain is actually going backward on these measures. I posted before that Wales - for example - sends hardly anyone to Oxbridge anymore, to which someone said, so what?
London rental prices today are crowding out anyone apart from those born upper middle class from the professions.
Perhaps Wales could do with a change in the Welsh government?
Having had the same party in power for almost thirty consecutive years isn't healthy.
All countries have elites, Britain’s issue is that they are primarily drawn from the same class, universities, and geography.
This is exactly the same in France. In fact, it's worse.
That makes it okay then?
The contention was that Britain had a unique issue.
It doesn't.
Britain is better than France as far as I know, but so what. France is notoriously hierarchical and elitist.
So it’s not saying much.
Britain is actually going backward on these measures. I posted before that Wales - for example - sends hardly anyone to Oxbridge anymore, to which someone said, so what?
London rental prices today are crowding out anyone apart from those born upper middle class from the professions.
Not really, if you are a graduate from a lower middle class or working class background and get a job in a London law firm or accountancy firm or tech company or bank you can certainly afford a London rental. In outer London certainly
As if you’d know anything about it. There is a quiet exodus of the young and economically aspirant away from London.
The closure of schools is part of the same story.
Well if some of the economically aspirant wish to go to Manchester or Birmingham rather than London and spread talent around a bit, so what?
If Britain worked in a way which allowed you to join the elite from a Manchester- or Birmingham- based professional career, then indeed, so what.
The problem is that it mostly, and increasingly, doesn’t.
If you are a member of a law firm's office in Birmingham rather than London does it really make a huge difference? As I said most corporate law firm trainees in London can afford to rent in most of the city anyway
Elite overproduction is essential, IMHO. There have to be more outstanding people than available positions, so that societies can bounce back from the culling of elites.
Theresa May’s government pushed through a CBE for Paula Vennells, the disgraced former Post Office boss, despite concerns raised on the honours committee about the Horizon IT scandal.
Sir Ian Cheshire, now chairman of Channel 4, chaired the sub-committee that recommended Vennells for the most prestigious honour below a knighthood or damehood.
Sources said she was nominated by the Department for Business, although Greg Clark, then business secretary, was not involved. Her name was discussed by the main honours committee, chaired by Sir Jonathan Stephens — then the civil servant responsible for Northern Ireland — in October 2018....
...At least one member of the main honours committee questioned the wisdom of making Vennells a CBE, alluding to the growing noise surrounding the organisation’s mistreatment of sub-postmasters and pointing out that she was still in the role, whereas honours candidates tend to have retired...
...A source close to Cheshire, a former chairman of Debenhams and boss of the DIY chain Kingfisher, said that both the economy sub-committee and the main honours committee decided to recommend Vennells for her CBE after there was “quite a lot of push for her” from the government. The source said that while the committees were aware of the litigation brought by the sub-postmasters at the time, Whitehall officials advised that it was not enough to warrant blocking the honour because a judgment had not yet gone against the Post Office. “That decision turned out to be wrong.”
It was Sir Ian Cheshire who recommended her for the honour and civil servants in the Business Department who nominated her
A second source, a senior civil servant at the time, recalled that there had been a view among some in government that Vennells had “inherited” the Horizon scandal and was “clearing up rather than being the cause”.
and
It is understood that May’s government nominated Vennells for a CBE in 2018 before her name made its way to the honours sub-committee chaired at the time by Cheshire, which focuses on business and the economy.
She did inherit the scandal. And to begin with, it did look like she was up for cleaning it up.
Then, everything changed, and how and why and when is a key question the inquiry needs to get answered.
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
Hubris, thy name is AverageNinja. It’s not that long ago that people wondered if labour would ever govern again. I doubt labour has the answers to transform the U.K., so when the shine starts to come off the polls will turn. It may not be just one term, but history suggests that defeated Tories go away and reinvent themselves to get back to power. That’s where the money is, after all…
Man, I read that post and time travelled back to 1996.
Remind me, when Blair dragged Labour just over the line, did the Conservatives regroup and smash the next election out of the park, or were they unelectable for over a decade?
The original post said never again. Yes, the Tories did take a while to regroup, not helped by a very skewed vote distribution (small labour % leads gav3 big majorities). But then they found Cameron, who found a different kind of conservatism (at least for a while).
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
On the latter point I heard the same nonsense between 1997 and 2010.
To be fair, it took the almost complete economic collapse of the West to get the Conservatives back close to power.
It was said after 1987 the Conservatives were the "natural Party of Government" and Labour "the natural party of Opposition". Some thought Blair would screw up after 1997 and the Conservatives would return in triumph after one term.
Who for instance, after the resounding Conservative victory in 2019, could have imagined we'd be where we are now - most expected a minimum two terms of Boris Johnson, he didn't make it to three years.
Trying to predict the future is fraught with peril - just look at my horse race betting account.
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
On the latter point I heard the same nonsense between 1997 and 2010.
It will I suppose come true one day, but the hypothesis that the Tory party will never govern again requires one of two eventualities:
a) that the other one, Labour, is in for ever or b) that a third unknown force in politics turns up to form a government, taking turns with Labour.
In terms of probabilities for, say, the next 50 years (for ever is a long time) (a) has a probability of about Zero and (b) a probability of about 5-10%.
Sherlock's dictum therefore applies in this case (though not all cases - Holmes is being careless):
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"; ie there is a 90%+ chance of there being a future Tory government.
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
Hubris, thy name is AverageNinja. It’s not that long ago that people wondered if labour would ever govern again. I doubt labour has the answers to transform the U.K., so when the shine starts to come off the polls will turn. It may not be just one term, but history suggests that defeated Tories go away and reinvent themselves to get back to power. That’s where the money is, after all…
Man, I read that post and time travelled back to 1996.
Remind me, when Blair dragged Labour just over the line, did the Conservatives regroup and smash the next election out of the park, or were they unelectable for over a decade?
The original post said never again. Yes, the Tories did take a while to regroup, not helped by a very skewed vote distribution (small labour % leads gav3 big majorities). But then they found Cameron, who found a different kind of conservatism (at least for a while).
Of course after defeat in 1945, the Tories were back in power in 6 years, after defeat in 1964 back in power in 6 years and after defeat in 1974 back in power in 1979. New Labour was the exception which kept the Tories out of power for over a decade largely as they ran the economy better than previous Labour governments
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
On the latter point I heard the same nonsense between 1997 and 2010.
To be fair, it took the almost complete economic collapse of the West to get the Conservatives back close to power.
It was said after 1987 the Conservatives were the "natural Party of Government" and Labour "the natural party of Opposition". Some thought Blair would screw up after 1997 and the Conservatives would return in triumph after one term.
Who for instance, after the resounding Conservative victory in 2019, could have imagined we'd be where we are now - most expected a minimum two terms of Boris Johnson, he didn't make it to three years.
Trying to predict the future is fraught with peril - just look at my horse race betting account.
Two things massively derailed th government after Dec 2019. Covid and the war in Ukraine. Without those I think Johnson would still be in no 10, thinking about when to go to the nation.
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
On the latter point I heard the same nonsense between 1997 and 2010.
