Plus, the Fed meets Sept. 17-18 and almost certainly will cut its key federal fund rate from 5.25%-to-5.5%, the level in place since July 2023.
The conventional wisdom is the first cut will be to 5%-to-5.25%. Not a big cut but the first cut since July 2023. All good news for Harris - and takes the wind out of Donald Doomster's sails.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
The opportunity is highly unlikely to arise again
11 (15 with by-elections) to 72 is better than my wildest dreams -! expected 30 seats, hoped for 40, went to bed at 50, and woke at 70!! They have played a blinder. With Reform still there, Labour's pensioner £300 (the Labour party's University fees) and the Tories broke and still in a mess goodness knows what will happen next time!
No, you fucked it up
And your comment shows why. You can’t imagine being the actual Opposition, you’re content in your tiny little role
The Tories will return in 2029 (perhaps doing a deal with Reform, but not merging) and you will go back down to 30 seats. You missed your chance
The Tories will return? Without a popular or charismatic leader - which of the current lot would you suggest? - not a hope. Members are dropping like flies, who under 60 would vote Tory?
You can feel the energy returning to the Tories already. They expected to be killed. Instead they’ve woken up in hospital with broken bones, and the doc just told them they might be out and about in weeks
They genuinely hate Starmer, he’s also a flailing clown making errors everywhere. More pointedly, the Tories have noticed his massive majority is built on ice. Under 34% of the vote on a pitiful turnout
They can win next time, much to their own surprise
I agree mostly. I very much doubt they can win next time, but they can certainly create a meaningful contest.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
The opportunity is highly unlikely to arise again
Glad to hear that you are here at conference!
I think that I agree with you. It’s a risk, but it’s an opportunity as well. The rationale is this: the population are increasingly moving to opposing the Brexit settlement, but so far no party is leading this retrenchment from the forced consensus.
If we get it right we could gain massively. It would put Keith Donkey under pressure to drop his No No No policy. But if we get it wrong we may as well bring Swinson back
No, it’s probably too late. GE24 was the one big chance to win big with Rejoin
Don’t think the stars will align, so perfectly, a second time
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
No, wasting time and effort on "Rejoining" is an elephant trap of epic proportions.
The first problem is we have no idea under what terms the EU would consider the UK (re)joining. Would we have to accept the Euro and Schengen for example? I'm sure plenty would object to that.
Even if the EU offered status quo ante referendum, we'd still have issues over QMV and the rebates.
We had to leave because our half-hearted mean-spirited rebate-obsessed membership wasn't doing either us or the EU any good and we took a democratic vote deciding to leave.
There would also be huge resistance to any attempt to reintroduce Freedom of Movement which I believe is a prerequisite for membership of the Single Market - indeed, it would be a huge gift for Reform if anyone were to try.
I’m a brexiteer and I would vote Leave again tomorrow (indeed I think events are now beginning to show Leave was the right choice, belatedly)
I’m talking about the raw politics. The Lib Dems had a ginormous open goal in GE 2024. Rejoin could have propelled them to triple digit MPs and who knows what, after that
Instead they are indeed content to be a sad little pressure group as @Gardenwalker says. Waspi and Waitrose
In fairness, the LibDems achieved their highest MP count since 1923, achieved an improvement in seats from 12 to 72(!) (3 taxis to 18 taxis) and piloted a revolutionary new campaigning technique that I think Harris/Walz are copying. I think they'll be happy with that...
This could be a real winter of discontent with public sector unions holding the country to ransom while pensioners freeze, released criminals run amok, and Starmer parties with his donors.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
The opportunity is highly unlikely to arise again
11 (15 with by-elections) to 72 is better than my wildest dreams -! expected 30 seats, hoped for 40, went to bed at 50, and woke at 70!! They have played a blinder. With Reform still there, Labour's pensioner £300 (the Labour party's University fees) and the Tories broke and still in a mess goodness knows what will happen next time!
No, you fucked it up
And your comment shows why. You can’t imagine being the actual Opposition, you’re content in your tiny little role
The Tories will return in 2029 (perhaps doing a deal with Reform, but not merging) and you will go back down to 30 seats. You missed your chance
The Tories will return? Without a popular or charismatic leader - which of the current lot would you suggest? - not a hope. Members are dropping like flies, who under 60 would vote Tory?
You can feel the energy returning to the Tories already. They expected to be killed. Instead they’ve woken up in hospital with broken bones, and the doc just told them they might be out and about in weeks
They genuinely hate Starmer, he’s also a flailing clown making errors everywhere. More pointedly, the Tories have noticed his massive majority is built on ice. Under 34% of the vote on a pitiful turnout
They can win next time, much to their own surprise
I agree mostly. I very much doubt they can win next time, but they can certainly create a meaningful contest.
How much do you think it depends on who they choose as leader, and how much is just reversion to the mean?
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
The opportunity is highly unlikely to arise again
11 (15 with by-elections) to 72 is better than my wildest dreams -! expected 30 seats, hoped for 40, went to bed at 50, and woke at 70!! They have played a blinder. With Reform still there, Labour's pensioner £300 (the Labour party's University fees) and the Tories broke and still in a mess goodness knows what will happen next time!
No, you fucked it up
And your comment shows why. You can’t imagine being the actual Opposition, you’re content in your tiny little role
The Tories will return in 2029 (perhaps doing a deal with Reform, but not merging) and you will go back down to 30 seats. You missed your chance
The Tories will return? Without a popular or charismatic leader - which of the current lot would you suggest? - not a hope. Members are dropping like flies, who under 60 would vote Tory?
You can feel the energy returning to the Tories already. They expected to be killed. Instead they’ve woken up in hospital with broken bones, and the doc just told them they might be out and about in weeks
They genuinely hate Starmer, he’s also a flailing clown making errors everywhere. More pointedly, the Tories have noticed his massive majority is built on ice. Under 34% of the vote on a pitiful turnout
They can win next time, much to their own surprise
I agree mostly. I very much doubt they can win next time, but they can certainly create a meaningful contest.
