"While few continue to feel that the sentences handed down have been too harsh, the public become significantly more likely to think those involved are getting off lightly.
In the case of one individual who received a one year sentence for charging at a police officer, six in ten Britons (60%) feel this was too light a punishment and warranted a longer sentence, while only 5% of the public feel the courts were too harsh."
That is surprising, I have little sympathy for most of the rioters but the sentences were harsh. Harsh for a good and practical community reason, but some were harsh on the individuals involved. I would hope some of the non regular offenders can be let out quietly serving just a third or so of their sentence.
Maybe you should try to put yourself in the position of the people they wanted to burn alive.
I see PB is still in the middle of this circuitous discussion on housing.
It must now surely have replaced cash (or the lack thereof) as the perennial debate on here…
I'm quite disappointed that no-one bothered engaging with my five solution elements (least of all Barty). Given that I am, after all, on a planning committee and have been very active in development, Local Plan creation, and engaging with the issues actually coming up with development and infrastructure, I might be expected to have had some thoughts of use on it.
I did engage with it.
I said I support the idea of building out infrastructure in advance of building houses as one element of boosting construction, but that it should not be a barrier to allowing people to build whatever they want elsewhere because the problem is that NIMBY politicians won't build enough infrastructure.
You have been active but you've been actively wanting nothing like the amount of construction I support and you reacted with utter horror at the suggestion there should be considerably more houses in your area than you wanted. Which is classic NIMBYism.
If I took you seriously, I'd quit what I'm doing.
Fortunately, I don't.
You have no idea about the issues, you have no idea about planning and the planning framework and what is and isn't needed (hell, you had no idea that my LDO proposal is very close to giving the powers you say you want to see, nor that the LDO in my ward means that Milton Park don't need planning permission for any science/tech development within the LDO constraints now), you have no idea about infrastructure and how to get it, or the issues with sewerage, schools, and surgeries and the constraints around each, no idea about how many houses are actually needed (you've not supported your "10 million" number even once), no idea about the rates of construction in various Local Authorities (you even cited Pulpstar's work but obviously hadn't read it, as you were surprised when I got the figures from it), no idea about the constraints and issues on developers, and simply resort to namecalling when people don't accept your airy assertions and made-up numbers.
As I said earlier, for someone who purports to dislike NIMBYs, what you advocate would make far more of them.
And when you made far more of them, under a democracy, we'd see much less building. Which is ironic, really.
Meanwhile, if other LAs had increased their housing stock at our rates over that seven year period you cite (which includes the five+ years of my being a councillor here), we'd already have two million more houses in England than we currently have (taking us to three houses for every five adults in England). And in seven more years, we'd be four million ahead of the rate, and ahead of pretty much everywhere else in Western Europe instead of being one of the stragglers and not far off of two houses for every three adults.
Let's face it, if we were on target for ten million houses in the next five years, you'd simply come up with a number of fifteen million. Or twenty million.
Where are you getting a two million houses from that period?
It was 2338 completions in a seven year period I cited (from the White Horse website), which is 334 homes per annum for the LA. If every LA built at 334 homes per annum, then we'd be looking at barely over 100k houses per annum which is less than we need for population growth let alone closing the shortage.
Based on the data Pulpstar provided of ~1000 homes per annum, if every LA had done that it would be 1.5 million not 2 million in five years. Which again, barely keeps up with population growth and demographic changes, it doesn't close the shortage.
Of course if we look by area instead of by LA, then you've got a lot more undeveloped land that could be built on. I responded to your map post too in case you didn't see it.
The amounts you are proposing don't scratch the surface on what we are missing in this country.
Building rates. Which are important, because increasing infrastructure depends on what is already there. Even in London, you can build a lot more houses; you can in Oxford, for example. You can even build upwards, and you WILL find a market for these.
For some reason, you keep looking at the housing completions from several years ago rather than the most recent seven years. It might pain you to congratulate us on tripling completions, but that might be a nice thing to do. Encouraging what you would like to see is always a good idea, in my experience.
We increased from 53,590 houses in the Vale prior to the most recent seven years (a timescale you chose initially) by a further 7,330 houses. That's an increase of 13.7%. Meanwhile the population of England increased by 3% in the same period.
In 2016, there were 23.7 million houses in England. An increase of 13.7% would put that to just shy of 27 million. A 3.3 million increase. (Increasing it by the population growth in that time would have seen an increase of only 0.74 million houses, taking it to 24.4 million).
We actually ended up with a bit over 25 million (from memory), so that'd be nearly 2 million more if everyone else had followed us. Keeping up that rate would make things much better (and quite probably be achievable as well)
I'm not cherrypicking the data, I just got the data from the Vale website. If you have more upto date data I'm entirely happy to use that, though my preference is for completions over starts as inevitably some starts don't get completed, for various reasons.
7330 houses over a 7 year period is obviously much better than 334 homes per period, so well done. But its not enough to close the shortage given we have a systemic shortage and ongoing population growth and demographic changes, much, much more than that should be possible.
You are making a mistake in looking at it by percentages. A high percentage of a small number is still a small number, while a small percentage of a bigger number can be a bigger number still.
The fact you've got few houses currently doesn't mean you should build few from here, it just means you've got more potential to do more than places that are already more developed.
Given the demands in places like Oxford etc why can't a few new towns be supported in Vale? Outside of AONB which only covers the south half of Vale - the north half of Vale which is not in the AONB still covers an area roughly equivalent to the whole of Birmingham.
Give us the infrastructure first.
Believe me, people who even describe themselves as NIMBYs can go all Sim City if you give them free rein over describing what infrastructure is needed. Just last month, I got a Parish Council to advocate for a new town within parish boundaries if the land was freed up and infrastructure provided.
This same Parish Council had earlier said (in the same meeting) "we won't be fooled again" when it had been pointed out that they'd supported a big expansion on the promise of infrastructure accompanying it. They went from supporting very significant levels of development a decade earlier to being very resistant - solely because what had been promised did not come about and developers had been allowed to get away with ignoring requirements on them.
You want huge levels of housebuilding? It's possible. But you've got to bring people along with you, and providing the infrastructure and giving them some say in where it all goes will bring them along.
If the Council wants to build infrastructure the Council should spend its money on doing so.
You haven't been following the Council funding crises, have you?
The Council doesn't HAVE any money for funding that sort of infrastructure. I very much doubt any Councils do. Certainly not for sewerage or roads. Neither do we have the authority for either.
Of course, if you gave us the authority and powers I suggested in my five point suggestion earlier, we'd get the planning uplift profits and be able to invest those going forwards (there would still be some planning uplift, just not the factor of 100 or whatever ridiculous amount it is at the moment).
Right, so now we're getting to the root of the problem.
"Build the infrastructure first - but I have no interest in building the infrastructure".
Which is precisely what I said will happen. An excuse not to build the infrastructure (which isn't needed, as the voters aren't there) and thus an excuse not to build the houses.
If the Council wants to do the investment first, then I have no problems with that, but we can't wait on the never-never for them to do so because people need houses now, not when you finally find the money to make investments.
Well, not having any money or authority is usually a pretty good reason for not buying something. I have every interest in building the infrastructure. I'd love to be in charge of building it. Which is why I suggested a political route for giving us the authority and wherewithal to do so.
Seriously, is your position really so weak you have to misrepresent me?
How am I misrepresenting anything?
You are giving an excuse/justification for not investing in infrastructure, while saying ideally you'd like to.
You're also saying that houses shouldn't be built before the infrastructure, which is a problem as you won't pay for the infrastructure.
Which is precisely what I said would happen. Councils won't pay for infrastructure for voters that don't exist before the voters move in and demand it.
Demanding the infrastructure goes in first is no solution when you have no intention or ability to pay for the infrastructure first.
I'm providing a route for it to work. I want the legislation passed to allow us to do it. I want the system set up where it could be self-funded. I want the initial funding to prime the pump to do it. You portray that as "won't."
Fine. You provide it, then. If you don't, you're just giving an excuse. "Oh, I'm not allowed to personally provide it and I don't have billions of pounds myself." Just an excuse/justification, according to your own logic, right? Facetious? Well, if so, you started it. Go on - tell us HOW we can fund it out of our budget? It's readily available online. I'd be very interested in your solution. While you're at it, tell us how we achieve it legally.
"Won't" is a misrepresentation of "can't, but would like to and here's how to do it." "Excuse" is a misrepresentation of "is pushing forwards a project that could demonstrate how it could be done"
Seriously - as someone who really wants to see this solved, the tendency by some to go into total denial over the problems that need to be faced and solved is really quite frustrating.
The infrastructure is an issue. Simply handwaving it as "it'll get sorted somehow" or insisting that councils fund it with no funding or authority is stupidity on stilts.
We've actually managed to free up £197,000 for helping upgrade one sewage works. £360,000 for additonal berths in a mobile home park. £17,000 on upgrading parks facilities. £1.3 million on improving disabled facilities. But it's really difficult to squeeze more and more out of less and less money.
Hell, when we took over in 2019, the Vale were projected to be bankrupt by now, but we've somehow ended up in a stable and improving position.
Increased housing and population, especially when the density per place is changing, requires infrastructure provision. Failure to provide it at all causes massive pushback. Waiting to provide it years after it's needed causes chronic and unending stresses and problems and causes pushback. It needs to be solved. Denialism doesn't help.
Give us the authority to provide it, provide the initial funds to prime the pump, and allow us that route to become self-funding. And it can be solved.
Or lapse into denialism and insistence that it gets solved somehow, and just whine about it from the sidelines, because without solving it, it won't get done. And it'll just continue to get worse.
Absolutely. The other thing Barty doesn't seem to get is that, setting aside its dubious merits, there is, in any event, absolutely no chance of his idea getting adopted.
Series of rookie errors there. Review leading to the calling of a no-ball on the grounds the wicketkeeper had his gloves in the wrong place is impressive.
I'm not sure Pope has the strength of character to be an England captain. Somebody says to him 'review it' and he just does isn't necessarily showing leadership. Reminds me of that silliness Stuart Broad used to get up to,
Seriously - as someone who really wants to see this solved, the tendency by some to go into total denial over the problems that need to be faced and solved is really quite frustrating.
The infrastructure is an issue. Simply handwaving it as "it'll get sorted somehow" or insisting that councils fund it with no funding or authority is stupidity on stilts.
We've actually managed to free up £197,000 for helping upgrade one sewage works. £360,000 for additonal berths in a mobile home park. £17,000 on upgrading parks facilities. £1.3 million on improving disabled facilities. But it's really difficult to squeeze more and more out of less and less money.
Hell, when we took over in 2019, the Vale were projected to be bankrupt by now, but we've somehow ended up in a stable and improving position.
Increased housing and population, especially when the density per place is changing, requires infrastructure provision. Failure to provide it at all causes massive pushback. Waiting to provide it years after it's needed causes chronic and unending stresses and problems and causes pushback. It needs to be solved. Denialism doesn't help.
Give us the authority to provide it, provide the initial funds to prime the pump, and allow us that route to become self-funding. And it can be solved.
Or lapse into denialism and insistence that it gets solved somehow, and just whine about it from the sidelines, because without solving it, it won't get done. And it'll just continue to get worse.
I'd welcome a thread header on housing, perhaps a two part on the current problems before an assessment on how Labour is going about it... if you've time!
It might be more pleasant than this back and forth...
I'll see if I have the time and opportunity. One problem is that going much deeper than I did in my initial two posts would require writing a very long post or series of posts. But those first two posts (which can be found here: https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4941411#Comment_4941411 ) are a quick summary of the fundamental problem and a solution intent.