To be fair, it took the almost complete economic collapse of the West to get the Conservatives back close to power.
It was said after 1987 the Conservatives were the "natural Party of Government" and Labour "the natural party of Opposition". Some thought Blair would screw up after 1997 and the Conservatives would return in triumph after one term.
Who for instance, after the resounding Conservative victory in 2019, could have imagined we'd be where we are now - most expected a minimum two terms of Boris Johnson, he didn't make it to three years.
Trying to predict the future is fraught with peril - just look at my horse race betting account.
I did.
As JohnO can confirm I struck a bet with somebody the morning after GE2019 night which said Boris Johnson's tenure as PM would be shorter than David Cameron's tenure.
Boris Johnson was patently too lazy to be a successful Prime Minister and coupled with penchant for lies it was inevitable.
All countries have elites, Britain’s issue is that they are primarily drawn from the same class, universities, and geography.
This is exactly the same in France. In fact, it's worse.
That makes it okay then?
The contention was that Britain had a unique issue.
It doesn't.
Britain is better than France as far as I know, but so what. France is notoriously hierarchical and elitist.
So it’s not saying much.
Britain is actually going backward on these measures. I posted before that Wales - for example - sends hardly anyone to Oxbridge anymore, to which someone said, so what?
London rental prices today are crowding out anyone apart from those born upper middle class from the professions.
Perhaps Wales could do with a change in the Welsh government?
Having had the same party in power for almost thirty consecutive years isn't healthy.
The problem we have in Wales is however abject Labour appear, the Welsh Conservatives ratchet their incompetence several notches lower.
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
Hubris, thy name is AverageNinja. It’s not that long ago that people wondered if labour would ever govern again. I doubt labour has the answers to transform the U.K., so when the shine starts to come off the polls will turn. It may not be just one term, but history suggests that defeated Tories go away and reinvent themselves to get back to power. That’s where the money is, after all…
In fairness to Ninja, I didn't take the point as being that Labour would govern forever. It's more that, when the time comes for the pendulum to swing, it may not be the Conservatives that benefit, but some other party (presumably of the right or centre right but who knows).
I think that's a bit unlikely, but not impossible, and it isn't necessarily hubris. A RefUK (or similar) next government but one would probably be less attractive to those on the centre-left.
At the risk of appearing negative, having read the header a couple of times I am left wondering, so what? What point is trying to be made? Unless it is: "as we have centuries of experience with disconnected elites I think we can own it".
Goodwin defines his New Elite as 'Oxbridge/Russell Group graduates in managerial jobs with liberal cosmopolitan values [my bold] who are over-represented in decision-making'; you get the feeling he wouldn't mind so much if it weren't for those liberal cosmopolitan values.
I could equally counter that the Real Elite are those privately educated, Oxbridge/Russell Group graduates in professional/media/politicial jobs, with neoliberal nationalist values, who are over-represented in decision-making'.
Its 13th January, and already the Tory media are practically foaming at the mouth in creating invective to hurl at every opposition party bar Reform.
If things are as catastrophic as several of us keep saying and supposedly MRP is going to confirm, we can imagine what comes next.
We know that politics is prone to bursts of echo chamber lunacy. We know the Tories are already prone to sing to their remaining choir members only. So with ELE firmly on the agenda, the response is going to be insane.
I am taking the piss with Starmer and Davey being responsible for things like the death of the dinosaurs. GBeebies et al are deadly serious - and the claims will get increasingly stupid and desperate. Will people pay any attention? Note that the attacks on Starmer and Davey seem to be *increasing* their party vote shares.
So. A year of bitter nasty and demented political attacks. With no salvation incoming in the polls. And the need to keep waiting getting bigger and bigger.
That January 2025 election is a bigger possibility than ever.
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
Hubris, thy name is AverageNinja. It’s not that long ago that people wondered if labour would ever govern again. I doubt labour has the answers to transform the U.K., so when the shine starts to come off the polls will turn. It may not be just one term, but history suggests that defeated Tories go away and reinvent themselves to get back to power. That’s where the money is, after all…
Man, I read that post and time travelled back to 1996.
Remind me, when Blair dragged Labour just over the line, did the Conservatives regroup and smash the next election out of the park, or were they unelectable for over a decade?
The original post said never again. Yes, the Tories did take a while to regroup, not helped by a very skewed vote distribution (small labour % leads gav3 big majorities). But then they found Cameron, who found a different kind of conservatism (at least for a while).
And Cameron was already there, hiding in plain sight all along. Here he is SPADding for Badger Lamont in 1992;
I expect the Conservatives to find someone to save them. But the task is harder (thanks to the purges of recent years) and more urgent (I reckon they have a decade until the Grim Reaper reaps the party in the country to niche status) than it was in 1997.
Its 13th January, and already the Tory media are practically foaming at the mouth in creating invective to hurl at every opposition party bar Reform.
If things are as catastrophic as several of us keep saying and supposedly MRP is going to confirm, we can imagine what comes next.
We know that politics is prone to bursts of echo chamber lunacy. We know the Tories are already prone to sing to their remaining choir members only. So with ELE firmly on the agenda, the response is going to be insane.
I am taking the piss with Starmer and Davey being responsible for things like the death of the dinosaurs. GBeebies et al are deadly serious - and the claims will get increasingly stupid and desperate. Will people pay any attention? Note that the attacks on Starmer and Davey seem to be *increasing* their party vote shares.
So. A year of bitter nasty and demented political attacks. With no salvation incoming in the polls. And the need to keep waiting getting bigger and bigger.
That January 2025 election is a bigger possibility than ever.
January 2025 is much more likely than May 2024.
Its October 2024 or January 2025. Those are the only credible dates.
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
Hubris, thy name is AverageNinja. It’s not that long ago that people wondered if labour would ever govern again. I doubt labour has the answers to transform the U.K., so when the shine starts to come off the polls will turn. It may not be just one term, but history suggests that defeated Tories go away and reinvent themselves to get back to power. That’s where the money is, after all…
Man, I read that post and time travelled back to 1996.
Remind me, when Blair dragged Labour just over the line, did the Conservatives regroup and smash the next election out of the park, or were they unelectable for over a decade?
The original post said never again. Yes, the Tories did take a while to regroup, not helped by a very skewed vote distribution (small labour % leads gav3 big majorities). But then they found Cameron, who found a different kind of conservatism (at least for a while).
Of course after defeat in 1945, the Tories were back in power in 6 years, after defeat in 1964 back in power in 6 years and after defeat in 1974 back in power in 1979. New Labour was the exception which kept the Tories out of power for over a decade largely as they ran the economy better than previous Labour governments
It's very difficult to predict the future and even more so if you try to pattern match against the past.
Neither of us know what will happen assuming a Labour win in November. A lot will depend on the scale of the victory and the scale of the defeat (which aren't the same).
As we may see, a more volatile or perhaps less tribal electorate will enable larger swings than was once the case.
The question probably is where will those who become dillusioned with Labour go - will they go direct to the Conservatives or will they flirt with Reform, the LDs, the Greens? As I've often said how parties respond to defeat is often more instructive than how they respond to victory.