I think the Tories can win easily. Not because they are about to elect a brilliant leader but because I predict Labour are gonna fuck up on multiple fronts and people will want to punish them severely
The way to do that is to vote Tory again
However, there are several caveats, and top of the list is Reform. How to neutralise that threat without alienating centrists? Not easy but has to be done
At least they still diverge in the same direction.
But it's an illustration of national polling being semi-useless. Working out what might constitute representative sampling in a state is hard enough; doing so nationally is trying to hit several moving targets all at once, wearing a blindfold.
One can tell the unpopularity of a government by the ratio of negative to positive posts on PB. At present the ratio is something like 95 negative to 5 positive posts for Starmer/Labour. Granted 90 of those 100 posts are by Leon.
I heard Ed Davey on Newsround earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
The LDs are now basically the party of voters who hate Brexit but are too posh to vote Labour. Locally they add on a few pensioners at council elections who hate new homes in nearby fields and want the potholes done but still vote Tory nationally.
Yes for their national voters Waitrose and Charlie Bingham meals are a must along with holidays in Tuscany.
LDs are for adults who don't want to be coerced by Labour or Tories on how to live their lives. We are pragmatic on the economy, prepared to borrow to invest but not to finance tax cuts. We are a joyous but sensible party aiming for a positive future.
I'm really enjoying this Conference. Ed was brilliant just now on a Q&A facing some really tough questions.
The contrast fo £19 grand on frocks and thongs versus £300 to help a pensioner get through the winter just int a good look.
It’s incredible. And it’s not like the Starmers are poor. They are multi millionaires with groaning huge pensions and earning maybe £300k a year as a household? £400k?
And the wife accepts pretty dresses as a gift??? Right at the start of their first term?
WTAF
It screams: meet the new boss same as the old boss, only the new boss is a fucking hypocrite who wants to make you miserable and stop you eating pies, whereas the old boss was just a greedy shit and didn’t care what you do
Davey was asked how he’d provide meaningful opposition to Labour. He said the Lib Dems were against the WFA cut and then turned the conversation to how terrible the Tories were.
Lots of discussion about “constructive opposition.” If the policy is good we will support it. If it’s bad we’ll say so.
Davey was asked how he’d provide meaningful opposition to Labour. He said the Lib Dems were against the WFA cut and then turned the conversation to how terrible the Tories were.
"we will support popular things and oppose unpopular things".
The WFA cut is wrong - a brutal cliff edge. Opposing it isn’t to be populist.
What about supporting WASPI women. Clearly politically opportunist.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
The opportunity is highly unlikely to arise again
11 (15 with by-elections) to 72 is better than my wildest dreams -! expected 30 seats, hoped for 40, went to bed at 50, and woke at 70!! They have played a blinder. With Reform still there, Labour's pensioner £300 (the Labour party's University fees) and the Tories broke and still in a mess goodness knows what will happen next time!
No, you fucked it up
And your comment shows why. You can’t imagine being the actual Opposition, you’re content in your tiny little role
The Tories will return in 2029 (perhaps doing a deal with Reform, but not merging) and you will go back down to 30 seats. You missed your chance
The Tories will return? Without a popular or charismatic leader - which of the current lot would you suggest? - not a hope. Members are dropping like flies, who under 60 would vote Tory?
You can feel the energy returning to the Tories already. They expected to be killed. Instead they’ve woken up in hospital with broken bones, and the doc just told them they might be out and about in weeks
They genuinely hate Starmer, he’s also a flailing clown making errors everywhere. More pointedly, the Tories have noticed his massive majority is built on ice. Under 34% of the vote on a pitiful turnout
They can win next time, much to their own surprise
I agree mostly. I very much doubt they can win next time, but they can certainly create a meaningful contest.
I think the Tories can win easily. Not because they are about to elect a brilliant leader but because I predict Labour are gonna fuck up on multiple fronts and people will want to punish them severely
The way to do that is to vote Tory again
However, there are several caveats, and top of the list is Reform. How to neutralise that threat without alienating centrists? Not easy but has to be done
The person who solves that particular conundrum gets a full size statue in the lobby of the Carlton Club.
The Blair/Cameron/Starmer solution, basically saying "the door's over there" to their fundamentalists, isn't really available to the Conservatives, because it would mean losing too many people.
Reform is a much bigger challenge than UKIP 2010 or left wing parties were in 1997, significantly bigger than Corbyn and chums were this year.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
The opportunity is highly unlikely to arise again
11 (15 with by-elections) to 72 is better than my wildest dreams -! expected 30 seats, hoped for 40, went to bed at 50, and woke at 70!! They have played a blinder. With Reform still there, Labour's pensioner £300 (the Labour party's University fees) and the Tories broke and still in a mess goodness knows what will happen next time!
No, you fucked it up
And your comment shows why. You can’t imagine being the actual Opposition, you’re content in your tiny little role
The Tories will return in 2029 (perhaps doing a deal with Reform, but not merging) and you will go back down to 30 seats. You missed your chance
The Tories will return? Without a popular or charismatic leader - which of the current lot would you suggest? - not a hope. Members are dropping like flies, who under 60 would vote Tory?
You can feel the energy returning to the Tories already. They expected to be killed. Instead they’ve woken up in hospital with broken bones, and the doc just told them they might be out and about in weeks
They genuinely hate Starmer, he’s also a flailing clown making errors everywhere. More pointedly, the Tories have noticed his massive majority is built on ice. Under 34% of the vote on a pitiful turnout
They can win next time, much to their own surprise
I agree mostly. I very much doubt they can win next time, but they can certainly create a meaningful contest.
How much do you think it depends on who they choose as leader, and how much is just reversion to the mean?
In terms of left : right bloc, there will somewhat be a reversion to the mean.
However the choice of leader is vital, not least because of the Reform aspect, as noted above.
Critically, does any new leader have a theory of change, and an electoral strategy which supports that?
If someone were given to making sweeping generalised statements about policy based on very short term statistics, then they could argue Yvette and Keir have had stunning success in turning around the small boats trend since their election.
So the runrate was higher than last year and equal with 2022’s record up to election date under Rishi, then significantly lower since SKS’s election victory.
But as we all know, 2 months is way too short a time to make any kind of policy judgment.