Seriously - as someone who really wants to see this solved, the tendency by some to go into total denial over the problems that need to be faced and solved is really quite frustrating.
The infrastructure is an issue. Simply handwaving it as "it'll get sorted somehow" or insisting that councils fund it with no funding or authority is stupidity on stilts.
We've actually managed to free up £197,000 for helping upgrade one sewage works. £360,000 for additonal berths in a mobile home park. £17,000 on upgrading parks facilities. £1.3 million on improving disabled facilities. But it's really difficult to squeeze more and more out of less and less money.
Hell, when we took over in 2019, the Vale were projected to be bankrupt by now, but we've somehow ended up in a stable and improving position.
Increased housing and population, especially when the density per place is changing, requires infrastructure provision. Failure to provide it at all causes massive pushback. Waiting to provide it years after it's needed causes chronic and unending stresses and problems and causes pushback. It needs to be solved. Denialism doesn't help.
Give us the authority to provide it, provide the initial funds to prime the pump, and allow us that route to become self-funding. And it can be solved.
Or lapse into denialism and insistence that it gets solved somehow, and just whine about it from the sidelines, because without solving it, it won't get done. And it'll just continue to get worse.
I'd welcome a thread header on housing, perhaps a two part on the current problems before an assessment on how Labour is going about it... if you've time!
It might be more pleasant than this back and forth...
Seriously - as someone who really wants to see this solved, the tendency by some to go into total denial over the problems that need to be faced and solved is really quite frustrating.
The infrastructure is an issue. Simply handwaving it as "it'll get sorted somehow" or insisting that councils fund it with no funding or authority is stupidity on stilts.
We've actually managed to free up £197,000 for helping upgrade one sewage works. £360,000 for additonal berths in a mobile home park. £17,000 on upgrading parks facilities. £1.3 million on improving disabled facilities. But it's really difficult to squeeze more and more out of less and less money.
Hell, when we took over in 2019, the Vale were projected to be bankrupt by now, but we've somehow ended up in a stable and improving position.
Increased housing and population, especially when the density per place is changing, requires infrastructure provision. Failure to provide it at all causes massive pushback. Waiting to provide it years after it's needed causes chronic and unending stresses and problems and causes pushback. It needs to be solved. Denialism doesn't help.
Give us the authority to provide it, provide the initial funds to prime the pump, and allow us that route to become self-funding. And it can be solved.
Or lapse into denialism and insistence that it gets solved somehow, and just whine about it from the sidelines, because without solving it, it won't get done. And it'll just continue to get worse.
Returning to the header(!), it's the difference between an opposition mindset and a government mindset.
Government is all about tradeoffs. We want to do X, Y and Z, but X and Y sort of contradict each other, and Z needs P and Q to be in place first. So you try to thread multiple needles in the best order you can and accept that some nice things won't happen.
One version of opposition is to deny those tradeoffs. We can have X, Y and Z now and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying because they're evil hypocrites. Corbyn did it. Farage does it. Lib Dems did it in the run up to 2010, which is why coalition was so bruising an experience.
Conservatives have done a lot of it recently, which one reason is why the last government was so ineffective. Do any of the Magnificent Six have the brains and courage to reintroduce the Conservative Party to the concept of the tradeoff? I'm not convinced.
On the subject of housing, the Democrats' plans are, in U.S. terms, actually quite a big deal.
People don’t realize that over the last five days the YIMBY movement has gone nationally mainstream. While some politicians may have feigned about the struggles and paining of people struggling with housing, very few were willing or had the courage to actually name the cause – A SHORTAGE OF HOUSING.
Not only did Kamala Harris mention it, she said we’re gonna fix it and even gave a timeline with number of new housing units as a target to be built.
After years of fighting on this, it is so comforting that over-and-over it was mentioned at least 7 times by our Presidential candidate and the Democratic establishment now finally talk about this. It’s officially part of her platform and now by proxy the Democratic platform.
Do you realize how amazing that is for the YIMBY movement? I’ve tried for a few years to get it in just our state Democratic platform and never got anything... https://x.com/zbowling/status/1826836842437902777
Seriously - as someone who really wants to see this solved, the tendency by some to go into total denial over the problems that need to be faced and solved is really quite frustrating.
The infrastructure is an issue. Simply handwaving it as "it'll get sorted somehow" or insisting that councils fund it with no funding or authority is stupidity on stilts.
We've actually managed to free up £197,000 for helping upgrade one sewage works. £360,000 for additonal berths in a mobile home park. £17,000 on upgrading parks facilities. £1.3 million on improving disabled facilities. But it's really difficult to squeeze more and more out of less and less money.
Hell, when we took over in 2019, the Vale were projected to be bankrupt by now, but we've somehow ended up in a stable and improving position.
Increased housing and population, especially when the density per place is changing, requires infrastructure provision. Failure to provide it at all causes massive pushback. Waiting to provide it years after it's needed causes chronic and unending stresses and problems and causes pushback. It needs to be solved. Denialism doesn't help.
Give us the authority to provide it, provide the initial funds to prime the pump, and allow us that route to become self-funding. And it can be solved.
Or lapse into denialism and insistence that it gets solved somehow, and just whine about it from the sidelines, because without solving it, it won't get done. And it'll just continue to get worse.
If it needs paying for, it needs paying for, and whatever rates/taxes on everyone needs to go up needs to pay for it.
Public infrastructure needs to come from everyone's taxes, that's what we pay our taxes for. All of us.
Central government decides whether we have population growth or not and takes the taxes on a growing population and uses those taxes to support its expenditure. If investment needs to happen in infrastructure then that investment needs to be funded.
You object that you can't afford infrastructure up front. I object that we can't wait for infrastructure before getting houses.
A solution is needed. But the solution can't be to put houses on the never never by saying we won't allow them without infrastructure, and oh yes, we can't afford infrastructure.
Personally a logical solution to me seems to be a central government grant to anywhere with high population growth to fund infrastructure investment. Then you have the money, and people can get the homes, and neither needs to wait for the other.
But it's not OK to say you can't afford infrastructure, so you can't allow houses, because of the lack of infrastructure. That is no solution.
"While few continue to feel that the sentences handed down have been too harsh, the public become significantly more likely to think those involved are getting off lightly.
In the case of one individual who received a one year sentence for charging at a police officer, six in ten Britons (60%) feel this was too light a punishment and warranted a longer sentence, while only 5% of the public feel the courts were too harsh."
That is surprising, I have little sympathy for most of the rioters but the sentences were harsh. Harsh for a good and practical community reason, but some were harsh on the individuals involved. I would hope some of the non regular offenders can be let out quietly serving just a third or so of their sentence.
I haven't seen a single commentator pick up the following.
The sentences were straight out of the sentencing guidelines. Bang on the money. No chance of appeal.
So, what was different? The charges.
In ordinary times, there is often a noticeable "down charging" of offences - charging a lesser offence than the evidence supports. I've mentioned before the Oxford Street stabbing - a couple of teenagers, who held the victim down got short sentences - literally out before Christmas. Why? They weren't charged with murder - it was one of the variations on assault, IIRC. The sentence was in line with guidelines for that offence.
Some legal historians argue that the extreme sentences back in Georgian times were actually a variant of social control. That is, if you knew the right people and doffed your cap right (or knew the right people to doff the cap for you) *and* your offence wasn't against Society, sentence reductions and pardons were common.
What the current situation suggests is that government has happened (probably accidentally) into something similar. They don't need to nobble juries or judges or anything vaguely naughty. Just a hint to the CPS to charge up or down the scale.
I see PB is still in the middle of this circuitous discussion on housing.
It must now surely have replaced cash (or the lack thereof) as the perennial debate on here…
I'm quite disappointed that no-one bothered engaging with my five solution elements (least of all Barty). Given that I am, after all, on a planning committee and have been very active in development, Local Plan creation, and engaging with the issues actually coming up with development and infrastructure, I might be expected to have had some thoughts of use on it.
I did engage with it.
I said I support the idea of building out infrastructure in advance of building houses as one element of boosting construction, but that it should not be a barrier to allowing people to build whatever they want elsewhere because the problem is that NIMBY politicians won't build enough infrastructure.
You have been active but you've been actively wanting nothing like the amount of construction I support and you reacted with utter horror at the suggestion there should be considerably more houses in your area than you wanted. Which is classic NIMBYism.
If I took you seriously, I'd quit what I'm doing.
Fortunately, I don't.
You have no idea about the issues, you have no idea about planning and the planning framework and what is and isn't needed (hell, you had no idea that my LDO proposal is very close to giving the powers you say you want to see, nor that the LDO in my ward means that Milton Park don't need planning permission for any science/tech development within the LDO constraints now), you have no idea about infrastructure and how to get it, or the issues with sewerage, schools, and surgeries and the constraints around each, no idea about how many houses are actually needed (you've not supported your "10 million" number even once), no idea about the rates of construction in various Local Authorities (you even cited Pulpstar's work but obviously hadn't read it, as you were surprised when I got the figures from it), no idea about the constraints and issues on developers, and simply resort to namecalling when people don't accept your airy assertions and made-up numbers.
As I said earlier, for someone who purports to dislike NIMBYs, what you advocate would make far more of them.
And when you made far more of them, under a democracy, we'd see much less building. Which is ironic, really.
Meanwhile, if other LAs had increased their housing stock at our rates over that seven year period you cite (which includes the five+ years of my being a councillor here), we'd already have two million more houses in England than we currently have (taking us to three houses for every five adults in England). And in seven more years, we'd be four million ahead of the rate, and ahead of pretty much everywhere else in Western Europe instead of being one of the stragglers and not far off of two houses for every three adults.
Let's face it, if we were on target for ten million houses in the next five years, you'd simply come up with a number of fifteen million. Or twenty million.
Where are you getting a two million houses from that period?
It was 2338 completions in a seven year period I cited (from the White Horse website), which is 334 homes per annum for the LA. If every LA built at 334 homes per annum, then we'd be looking at barely over 100k houses per annum which is less than we need for population growth let alone closing the shortage.
Based on the data Pulpstar provided of ~1000 homes per annum, if every LA had done that it would be 1.5 million not 2 million in five years. Which again, barely keeps up with population growth and demographic changes, it doesn't close the shortage.
Of course if we look by area instead of by LA, then you've got a lot more undeveloped land that could be built on. I responded to your map post too in case you didn't see it.
The amounts you are proposing don't scratch the surface on what we are missing in this country.
Building rates. Which are important, because increasing infrastructure depends on what is already there. Even in London, you can build a lot more houses; you can in Oxford, for example. You can even build upwards, and you WILL find a market for these.
For some reason, you keep looking at the housing completions from several years ago rather than the most recent seven years. It might pain you to congratulate us on tripling completions, but that might be a nice thing to do. Encouraging what you would like to see is always a good idea, in my experience.
We increased from 53,590 houses in the Vale prior to the most recent seven years (a timescale you chose initially) by a further 7,330 houses. That's an increase of 13.7%. Meanwhile the population of England increased by 3% in the same period.
In 2016, there were 23.7 million houses in England. An increase of 13.7% would put that to just shy of 27 million. A 3.3 million increase. (Increasing it by the population growth in that time would have seen an increase of only 0.74 million houses, taking it to 24.4 million).
We actually ended up with a bit over 25 million (from memory), so that'd be nearly 2 million more if everyone else had followed us. Keeping up that rate would make things much better (and quite probably be achievable as well)
I'm not cherrypicking the data, I just got the data from the Vale website. If you have more upto date data I'm entirely happy to use that, though my preference is for completions over starts as inevitably some starts don't get completed, for various reasons.