Its 13th January, and already the Tory media are practically foaming at the mouth in creating invective to hurl at every opposition party bar Reform.
If things are as catastrophic as several of us keep saying and supposedly MRP is going to confirm, we can imagine what comes next.
We know that politics is prone to bursts of echo chamber lunacy. We know the Tories are already prone to sing to their remaining choir members only. So with ELE firmly on the agenda, the response is going to be insane.
I am taking the piss with Starmer and Davey being responsible for things like the death of the dinosaurs. GBeebies et al are deadly serious - and the claims will get increasingly stupid and desperate. Will people pay any attention? Note that the attacks on Starmer and Davey seem to be *increasing* their party vote shares.
So. A year of bitter nasty and demented political attacks. With no salvation incoming in the polls. And the need to keep waiting getting bigger and bigger.
That January 2025 election is a bigger possibility than ever.
January 2025 is much more likely than May 2024.
Its October 2024 or January 2025. Those are the only credible dates.
It's November 14th.
I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if it isn't.
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
Hubris, thy name is AverageNinja. It’s not that long ago that people wondered if labour would ever govern again. I doubt labour has the answers to transform the U.K., so when the shine starts to come off the polls will turn. It may not be just one term, but history suggests that defeated Tories go away and reinvent themselves to get back to power. That’s where the money is, after all…
Man, I read that post and time travelled back to 1996.
Remind me, when Blair dragged Labour just over the line, did the Conservatives regroup and smash the next election out of the park, or were they unelectable for over a decade?
The original post said never again. Yes, the Tories did take a while to regroup, not helped by a very skewed vote distribution (small labour % leads gav3 big majorities). But then they found Cameron, who found a different kind of conservatism (at least for a while).
Labour and the Conservative Party have reinvented themselves over the last decade, Labour into an unelectable shambolic rabble under Corbyn. The Conservatives had a similar dilemma and under Johnson swung wildly to the populist right. If they lose they can try to tack back to the centre or go crazy-ape- bonkers and elect Braverman or Jenrick.
November 2024 seems bonkers to me. People get more miserable after the clocks go back and its suddenly dark much earlier, why would you have the election then rather than October?
As late as possible yes, but if going before Christmas then surely 24 October is last reasonable date. 31 October is just too riddled with Halloween jokes and November is after clocks change.
Its 13th January, and already the Tory media are practically foaming at the mouth in creating invective to hurl at every opposition party bar Reform.
If things are as catastrophic as several of us keep saying and supposedly MRP is going to confirm, we can imagine what comes next.
We know that politics is prone to bursts of echo chamber lunacy. We know the Tories are already prone to sing to their remaining choir members only. So with ELE firmly on the agenda, the response is going to be insane.
I am taking the piss with Starmer and Davey being responsible for things like the death of the dinosaurs. GBeebies et al are deadly serious - and the claims will get increasingly stupid and desperate. Will people pay any attention? Note that the attacks on Starmer and Davey seem to be *increasing* their party vote shares.
So. A year of bitter nasty and demented political attacks. With no salvation incoming in the polls. And the need to keep waiting getting bigger and bigger.
That January 2025 election is a bigger possibility than ever.
January 2025 is much more likely than May 2024.
Its October 2024 or January 2025. Those are the only credible dates.
It's November 14th.
I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if it isn't.
Interesting header. But to repeat a comment I made in response to the NU10K stuff. The real elite (in old marxist terms, the owners of the means of production) must be laughing their socks off at stuff like this and Goodwin's nonsense, because it distracts from the enormous corporate power they still hold in most Western countries (and, increasingly, globally). Think about the immense power of the huge corporations - the Amazons, Googles, oil and gas companies, Tesco - I could go on and on.
I don't deny that there is (as Weber predicted a long, long time ago) a bureaucratic elite, and that elite has significant failings. But to focus entirely on them and ignore the continuing power of big business, corporate greed, the military and so on is to miss a huge wedge of the source of power. Maybe I should write an alternative header.
Indeed you should write a header.
The idea that the U.K. military has any significant political pull is belied by the way that every government since the end of the Cold War has tried to cut military spending as the politically cheap option.
In the U.K. we have a Medical Industrial Complex and a Social Protection Industrial Complex.
Not quite sure who the 10K elite is restricted to. If you add up all the people behind the royal box at Wimbledon, blazered swells in the Pimms tent at Henley, chaps in black tie quaffing Pol Roger on the lawn at Glyndebourne, it comes to much more than 10K. From the point of view of a Marxist insurrectionary (retired) 10K does rather underestimate the scale of the problem.
The old Upper 10,000 was more than 10,000 actual people.
The NU10K are roughly defined as combination of
- important, well paid roles in public, private or third sector - when a scandal hits, the worst they suffer is moving to another job. Often with compensation - while apparently meritocratic, those who gain entry meet certain criteria. Mostly about having the attitude of protecting others at that level.
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine reading a 2,453 page report which says nothing – for ever.”
So as I said, a very circular and therefore useless definition.
Why not just say that people who are both privately educated and been to University are the new elite?
Most of them never achieve the level of unaccountability and circular job flow. Most live in a world where if you fuck up, it’s your neck.
Just because the “elite” aren’t the 3rd sons of the 2nd cousin to the Earl of Whatever, doesn’t make them that much more desirable. We need there to be consequences for failure.
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
Hubris, thy name is AverageNinja. It’s not that long ago that people wondered if labour would ever govern again. I doubt labour has the answers to transform the U.K., so when the shine starts to come off the polls will turn. It may not be just one term, but history suggests that defeated Tories go away and reinvent themselves to get back to power. That’s where the money is, after all…
Man, I read that post and time travelled back to 1996.
Remind me, when Blair dragged Labour just over the line, did the Conservatives regroup and smash the next election out of the park, or were they unelectable for over a decade?
The original post said never again. Yes, the Tories did take a while to regroup, not helped by a very skewed vote distribution (small labour % leads gav3 big majorities). But then they found Cameron, who found a different kind of conservatism (at least for a while).
Of course after defeat in 1945, the Tories were back in power in 6 years, after defeat in 1964 back in power in 6 years and after defeat in 1974 back in power in 1979. New Labour was the exception which kept the Tories out of power for over a decade largely as they ran the economy better than previous Labour governments
It's very difficult to predict the future and even more so if you try to pattern match against the past.
Neither of us know what will happen assuming a Labour win in November. A lot will depend on the scale of the victory and the scale of the defeat (which aren't the same).
As we may see, a more volatile or perhaps less tribal electorate will enable larger swings than was once the case.
The question probably is where will those who become dillusioned with Labour go - will they go direct to the Conservatives or will they flirt with Reform, the LDs, the Greens? As I've often said how parties respond to defeat is often more instructive than how they respond to victory.
In which case...
If the Conservatives want to make 2024-9 a sabbatical rather than an exile or worse, what should they do?
Which leader, what policies?
It's not easy. My guess is that they'll go comfort zone and hope that Starmer Gets Found Out. Which probably won't work.
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
On the latter point I heard the same nonsense between 1997 and 2010.
To be fair, it took the almost complete economic collapse of the West to get the Conservatives back close to power.