I doubt it’s true in any meaningful way. However I have learned that 20,000 Haitians have turned up in Springfield in the past few years, and I’m reminded that the Democrats have been “weak on immigration”, especially the so-called border tsar, Kamala Harris.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
The opportunity is highly unlikely to arise again
11 (15 with by-elections) to 72 is better than my wildest dreams -! expected 30 seats, hoped for 40, went to bed at 50, and woke at 70!! They have played a blinder. With Reform still there, Labour's pensioner £300 (the Labour party's University fees) and the Tories broke and still in a mess goodness knows what will happen next time!
No, you fucked it up
And your comment shows why. You can’t imagine being the actual Opposition, you’re content in your tiny little role
The Tories will return in 2029 (perhaps doing a deal with Reform, but not merging) and you will go back down to 30 seats. You missed your chance
The Tories will return? Without a popular or charismatic leader - which of the current lot would you suggest? - not a hope. Members are dropping like flies, who under 60 would vote Tory?
You can feel the energy returning to the Tories already. They expected to be killed. Instead they’ve woken up in hospital with broken bones, and the doc just told them they might be out and about in weeks
They genuinely hate Starmer, he’s also a flailing clown making errors everywhere. More pointedly, the Tories have noticed his massive majority is built on ice. Under 34% of the vote on a pitiful turnout
They can win next time, much to their own surprise
I agree mostly. I very much doubt they can win next time, but they can certainly create a meaningful contest.
I think the Tories can win easily. Not because they are about to elect a brilliant leader but because I predict Labour are gonna fuck up on multiple fronts and people will want to punish them severely
The way to do that is to vote Tory again
However, there are several caveats, and top of the list is Reform. How to neutralise that threat without alienating centrists? Not easy but has to be done
The person who solves that particular conundrum gets a full size statue in the lobby of the Carlton Club.
The Blair/Cameron/Starmer solution, basically saying "the door's over there" to their fundamentalists, isn't really available to the Conservatives, because it would mean losing too many people.
Reform is a much bigger challenge than UKIP 2010 or left wing parties were in 1997, significantly bigger than Corbyn and chums were this year.
Yes it’s tough. But if they fix it they have a remarkable opportunity to win again in 2029 despite Labour’s vast majority
So that should incentivise some creative thinking
It is also possible Reform might move towards the Tories, if the Tories rise in the polls and look stronger. Farage is in his 60s. The next election will likely be his last meaningful chance to impact UK politics (if he lasts that long)
Do a deal with the Tories on migration and then step back?
The contrast fo £19 grand on frocks and thongs versus £300 to help a pensioner get through the winter just int a good look.
It’s incredible. And it’s not like the Starmers are poor. They are multi millionaires with groaning huge pensions and earning maybe £300k a year as a household? £400k?
And the wife accepts pretty dresses as a gift??? Right at the start of their first term?
WTAF
It screams: meet the new boss same as the old boss, only the new boss is a fucking hypocrite who wants to make you miserable and stop you eating pies, whereas the old boss was just a greedy shit and didn’t care what you do
I doubt it’s true in any meaningful way. However I have learned that 20,000 Haitians have turned up in Springfield in the past few years, and I’m reminded that the Democrats have been “weak on immigration”, especially the so-called border tsar, Kamala Harris.
In 2012, Gallup called Springfield, Ohio the "unhappiest city" in America. It was a dying,deindustrialized city with a deserted downtown that had lost 20% of its population since 1990.
I doubt it’s true in any meaningful way. However I have learned that 20,000 Haitians have turned up in Springfield in the past few years, and I’m reminded that the Democrats have been “weak on immigration”, especially the so-called border tsar, Kamala Harris.
In 2012, Gallup called Springfield, Ohio the "unhappiest city" in America. It was a dying,deindustrialized city with a deserted downtown that had lost 20% of its population since 1990.
The contrast fo £19 grand on frocks and thongs versus £300 to help a pensioner get through the winter just int a good look.
It’s incredible. And it’s not like the Starmers are poor. They are multi millionaires with groaning huge pensions and earning maybe £300k a year as a household? £400k?
And the wife accepts pretty dresses as a gift??? Right at the start of their first term?
WTAF
It screams: meet the new boss same as the old boss, only the new boss is a fucking hypocrite who wants to make you miserable and stop you eating pies, whereas the old boss was just a greedy shit and didn’t care what you do
Most governments end in sleaze.
Starmer's government has started in sleaze.
Something it shares in common with labour in 97 and cash for fags
The contrast fo £19 grand on frocks and thongs versus £300 to help a pensioner get through the winter just int a good look.
It’s incredible. And it’s not like the Starmers are poor. They are multi millionaires with groaning huge pensions and earning maybe £300k a year as a household? £400k?
And the wife accepts pretty dresses as a gift??? Right at the start of their first term?
WTAF
It screams: meet the new boss same as the old boss, only the new boss is a fucking hypocrite who wants to make you miserable and stop you eating pies, whereas the old boss was just a greedy shit and didn’t care what you do
Most governments end in sleaze.
Starmer's government has started in sleaze.
Yes, that’s the astonishing aspect
I expected Labour to be squeaky clean for a year or two, at least, to prove a point. Then inevitably yield to temptation, as we all do
Instead they couldn’t wait to get their boots under the table and start tucking in. Indeed before they crossed the door they were leaning in through the window to get some hot cherry pie
The contrast fo £19 grand on frocks and thongs versus £300 to help a pensioner get through the winter just int a good look.
It’s incredible. And it’s not like the Starmers are poor. They are multi millionaires with groaning huge pensions and earning maybe £300k a year as a household? £400k?
And the wife accepts pretty dresses as a gift??? Right at the start of their first term?
WTAF
It screams: meet the new boss same as the old boss, only the new boss is a fucking hypocrite who wants to make you miserable and stop you eating pies, whereas the old boss was just a greedy shit and didn’t care what you do
Most governments end in sleaze.
Starmer's government has started in sleaze.
Something it shares in common with labour in 97 and cash for fags
What’s the quid pro quo? This is nothing like “cash for fags”.
Keir seems to have been careless. The optics are not great but this is not a government that has “started in sleaze”.