7330 houses over a 7 year period is obviously much better than 334 homes per period, so well done. But its not enough to close the shortage given we have a systemic shortage and ongoing population growth and demographic changes, much, much more than that should be possible.
You are making a mistake in looking at it by percentages. A high percentage of a small number is still a small number, while a small percentage of a bigger number can be a bigger number still.
The fact you've got few houses currently doesn't mean you should build few from here, it just means you've got more potential to do more than places that are already more developed.
Given the demands in places like Oxford etc why can't a few new towns be supported in Vale? Outside of AONB which only covers the south half of Vale - the north half of Vale which is not in the AONB still covers an area roughly equivalent to the whole of Birmingham.
Give us the infrastructure first.
Believe me, people who even describe themselves as NIMBYs can go all Sim City if you give them free rein over describing what infrastructure is needed. Just last month, I got a Parish Council to advocate for a new town within parish boundaries if the land was freed up and infrastructure provided.
This same Parish Council had earlier said (in the same meeting) "we won't be fooled again" when it had been pointed out that they'd supported a big expansion on the promise of infrastructure accompanying it. They went from supporting very significant levels of development a decade earlier to being very resistant - solely because what had been promised did not come about and developers had been allowed to get away with ignoring requirements on them.
You want huge levels of housebuilding? It's possible. But you've got to bring people along with you, and providing the infrastructure and giving them some say in where it all goes will bring them along.
If the Council wants to build infrastructure the Council should spend its money on doing so.
Nope - if you want to build a new house you need to pay for the infrastructure for those houses. And the suppliers for that should be allowed to price the work so that it covers both the cost of installing the lines / pipes but also a proportion of the cost for the infrastructure improvements to ensure the sewage to leave the area and get to the sewage works...
As I repeat regularly, we should adopt the Dutch system where local authorities buy the land, put all the infrastructure in and then back charge developers or individual housebuilders as part of the cost of buying them land. It is a system that works. It also stops landbanking by developers.
Isn't that the essence of Labour's new towns plan ?
The details have not been released on that yet.
The biggest problem will be the systemic reaction - that there is a human right to a decade of enquiries into the enquiries about enquiries about possibly planning a new town.
It's not that we need to throw planning in the bin. What we need is to understand that we have a choice.
You can either have a 15 foot plank footbridges that costs 250K and no foot bridges. Or you can have 15 foot plank footbridge that cost 2.5K, and lots of foot bridges.
Pick one. The one you like.
There is at least a recognition of that, in what Labour has to far said about their plans. Whether they do anything significant about it is an open question.
"HS2 team leader fronted riot mob who attacked police outside migrant hotel in Rotherham Brothers Paul and Luke Sissons are jailed for three years at Sheffield Crown Court after admitting violent disorder"
"While few continue to feel that the sentences handed down have been too harsh, the public become significantly more likely to think those involved are getting off lightly.
In the case of one individual who received a one year sentence for charging at a police officer, six in ten Britons (60%) feel this was too light a punishment and warranted a longer sentence, while only 5% of the public feel the courts were too harsh."
That is surprising, I have little sympathy for most of the rioters but the sentences were harsh. Harsh for a good and practical community reason, but some were harsh on the individuals involved. I would hope some of the non regular offenders can be let out quietly serving just a third or so of their sentence.
I haven't seen a single commentator pick up the following.
The sentences were straight out of the sentencing guidelines. Bang on the money. No chance of appeal.
So, what was different? The charges.
In ordinary times, there is often a noticeable "down charging" of offences - charging a lesser offence than the evidence supports. I've mentioned before the Oxford Street stabbing - a couple of teenagers, who held the victim down got short sentences - literally out before Christmas. Why? They weren't charged with murder - it was one of the variations on assault, IIRC. The sentence was in line with guidelines for that offence.
Some legal historians argue that the extreme sentences back in Georgian times were actually a variant of social control. That is, if you knew the right people and doffed your cap right (or knew the right people to doff the cap for you) *and* your offence wasn't against Society, sentence reductions and pardons were common.
What the current situation suggests is that government has happened (probably accidentally) into something similar. They don't need to nobble juries or judges or anything vaguely naughty. Just a hint to the CPS to charge up or down the scale.
The emphasis over the past 24 hours has been on Harris’ speech but perhaps what is of more importance for November is the very public making up between Brian Kemp and DJT.
3 implications here:
1. immediately, it probably increases the chances of GA flipping to Trump;
2. It suggests the Republican ‘moderates’ have decided to back Trump more forcefully probably in response to the Harris-Walz ticket and the view it’s the most progressive ticket from the Democrats. It will be interesting to see whether other figures such as Sununu in NH also start to become more forceful;
3. It suggests, when push comes to shove, Trump is more disciplined and / or listens to his advisors. So maybe caution for those relying on him to blow things up and / or not listen to advice on strategy.
"While few continue to feel that the sentences handed down have been too harsh, the public become significantly more likely to think those involved are getting off lightly.
In the case of one individual who received a one year sentence for charging at a police officer, six in ten Britons (60%) feel this was too light a punishment and warranted a longer sentence, while only 5% of the public feel the courts were too harsh."
That is surprising, I have little sympathy for most of the rioters but the sentences were harsh. Harsh for a good and practical community reason, but some were harsh on the individuals involved. I would hope some of the non regular offenders can be let out quietly serving just a third or so of their sentence.
I haven't seen a single commentator pick up the following.
The sentences were straight out of the sentencing guidelines. Bang on the money. No chance of appeal.
So, what was different? The charges.
In ordinary times, there is often a noticeable "down charging" of offences - charging a lesser offence than the evidence supports. I've mentioned before the Oxford Street stabbing - a couple of teenagers, who held the victim down got short sentences - literally out before Christmas. Why? They weren't charged with murder - it was one of the variations on assault, IIRC. The sentence was in line with guidelines for that offence.
Some legal historians argue that the extreme sentences back in Georgian times were actually a variant of social control. That is, if you knew the right people and doffed your cap right (or knew the right people to doff the cap for you) *and* your offence wasn't against Society, sentence reductions and pardons were common.
What the current situation suggests is that government has happened (probably accidentally) into something similar. They don't need to nobble juries or judges or anything vaguely naughty. Just a hint to the CPS to charge up or down the scale.
What's the evidence for any of those assertions?
Well, the 'legal historians' bit is presumably a reference to Vic Gattrell's The Hanging Tree.
Personally, I think he overeggs the pudding somewhat on his views as to motivation, but it's undoubtedly a serious piece of work.
The emphasis over the past 24 hours has been on Harris’ speech but perhaps what is of more importance for November is the very public making up between Brian Kemp and DJT.
3 implications here:
1. immediately, it probably increases the chances of GA flipping to Trump;
2. It suggests the Republican ‘moderates’ have decided to back Trump more forcefully probably in response to the Harris-Walz ticket and the view it’s the most progressive ticket from the Democrats. It will be interesting to see whether other figures such as Sununu in NH also start to become more forceful;
3. It suggests, when push comes to shove, Trump is more disciplined and / or listens to his advisors. So maybe caution for those relying on him to blow things up and / or not listen to advice on strategy.
Or it suggests that a state which was polling fairly solidly Republican, might now be looking shaky for him.
And the GOP moderates were at the convention this week, endorsing Harris.
Kemp is not a moderate - he's just not enough of a crook to have gone along with Trump's attempt to subvert the last election.
The emphasis over the past 24 hours has been on Harris’ speech but perhaps what is of more importance for November is the very public making up between Brian Kemp and DJT.
3 implications here:
1. immediately, it probably increases the chances of GA flipping to Trump;
2. It suggests the Republican ‘moderates’ have decided to back Trump more forcefully probably in response to the Harris-Walz ticket and the view it’s the most progressive ticket from the Democrats. It will be interesting to see whether other figures such as Sununu in NH also start to become more forceful;
3. It suggests, when push comes to shove, Trump is more disciplined and / or listens to his advisors. So maybe caution for those relying on him to blow things up and / or not listen to advice on strategy.
Or it suggests Trump's getting desperate if he's willing to eat his words to that extent.
Kemp has *always* backed Trump insofar as he has always stated he will work to deliver Georgia for the Republican nominee. And I doubt if that will radically change either way regardless of what Trump says or does.
It may, however, make selling him *in* Georgia just that bit easier.
Whether Trump can keep message discipline to do so is another question.
The emphasis over the past 24 hours has been on Harris’ speech but perhaps what is of more importance for November is the very public making up between Brian Kemp and DJT.
3 implications here:
1. immediately, it probably increases the chances of GA flipping to Trump;
2. It suggests the Republican ‘moderates’ have decided to back Trump more forcefully probably in response to the Harris-Walz ticket and the view it’s the most progressive ticket from the Democrats. It will be interesting to see whether other figures such as Sununu in NH also start to become more forceful;
3. It suggests, when push comes to shove, Trump is more disciplined and / or listens to his advisors. So maybe caution for those relying on him to blow things up and / or not listen to advice on strategy.
Or it suggests that a state which was polling fairly solidly Republican, might now be looking shaky for him.
And the GOP moderates were at the convention this week, endorsing Harris.
Kemp is not a moderate - he's just not enough of a crook to have gone along with Trump's attempt to subvert the last election.
On a point of pedantry: he wasn't willing to openly falsify a return.
He did a great deal to try and subvert the election in terms of setting up barriers to voting.
The emphasis over the past 24 hours has been on Harris’ speech but perhaps what is of more importance for November is the very public making up between Brian Kemp and DJT.
3 implications here:
1. immediately, it probably increases the chances of GA flipping to Trump;
2. It suggests the Republican ‘moderates’ have decided to back Trump more forcefully probably in response to the Harris-Walz ticket and the view it’s the most progressive ticket from the Democrats. It will be interesting to see whether other figures such as Sununu in NH also start to become more forceful;
3. It suggests, when push comes to shove, Trump is more disciplined and / or listens to his advisors. So maybe caution for those relying on him to blow things up and / or not listen to advice on strategy.
Or it suggests that a state which was polling fairly solidly Republican, might now be looking shaky for him.
And the GOP moderates were at the convention this week, endorsing Harris.
Kemp is not a moderate - he's just not enough of a crook to have gone along with Trump's attempt to subvert the last election.
On a point of pedantry: he wasn't willing to openly falsify a return.
He did a great deal to try and subvert the election in terms of setting up barriers to voting.
That's why I said wasn't enough of a crook. And that was his attempt, not Trump's.
"While few continue to feel that the sentences handed down have been too harsh, the public become significantly more likely to think those involved are getting off lightly.
In the case of one individual who received a one year sentence for charging at a police officer, six in ten Britons (60%) feel this was too light a punishment and warranted a longer sentence, while only 5% of the public feel the courts were too harsh."
That is surprising, I have little sympathy for most of the rioters but the sentences were harsh. Harsh for a good and practical community reason, but some were harsh on the individuals involved. I would hope some of the non regular offenders can be let out quietly serving just a third or so of their sentence.
Although I'm instinctively a liberal on sentencing, I'm not sure I agree with you here. In most of the cases I've read about, the offenders had so many previous convictions that a tough sentence was not only likely but also justifiable. I've read of very few first offenders.
"You’ve fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this; never let a social conservative write down his policy agenda" https://x.com/ASFleischman/status/1826967560652263665
"While few continue to feel that the sentences handed down have been too harsh, the public become significantly more likely to think those involved are getting off lightly.