It was said after 1987 the Conservatives were the "natural Party of Government" and Labour "the natural party of Opposition". Some thought Blair would screw up after 1997 and the Conservatives would return in triumph after one term.
Who for instance, after the resounding Conservative victory in 2019, could have imagined we'd be where we are now - most expected a minimum two terms of Boris Johnson, he didn't make it to three years.
Trying to predict the future is fraught with peril - just look at my horse race betting account.
I did.
As JohnO can confirm I struck a bet with somebody the morning after GE2019 night which said Boris Johnson's tenure as PM would be shorter than David Cameron's tenure.
Boris Johnson was patently too lazy to be a successful Prime Minister and coupled with penchant for lies it was inevitable.
Tbf that's not quite the same thing as predicting an 80 seat Conservative majority would (as currently seems likely) be totally smashed out of the park at the very next GE. There were plenty of possible paths where Johnson got ditched and the Tories retained a majority.
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
On the latter point I heard the same nonsense between 1997 and 2010.
To be fair, it took the almost complete economic collapse of the West to get the Conservatives back close to power.
It was said after 1987 the Conservatives were the "natural Party of Government" and Labour "the natural party of Opposition". Some thought Blair would screw up after 1997 and the Conservatives would return in triumph after one term.
Who for instance, after the resounding Conservative victory in 2019, could have imagined we'd be where we are now - most expected a minimum two terms of Boris Johnson, he didn't make it to three years.
Trying to predict the future is fraught with peril - just look at my horse race betting account.
Two things massively derailed th government after Dec 2019. Covid and the war in Ukraine. Without those I think Johnson would still be in no 10, thinking about when to go to the nation.
No, because he was set to ‘self-destruct’ from the very beginning. If it hadn’t been the disgraced covid partying, it would soon have been something else.
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
On the latter point I heard the same nonsense between 1997 and 2010.
To be fair, it took the almost complete economic collapse of the West to get the Conservatives back close to power.
It was said after 1987 the Conservatives were the "natural Party of Government" and Labour "the natural party of Opposition". Some thought Blair would screw up after 1997 and the Conservatives would return in triumph after one term.
Who for instance, after the resounding Conservative victory in 2019, could have imagined we'd be where we are now - most expected a minimum two terms of Boris Johnson, he didn't make it to three years.
Trying to predict the future is fraught with peril - just look at my horse race betting account.
I did.
As JohnO can confirm I struck a bet with somebody the morning after GE2019 night which said Boris Johnson's tenure as PM would be shorter than David Cameron's tenure.
Boris Johnson was patently too lazy to be a successful Prime Minister and coupled with penchant for lies it was inevitable.
Tbf that's not quite the same thing as predicting an 80 seat Conservative majority would (as currently seems likely) be totally smashed out of the park at the very next GE. There were plenty of possible paths where Johnson got ditched and the Tories retained a majority.
Would, could and should all mean completely different things.
I predicted Labour could get a majority next time and was told by many it was impossible. But it was on my wide spectrum of possible results, the other end of the spectrum was an increased Tory majority.
Events since means that spectrum has narrowed massively - on one extreme of the spectrum.
Good news transportation wise, is that Big G can rely on something more reassuring, and comfortable, than modern air travel, for HIS upcoming transport needs -
By lifeboat. With perhaps a complementary tot of RNLI rum?
Actually I am still waiting for my conducted tour of the Shannon AWB promised by my son and the cox, but then I have had more important and on going health issues that I and my family will hopefully see addressed on the 6th Feb with my pacemaker operation
Indeed it was only a few days ago my son took me into A & E at 2.00am with chest pains, but after urgent tests and ECGs I was sent home by the doctor and consultant to take it easy and not drink coffee, but to return anytime I had issues
My son told me today he has a week's training in Poole in March and is hoping he will gain his helm certification shortly after, which will be his first command position after just 2 years
It is factual I will not fly again, but after all our world travels over the last 20 years, my wife and I have been left with so many memories and gratitude that we were able to see so much of our wonderful world while we could
I’m kind of angry and how badly Davey has managed / is managing this “scandal”.
Why the hell didn’t he just apologise? It is not necessary to personally culpable to apologise, and nor does - I think - open one up to prosecution or litigation.
Berk.
It was exactly my point yesterday
It was crazy to refuse 10 times to say sorry on an ITV news programme, when he could have calmed the issue down
Sky just interviewed the post mistress standing against him at the GE
I think it's lazy interviewing to ask the same question 10 times. Ask it twice, make the point that it's not been answered, and move on - 10 times is irritating "gotch" stuff.
Agree.
But what should Ed Davey have handled the situation?
Bill Clinton (for example) would have repeated same basic response, just kept changing it up via his gift of gab.
Like mentioning, did you know my aunt was a postmaster? And how he'd once defended her against a rogue postal inspector? And he'd been endorsed by Letter Carriers Union five times? And . . .
NOT saying that ED needs to match Bill Clinton standard of political gamespersonship.
Right now he's not achieving even Al Gore standard.
Yes, I think that if he doesn't want to apologise he needs to say so - "You keep asking the same question, but I think it goes way beyond individuals being pressed to apologise personally. The problem is that senior people have been too ready to assume that computer systems are always right, and that's something all we need not only to apologise for but make sure we don't do it again."
There are lots of sensible answers he could have given, Nick. He is by no means the main person to blame here and may indeed not have that much to be blamed for, not by comparison with others. I - for instance - would be asking some really tough questions of the Post Office's Chairs during this period.
But he didn't. He chose to give an interview but was woefully unprepared for it. Or he thought the way he handled it was the right way to do it.
So he looks either incompetent or lacking in judgment.
I am in no way a Lib Dem
1) Davey was given false information by officials, when he asked. 99.99% probability that this is true. 2) Where did the lying start in the chain below him? 3) When a minister gets a response from his department is he/she supposed not to trust it? Should every minister be at war with his department? 4) Given 1) someone owes Davey an appology.
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
Hubris, thy name is AverageNinja. It’s not that long ago that people wondered if labour would ever govern again. I doubt labour has the answers to transform the U.K., so when the shine starts to come off the polls will turn. It may not be just one term, but history suggests that defeated Tories go away and reinvent themselves to get back to power. That’s where the money is, after all…
Man, I read that post and time travelled back to 1996.
Remind me, when Blair dragged Labour just over the line, did the Conservatives regroup and smash the next election out of the park, or were they unelectable for over a decade?
The original post said never again. Yes, the Tories did take a while to regroup, not helped by a very skewed vote distribution (small labour % leads gav3 big majorities). But then they found Cameron, who found a different kind of conservatism (at least for a while).
And Cameron was already there, hiding in plain sight all along. Here he is SPADding for Badger Lamont in 1992;
I expect the Conservatives to find someone to save them. But the task is harder (thanks to the purges of recent years) and more urgent (I reckon they have a decade until the Grim Reaper reaps the party in the country to niche status) than it was in 1997.
Oh for goodness sake, in 2010 the Tories won most voters over 25, in 1997 they didn't even win over 65s.
Politics goes in cycles (and of course technically the Tories could narrowly win most seats despite losing most voters under 50)
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
On the latter point I heard the same nonsense between 1997 and 2010.