Haiti’s one of those countries that has very strong deep seated imagery and folklore associated with it, isn’t it? Voodoo, magic, the tontons macoute, Graham Greene etc.
Therefore easy to use as a vehicle for outlandish yet compelling rumours.
A few other countries have similarly powerful associations: Germany and jackbooted nazis, Ireland and cheerful music loving green-suited leprechauns, Mexico and the drug cartels (something we know Trump also uses), Congo and heart of darkness, Saudi Arabia and the bearded fundamentalist etc. Usually a mixed blessing.
How many of those independents who don't believe it will change their vote to Harris ?
How many of those independents who do believe it will change their vote to Trump ?
But perhaps more relevant questions would be:
"Were you aware that 20,000 Haitians had moved to Springfield, Ohio in recent years ? Do you think 20,000 Haitians should be able to move to your town ? Do you think it would make your life better or worse if they did so ?"
I drew attention to the loathsome energy expense claims by MPs some time ago. It's something that Liz Truss should have put an immediate stop to as part of a package of emergency energy measures - it's completely unacceptable for MPs to pontificate about the climate, cancel energy projects, place taxes and levies on energy and put hundreds of pounds on to peoples' energy bills when they are effectively shielded by the taxpayer from any negative impact of such policies. The pensioners' WFA has neatly brought this appalling troughing behaviour into the light.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
No, wasting time and effort on "Rejoining" is an elephant trap of epic proportions.
The first problem is we have no idea under what terms the EU would consider the UK (re)joining. Would we have to accept the Euro and Schengen for example? I'm sure plenty would object to that.
Even if the EU offered status quo ante referendum, we'd still have issues over QMV and the rebates.
We had to leave because our half-hearted mean-spirited rebate-obsessed membership wasn't doing either us or the EU any good and we took a democratic vote deciding to leave.
There would also be huge resistance to any attempt to reintroduce Freedom of Movement which I believe is a prerequisite for membership of the Single Market - indeed, it would be a huge gift for Reform if anyone were to try.
We were never honest as to why we wanted to join in the first place. Because of that our membership was always false, incomplete, unsatisfying.
Why did we want to join ? Well the Empire was finished but of course we had superb management experience, in our own eyes. This European thing was all very well but well, Johnny Foreigner had had a century and a half to sort things out since 1815 and what had he done, 2 1/2 world wars and the possibility of another. The truth is we ASSUMED that if we joined the Common Market we would not just be primus inter pares, but like the Empire, we alone would be the leader. To some extent they even played up to that my making Henry Plumb first elected leader of the European Parliament.
The saddest part of it is sometimes the Rejoiners STILL think they would let us lead if we went back. Sorry lads, ain't gonna happen.
I think Kamala will win handsomely, just because Trump is running such a bad campaign.
But Kamala obviously doesn’t have a clue about economic issues. Nor on foreign policy. She’s sounder of course then Donald Trump - but who isn’t?
She will win by default, buoyed by vibe-based TikTok momentum.
One part Jacinda Ardern, one part Keir Starmer. Here’s hoping she has bloody good advisors (as Biden has had).
The thing about Joe Biden is he is very old, and very experienced. Biden has been in frontline politics for more than 50 years, being first elected to the Senate in 1973, and was Vice President for eight years. The man has seen everything.
How many of those independents who don't believe it will change their vote to Harris ?
How many of those independents who do believe it will change their vote to Trump ?
But perhaps more relevant questions would be:
"Were you aware that 20,000 Haitians had moved to Springfield, Ohio in recent years ? Do you think 20,000 Haitians should be able to move to your town ? Do you think it would make your life better or worse if they did so ?"
I’d have thought it makes much more sense from a demographic perspective for immigrants to move somewhere that’s been severely depopulated and has vast areas of empty real estate than somewhere already crammed and suffering housing shortages.
How many of those independents who don't believe it will change their vote to Harris ?
How many of those independents who do believe it will change their vote to Trump ?
But perhaps more relevant questions would be:
"Were you aware that 20,000 Haitians had moved to Springfield, Ohio in recent years ? Do you think 20,000 Haitians should be able to move to your town ? Do you think it would make your life better or worse if they did so ?"
Ironically Springfield, Ohio is in Clark county.
The same Clark county which the Guardian thought it a good idea to send letters to the inhabitants telling them how to vote in the 2004 election.
How many of those independents who don't believe it will change their vote to Harris ?
How many of those independents who do believe it will change their vote to Trump ?
But perhaps more relevant questions would be:
"Were you aware that 20,000 Haitians had moved to Springfield, Ohio in recent years ? Do you think 20,000 Haitians should be able to move to your town ? Do you think it would make your life better or worse if they did so ?"
The guardian has called the Haitian migration to Springfield “a trickle”
If I lived in a town of 60,000 people and then 20,000 Haitians (or Russians or Nicaraguans or Greenlanders) all arrived in 3 years I might use several different words to describe the phenomenon but not one of them would be “trickle”
The contrast fo £19 grand on frocks and thongs versus £300 to help a pensioner get through the winter just int a good look.
It’s incredible. And it’s not like the Starmers are poor. They are multi millionaires with groaning huge pensions and earning maybe £300k a year as a household? £400k?
And the wife accepts pretty dresses as a gift??? Right at the start of their first term?
WTAF
It screams: meet the new boss same as the old boss, only the new boss is a fucking hypocrite who wants to make you miserable and stop you eating pies, whereas the old boss was just a greedy shit and didn’t care what you do
Most governments end in sleaze.
Starmer's government has started in sleaze.
Something it shares in common with labour in 97 and cash for fags
What’s the quid pro quo? This is nothing like “cash for fags”.
Keir seems to have been careless. The optics are not great but this is not a government that has “started in sleaze”.
“Careless”???
He knowingly accepted tens of thousands in freebies not only for himself. But for his wife, also
In return the donor was given a free pass to the commons - completely against the rules
The contrast fo £19 grand on frocks and thongs versus £300 to help a pensioner get through the winter just int a good look.
It’s incredible. And it’s not like the Starmers are poor. They are multi millionaires with groaning huge pensions and earning maybe £300k a year as a household? £400k?
And the wife accepts pretty dresses as a gift??? Right at the start of their first term?