In the case of one individual who received a one year sentence for charging at a police officer, six in ten Britons (60%) feel this was too light a punishment and warranted a longer sentence, while only 5% of the public feel the courts were too harsh."
That is surprising, I have little sympathy for most of the rioters but the sentences were harsh. Harsh for a good and practical community reason, but some were harsh on the individuals involved. I would hope some of the non regular offenders can be let out quietly serving just a third or so of their sentence.
I haven't seen a single commentator pick up the following.
The sentences were straight out of the sentencing guidelines. Bang on the money. No chance of appeal.
So, what was different? The charges.
In ordinary times, there is often a noticeable "down charging" of offences - charging a lesser offence than the evidence supports. I've mentioned before the Oxford Street stabbing - a couple of teenagers, who held the victim down got short sentences - literally out before Christmas. Why? They weren't charged with murder - it was one of the variations on assault, IIRC. The sentence was in line with guidelines for that offence.
Some legal historians argue that the extreme sentences back in Georgian times were actually a variant of social control. That is, if you knew the right people and doffed your cap right (or knew the right people to doff the cap for you) *and* your offence wasn't against Society, sentence reductions and pardons were common.
What the current situation suggests is that government has happened (probably accidentally) into something similar. They don't need to nobble juries or judges or anything vaguely naughty. Just a hint to the CPS to charge up or down the scale.
What's the evidence for any of those assertions?
Well, the 'legal historians' bit is presumably a reference to Vic Gattrell's The Hanging Tree.
Personally, I think he overeggs the pudding somewhat on his views as to motivation, but it's undoubtedly a serious piece of work.
I think the idea that it was planned, rather than a happenstance is the issue.
For the Georgian version -
1) More and more severe sentences please the hangers and floggers. Yay! 2) Pardons and sentence reductions make the noblesse feel obliging. Yay! 3) Plus lots of nice cap doffing. Yay!
The modern version is equally accidental.
Think of it as a self reinforcing system, rather than an conspiracy.
Wondering if laying the GOP for control of the Senate might be a decent bet ? The details of the rules make that a better alternative than betting on the Democrats.
"While few continue to feel that the sentences handed down have been too harsh, the public become significantly more likely to think those involved are getting off lightly.
In the case of one individual who received a one year sentence for charging at a police officer, six in ten Britons (60%) feel this was too light a punishment and warranted a longer sentence, while only 5% of the public feel the courts were too harsh."
That is surprising, I have little sympathy for most of the rioters but the sentences were harsh. Harsh for a good and practical community reason, but some were harsh on the individuals involved. I would hope some of the non regular offenders can be let out quietly serving just a third or so of their sentence.
Although I'm instinctively a liberal on sentencing, I'm not sure I agree with you here. In most of the cases I've read about, the offenders had so many previous convictions that a tough sentence was not only likely but also justifiable. I've read of very few first offenders.
Yes. Given what they were charged with and the aggravating circumstances, the extreme corners of the sentencing matrices for those offences were inevitable.
I sometimes need to check my biases on US politics. Having done so, I really don’t see states like Florida in play.
Yes, Trump has had a bad month and yes, Kamala Harris is doing (particularly when compared to Biden) well. And probably deserves to be the favourite right now. But US society and politics is too badly divided and entrenched IMHO, and the candidates too divisive, to see this as anything other than a close-run thing and only really involving the states we all know about. GA, PA, NC, WI, MI, NV, AZ.
Trump is a terrible candidate. But let’s not forget that the Democrats are vulnerable on a number of fronts. And while Harris is playing her hand really well at the moment, there is still a lot of time to run.
Truss was 'unambigiously pro growth' but it led to disaster as she pushed through massive tax cuts while keeping spending high but her heavy demand and growth increasing policies just led to high inflation and interest rates as debt rose and there was no accompanying supply side productivity increases.
This is probably a cry for attention, but I'll bite. Why are you spreading easily disprovable falsehoods about a Tory PM? As you well know, Truss's budget didn’t have a chance to be inflationary, as it was never implemented. The one part of it that was implemented was the cancellation of the planned NI increase - do I take it you're in favour of paying more National Insurance?
The one thing I've always had you down as is a Tory loyalist, but it seems you can't even manage that any more. It seems Sunak has enshittified the Tory activist base along with the nation.
You Tories should try to be nice to one another. God knows there are few enough of you left.
PS Did you hear Anthony Scaramucci saying the fear of a female Commander in Chief didn't resonate in the UK because we had had two female prime ministers? He corrected himself later, to include blink-and-you-missed-her Liz.
We don't miss her round here - she occupies more rent-free space in PBer's heads than Thatcher and May put together.
I sometimes need to check my biases on US politics. Having done so, I really don’t see states like Florida in play.
Yes, Trump has had a bad month and yes, Kamala Harris is doing (particularly when compared to Biden) well. And probably deserves to be the favourite right now. But US society and politics is too badly divided and entrenched IMHO, and the candidates too divisive, to see this as anything other than a close-run thing and only really involving the states we all know about. GA, PA, NC, WI, MI, NV, AZ.
Trump is a terrible candidate. But let’s not forget that the Democrats are vulnerable on a number of fronts. And while Harris is playing her hand really well at the moment, there is still a lot of time to run.
There's still scope for an October surprise - if nothing, else both candidates are going to have to handle the first anniversary of 7/10 and anything it might trigger.
Truss was 'unambigiously pro growth' but it led to disaster as she pushed through massive tax cuts while keeping spending high but her heavy demand and growth increasing policies just led to high inflation and interest rates as debt rose and there was no accompanying supply side productivity increases.
This is probably a cry for attention, but I'll bite. Why are you spreading easily disprovable falsehoods about a Tory PM? As you well know, Truss's budget didn’t have a chance to be inflationary, as it was never implemented. The one part of it that was implemented was the cancellation of the planned NI increase - do I take it you're in favour of paying more National Insurance?
The one thing I've always had you down as is a Tory loyalist, but it seems you can't even manage that any more. It seems Sunak has enshittified the Tory activist base along with the nation.
You Tories should try to be nice to one another. God knows there are few enough of you left.
PS Did you hear Anthony Scaramucci saying the fear of a female Commander in Chief didn't resonate in the UK because we had had two female prime ministers? He corrected himself later, to include blink-and-you-missed-her Liz.
We don't miss her round here - she occupies more rent-free space in PBer's heads than Thatcher and May put together.
Good evening
I know our Lib Dem colleagues are quite pleased with themselves at present but it seems there are conservatives around to win a local from them
Truss was 'unambigiously pro growth' but it led to disaster as she pushed through massive tax cuts while keeping spending high but her heavy demand and growth increasing policies just led to high inflation and interest rates as debt rose and there was no accompanying supply side productivity increases.
This is probably a cry for attention, but I'll bite. Why are you spreading easily disprovable falsehoods about a Tory PM? As you well know, Truss's budget didn’t have a chance to be inflationary, as it was never implemented. The one part of it that was implemented was the cancellation of the planned NI increase - do I take it you're in favour of paying more National Insurance?
The one thing I've always had you down as is a Tory loyalist, but it seems you can't even manage that any more. It seems Sunak has enshittified the Tory activist base along with the nation.
You Tories should try to be nice to one another. God knows there are few enough of you left.
PS Did you hear Anthony Scaramucci saying the fear of a female Commander in Chief didn't resonate in the UK because we had had two female prime ministers? He corrected himself later, to include blink-and-you-missed-her Liz.
We don't miss her round here - she occupies more rent-free space in PBer's heads than Thatcher and May put together.
Good evening
I know our Lib Dem colleagues are quite pleased with themselves at present but it seems there are conservatives around to win a local from them
"While few continue to feel that the sentences handed down have been too harsh, the public become significantly more likely to think those involved are getting off lightly.
In the case of one individual who received a one year sentence for charging at a police officer, six in ten Britons (60%) feel this was too light a punishment and warranted a longer sentence, while only 5% of the public feel the courts were too harsh."
That is surprising, I have little sympathy for most of the rioters but the sentences were harsh. Harsh for a good and practical community reason, but some were harsh on the individuals involved. I would hope some of the non regular offenders can be let out quietly serving just a third or so of their sentence.
I haven't seen a single commentator pick up the following.
The sentences were straight out of the sentencing guidelines. Bang on the money. No chance of appeal.
So, what was different? The charges.
In ordinary times, there is often a noticeable "down charging" of offences - charging a lesser offence than the evidence supports. I've mentioned before the Oxford Street stabbing - a couple of teenagers, who held the victim down got short sentences - literally out before Christmas. Why? They weren't charged with murder - it was one of the variations on assault, IIRC. The sentence was in line with guidelines for that offence.
Some legal historians argue that the extreme sentences back in Georgian times were actually a variant of social control. That is, if you knew the right people and doffed your cap right (or knew the right people to doff the cap for you) *and* your offence wasn't against Society, sentence reductions and pardons were common.
What the current situation suggests is that government has happened (probably accidentally) into something similar. They don't need to nobble juries or judges or anything vaguely naughty. Just a hint to the CPS to charge up or down the scale.
What's the evidence for any of those assertions?
Well, the 'legal historians' bit is presumably a reference to Vic Gattrell's The Hanging Tree.
Personally, I think he overeggs the pudding somewhat on his views as to motivation, but it's undoubtedly a serious piece of work.
I think the idea that it was planned, rather than a happenstance is the issue.
For the Georgian version -
1) More and more severe sentences please the hangers and floggers. Yay! 2) Pardons and sentence reductions make the noblesse feel obliging. Yay! 3) Plus lots of nice cap doffing. Yay!
The modern version is equally accidental.
Think of it as a self reinforcing system, rather than an conspiracy.
Yes, but the reason I’m not wholly convinced is he rather underplays the lack of options they had with regard to sentencing. Prisons were not really a thing, although transportation was becoming more common it was controversial and mutilation (the Tudor option) was out of fashion.
Hanging was cheap, efficient, popular and in an age of widespread crime it was about the only reliable punishment they had. A classic ‘when you have a hammer everything’s a nail’ problem.
Truss was 'unambigiously pro growth' but it led to disaster as she pushed through massive tax cuts while keeping spending high but her heavy demand and growth increasing policies just led to high inflation and interest rates as debt rose and there was no accompanying supply side productivity increases.
This is probably a cry for attention, but I'll bite. Why are you spreading easily disprovable falsehoods about a Tory PM? As you well know, Truss's budget didn’t have a chance to be inflationary, as it was never implemented. The one part of it that was implemented was the cancellation of the planned NI increase - do I take it you're in favour of paying more National Insurance?
The one thing I've always had you down as is a Tory loyalist, but it seems you can't even manage that any more. It seems Sunak has enshittified the Tory activist base along with the nation.
You Tories should try to be nice to one another. God knows there are few enough of you left.
PS Did you hear Anthony Scaramucci saying the fear of a female Commander in Chief didn't resonate in the UK because we had had two female prime ministers? He corrected himself later, to include blink-and-you-missed-her Liz.
We don't miss her round here - she occupies more rent-free space in PBer's heads than Thatcher and May put together.
Truss was 'unambigiously pro growth' but it led to disaster as she pushed through massive tax cuts while keeping spending high but her heavy demand and growth increasing policies just led to high inflation and interest rates as debt rose and there was no accompanying supply side productivity increases.
This is probably a cry for attention, but I'll bite. Why are you spreading easily disprovable falsehoods about a Tory PM? As you well know, Truss's budget didn’t have a chance to be inflationary, as it was never implemented. The one part of it that was implemented was the cancellation of the planned NI increase - do I take it you're in favour of paying more National Insurance?