To be fair, it took the almost complete economic collapse of the West to get the Conservatives back close to power.
It was said after 1987 the Conservatives were the "natural Party of Government" and Labour "the natural party of Opposition". Some thought Blair would screw up after 1997 and the Conservatives would return in triumph after one term.
Who for instance, after the resounding Conservative victory in 2019, could have imagined we'd be where we are now - most expected a minimum two terms of Boris Johnson, he didn't make it to three years.
Trying to predict the future is fraught with peril - just look at my horse race betting account.
I did.
As JohnO can confirm I struck a bet with somebody the morning after GE2019 night which said Boris Johnson's tenure as PM would be shorter than David Cameron's tenure.
Boris Johnson was patently too lazy to be a successful Prime Minister and coupled with penchant for lies it was inevitable.
Tbf that's not quite the same thing as predicting an 80 seat Conservative majority would (as currently seems likely) be totally smashed out of the park at the very next GE. There were plenty of possible paths where Johnson got ditched and the Tories retained a majority.
It was always distinct possibility when Dominic Cummings is your chief adviser.
I’m kind of angry and how badly Davey has managed / is managing this “scandal”.
Why the hell didn’t he just apologise? It is not necessary to personally culpable to apologise, and nor does - I think - open one up to prosecution or litigation.
Berk.
General question. Should people with a public profile apologise when they think they haven't done anything wrong? My personal rule is not to. I do apologise quite freely when I do think I'm at fault and I show empathy when others have been hurt and are frustrated.
Government ministers used to resign when something went wrong in their department, even if they hadn't done anything wrong personally.
I can only think of one example.
Wasn't the last Lord Carrington?
Which was actually a bad thing. His resignation “drew a line under the matter”.
Officials who had done things like try and destroy the career of the MI6 chap who was trying to sound an alarm about the Argentine build up, were never even questioned.
Labour leads by 14 points in first poll of 2024. • Labour 41% (+1) • Conservatives 27% (n/c) • Lib Dems 11% (n/c) • SNP 4% (+1) • Greens 6% (-1) • Reform 10% (+1)
November 2024 seems bonkers to me. People get more miserable after the clocks go back and its suddenly dark much earlier, why would you have the election then rather than October?
As late as possible yes, but if going before Christmas then surely 24 October is last reasonable date. 31 October is just too riddled with Halloween jokes and November is after clocks change.
If not 24 October, then its surely January 25?
From the last time we discussed this, I think there are problems with pretty much every possible autumn election date, especially with the King and PM due to be out of the country in mid October at a Commonwealth Summit. Nothing insuperable, but all problematic.
So then we reel back to early May. That would be sensible and practical, with the minor flaw that kamikaze pilots would be queuing up to say to Rishi "you realise you're not going to survive this, don't you?"
• 90% had heard of the Post Office scandal • 79% had heard of the junior doctors' strike • 77% had heard of the Epstein list • 71% had heard of the PM's election hint • 55% had heard of potential mortgage rate cuts • 53% had heard of Davey's postal role
Labour leads by 14 points in first poll of 2024. • Labour 41% (+1) • Conservatives 27% (n/c) • Lib Dems 11% (n/c) • SNP 4% (+1) • Greens 6% (-1) • Reform 10% (+1)
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
Hubris, thy name is AverageNinja. It’s not that long ago that people wondered if labour would ever govern again. I doubt labour has the answers to transform the U.K., so when the shine starts to come off the polls will turn. It may not be just one term, but history suggests that defeated Tories go away and reinvent themselves to get back to power. That’s where the money is, after all…
Man, I read that post and time travelled back to 1996.
Remind me, when Blair dragged Labour just over the line, did the Conservatives regroup and smash the next election out of the park, or were they unelectable for over a decade?
The original post said never again. Yes, the Tories did take a while to regroup, not helped by a very skewed vote distribution (small labour % leads gav3 big majorities). But then they found Cameron, who found a different kind of conservatism (at least for a while).
Of course after defeat in 1945, the Tories were back in power in 6 years, after defeat in 1964 back in power in 6 years and after defeat in 1974 back in power in 1979. New Labour was the exception which kept the Tories out of power for over a decade largely as they ran the economy better than previous Labour governments
It's very difficult to predict the future and even more so if you try to pattern match against the past.
Neither of us know what will happen assuming a Labour win in November. A lot will depend on the scale of the victory and the scale of the defeat (which aren't the same).
As we may see, a more volatile or perhaps less tribal electorate will enable larger swings than was once the case.
The question probably is where will those who become dillusioned with Labour go - will they go direct to the Conservatives or will they flirt with Reform, the LDs, the Greens? As I've often said how parties respond to defeat is often more instructive than how they respond to victory.
In which case...
If the Conservatives want to make 2024-9 a sabbatical rather than an exile or worse, what should they do?
Which leader, what policies?
It's not easy. My guess is that they'll go comfort zone and hope that Starmer Gets Found Out. Which probably won't work.
I don't know what the Conservatives will do if and when they lose power in November. The notion of a "battle for the party's soul" is a bit overdone but the problem is most of those likely to be contenders for the leadership were complicit in the 2019-24 administration's failings.
To get to the future means having to come to terms with the past.
Again, as in the #NU10K thread, I see no working as to why we should think there are ten thousand such people. I also see considerable vagueness as to who exactly is covered by these terms.
It all also feels a bit Poujadist, a revolt against the pettifogging bureaucrats by hardworking businessmen. Unmentioned is the role of economics, the role of capital. The complaint is targeted at a “network of central and local government, quangos, charities, pressure groups, support structures, third sector orgs, etc who make all the decisions”. Yet completely missing from this analysis is business. There’s no mention of the power held by multinationals, particularly in tech. There’s no mention of corporate malfeasance.
The Post Office scandal involved a company, Fujitsu, and a state-owned company, the Post Office, and their private lawyers. It did not involve any quangos, charities or third sector organisations, and the only pressure groups were on the side of the good guys.
It’s easy to blame Them. This is, as we’ve discussed recently, almost the definition of populism. Problems can occur in the public sector, the private sector or the third sector. I am wary of suggested explanations that sound like Gove and “Britain has had enough of experts”. I am also wary of suggested explanations based on Goodwin, someone who has gone full on culture war and lies on television about immigrants: see https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/will-the-radical-right-take-over for more.
As we're speaking of colder climes, just an observation.
I was speaking to a Canadian at Rancho Mirage one New Year's Eve by the pool. He and his family had travelled from Calgary to Southern California to escape the worst of the winter.
He was regaling me with how cold it could get on the Prairies and stated it could get down to minus 40.
Ed Davey’s approval rating takes a big hit from the Post Office scandal
Letter shows the Lib Dem leader initially refused to meet a campaigner when he was a minister responsible for the service
Davey’s personal ratings - the difference between those who think he is doing a good or bad job - have fallen from -4% to -13% in the most recent poll. Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak’s approval ratings have remained broadly stable since before Christmas. Starmer leads Sunak by 30% to 22% on who voters regard as the best prime minister.