WTAF
It screams: meet the new boss same as the old boss, only the new boss is a fucking hypocrite who wants to make you miserable and stop you eating pies, whereas the old boss was just a greedy shit and didn’t care what you do
Most governments end in sleaze.
Starmer's government has started in sleaze.
Yes, that’s the astonishing aspect
I expected Labour to be squeaky clean for a year or two, at least, to prove a point. Then inevitably yield to temptation, as we all do
Instead they couldn’t wait to get their boots under the table and start tucking in. Indeed before they crossed the door they were leaning in through the window to get some hot cherry pie
And Sue Grey, the Starmer Chief of Staff, was the Ethics civil servant for years.
This is what is wrong with American politics, and increasingly ours too. It is not that voters have their own opinions but that they have their own facts.
How many of those independents who don't believe it will change their vote to Harris ?
How many of those independents who do believe it will change their vote to Trump ?
But perhaps more relevant questions would be:
"Were you aware that 20,000 Haitians had moved to Springfield, Ohio in recent years ? Do you think 20,000 Haitians should be able to move to your town ? Do you think it would make your life better or worse if they did so ?"
The guardian has called the Haitian migration to Springfield “a trickle”
If I lived in a town of 60,000 people and then 20,000 Haitians (or Russians or Nicaraguans or Greenlanders) all arrived in 3 years I might use several different words to describe the phenomenon but not one of them would be “trickle”
“Greenlanders. They’re eating the seals. They’re eating the huskies.”
How many of those independents who don't believe it will change their vote to Harris ?
How many of those independents who do believe it will change their vote to Trump ?
But perhaps more relevant questions would be:
"Were you aware that 20,000 Haitians had moved to Springfield, Ohio in recent years ? Do you think 20,000 Haitians should be able to move to your town ? Do you think it would make your life better or worse if they did so ?"
The guardian has called the Haitian migration to Springfield “a trickle”
If I lived in a town of 60,000 people and then 20,000 Haitians (or Russians or Nicaraguans or Greenlanders) all arrived in 3 years I might use several different words to describe the phenomenon but not one of them would be “trickle”
“Greenlanders. They’re eating the seals. They’re eating the huskies.”
They eat their own children during times of severe famine. And they force their oldsters to commit suicide.
True story. A guide in Greenland showed me the cliff. “Suicide beach”
Tough people the Inuit. But then they have a tough gig
On the WFA, it seems to me to be utterly implausible that Starmer and Reeves didn't realise that its withdrawal would be deeply unpopular with many people, and of course with the Tory press. So isn't it just possible that they did it anyway because they thought it was the right thing to do? Haven't we had enough of government policies enacted solely to court popularity?
If you want to unite the country and society, you don't start by axing a universal benefit. If, on the other hand, your are going to govern by setting one sector of society against the other or preparing the ground to means test a lot of such benefits...
How many of those independents who don't believe it will change their vote to Harris ?
How many of those independents who do believe it will change their vote to Trump ?
But perhaps more relevant questions would be:
"Were you aware that 20,000 Haitians had moved to Springfield, Ohio in recent years ? Do you think 20,000 Haitians should be able to move to your town ? Do you think it would make your life better or worse if they did so ?"
I’d have thought it makes much more sense from a demographic perspective for immigrants to move somewhere that’s been severely depopulated and has vast areas of empty real estate than somewhere already crammed and suffering housing shortages.
That depends on how wealthy those immigrants are.
Places losing population tend to be deprived, people moving to deprived areas tend to be deprived.
That tends to upset the deprived people already living in the deprived place.
Perhaps more importantly in electoral terms the people in the nearby non-deprived places look at what is happening and worry that it might happen to their place next.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
No, wasting time and effort on "Rejoining" is an elephant trap of epic proportions.
The first problem is we have no idea under what terms the EU would consider the UK (re)joining. Would we have to accept the Euro and Schengen for example? I'm sure plenty would object to that.
Even if the EU offered status quo ante referendum, we'd still have issues over QMV and the rebates.
We had to leave because our half-hearted mean-spirited rebate-obsessed membership wasn't doing either us or the EU any good and we took a democratic vote deciding to leave.
There would also be huge resistance to any attempt to reintroduce Freedom of Movement which I believe is a prerequisite for membership of the Single Market - indeed, it would be a huge gift for Reform if anyone were to try.
We were never honest as to why we wanted to join in the first place. Because of that our membership was always false, incomplete, unsatisfying.
Why did we want to join ? Well the Empire was finished but of course we had superb management experience, in our own eyes. This European thing was all very well but well, Johnny Foreigner had had a century and a half to sort things out since 1815 and what had he done, 2 1/2 world wars and the possibility of another. The truth is we ASSUMED that if we joined the Common Market we would not just be primus inter pares, but like the Empire, we alone would be the leader. To some extent they even played up to that my making Henry Plumb first elected leader of the European Parliament.
The saddest part of it is sometimes the Rejoiners STILL think they would let us lead if we went back. Sorry lads, ain't gonna happen.
Other way round. Britain sought salvation, and Europe feared we would take over. In the 1950s and 60s the Establishment saw Britain as in terminal decline, and viewed entry to the Common Market as our last hope, only for us to be denied repeatedly, until Ted Heath finally got us in.
Haiti’s one of those countries that has very strong deep seated imagery and folklore associated with it, isn’t it? Voodoo, magic, the tontons macoute, Graham Greene etc.
Therefore easy to use as a vehicle for outlandish yet compelling rumours.
A few other countries have similarly powerful associations: Germany and jackbooted nazis, Ireland and cheerful music loving green-suited leprechauns, Mexico and the drug cartels (something we know Trump also uses), Congo and heart of darkness, Saudi Arabia and the bearded fundamentalist etc. Usually a mixed blessing.
Except it's universally agreed that vodou is widely believed in Haiti, and does animal sacrifice. Personally I find this easy to believe and no more bizarre than the sinister sect in which I was brought up which was based around weekly acts of simulated cannibalism.
Same with eating things. Poor people understandably steal food to ward off starvation. If it was me I would shoplift a supermarket chicken but if you have the know-how and tenacity to kill, pluck and dress a goose it makes perfect sense to do that. Those guys deported to Australia weren't poaching as a sort of exhilarating open air hobby.