The one thing I've always had you down as is a Tory loyalist, but it seems you can't even manage that any more. It seems Sunak has enshittified the Tory activist base along with the nation.
You Tories should try to be nice to one another. God knows there are few enough of you left.
PS Did you hear Anthony Scaramucci saying the fear of a female Commander in Chief didn't resonate in the UK because we had had two female prime ministers? He corrected himself later, to include blink-and-you-missed-her Liz.
We don't miss her round here - she occupies more rent-free space in PBer's heads than Thatcher and May put together.
"While few continue to feel that the sentences handed down have been too harsh, the public become significantly more likely to think those involved are getting off lightly.
In the case of one individual who received a one year sentence for charging at a police officer, six in ten Britons (60%) feel this was too light a punishment and warranted a longer sentence, while only 5% of the public feel the courts were too harsh."
That is surprising, I have little sympathy for most of the rioters but the sentences were harsh. Harsh for a good and practical community reason, but some were harsh on the individuals involved. I would hope some of the non regular offenders can be let out quietly serving just a third or so of their sentence.
I haven't seen a single commentator pick up the following.
The sentences were straight out of the sentencing guidelines. Bang on the money. No chance of appeal.
So, what was different? The charges.
In ordinary times, there is often a noticeable "down charging" of offences - charging a lesser offence than the evidence supports. I've mentioned before the Oxford Street stabbing - a couple of teenagers, who held the victim down got short sentences - literally out before Christmas. Why? They weren't charged with murder - it was one of the variations on assault, IIRC. The sentence was in line with guidelines for that offence.
Some legal historians argue that the extreme sentences back in Georgian times were actually a variant of social control. That is, if you knew the right people and doffed your cap right (or knew the right people to doff the cap for you) *and* your offence wasn't against Society, sentence reductions and pardons were common.
What the current situation suggests is that government has happened (probably accidentally) into something similar. They don't need to nobble juries or judges or anything vaguely naughty. Just a hint to the CPS to charge up or down the scale.
What's the evidence for any of those assertions?
Well, the 'legal historians' bit is presumably a reference to Vic Gattrell's The Hanging Tree.
Personally, I think he overeggs the pudding somewhat on his views as to motivation, but it's undoubtedly a serious piece of work.
I think the idea that it was planned, rather than a happenstance is the issue.
For the Georgian version -
1) More and more severe sentences please the hangers and floggers. Yay! 2) Pardons and sentence reductions make the noblesse feel obliging. Yay! 3) Plus lots of nice cap doffing. Yay!
The modern version is equally accidental.
Think of it as a self reinforcing system, rather than an conspiracy.
Yes, but the reason I’m not wholly convinced is he rather underplays the lack of options they had with regard to sentencing. Prisons were not really a thing, although transportation was becoming more common it was controversial and mutilation (the Tudor option) was out of fashion.
Hanging was cheap, efficient, popular and in an age of widespread crime it was about the only reliable punishment they had. A classic ‘when you have a hammer everything’s a nail’ problem.
It’s a great book still, and very impressive.
They were imprisoning, more and more.
Though it took the Victorians to really get the Prison Industrial Complex rolling. As usual. And complete with faux medieval architecture at that....
The emphasis over the past 24 hours has been on Harris’ speech but perhaps what is of more importance for November is the very public making up between Brian Kemp and DJT.
3 implications here:
1. immediately, it probably increases the chances of GA flipping to Trump;
2. It suggests the Republican ‘moderates’ have decided to back Trump more forcefully probably in response to the Harris-Walz ticket and the view it’s the most progressive ticket from the Democrats. It will be interesting to see whether other figures such as Sununu in NH also start to become more forceful;
3. It suggests, when push comes to shove, Trump is more disciplined and / or listens to his advisors. So maybe caution for those relying on him to blow things up and / or not listen to advice on strategy.
Or it suggests that a state which was polling fairly solidly Republican, might now be looking shaky for him.
And the GOP moderates were at the convention this week, endorsing Harris.
Kemp is not a moderate - he's just not enough of a crook to have gone along with Trump's attempt to subvert the last election.
On the points:
1. possibly but, if it increases the chances anyway of GA going Red.
2. The moderates are the GOP equivalent of Tulsi Gabbard in terms of how much influence they have
3. Kemp is seen as a figurehead for many who don’t like Trump so it carries weight.
I think if Shapiro had been the VP pick, this race would have been Harris’ to lose. Having Walz in there has made made Republicans decide they need to go with Trump regardless of their apathy
Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.
The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?
Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.
If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?
Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.
Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.
Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.
Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.
Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.
See how long scarcity lasts then.
If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
David Axelrod @davidaxelrod · 1h . @KamalaHarris had a spectacular week, culminating a remarkable month. But this is a closely divided country and the race now will be a pitched struggle for every inch of terrain in the battleground states.
The emphasis over the past 24 hours has been on Harris’ speech but perhaps what is of more importance for November is the very public making up between Brian Kemp and DJT.
3 implications here:
1. immediately, it probably increases the chances of GA flipping to Trump;
2. It suggests the Republican ‘moderates’ have decided to back Trump more forcefully probably in response to the Harris-Walz ticket and the view it’s the most progressive ticket from the Democrats. It will be interesting to see whether other figures such as Sununu in NH also start to become more forceful;
3. It suggests, when push comes to shove, Trump is more disciplined and / or listens to his advisors. So maybe caution for those relying on him to blow things up and / or not listen to advice on strategy.
Or it suggests that a state which was polling fairly solidly Republican, might now be looking shaky for him.
And the GOP moderates were at the convention this week, endorsing Harris.
Kemp is not a moderate - he's just not enough of a crook to have gone along with Trump's attempt to subvert the last election.
On the points:
1. possibly but, if it increases the chances anyway of GA going Red.
2. The moderates are the GOP equivalent of Tulsi Gabbard in terms of how much influence they have
3. Kemp is seen as a figurehead for many who don’t like Trump so it carries weight.
I think if Shapiro had been the VP pick, this race would have been Harris’ to lose. Having Walz in there has made made Republicans decide they need to go with Trump regardless of their apathy
I certainly think Harris and Walz is the most left liberal Democrat ticket since Dukakis and Bentsen in 1988, maybe even McGovern and Eagleton in 1972, albeit Harris is still right of Sanders and AOC.
However Harris still has a good chance as Trump and Vance is the most populist conservative and rightwing GOP ticket since Goldwater and Miller in 1964
David Axelrod @davidaxelrod · 1h . @KamalaHarris had a spectacular week, culminating a remarkable month. But this is a closely divided country and the race now will be a pitched struggle for every inch of terrain in the battleground states.
The emphasis over the past 24 hours has been on Harris’ speech but perhaps what is of more importance for November is the very public making up between Brian Kemp and DJT.
3 implications here:
1. immediately, it probably increases the chances of GA flipping to Trump;
2. It suggests the Republican ‘moderates’ have decided to back Trump more forcefully probably in response to the Harris-Walz ticket and the view it’s the most progressive ticket from the Democrats. It will be interesting to see whether other figures such as Sununu in NH also start to become more forceful;
3. It suggests, when push comes to shove, Trump is more disciplined and / or listens to his advisors. So maybe caution for those relying on him to blow things up and / or not listen to advice on strategy.
Or it suggests that a state which was polling fairly solidly Republican, might now be looking shaky for him.
And the GOP moderates were at the convention this week, endorsing Harris.
Kemp is not a moderate - he's just not enough of a crook to have gone along with Trump's attempt to subvert the last election.
On the points:
1. possibly but, if it increases the chances anyway of GA going Red.
2. The moderates are the GOP equivalent of Tulsi Gabbard in terms of how much influence they have
3. Kemp is seen as a figurehead for many who don’t like Trump so it carries weight.
I think if Shapiro had been the VP pick, this race would have been Harris’ to lose. Having Walz in there has made made Republicans decide they need to go with Trump regardless of their apathy
I certainly think this is the most left liberal Democrat ticket since Dukakis and Bentsen in 1988, maybe even McGovern and Eagleton in 1972, albeit Harris is still right of Sanders and AOC.
However Harris still has a good chance as Trump and Waltz is the most populist conservative and rightwing GOP ticket since Goldwater and Miller in 1964
David Axelrod @davidaxelrod · 1h . @KamalaHarris had a spectacular week, culminating a remarkable month. But this is a closely divided country and the race now will be a pitched struggle for every inch of terrain in the battleground states.
Really?
No. Shit. Sherlock.
Indeed. I guess he is trying to bring some of the Dem convention attenders back down to earth after all the joyous whooping and wild excitement at nominating a black woman to be President and Ted Lasso's cousin to be veep.
The emphasis over the past 24 hours has been on Harris’ speech but perhaps what is of more importance for November is the very public making up between Brian Kemp and DJT.
3 implications here:
1. immediately, it probably increases the chances of GA flipping to Trump;
2. It suggests the Republican ‘moderates’ have decided to back Trump more forcefully probably in response to the Harris-Walz ticket and the view it’s the most progressive ticket from the Democrats. It will be interesting to see whether other figures such as Sununu in NH also start to become more forceful;
3. It suggests, when push comes to shove, Trump is more disciplined and / or listens to his advisors. So maybe caution for those relying on him to blow things up and / or not listen to advice on strategy.
Or it suggests that a state which was polling fairly solidly Republican, might now be looking shaky for him.
And the GOP moderates were at the convention this week, endorsing Harris.
Kemp is not a moderate - he's just not enough of a crook to have gone along with Trump's attempt to subvert the last election.
On the points:
1. possibly but, if it increases the chances anyway of GA going Red.
2. The moderates are the GOP equivalent of Tulsi Gabbard in terms of how much influence they have
3. Kemp is seen as a figurehead for many who don’t like Trump so it carries weight.
I think if Shapiro had been the VP pick, this race would have been Harris’ to lose. Having Walz in there has made made Republicans decide they need to go with Trump regardless of their apathy
I certainly think this is the most left liberal Democrat ticket since Dukakis and Bentsen in 1988, maybe even McGovern and Eagleton in 1972, albeit Harris is still right of Sanders and AOC.
However Harris still has a good chance as Trump and Waltz is the most populist conservative and rightwing GOP ticket since Goldwater and Miller in 1964
I am still really not convinced by this “most left liberal” thing. To be honest it amuses me that they’re trying to portray Harris as some crazy communist. If anything she appears to be a moderate on most issues.
Both parties in the US play the identity politics card more and more now (but they’ve been doing that for years), is one of the only things I’d say.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
The emphasis over the past 24 hours has been on Harris’ speech but perhaps what is of more importance for November is the very public making up between Brian Kemp and DJT.
3 implications here:
1. immediately, it probably increases the chances of GA flipping to Trump;
2. It suggests the Republican ‘moderates’ have decided to back Trump more forcefully probably in response to the Harris-Walz ticket and the view it’s the most progressive ticket from the Democrats. It will be interesting to see whether other figures such as Sununu in NH also start to become more forceful;
3. It suggests, when push comes to shove, Trump is more disciplined and / or listens to his advisors. So maybe caution for those relying on him to blow things up and / or not listen to advice on strategy.
Or it suggests that a state which was polling fairly solidly Republican, might now be looking shaky for him.
And the GOP moderates were at the convention this week, endorsing Harris.
Kemp is not a moderate - he's just not enough of a crook to have gone along with Trump's attempt to subvert the last election.
On the points:
1. possibly but, if it increases the chances anyway of GA going Red.