Adam Drummond, head of political and social research at Opinium, said: “At the top level, not much has changed since before Christmas. Labour still leads by double digits, Keir Starmer’s approval rating isn’t brilliant but Rishi Sunak’s is awful. However, the most noticed story by far was the Post Office scandal and this is behind the drop in Ed Davey’s approval rating.
“The Lib Dems will be worried that the first time their leader has cut through to voters is for his connection to a huge scandal. But, while Labour and the Tories may be relieved that fingers aren’t being pointed at them, they and the rest of us should be concerned if important questions about how national institutions operate devolve into yet another edition of ‘which politician you’ve never heard of is going to resign?’”
Its 13th January, and already the Tory media are practically foaming at the mouth in creating invective to hurl at every opposition party bar Reform.
If things are as catastrophic as several of us keep saying and supposedly MRP is going to confirm, we can imagine what comes next.
We know that politics is prone to bursts of echo chamber lunacy. We know the Tories are already prone to sing to their remaining choir members only. So with ELE firmly on the agenda, the response is going to be insane.
I am taking the piss with Starmer and Davey being responsible for things like the death of the dinosaurs. GBeebies et al are deadly serious - and the claims will get increasingly stupid and desperate. Will people pay any attention? Note that the attacks on Starmer and Davey seem to be *increasing* their party vote shares.
So. A year of bitter nasty and demented political attacks. With no salvation incoming in the polls. And the need to keep waiting getting bigger and bigger.
That January 2025 election is a bigger possibility than ever.
January 2025 is much more likely than May 2024.
Its October 2024 or January 2025. Those are the only credible dates.
It's November 14th.
I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if it isn't.
Edit on Christmas Eve whilst watching Die Hard.
How about joining the Max Verstappen Fan Club as well?
• 90% had heard of the Post Office scandal • 79% had heard of the junior doctors' strike • 77% had heard of the Epstein list • 71% had heard of the PM's election hint • 55% had heard of potential mortgage rate cuts • 53% had heard of Davey's postal role
Marchers out and about today chanting pro-Houthi slogans.
The Houthis being of course such poor innocent victims of unprovoked US and UK aggression. The poor dears, with their slavery, Taliban-style gender politics and oh I almost forgot, their lobbing of missiles and drones at international shipping.
Perhaps media outlets should start prefacing mediaevalist groups like this with “right wing” or “far right”. Because they are.
Marchers out and about today chanting pro-Houthi slogans.
The Houthis being of course such poor innocent victims of unprovoked US and UK aggression. The poor dears, with their slavery, Taliban-style gender politics and oh I almost forgot, their lobbing of missiles and drones at international shipping.
Perhaps media outlets should start prefacing mediaevalist groups like this with “right wing” or “far right”. Because they are.
November 2024 seems bonkers to me. People get more miserable after the clocks go back and its suddenly dark much earlier, why would you have the election then rather than October?
As late as possible yes, but if going before Christmas then surely 24 October is last reasonable date. 31 October is just too riddled with Halloween jokes and November is after clocks change.
If not 24 October, then its surely January 25?
From the last time we discussed this, I think there are problems with pretty much every possible autumn election date, especially with the King and PM due to be out of the country in mid October at a Commonwealth Summit. Nothing insuperable, but all problematic.
So then we reel back to early May. That would be sensible and practical, with the minor flaw that kamikaze pilots would be queuing up to say to Rishi "you realise you're not going to survive this, don't you?"
28th Nov was my call. Doesn't clash with Christmas or Remembrance events, and can be called as soon as Sunak gets back from the Commonwealth summit and the King.
Marchers out and about today chanting pro-Houthi slogans.
The Houthis being of course such poor innocent victims of unprovoked US and UK aggression. The poor dears, with their slavery, Taliban-style gender politics and oh I almost forgot, their lobbing of missiles and drones at international shipping.
Perhaps media outlets should start prefacing mediaevalist groups like this with “right wing” or “far right”. Because they are.
Its 13th January, and already the Tory media are practically foaming at the mouth in creating invective to hurl at every opposition party bar Reform.
If things are as catastrophic as several of us keep saying and supposedly MRP is going to confirm, we can imagine what comes next.
We know that politics is prone to bursts of echo chamber lunacy. We know the Tories are already prone to sing to their remaining choir members only. So with ELE firmly on the agenda, the response is going to be insane.
I am taking the piss with Starmer and Davey being responsible for things like the death of the dinosaurs. GBeebies et al are deadly serious - and the claims will get increasingly stupid and desperate. Will people pay any attention? Note that the attacks on Starmer and Davey seem to be *increasing* their party vote shares.
So. A year of bitter nasty and demented political attacks. With no salvation incoming in the polls. And the need to keep waiting getting bigger and bigger.
That January 2025 election is a bigger possibility than ever.
January 2025 is much more likely than May 2024.
Its October 2024 or January 2025. Those are the only credible dates.
It's November 14th.
I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if it isn't.
Edit on Christmas Eve whilst watching Die Hard.
How about joining the Max Verstappen Fan Club as well?
Never.
This is a genuine exchange.
GF: Who was that girl you were talking with earlier, should I be worried?
Me: No, She's Dutch and a Verstappen fan, I mean I do have some standards, granted they are lower than most people but still, this is where I draw the line.
Good news transportation wise, is that Big G can rely on something more reassuring, and comfortable, than modern air travel, for HIS upcoming transport needs -
By lifeboat. With perhaps a complementary tot of RNLI rum?
Actually I am still waiting for my conducted tour of the Shannon AWB promised by my son and the cox, but then I have had more important and on going health issues that I and my family will hopefully see addressed on the 6th Feb with my pacemaker operation
Indeed it was only a few days ago my son took me into A & E at 2.00am with chest pains, but after urgent tests and ECGs I was sent home by the doctor and consultant to take it easy and not drink coffee, but to return anytime I had issues
My son told me today he has a week's training in Poole in March and is hoping he will gain his helm certification shortly after, which will be his first command position after just 2 years
It is factual I will not fly again, but after all our world travels over the last 20 years, my wife and I have been left with so many memories and gratitude that we were able to see so much of our wonderful world while we could
I’m kind of angry and how badly Davey has managed / is managing this “scandal”.
Why the hell didn’t he just apologise? It is not necessary to personally culpable to apologise, and nor does - I think - open one up to prosecution or litigation.
Berk.
It was exactly my point yesterday
It was crazy to refuse 10 times to say sorry on an ITV news programme, when he could have calmed the issue down
Sky just interviewed the post mistress standing against him at the GE
I think it's lazy interviewing to ask the same question 10 times. Ask it twice, make the point that it's not been answered, and move on - 10 times is irritating "gotch" stuff.
Agree.
But what should Ed Davey have handled the situation?
Bill Clinton (for example) would have repeated same basic response, just kept changing it up via his gift of gab.
Like mentioning, did you know my aunt was a postmaster? And how he'd once defended her against a rogue postal inspector? And he'd been endorsed by Letter Carriers Union five times? And . . .
NOT saying that ED needs to match Bill Clinton standard of political gamespersonship.
Right now he's not achieving even Al Gore standard.