The contrast fo £19 grand on frocks and thongs versus £300 to help a pensioner get through the winter just int a good look.
It’s incredible. And it’s not like the Starmers are poor. They are multi millionaires with groaning huge pensions and earning maybe £300k a year as a household? £400k?
And the wife accepts pretty dresses as a gift??? Right at the start of their first term?
WTAF
It screams: meet the new boss same as the old boss, only the new boss is a fucking hypocrite who wants to make you miserable and stop you eating pies, whereas the old boss was just a greedy shit and didn’t care what you do
Most governments end in sleaze.
Starmer's government has started in sleaze.
Something it shares in common with labour in 97 and cash for fags
What’s the quid pro quo? This is nothing like “cash for fags”.
Keir seems to have been careless. The optics are not great but this is not a government that has “started in sleaze”.
“Careless”???
He knowingly accepted tens of thousands in freebies not only for himself. But for his wife, also
In return the donor was given a free pass to the commons - completely against the rules
Whoops! Butter fingers!
If I was about to become PM, I feel like Mrs Walker might also need a telegenic spruce up. Suddenly, she is in the public eye.
The British state affords no such largesse, and I don’t think the Starmers are personally wealthy.
It therefore seems that this rather shabby compromise has developed whereby PMs get some kind of image support from well placed donors.
Starmer’s sin is administrative. He should have declared it all. It’s not obvious why and how he overlooked it.
Haiti’s one of those countries that has very strong deep seated imagery and folklore associated with it, isn’t it? Voodoo, magic, the tontons macoute, Graham Greene etc.
Therefore easy to use as a vehicle for outlandish yet compelling rumours.
A few other countries have similarly powerful associations: Germany and jackbooted nazis, Ireland and cheerful music loving green-suited leprechauns, Mexico and the drug cartels (something we know Trump also uses), Congo and heart of darkness, Saudi Arabia and the bearded fundamentalist etc. Usually a mixed blessing.
Except it's universally agreed that vodou is widely believed in Haiti, and does animal sacrifice. Personally I find this easy to believe and no more bizarre than the sinister sect in which I was brought up which was based around weekly acts of simulated cannibalism.
Same with eating things. Poor people understandably steal food to ward off starvation. If it was me I would shoplift a supermarket chicken but if you have the know-how and tenacity to kill, pluck and dress a goose it makes perfect sense to do that. Those guys deported to Australia weren't poaching as a sort of exhilarating open air hobby.
All those examples have a basis in fact (except the leprechauns). That’s what gives them their power.
"Victim's anger over attacker's early jail release
An assault victim has said she felt "sick" after being told her attacker could be released from jail earlier than she expected. Martin Underwood, 49, attacked Elizabeth Hudson at their home in Barnsley in April 2021, before assaulting a second victim while out on police bail. In February last year, Underwood was jailed for six years and three months, but under the Ministry of Justice's new emergency plan to ease prison overcrowding, he could now be let out in June."
There are no victims of significant violence who want to see their attacker come out of prison early, or in most cases at all. However in the actual world roughly 999 out of every 1000 prisoners are due for release at some point, almost all of them way before their full sentence is served. No I don't like it either. But it is why, among many reasons, prison as a school for making bad people worse is not a great idea. And it is worst of all for their victims.
Haiti’s one of those countries that has very strong deep seated imagery and folklore associated with it, isn’t it? Voodoo, magic, the tontons macoute, Graham Greene etc.
Therefore easy to use as a vehicle for outlandish yet compelling rumours.
A few other countries have similarly powerful associations: Germany and jackbooted nazis, Ireland and cheerful music loving green-suited leprechauns, Mexico and the drug cartels (something we know Trump also uses), Congo and heart of darkness, Saudi Arabia and the bearded fundamentalist etc. Usually a mixed blessing.
Except it's universally agreed that vodou is widely believed in Haiti, and does animal sacrifice. Personally I find this easy to believe and no more bizarre than the sinister sect in which I was brought up which was based around weekly acts of simulated cannibalism.
Same with eating things. Poor people understandably steal food to ward off starvation. If it was me I would shoplift a supermarket chicken but if you have the know-how and tenacity to kill, pluck and dress a goose it makes perfect sense to do that. Those guys deported to Australia weren't poaching as a sort of exhilarating open air hobby.
The weird thing about this story is that if you go back 20-30 years you will find American liberals - and liberal media - complaining about exactly this. Voodoo and Santeria worshippers killing American animals. Goats, ducks, pets
Animal rights were seen as more important than racial identity, in certain circumstances. No one doubted that it happened
Now Trump trumps everything and everything he says must be 100% wrong and everyone must agree on that
The contrast fo £19 grand on frocks and thongs versus £300 to help a pensioner get through the winter just int a good look.
It’s incredible. And it’s not like the Starmers are poor. They are multi millionaires with groaning huge pensions and earning maybe £300k a year as a household? £400k?
And the wife accepts pretty dresses as a gift??? Right at the start of their first term?
WTAF
It screams: meet the new boss same as the old boss, only the new boss is a fucking hypocrite who wants to make you miserable and stop you eating pies, whereas the old boss was just a greedy shit and didn’t care what you do
Most governments end in sleaze.
Starmer's government has started in sleaze.
Something it shares in common with labour in 97 and cash for fags
What’s the quid pro quo? This is nothing like “cash for fags”.
Keir seems to have been careless. The optics are not great but this is not a government that has “started in sleaze”.
“Careless”???
He knowingly accepted tens of thousands in freebies not only for himself. But for his wife, also
In return the donor was given a free pass to the commons - completely against the rules
Whoops! Butter fingers!
If I was about to become PM, I feel like Mrs Walker might also need a telegenic spruce up. Suddenly, she is in the public eye.
The British state affords no such largesse, and I don’t think the Starmers are personally wealthy.
It therefore seems that this rather shabby compromise has developed whereby PMs get some kind of image support from well placed donors.
Starmer’s sin is administrative. He should have declared it all. It’s not obvious why and how he overlooked it.