2. The moderates are the GOP equivalent of Tulsi Gabbard in terms of how much influence they have
3. Kemp is seen as a figurehead for many who don’t like Trump so it carries weight.
I think if Shapiro had been the VP pick, this race would have been Harris’ to lose. Having Walz in there has made made Republicans decide they need to go with Trump regardless of their apathy
I certainly think this is the most left liberal Democrat ticket since Dukakis and Bentsen in 1988, maybe even McGovern and Eagleton in 1972, albeit Harris is still right of Sanders and AOC.
However Harris still has a good chance as Trump and Waltz is the most populist conservative and rightwing GOP ticket since Goldwater and Miller in 1964
I am still really not convinced by this “most left liberal” thing. To be honest it amuses me that they’re trying to portray Harris as some crazy communist. If anything she appears to be a moderate on most issues.
Both parties in the US play the identity politics card more and more now (but they’ve been doing that for years), is one of the only things I’d say.
Nobody is saying Harris is a communist but she is certainly more liberal than Biden, the Clintons and Gore and Carter were and arguably even more so than Kerry and Obama were (and Kerry had southern moderate Edwards as his running mate and Obama moderate Biden while Walz has similar views on issues to Bernie Sanders). She is about as liberal as Dukakis was in my view (however his running mate was more southern conservative Bentsen), a bit right of McGovern and less union backed than Mondale but more socially liberal than he was.
The emphasis over the past 24 hours has been on Harris’ speech but perhaps what is of more importance for November is the very public making up between Brian Kemp and DJT.
3 implications here:
1. immediately, it probably increases the chances of GA flipping to Trump;
2. It suggests the Republican ‘moderates’ have decided to back Trump more forcefully probably in response to the Harris-Walz ticket and the view it’s the most progressive ticket from the Democrats. It will be interesting to see whether other figures such as Sununu in NH also start to become more forceful;
3. It suggests, when push comes to shove, Trump is more disciplined and / or listens to his advisors. So maybe caution for those relying on him to blow things up and / or not listen to advice on strategy.
Or it suggests that a state which was polling fairly solidly Republican, might now be looking shaky for him.
And the GOP moderates were at the convention this week, endorsing Harris.
Kemp is not a moderate - he's just not enough of a crook to have gone along with Trump's attempt to subvert the last election.
On the points:
1. possibly but, if it increases the chances anyway of GA going Red.
2. The moderates are the GOP equivalent of Tulsi Gabbard in terms of how much influence they have
3. Kemp is seen as a figurehead for many who don’t like Trump so it carries weight.
I think if Shapiro had been the VP pick, this race would have been Harris’ to lose. Having Walz in there has made made Republicans decide they need to go with Trump regardless of their apathy
I certainly think this is the most left liberal Democrat ticket since Dukakis and Bentsen in 1988, maybe even McGovern and Eagleton in 1972, albeit Harris is still right of Sanders and AOC.
However Harris still has a good chance as Trump and Waltz is the most populist conservative and rightwing GOP ticket since Goldwater and Miller in 1964
I am still really not convinced by this “most left liberal” thing. To be honest it amuses me that they’re trying to portray Harris as some crazy communist. If anything she appears to be a moderate on most issues.
Both parties in the US play the identity politics card more and more now (but they’ve been doing that for years), is one of the only things I’d say.
Nobody is saying Harris is a communist but she is certainly more liberal than Biden, the Clintons and Gore and Carter were and arguably even more so than Kerry was. She is about as liberal as Dukakis was in my view (however his running mate was more southern conservative Bentsen), a bit right of McGovern and less union backed than Mondale but more socially liberal than he was.
To be fair, it wouldn’t be particularly hard to be more socially liberal than a main party candidate in 1984….
Also, people ARE saying she’s a communist. That’s literally been one of Trump’s lines.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Does it annoy a lot of people? As someone who got it and doesn't now it doesn't annoy me as I never deserved it. That must be true of many. And what about all the non pensioners. It won't annoy them that they don't have to subside me. I imagine they are chuffed.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Not sure one of the worst but it is pretty high up and a spectacular unforced error from Reeves within days of gaining office.
Brown gave us BoE independence as his surprise, she condemned some pensioners to a cold winter for very little as hers.
She has been very poor so far imho -pulling out of a new vaccine centre and the Edinburgh AI computer are other examples (how is that growth?).
And i am quite surprised how bad she has been so far to be honest.
The emphasis over the past 24 hours has been on Harris’ speech but perhaps what is of more importance for November is the very public making up between Brian Kemp and DJT.
3 implications here:
1. immediately, it probably increases the chances of GA flipping to Trump;
2. It suggests the Republican ‘moderates’ have decided to back Trump more forcefully probably in response to the Harris-Walz ticket and the view it’s the most progressive ticket from the Democrats. It will be interesting to see whether other figures such as Sununu in NH also start to become more forceful;
3. It suggests, when push comes to shove, Trump is more disciplined and / or listens to his advisors. So maybe caution for those relying on him to blow things up and / or not listen to advice on strategy.
Or it suggests that a state which was polling fairly solidly Republican, might now be looking shaky for him.
And the GOP moderates were at the convention this week, endorsing Harris.
Kemp is not a moderate - he's just not enough of a crook to have gone along with Trump's attempt to subvert the last election.
On the points:
1. possibly but, if it increases the chances anyway of GA going Red.
2. The moderates are the GOP equivalent of Tulsi Gabbard in terms of how much influence they have
3. Kemp is seen as a figurehead for many who don’t like Trump so it carries weight.
I think if Shapiro had been the VP pick, this race would have been Harris’ to lose. Having Walz in there has made made Republicans decide they need to go with Trump regardless of their apathy
I certainly think this is the most left liberal Democrat ticket since Dukakis and Bentsen in 1988, maybe even McGovern and Eagleton in 1972, albeit Harris is still right of Sanders and AOC.
However Harris still has a good chance as Trump and Waltz is the most populist conservative and rightwing GOP ticket since Goldwater and Miller in 1964
This is your semi-regular reminder that Nixon had/wanted a prices&incomes policy, subsidised medicine and a national research project to eliminate cancer.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Does it annoy a lot of people? As someone who got it and doesn't now it doesn't annoy me as I never deserved it. That must be true of many. And what about call the non pensioners. It won't annoy them that they don't vhave to subside me. I imagine they are chuffed.
Never underestimate the feeling of hurt that a lot of people suffer when they think the government has taken something away from them that they feel entitled to.
A lot of pensioners on decent incomes will be able to rationalise it, but many can’t, and they see it as something that they deserve that has been taken away from them. The fact that the energy price cap has increased will only serve to annoy them further.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Does it annoy a lot of people? As someone who got it and doesn't now it doesn't annoy me as I never deserved it. That must be true of many. And what about all the non pensioners. It won't annoy them that they don't have to subside me. I imagine they are chuffed.
Might annoy all those folk who fell for this 'read my lips' guff and voted Labour.
MSM Monitor @msm_monitor Rachel Reeves is set to announce immediate cuts worth billions of pounds today. During the election campaign Anas Sarwar told John Swinney "Read my lips, no austerity under Labour". The clip should be in all BBC Scotland news bulletins today. It likely won't be in any. Indeed Sarwar has disappeared completely since the election as has BBC Scotland's interest in him.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Does it annoy a lot of people? As someone who got it and doesn't now it doesn't annoy me as I never deserved it. That must be true of many. And what about all the non pensioners. It won't annoy them that they don't have to subside me. I imagine they are chuffed.
The non pensioners may have parents or grandparents affected.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Does it annoy a lot of people? As someone who got it and doesn't now it doesn't annoy me as I never deserved it. That must be true of many. And what about all the non pensioners. It won't annoy them that they don't have to subside me. I imagine they are chuffed.
It fails on a number of fronts , it saves very little, is terrible politics, some pensioners will struggle and we’ve just had the energy cap going up . Reeves should dump the policy and find the money elsewhere.
"FUCKING HELL the video I’ve just seen coming out of Gaza - just threw my phone across the room. Jesus fucking Christ how much more can a people take THIS IS HELL ON EARTH"
--
I haven't seen, nor looked for the video referenced. I post this as an example of the kind of radicalisation that occurs in this current social media environment. Normal people used to live edited lives, with kids protected by watersheds. You had to actively seek out reality, which many of us, even as adults, chose to insulate ourselves from.
This is in your face. Sometimes fake, often real. Stripped of context, or fake context added. The more shocking the more shares.
All is evidence that the enemy is evil and must be punished.
The moderators have given up. The journalists & editors, unemployed.
This is, I offer up as a guess, part of the explanation for the shocking Henry Jackson Society polling of British Muslim opinion.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Does it annoy a lot of people? As someone who got it and doesn't now it doesn't annoy me as I never deserved it. That must be true of many. And what about all the non pensioners. It won't annoy them that they don't have to subside me. I imagine they are chuffed.
The non pensioners may have parents or grandparents affected.
My parents and surviving grandparent are absolutely fine with it as they never needed it and thought it was a waste of money. This is not uncommon.
(Oddly said grandparent is much more bothered - still - about when she lost the free TV licence)
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Does it annoy a lot of people? As someone who got it and doesn't now it doesn't annoy me as I never deserved it. That must be true of many. And what about call the non pensioners. It won't annoy them that they don't vhave to subside me. I imagine they are chuffed.
Never underestimate the feeling of hurt that a lot of people suffer when they think the government has taken something away from them that they feel entitled to.
A lot of pensioners on decent incomes will be able to rationalise it, but many can’t, and they see it as something that they deserve that has been taken away from them. The fact that the energy price cap has increased will only serve to annoy them further.
And this is why we ended up with an entitled generation and a struggling government. Decisions cannot be made solely on what is electorally popular, well I suppose they can but it just results in decline and unhappiness.
This is the first election that generation have lost in their whole life times, and a couple of months in it is non stop bleating. As remainers were told after Brexit, they lost, get over it.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Does it annoy a lot of people? As someone who got it and doesn't now it doesn't annoy me as I never deserved it. That must be true of many. And what about all the non pensioners. It won't annoy them that they don't have to subside me. I imagine they are chuffed.
The non pensioners may have parents or grandparents affected.
Neither of my children have expressed any sympathy with me over this tragic loss.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Not sure one of the worst but it is pretty high up and a spectacular unforced error from Reeves within days of gaining office.
Brown gave us BoE independence as his surprise, she condemned some pensioners to a cold winter for very little as hers.
She has been very poor so far imho -pulling out of a new vaccine centre and the Edinburgh AI computer are other examples (how is that growth?).
And i am quite surprised how bad she has been so far to be honest.
Cutting welfare from people that don't need it is the right thing to do.
The Tories should have done that when they were in office.
Better than creating new welfare or putting up taxes.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Does it annoy a lot of people? As someone who got it and doesn't now it doesn't annoy me as I never deserved it. That must be true of many. And what about all the non pensioners. It won't annoy them that they don't have to subside me. I imagine they are chuffed.
The non pensioners may have parents or grandparents affected.
This is an important point as 'Reeves took Grandma's winter fuel allowance to pay train drivers a huge increase in wages' is quite toxic
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Surely that is a good thing if people in poverty are getting the cash rather than the rich who don't need it? If I were Reeves I would boast about that bit of redistribution.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Surely that is a good thing if people in poverty are getting the cash rather than the rich who don't need it? If I were Reeves I would boast about that bit of redistribution.
I agree and it just shows how ridiculous our benefit system is
"FUCKING HELL the video I’ve just seen coming out of Gaza - just threw my phone across the room. Jesus fucking Christ how much more can a people take THIS IS HELL ON EARTH"
--
I haven't seen, nor looked for the video referenced. I post this as an example of the kind of radicalisation that occurs in this current social media environment. Normal people used to live edited lives, with kids protected by watersheds. You had to actively seek out reality, which many of us, even as adults, chose to insulate ourselves from.