Yes, I think that if he doesn't want to apologise he needs to say so - "You keep asking the same question, but I think it goes way beyond individuals being pressed to apologise personally. The problem is that senior people have been too ready to assume that computer systems are always right, and that's something all we need not only to apologise for but make sure we don't do it again."
There are lots of sensible answers he could have given, Nick. He is by no means the main person to blame here and may indeed not have that much to be blamed for, not by comparison with others. I - for instance - would be asking some really tough questions of the Post Office's Chairs during this period.
But he didn't. He chose to give an interview but was woefully unprepared for it. Or he thought the way he handled it was the right way to do it.
So he looks either incompetent or lacking in judgment.
I am in no way a Lib Dem
1) Davey was given false information by officials, when he asked. 99.99% probability that this is true. 2) Where did the lying start in the chain below him? 3) When a minister gets a response from his department is he/she supposed not to trust it? Should every minister be at war with his department? 4) Given 1) someone owes Davey an appology.
I am a Lib Dem.
The problem for Davey, as I see it, is that he broadly feels the same as you.
Whilst you're not entirely wrong, it isn't a media strategy. People's sympathy is with folk who got jailed, not a bloke who had the wool pulled over his eyes and is now copping some flak over it.
His response has come across a bit like "I'm a victim too" which isn't appropriate and certainly isn't effective.
I don't think he's in the level of danger others have suggested. But his response has been disappointing on this one.
Labour leads by 14 points in first poll of 2024. • Labour 41% (+1) • Conservatives 27% (n/c) • Lib Dems 11% (n/c) • SNP 4% (+1) • Greens 6% (-1) • Reform 10% (+1)
Marchers out and about today chanting pro-Houthi slogans.
The Houthis being of course such poor innocent victims of unprovoked US and UK aggression. The poor dears, with their slavery, Taliban-style gender politics and oh I almost forgot, their lobbing of missiles and drones at international shipping.
Perhaps media outlets should start prefacing mediaevalist groups like this with “right wing” or “far right”. Because they are.
While there's much going wrong with the world and this country at the moment, its good to pick up on the good bits that happen.
In that spirit, delighted to see the election results in Taiwan.
Any free, democratic election is always better than the alternative, no matter what the results, so Taiwan is automatically better than her neighbour - but its good to see the intimidation has failed and they've stuck so clearly to the path of democracy.
Well done Taiwan! We should be 100% behind them in support.
Comments
And if it ever emerges that there was political pressure to choose ICL, despite all the reservations from the PO’s internal experts, then they are more culpable still.
But that’s ancient history and, even if the PO were forced to buy a pup, they’ve had a hundred chances subsequently to recognise that fact and come clean.
So it’s not saying much.
Britain is actually going backward on these measures. I posted before that Wales - for example - sends hardly anyone to Oxbridge anymore, to which someone said, so what?
London rental prices today are crowding out anyone apart from those born upper middle class from the professions.
https://scottishscran.com/atholl-brose-recipe/
I was really interested in whether people in public roles should apologise when they don't think they are fault. (I do think Davey could have handled it better, but I'm interested if there's any value in a non-apology apology, which is what people seem to be calling for)
I'd have done for half the price.
Questions I betchya they refuse to answer.
It was Sir Ian Cheshire who recommended her for the honour and civil servants in the Business Department who nominated her
I do think we are now on course for the largest Labour majority ever. And the Tories may never govern again.
But they will get there still facing armageddon. Letting parliament expire and rolling the dice with a Christmas campaign wildcard may feel like the better option...
and
It is understood that May’s government nominated Vennells for a CBE in 2018 before her name made its way to the honours sub-committee chaired at the time by Cheshire, which focuses on business and the economy.
You've got a first from Footlights College Cambridge?
Your family is from not-London?
Lovely. You're not going to get on the housing ladder in the capital, babes.
There is a quiet exodus of the young and economically aspirant away from London.
The closure of schools is part of the same story.
I would have thought Lord Mandelson also had questions to answer after he reassured Tony Blair it was OK to go ahead with the Horizon IT system despite questions about its reliability
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67941495
It may not be just one term, but history suggests that defeated Tories go away and reinvent themselves to get back to power. That’s where the money is, after all…
Can you provide me with her name so I can report her to the Bar Standards Board.
Wormwood Scrubs the government pays you rental and board
Making cod fish cakes at the moment.
However a larger majority for Labour than in 1997 is certainly possible. Unlikely (I still think ~80 seat majority) but its a possibility.
Sunak is certainly doing everything he can to ensure a triple-digit Labour majority.
Another senior adviser to Starmer has told friends he has mentally written the newspaper reports that explain how Labour blew its 20-point lead and lost a fifth consecutive election.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/starmer-has-defence-ready-over-his-legal-past-z6gxkbzs8
Remind me, when Blair dragged Labour just over the line, did the Conservatives regroup and smash the next election out of the park, or were they unelectable for over a decade?
The problem is that it mostly, and increasingly, doesn’t.
Having had the same party in power for almost thirty consecutive years isn't healthy.
So for Starmer to win a majority of 180 he would need to gain 213 seats at the next election.
Do not make me post that chart again.
Then, everything changed, and how and why and when is a key question the inquiry needs to get answered.
It was said after 1987 the Conservatives were the "natural Party of Government" and Labour "the natural party of Opposition". Some thought Blair would screw up after 1997 and the Conservatives would return in triumph after one term.
Who for instance, after the resounding Conservative victory in 2019, could have imagined we'd be where we are now - most expected a minimum two terms of Boris Johnson, he didn't make it to three years.
Trying to predict the future is fraught with peril - just look at my horse race betting account.
a) that the other one, Labour, is in for ever
or
b) that a third unknown force in politics turns up to form a government, taking turns with Labour.
In terms of probabilities for, say, the next 50 years (for ever is a long time) (a) has a probability of about Zero and (b) a probability of about 5-10%.
Sherlock's dictum therefore applies in this case (though not all cases - Holmes is being careless):
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"; ie there is a 90%+ chance of there being a future Tory government.
As JohnO can confirm I struck a bet with somebody the morning after GE2019 night which said Boris Johnson's tenure as PM would be shorter than David Cameron's tenure.
Boris Johnson was patently too lazy to be a successful Prime Minister and coupled with penchant for lies it was inevitable.
I think that's a bit unlikely, but not impossible, and it isn't necessarily hubris. A RefUK (or similar) next government but one would probably be less attractive to those on the centre-left.
I think swings these days are more binary than incremental.
The electorate works differently. Arguably we're becoming more like Canada.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/20/yottam-ottolenghi-fishcake-recipes
Goodwin defines his New Elite as 'Oxbridge/Russell Group graduates in managerial jobs with liberal cosmopolitan values [my bold] who are over-represented in decision-making'; you get the feeling he wouldn't mind so much if it weren't for those liberal cosmopolitan values.
I could equally counter that the Real Elite are those privately educated, Oxbridge/Russell Group graduates in professional/media/politicial jobs, with neoliberal nationalist values, who are over-represented in decision-making'.
Both are partly true, neither are entirely true.
If things are as catastrophic as several of us keep saying and supposedly MRP is going to confirm, we can imagine what comes next.