No, it is more than that. I think (can't prove it) that many people voted for him and his leadership as being the sort of person who wouldn't and couldn't be bought in any way and would regard accepting loadsamoney free gifts as tacky. Which it is. More Attlee, less Boris please.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
No, wasting time and effort on "Rejoining" is an elephant trap of epic proportions.
The first problem is we have no idea under what terms the EU would consider the UK (re)joining. Would we have to accept the Euro and Schengen for example? I'm sure plenty would object to that.
Even if the EU offered status quo ante referendum, we'd still have issues over QMV and the rebates.
We had to leave because our half-hearted mean-spirited rebate-obsessed membership wasn't doing either us or the EU any good and we took a democratic vote deciding to leave.
There would also be huge resistance to any attempt to reintroduce Freedom of Movement which I believe is a prerequisite for membership of the Single Market - indeed, it would be a huge gift for Reform if anyone were to try.
We were never honest as to why we wanted to join in the first place. Because of that our membership was always false, incomplete, unsatisfying.
Why did we want to join ? Well the Empire was finished but of course we had superb management experience, in our own eyes. This European thing was all very well but well, Johnny Foreigner had had a century and a half to sort things out since 1815 and what had he done, 2 1/2 world wars and the possibility of another. The truth is we ASSUMED that if we joined the Common Market we would not just be primus inter pares, but like the Empire, we alone would be the leader. To some extent they even played up to that my making Henry Plumb first elected leader of the European Parliament.
The saddest part of it is sometimes the Rejoiners STILL think they would let us lead if we went back. Sorry lads, ain't gonna happen.
Other way round. Britain sought salvation, and Europe feared we would take over. In the 1950s and 60s the Establishment saw Britain as in terminal decline, and viewed entry to the Common Market as our last hope, only for us to be denied repeatedly, until Ted Heath finally got us in.
The British establishment assumed that some form (a cheaper form, perhaps) of Empire was “the model” until late 1957. It therefore spurned various overtures from European policy makers and politicos for most of the 1950s.
From 1958 it was incredibly obvious that the Empire model was no longer an option.
Britain still faces a broadly similar problem. USA? Europe? Some form of both? Or something more independent?
And it’s no good pretending each of these are somehow equally advantageous economically.
"If I have to create stories, so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that's what I will do." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1835309555938480462
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
No, wasting time and effort on "Rejoining" is an elephant trap of epic proportions.
The first problem is we have no idea under what terms the EU would consider the UK (re)joining. Would we have to accept the Euro and Schengen for example? I'm sure plenty would object to that.
Even if the EU offered status quo ante referendum, we'd still have issues over QMV and the rebates.
We had to leave because our half-hearted mean-spirited rebate-obsessed membership wasn't doing either us or the EU any good and we took a democratic vote deciding to leave.
There would also be huge resistance to any attempt to reintroduce Freedom of Movement which I believe is a prerequisite for membership of the Single Market - indeed, it would be a huge gift for Reform if anyone were to try.
We were never honest as to why we wanted to join in the first place. Because of that our membership was always false, incomplete, unsatisfying.
Why did we want to join ? Well the Empire was finished but of course we had superb management experience, in our own eyes. This European thing was all very well but well, Johnny Foreigner had had a century and a half to sort things out since 1815 and what had he done, 2 1/2 world wars and the possibility of another. The truth is we ASSUMED that if we joined the Common Market we would not just be primus inter pares, but like the Empire, we alone would be the leader. To some extent they even played up to that my making Henry Plumb first elected leader of the European Parliament.
The saddest part of it is sometimes the Rejoiners STILL think they would let us lead if we went back. Sorry lads, ain't gonna happen.
Other way round. Britain sought salvation, and Europe feared we would take over. In the 1950s and 60s the Establishment saw Britain as in terminal decline, and viewed entry to the Common Market as our last hope, only for us to be denied repeatedly, until Ted Heath finally got us in.
The British establishment assumed that some form (a cheaper form, perhaps) of Empire was “the model” until late 1957. It therefore spurned various overtures from European policy makers and politicos for most of the 1950s.
From 1958 it was incredibly obvious that the Empire model was no longer an option.
Britain still faces a broadly similar problem. USA? Europe? Some form of both? Or something more independent?
After 1957 it was ab
We just need to be Britain for a while. There is really nothing wrong with that.
Haiti’s one of those countries that has very strong deep seated imagery and folklore associated with it, isn’t it? Voodoo, magic, the tontons macoute, Graham Greene etc.
Therefore easy to use as a vehicle for outlandish yet compelling rumours.
A few other countries have similarly powerful associations: Germany and jackbooted nazis, Ireland and cheerful music loving green-suited leprechauns, Mexico and the drug cartels (something we know Trump also uses), Congo and heart of darkness, Saudi Arabia and the bearded fundamentalist etc. Usually a mixed blessing.
Except it's universally agreed that vodou is widely believed in Haiti, and does animal sacrifice. Personally I find this easy to believe and no more bizarre than the sinister sect in which I was brought up which was based around weekly acts of simulated cannibalism.
Same with eating things. Poor people understandably steal food to ward off starvation. If it was me I would shoplift a supermarket chicken but if you have the know-how and tenacity to kill, pluck and dress a goose it makes perfect sense to do that. Those guys deported to Australia weren't poaching as a sort of exhilarating open air hobby.
The weird thing about this story is that if you go back 20-30 years you will find American liberals - and liberal media - complaining about exactly this. Voodoo and Santeria worshippers killing American animals. Goats, ducks, pets
Animal rights were seen as more important than racial identity, in certain circumstances. No one doubted that it happened
Now Trump trumps everything and everything he says must be 100% wrong and everyone must agree on that
This particular story can be traced to a specific false rumour based on a real news report of a woman (not Haitian, not in Springfield) arrested for nicking / killing a cat. So it being “sort of believable” makes it similar to the rumours about the killer in Southport that started the riots here.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
No, wasting time and effort on "Rejoining" is an elephant trap of epic proportions.
The first problem is we have no idea under what terms the EU would consider the UK (re)joining. Would we have to accept the Euro and Schengen for example? I'm sure plenty would object to that.
Even if the EU offered status quo ante referendum, we'd still have issues over QMV and the rebates.