This is in your face. Sometimes fake, often real. Stripped of context, or fake context added. The more shocking the more shares.
All is evidence that the enemy is evil and must be punished.
The moderators have given up. The journalists & editors, unemployed.
This is, I offer up as a guess, part of the explanation for the shocking Henry Jackson Society polling of British Muslim opinion.
I think most PBers are completely insulated from the kind of videos that me and my peers have been seeing through the social media that we use.
I've seen that video, and many others, but I don't think I've been radicalised - I'm more resigned. We all saw and shared the videos from the October 7th attack and there were no such concerns about radicalisation then.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Does it annoy a lot of people? As someone who got it and doesn't now it doesn't annoy me as I never deserved it. That must be true of many. And what about call the non pensioners. It won't annoy them that they don't vhave to subside me. I imagine they are chuffed.
Never underestimate the feeling of hurt that a lot of people suffer when they think the government has taken something away from them that they feel entitled to.
A lot of pensioners on decent incomes will be able to rationalise it, but many can’t, and they see it as something that they deserve that has been taken away from them. The fact that the energy price cap has increased will only serve to annoy them further.
And this is why we ended up with an entitled generation and a struggling government. Decisions cannot be made solely on what is electorally popular, well I suppose they can but it just results in decline and unhappiness.
This is the first election that generation have lost in their whole life times, and a couple of months in it is non stop bleating. As remainers were told after Brexit, they lost, get over it.
The emphasis over the past 24 hours has been on Harris’ speech but perhaps what is of more importance for November is the very public making up between Brian Kemp and DJT.
3 implications here:
1. immediately, it probably increases the chances of GA flipping to Trump;
2. It suggests the Republican ‘moderates’ have decided to back Trump more forcefully probably in response to the Harris-Walz ticket and the view it’s the most progressive ticket from the Democrats. It will be interesting to see whether other figures such as Sununu in NH also start to become more forceful;
3. It suggests, when push comes to shove, Trump is more disciplined and / or listens to his advisors. So maybe caution for those relying on him to blow things up and / or not listen to advice on strategy.
Or it suggests that a state which was polling fairly solidly Republican, might now be looking shaky for him.
And the GOP moderates were at the convention this week, endorsing Harris.
Kemp is not a moderate - he's just not enough of a crook to have gone along with Trump's attempt to subvert the last election.
On the points:
1. possibly but, if it increases the chances anyway of GA going Red.
2. The moderates are the GOP equivalent of Tulsi Gabbard in terms of how much influence they have
3. Kemp is seen as a figurehead for many who don’t like Trump so it carries weight.
I think if Shapiro had been the VP pick, this race would have been Harris’ to lose. Having Walz in there has made made Republicans decide they need to go with Trump regardless of their apathy
I certainly think this is the most left liberal Democrat ticket since Dukakis and Bentsen in 1988, maybe even McGovern and Eagleton in 1972, albeit Harris is still right of Sanders and AOC.
However Harris still has a good chance as Trump and Waltz is the most populist conservative and rightwing GOP ticket since Goldwater and Miller in 1964
This is your semi-regular reminder that Nixon had/wanted a prices&incomes policy, subsidised medicine and a national research project to eliminate cancer.
Indeed, Nixon was certainly left of Reagan, Goldwater, Romney and Trump.
As I said Trump-Vance is the most conservative GOP ticket since Goldwater-Miller, Reagan at least balanced his ticket with the more moderate Bush
As a compromise on the winter fuel allowance I would just make it taxable
And on the rises I have just fixed my energy with EDF until 1st October 2025 at slightly less than my present variable rate and before October and possibly January increases
Re cricket, I thought it was only a no-ball if the wicketkeeper went in front of the stumps, not level with them.
27.3 Position of wicket-keeper
27.3.1 The wicket-keeper shall remain wholly behind the wicket at the striker’s end from the moment the ball comes into play until a ball delivered by the bowler
touches the bat or person of the striker or
passes the wicket at the striker’s end or
the striker attempts a run.
27.3.2 In the event of the wicket-keeper contravening this Law, the striker’s end umpire shall call and signal No ball as soon as applicable after the delivery of the ball.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Does it annoy a lot of people? As someone who got it and doesn't now it doesn't annoy me as I never deserved it. That must be true of many. And what about all the non pensioners. It won't annoy them that they don't have to subside me. I imagine they are chuffed.
The non pensioners may have parents or grandparents affected.
This is an important point as 'Reeves took Grandma's winter fuel allowance to pay train drivers a huge increase in wages' is quite toxic
Youthful anti-pensioners don't seem to realise that Reeves has taken the WFA away from them, too. In fact they stand to lose far more than existing pensioners as it's unlikely to be restored in time for their old age. The French seem to understand this better than the British as any curtailment of state pensions brings everyone out on the streets - not just current recipients.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Does it annoy a lot of people? As someone who got it and doesn't now it doesn't annoy me as I never deserved it. That must be true of many. And what about all the non pensioners. It won't annoy them that they don't have to subside me. I imagine they are chuffed.
More importantly, will they still be annoyed in 2028/9?
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Does it annoy a lot of people? As someone who got it and doesn't now it doesn't annoy me as I never deserved it. That must be true of many. And what about all the non pensioners. It won't annoy them that they don't have to subside me. I imagine they are chuffed.
More importantly, will they still be annoyed in 2028/9?
I expect a lot more things will be annoying the electorate by then to be fair
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
they will end up spending just as much doing all the means testing, a really stupid decision. Give rich doctors 22% , put energy up 10% and take a pittance off pensioners, how do these clowns get to where they are.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
The emphasis over the past 24 hours has been on Harris’ speech but perhaps what is of more importance for November is the very public making up between Brian Kemp and DJT.
3 implications here:
1. immediately, it probably increases the chances of GA flipping to Trump;
2. It suggests the Republican ‘moderates’ have decided to back Trump more forcefully probably in response to the Harris-Walz ticket and the view it’s the most progressive ticket from the Democrats. It will be interesting to see whether other figures such as Sununu in NH also start to become more forceful;
3. It suggests, when push comes to shove, Trump is more disciplined and / or listens to his advisors. So maybe caution for those relying on him to blow things up and / or not listen to advice on strategy.
Or it suggests that a state which was polling fairly solidly Republican, might now be looking shaky for him.
And the GOP moderates were at the convention this week, endorsing Harris.
Kemp is not a moderate - he's just not enough of a crook to have gone along with Trump's attempt to subvert the last election.
On the points:
1. possibly but, if it increases the chances anyway of GA going Red.
2. The moderates are the GOP equivalent of Tulsi Gabbard in terms of how much influence they have
3. Kemp is seen as a figurehead for many who don’t like Trump so it carries weight.
I think if Shapiro had been the VP pick, this race would have been Harris’ to lose. Having Walz in there has made made Republicans decide they need to go with Trump regardless of their apathy
I certainly think this is the most left liberal Democrat ticket since Dukakis and Bentsen in 1988, maybe even McGovern and Eagleton in 1972, albeit Harris is still right of Sanders and AOC.
However Harris still has a good chance as Trump and Waltz is the most populist conservative and rightwing GOP ticket since Goldwater and Miller in 1964
"FUCKING HELL the video I’ve just seen coming out of Gaza - just threw my phone across the room. Jesus fucking Christ how much more can a people take THIS IS HELL ON EARTH"
--
I haven't seen, nor looked for the video referenced. I post this as an example of the kind of radicalisation that occurs in this current social media environment. Normal people used to live edited lives, with kids protected by watersheds. You had to actively seek out reality, which many of us, even as adults, chose to insulate ourselves from.
This is in your face. Sometimes fake, often real. Stripped of context, or fake context added. The more shocking the more shares.
All is evidence that the enemy is evil and must be punished.
The moderators have given up. The journalists & editors, unemployed.
This is, I offer up as a guess, part of the explanation for the shocking Henry Jackson Society polling of British Muslim opinion.
I think most PBers are completely insulated from the kind of videos that me and my peers have been seeing through the social media that we use.
I've seen that video, and many others, but I don't think I've been radicalised - I'm more resigned. We all saw and shared the videos from the October 7th attack and there were no such concerns about radicalisation then.
extreme nutters on both sides, whole thing is pathetic and the arses here wailing and gnashing their teeth is even worse.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Not sure one of the worst but it is pretty high up and a spectacular unforced error from Reeves within days of gaining office.
Brown gave us BoE independence as his surprise, she condemned some pensioners to a cold winter for very little as hers.
She has been very poor so far imho -pulling out of a new vaccine centre and the Edinburgh AI computer are other examples (how is that growth?).
And i am quite surprised how bad she has been so far to be honest.
Cutting welfare from people that don't need it is the right thing to do.
The Tories should have done that when they were in office.
Better than creating new welfare or putting up taxes.
If removal of universal benefits is the thing to do - and I would argue against - but say it is. Then target the removal.
Don't hit the target with a fucking hammer.
As the Newstatesman article I quoted down thread says - Lab MPs know a lot of "just about managing" pensioners will be hit while the rich barely notice the £200 they were spending on fine wines as a "joke".
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
It should be noted also that the often quoted £300 is only for pensioners over 80, either living on their own or with their spouse and not £600 per pensioner couple
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
It should be noted also that the often quoted £300 is only for pensioners over 80, either living on their own or with their spouse and not £600 per pensioner couple
And, for all the bleating, pensioners have had an inflation-busting 20 percent increase in the last two years. This just claws some of the windfall back.
And bottom line- HMG is broke, thanks to decisions taken by Team 2019-24. Thanks guys.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Does it annoy a lot of people? As someone who got it and doesn't now it doesn't annoy me as I never deserved it. That must be true of many. And what about all the non pensioners. It won't annoy them that they don't have to subside me. I imagine they are chuffed.
More importantly, will they still be annoyed in 2028/9?
Labour needs to hold tight on this decision, Hammond's u-turn on the self employed NI thing (I think !) was the beginning of the end for the May administration. If Labour capitulate on this it'll be the two child benefit cap next. Then there'll be an almighty uproar over the implied fuel duty hike, discipline will start to crumble and the govt will just look weak. They need to face down ASLEF over the LNER strike too.
Comments
I want the legislation passed to allow us to do it.
I want the system set up where it could be self-funded.
I want the initial funding to prime the pump to do it.
You portray that as "won't."
Fine. You provide it, then. If you don't, you're just giving an excuse.
"Oh, I'm not allowed to personally provide it and I don't have billions of pounds myself." Just an excuse/justification, according to your own logic, right? Facetious? Well, if so, you started it. Go on - tell us HOW we can fund it out of our budget? It's readily available online. I'd be very interested in your solution.
While you're at it, tell us how we achieve it legally.
"Won't" is a misrepresentation of "can't, but would like to and here's how to do it."
"Excuse" is a misrepresentation of "is pushing forwards a project that could demonstrate how it could be done"
The other thing Barty doesn't seem to get is that, setting aside its dubious merits, there is, in any event, absolutely no chance of his idea getting adopted.
I'm not sure Pope has the strength of character to be an England captain. Somebody says to him 'review it' and he just does isn't necessarily showing leadership. Reminds me of that silliness Stuart Broad used to get up to,
One problem is that going much deeper than I did in my initial two posts would require writing a very long post or series of posts.
But those first two posts (which can be found here: https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4941411#Comment_4941411 ) are a quick summary of the fundamental problem and a solution intent.