We know that politics is prone to bursts of echo chamber lunacy. We know the Tories are already prone to sing to their remaining choir members only. So with ELE firmly on the agenda, the response is going to be insane.
I am taking the piss with Starmer and Davey being responsible for things like the death of the dinosaurs. GBeebies et al are deadly serious - and the claims will get increasingly stupid and desperate. Will people pay any attention? Note that the attacks on Starmer and Davey seem to be *increasing* their party vote shares.
So. A year of bitter nasty and demented political attacks. With no salvation incoming in the polls. And the need to keep waiting getting bigger and bigger.
That January 2025 election is a bigger possibility than ever.
213 gains at the next election is eminently possible.
But what goes up can come down and they might lose many of them at the following election.
Absolutely nothing is nailed on until the votes have already been cast.
I expect the Conservatives to find someone to save them. But the task is harder (thanks to the purges of recent years) and more urgent (I reckon they have a decade until the Grim Reaper reaps the party in the country to niche status) than it was in 1997.
Its October 2024 or January 2025. Those are the only credible dates.
Neither of us know what will happen assuming a Labour win in November. A lot will depend on the scale of the victory and the scale of the defeat (which aren't the same).
As we may see, a more volatile or perhaps less tribal electorate will enable larger swings than was once the case.
The question probably is where will those who become dillusioned with Labour go - will they go direct to the Conservatives or will they flirt with Reform, the LDs, the Greens? As I've often said how parties respond to defeat is often more instructive than how they respond to victory.
I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if it isn't.
Edit on Christmas Eve whilst watching Die Hard.
As late as possible yes, but if going before Christmas then surely 24 October is last reasonable date. 31 October is just too riddled with Halloween jokes and November is after clocks change.
If not 24 October, then its surely January 25?
Just because the “elite” aren’t the 3rd sons of the 2nd cousin to the Earl of Whatever, doesn’t make them that much more desirable. We need there to be consequences for failure.
If the Conservatives want to make 2024-9 a sabbatical rather than an exile or worse, what should they do?
Which leader, what policies?
It's not easy. My guess is that they'll go comfort zone and hope that Starmer Gets Found Out. Which probably won't work.
I predicted Labour could get a majority next time and was told by many it was impossible. But it was on my wide spectrum of possible results, the other end of the spectrum was an increased Tory majority.
Events since means that spectrum has narrowed massively - on one extreme of the spectrum.
1) Davey was given false information by officials, when he asked. 99.99% probability that this is true.
2) Where did the lying start in the chain below him?
3) When a minister gets a response from his department is he/she supposed not to trust it? Should every minister be at war with his department?
4) Given 1) someone owes Davey an appology.
Politics goes in cycles (and of course technically the Tories could narrowly win most seats despite losing most voters under 50)
Officials who had done things like try and destroy the career of the MI6 chap who was trying to sound an alarm about the Argentine build up, were never even questioned.
Labour leads by 14 points in first poll of 2024.
• Labour 41% (+1)
• Conservatives 27% (n/c)
• Lib Dems 11% (n/c)
• SNP 4% (+1)
• Greens 6% (-1)
• Reform 10% (+1)
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1746260850027921473
So then we reel back to early May. That would be sensible and practical, with the minor flaw that kamikaze pilots would be queuing up to say to Rishi "you realise you're not going to survive this, don't you?"
• 90% had heard of the Post Office scandal
• 79% had heard of the junior doctors' strike
• 77% had heard of the Epstein list
• 71% had heard of the PM's election hint
• 55% had heard of potential mortgage rate cuts
• 53% had heard of Davey's postal role
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1746260863743389807
Don't you have coffee machines at home in Seattle?
To get to the future means having to come to terms with the past.
It all also feels a bit Poujadist, a revolt against the pettifogging bureaucrats by hardworking businessmen. Unmentioned is the role of economics, the role of capital. The complaint is targeted at a “network of central and local government, quangos, charities, pressure groups, support structures, third sector orgs, etc who make all the decisions”. Yet completely missing from this analysis is business. There’s no mention of the power held by multinationals, particularly in tech. There’s no mention of corporate malfeasance.
The Post Office scandal involved a company, Fujitsu, and a state-owned company, the Post Office, and their private lawyers. It did not involve any quangos, charities or third sector organisations, and the only pressure groups were on the side of the good guys.
It’s easy to blame Them. This is, as we’ve discussed recently, almost the definition of populism. Problems can occur in the public sector, the private sector or the third sector. I am wary of suggested explanations that sound like Gove and “Britain has had enough of experts”. I am also wary of suggested explanations based on Goodwin, someone who has gone full on culture war and lies on television about immigrants: see https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/will-the-radical-right-take-over for more.
I was speaking to a Canadian at Rancho Mirage one New Year's Eve by the pool. He and his family had travelled from Calgary to Southern California to escape the worst of the winter.
He was regaling me with how cold it could get on the Prairies and stated it could get down to minus 40.
"Centigrade or Fahrenheit?", I enquired.
"First one, then the other" was the response.
Ed Davey’s approval rating takes a big hit from the Post Office scandal
Letter shows the Lib Dem leader initially refused to meet a campaigner when he was a minister responsible for the service
Davey’s personal ratings - the difference between those who think he is doing a good or bad job - have fallen from -4% to -13% in the most recent poll. Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak’s approval ratings have remained broadly stable since before Christmas. Starmer leads Sunak by 30% to 22% on who voters regard as the best prime minister.
Adam Drummond, head of political and social research at Opinium, said: “At the top level, not much has changed since before Christmas. Labour still leads by double digits, Keir Starmer’s approval rating isn’t brilliant but Rishi Sunak’s is awful. However, the most noticed story by far was the Post Office scandal and this is behind the drop in Ed Davey’s approval rating.
“The Lib Dems will be worried that the first time their leader has cut through to voters is for his connection to a huge scandal. But, while Labour and the Tories may be relieved that fingers aren’t being pointed at them, they and the rest of us should be concerned if important questions about how national institutions operate devolve into yet another edition of ‘which politician you’ve never heard of is going to resign?’”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/13/ed-daveys-approval-rating-takes-a-big-hit-from-the-post-office-scandal
He's finally cutting through.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement
This is a genuine exchange.
GF: Who was that girl you were talking with earlier, should I be worried?
Me: No, She's Dutch and a Verstappen fan, I mean I do have some standards, granted they are lower than most people but still, this is where I draw the line.
The problem for Davey, as I see it, is that he broadly feels the same as you.
Whilst you're not entirely wrong, it isn't a media strategy. People's sympathy is with folk who got jailed, not a bloke who had the wool pulled over his eyes and is now copping some flak over it.
His response has come across a bit like "I'm a victim too" which isn't appropriate and certainly isn't effective.
I don't think he's in the level of danger others have suggested. But his response has been disappointing on this one.
In that spirit, delighted to see the election results in Taiwan.
Any free, democratic election is always better than the alternative, no matter what the results, so Taiwan is automatically better than her neighbour - but its good to see the intimidation has failed and they've stuck so clearly to the path of democracy.
Well done Taiwan! We should be 100% behind them in support.