Government is all about tradeoffs. We want to do X, Y and Z, but X and Y sort of contradict each other, and Z needs P and Q to be in place first. So you try to thread multiple needles in the best order you can and accept that some nice things won't happen.
One version of opposition is to deny those tradeoffs. We can have X, Y and Z now and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying because they're evil hypocrites. Corbyn did it. Farage does it. Lib Dems did it in the run up to 2010, which is why coalition was so bruising an experience.
Conservatives have done a lot of it recently, which one reason is why the last government was so ineffective. Do any of the Magnificent Six have the brains and courage to reintroduce the Conservative Party to the concept of the tradeoff? I'm not convinced.
People don’t realize that over the last five days the YIMBY movement has gone nationally mainstream. While some politicians may have feigned about the struggles and paining of people struggling with housing, very few were willing or had the courage to actually name the cause – A SHORTAGE OF HOUSING.
Not only did Kamala Harris mention it, she said we’re gonna fix it and even gave a timeline with number of new housing units as a target to be built.
After years of fighting on this, it is so comforting that over-and-over it was mentioned at least 7 times by our Presidential candidate and the Democratic establishment now finally talk about this. It’s officially part of her platform and now by proxy the Democratic platform.
Do you realize how amazing that is for the YIMBY movement? I’ve tried for a few years to get it in just our state Democratic platform and never got anything...
https://x.com/zbowling/status/1826836842437902777
Public infrastructure needs to come from everyone's taxes, that's what we pay our taxes for. All of us.
Central government decides whether we have population growth or not and takes the taxes on a growing population and uses those taxes to support its expenditure. If investment needs to happen in infrastructure then that investment needs to be funded.
You object that you can't afford infrastructure up front.
I object that we can't wait for infrastructure before getting houses.
A solution is needed. But the solution can't be to put houses on the never never by saying we won't allow them without infrastructure, and oh yes, we can't afford infrastructure.
Personally a logical solution to me seems to be a central government grant to anywhere with high population growth to fund infrastructure investment. Then you have the money, and people can get the homes, and neither needs to wait for the other.
But it's not OK to say you can't afford infrastructure, so you can't allow houses, because of the lack of infrastructure. That is no solution.
The sentences were straight out of the sentencing guidelines. Bang on the money. No chance of appeal.
So, what was different? The charges.
In ordinary times, there is often a noticeable "down charging" of offences - charging a lesser offence than the evidence supports. I've mentioned before the Oxford Street stabbing - a couple of teenagers, who held the victim down got short sentences - literally out before Christmas. Why? They weren't charged with murder - it was one of the variations on assault, IIRC. The sentence was in line with guidelines for that offence.
Some legal historians argue that the extreme sentences back in Georgian times were actually a variant of social control. That is, if you knew the right people and doffed your cap right (or knew the right people to doff the cap for you) *and* your offence wasn't against Society, sentence reductions and pardons were common.
What the current situation suggests is that government has happened (probably accidentally) into something similar. They don't need to nobble juries or judges or anything vaguely naughty. Just a hint to the CPS to charge up or down the scale.
Whether they do anything significant about it is an open question.
It is a strict abortion state (six weeks) with a constitutional amendment to allow abortion until fetal viability on the ballot.
That's - suboptimal - for Republican prospects.
Also, remember there is a race on for the Senate; Scott backs keeping the abortion limits as they are, Mucarsel-Powell wants to liberalise them.
Brothers Paul and Luke Sissons are jailed for three years at Sheffield Crown Court after admitting violent disorder"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/23/hs2-team-leader-mob-attack-rotherham-migrant-hotel/
3 implications here:
1. immediately, it probably increases the chances of GA flipping to Trump;
2. It suggests the Republican ‘moderates’ have decided to back Trump more forcefully probably in response to the Harris-Walz ticket and the view it’s the most progressive ticket from the Democrats. It will be interesting to see whether other figures such as Sununu in NH also start to become more forceful;
3. It suggests, when push comes to shove, Trump is more disciplined and / or listens to his advisors. So maybe caution for those relying on him to blow things up and / or not listen to advice on strategy.
Personally, I think he overeggs the pudding somewhat on his views as to motivation, but it's undoubtedly a serious piece of work.
And the GOP moderates were at the convention this week, endorsing Harris.
Kemp is not a moderate - he's just not enough of a crook to have gone along with Trump's attempt to subvert the last election.
Kemp has *always* backed Trump insofar as he has always stated he will work to deliver Georgia for the Republican nominee. And I doubt if that will radically change either way regardless of what Trump says or does.
It may, however, make selling him *in* Georgia just that bit easier.
Whether Trump can keep message discipline to do so is another question.
He did a great deal to try and subvert the election in terms of setting up barriers to voting.
And that was his attempt, not Trump's.
https://x.com/ASFleischman/status/1826967560652263665
For the Georgian version -
1) More and more severe sentences please the hangers and floggers. Yay!
2) Pardons and sentence reductions make the noblesse feel obliging. Yay!
3) Plus lots of nice cap doffing. Yay!
The modern version is equally accidental.
Think of it as a self reinforcing system, rather than an conspiracy.
A Pearl Jam concert played in support of
@jontester has made Missoula the largest city in Montana for a night.
The stadium would currently be the state’s 8th largest city
https://x.com/CroesFire/status/1826818125666689181
Wondering if laying the GOP for control of the Senate might be a decent bet ?
The details of the rules make that a better alternative than betting on the Democrats.
Yes, Trump has had a bad month and yes, Kamala Harris is doing (particularly when compared to Biden) well. And probably deserves to be the favourite right now. But US society and politics is too badly divided and entrenched IMHO, and the candidates too divisive, to see this as anything other than a close-run thing and only really involving the states we all know about. GA, PA, NC, WI, MI, NV, AZ.
Trump is a terrible candidate. But let’s not forget that the Democrats are vulnerable on a number of fronts. And while Harris is playing her hand really well at the moment, there is still a lot of time to run.
I know our Lib Dem colleagues are quite pleased with themselves at present but it seems there are conservatives around to win a local from them
https://x.com/BritainElects/status/1826951323708698996?t=NPkuKGf90IfX_eY87L8IZg&s=19
Hanging was cheap, efficient, popular and in an age of widespread crime it was about the only reliable punishment they had. A classic ‘when you have a hammer everything’s a nail’ problem.
It’s a great book still, and very impressive.
Though it took the Victorians to really get the Prison Industrial Complex rolling. As usual. And complete with faux medieval architecture at that....
1. possibly but, if it increases the chances anyway of GA going Red.
2. The moderates are the GOP equivalent of Tulsi Gabbard in terms of how much influence they have
3. Kemp is seen as a figurehead for many who don’t like Trump so it carries weight.
I think if Shapiro had been the VP pick, this race would have been Harris’ to lose. Having Walz in there has made made Republicans decide they need to go with Trump regardless of their apathy
England have held a catch.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
@davidaxelrod
·
1h
.
@KamalaHarris
had a spectacular week, culminating a remarkable month.
But this is a closely divided country and the race now will be a pitched struggle for every inch of terrain in the battleground states.
Leicestershire not at all happy he was not given LBW at the start, and not given when they thought he was caught for 77.
But - them's the breaks.
Speaking of which, another wicket? No, inside edge.
However Harris still has a good chance as Trump and Vance is the most populist conservative and rightwing GOP ticket since Goldwater and Miller in 1964
No. Shit. Sherlock.
Huge, if true.
Both parties in the US play the identity politics card more and more now (but they’ve been doing that for years), is one of the only things I’d say.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Also, people ARE saying she’s a communist. That’s literally been one of Trump’s lines.
https://x.com/JonAshworth/status/1824858859032269266
Brown gave us BoE independence as his surprise, she condemned some pensioners to a cold winter for very little as hers.
She has been very poor so far imho -pulling out of a new vaccine centre and the Edinburgh AI computer are other examples (how is that growth?).
And i am quite surprised how bad she has been so far to be honest.
A lot of pensioners on decent incomes will be able to rationalise it, but many can’t, and they see it as something that they deserve that has been taken away from them. The fact that the energy price cap has increased will only serve to annoy them further.
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
My smoked salmon sandwiches seemed sensational cette semaine
MSM Monitor
@msm_monitor
Rachel Reeves is set to announce immediate cuts worth billions of pounds today. During the election campaign Anas Sarwar told John Swinney "Read my lips, no austerity under Labour". The clip should be in all BBC Scotland news bulletins today. It likely won't be in any. Indeed Sarwar has disappeared completely since the election as has BBC Scotland's interest in him.
https://x.com/msm_monitor/status/1817813432701206622
Worrying that Wood is crocked again though, although good to see Chandimal is fit to resume.
"FUCKING HELL the video I’ve just seen coming out of Gaza - just threw my phone across the room. Jesus fucking Christ how much more can a people take THIS IS HELL ON EARTH"
--
I haven't seen, nor looked for the video referenced. I post this as an example of the kind of radicalisation that occurs in this current social media environment. Normal people used to live edited lives, with kids protected by watersheds. You had to actively seek out reality, which many of us, even as adults, chose to insulate ourselves from.
This is in your face. Sometimes fake, often real. Stripped of context, or fake context added. The more shocking the more shares.
All is evidence that the enemy is evil and must be punished.
The moderators have given up. The journalists & editors, unemployed.
This is, I offer up as a guess, part of the explanation for the shocking Henry Jackson Society polling of British Muslim opinion.
(Oddly said grandparent is much more bothered - still - about when she lost the free TV licence)
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
This is the first election that generation have lost in their whole life times, and a couple of months in it is non stop bleating. As remainers were told after Brexit, they lost, get over it.
I blame the parents.
The Tories should have done that when they were in office.
Better than creating new welfare or putting up taxes.
I've seen that video, and many others, but I don't think I've been radicalised - I'm more resigned. We all saw and shared the videos from the October 7th attack and there were no such concerns about radicalisation then.
As I said Trump-Vance is the most conservative GOP ticket since Goldwater-Miller, Reagan at least balanced his ticket with the more moderate Bush
'Kamala Harris backs President Biden's 44.6% capital gains tax proposal, the highest in history.
The proposal also includes a 25% tax on unrealized gains for high-net-worth individuals.'
https://x.com/WatcherGuru/status/1825969543459778766
And on the rises I have just fixed my energy with EDF until 1st October 2025 at slightly less than my present variable rate and before October and possibly January increases
27.3.1 The wicket-keeper shall remain wholly behind the wicket at the striker’s end from the moment the ball comes into play until a ball delivered by the bowler
touches the bat or person of the striker or
passes the wicket at the striker’s end or
the striker attempts a run.
27.3.2 In the event of the wicket-keeper contravening this Law, the striker’s end umpire shall call and signal No ball as soon as applicable after the delivery of the ball.
That means the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe will be turned off permanently. That means at least 2,500 jobs lost before the end of the year.
Another tragedy of the Cumbria coking coal mine planning saga.
https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1826904283033329827
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1827014651638411455
Don't hit the target with a fucking hammer.
As the Newstatesman article I quoted down thread says - Lab MPs know a lot of "just about managing" pensioners will be hit while the rich barely notice the £200 they were spending on fine wines as a "joke".
Why on earth did Starmer not engage his brain and stop this stupid decision ?
And bottom line- HMG is broke, thanks to decisions taken by Team 2019-24. Thanks guys.
I suspect not.
But there is no doubt anyway that economics is not his strong suit and he probably wants to defer to the chancellor who worked for BoE.
He needs to get a grip though.
That's mad, surely chancellor's at least run the main points of whatever they're doing past the first lord of the treasury ?