We had to leave because our half-hearted mean-spirited rebate-obsessed membership wasn't doing either us or the EU any good and we took a democratic vote deciding to leave.
There would also be huge resistance to any attempt to reintroduce Freedom of Movement which I believe is a prerequisite for membership of the Single Market - indeed, it would be a huge gift for Reform if anyone were to try.
We were never honest as to why we wanted to join in the first place. Because of that our membership was always false, incomplete, unsatisfying.
Why did we want to join ? Well the Empire was finished but of course we had superb management experience, in our own eyes. This European thing was all very well but well, Johnny Foreigner had had a century and a half to sort things out since 1815 and what had he done, 2 1/2 world wars and the possibility of another. The truth is we ASSUMED that if we joined the Common Market we would not just be primus inter pares, but like the Empire, we alone would be the leader. To some extent they even played up to that my making Henry Plumb first elected leader of the European Parliament.
The saddest part of it is sometimes the Rejoiners STILL think they would let us lead if we went back. Sorry lads, ain't gonna happen.
Other way round. Britain sought salvation, and Europe feared we would take over. In the 1950s and 60s the Establishment saw Britain as in terminal decline, and viewed entry to the Common Market as our last hope, only for us to be denied repeatedly, until Ted Heath finally got us in.
The British establishment assumed that some form (a cheaper form, perhaps) of Empire was “the model” until late 1957. It therefore spurned various overtures from European policy makers and politicos for most of the 1950s.
From 1958 it was incredibly obvious that the Empire model was no longer an option.
Britain still faces a broadly similar problem. USA? Europe? Some form of both? Or something more independent?
After 1957 it was ab
We just need to be Britain for a while. There is really nothing wrong with that.
"Seventeen former staff members of the late Republican President Ronald Reagan are endorsing the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris.
In a joint statement first obtained by CBS News, the staff members wrote that Reagan, if alive, would have supported Harris.
"President Ronald Reagan famously spoke about a 'Time for Choosing.' While he is not here to experience the current moment, we who worked for him in the White House, in the administration, in campaigns and on his personal staff, know he would join us in supporting the Harris-Walz ticket," the group writes."
The contrast fo £19 grand on frocks and thongs versus £300 to help a pensioner get through the winter just int a good look.
It’s incredible. And it’s not like the Starmers are poor. They are multi millionaires with groaning huge pensions and earning maybe £300k a year as a household? £400k?
And the wife accepts pretty dresses as a gift??? Right at the start of their first term?
WTAF
It screams: meet the new boss same as the old boss, only the new boss is a fucking hypocrite who wants to make you miserable and stop you eating pies, whereas the old boss was just a greedy shit and didn’t care what you do
Most governments end in sleaze.
Starmer's government has started in sleaze.
Something it shares in common with labour in 97 and cash for fags
What’s the quid pro quo? This is nothing like “cash for fags”.
Keir seems to have been careless. The optics are not great but this is not a government that has “started in sleaze”.
“Careless”???
He knowingly accepted tens of thousands in freebies not only for himself. But for his wife, also
In return the donor was given a free pass to the commons - completely against the rules
Whoops! Butter fingers!
If I was about to become PM, I feel like Mrs Walker might also need a telegenic spruce up. Suddenly, she is in the public eye.
The British state affords no such largesse, and I don’t think the Starmers are personally wealthy.
It therefore seems that this rather shabby compromise has developed whereby PMs get some kind of image support from well placed donors.
Starmer’s sin is administrative. He should have declared it all. It’s not obvious why and how he overlooked it.
They are both high earners and have been for a long time - many many people manage to look good each day without a state bung for their clothes. If you don’t want to deal with that then you could just not run for leadership of a party where you might end up as PM.
Its not as if it’s a lifetime problem - they can blow a bit of cash because he will more than make up for it afterwards on the speaking circuit, books, whatever. It just looks grasping.
"Victim's anger over attacker's early jail release
An assault victim has said she felt "sick" after being told her attacker could be released from jail earlier than she expected. Martin Underwood, 49, attacked Elizabeth Hudson at their home in Barnsley in April 2021, before assaulting a second victim while out on police bail. In February last year, Underwood was jailed for six years and three months, but under the Ministry of Justice's new emergency plan to ease prison overcrowding, he could now be let out in June."
There are no victims of significant violence who want to see their attacker come out of prison early, or in most cases at all. However in the actual world roughly 999 out of every 1000 prisoners are due for release at some point, almost all of them way before their full sentence is served. No I don't like it either. But it is why, among many reasons, prison as a school for making bad people worse is not a great idea. And it is worst of all for their victims.
The reason prison is a good idea is that when criminals are in prison you know they're not committing more crimes.
Since @Leon is in Canada, he perhaps has an opportunity to sniff out the possibly for my proposed Anglo-Canadian alliance: a single market and customs union spanning from Yorkshire to the Yukon, with structures to support a more co-ordinated foreign and defence policy.
Such an alliance would become the third wealthiest sovereign entity on the planet (or fourth if you include the EU).
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
No, wasting time and effort on "Rejoining" is an elephant trap of epic proportions.
The first problem is we have no idea under what terms the EU would consider the UK (re)joining. Would we have to accept the Euro and Schengen for example? I'm sure plenty would object to that.
Even if the EU offered status quo ante referendum, we'd still have issues over QMV and the rebates.
We had to leave because our half-hearted mean-spirited rebate-obsessed membership wasn't doing either us or the EU any good and we took a democratic vote deciding to leave.
There would also be huge resistance to any attempt to reintroduce Freedom of Movement which I believe is a prerequisite for membership of the Single Market - indeed, it would be a huge gift for Reform if anyone were to try.
We were never honest as to why we wanted to join in the first place. Because of that our membership was always false, incomplete, unsatisfying.
Why did we want to join ? Well the Empire was finished but of course we had superb management experience, in our own eyes. This European thing was all very well but well, Johnny Foreigner had had a century and a half to sort things out since 1815 and what had he done, 2 1/2 world wars and the possibility of another. The truth is we ASSUMED that if we joined the Common Market we would not just be primus inter pares, but like the Empire, we alone would be the leader. To some extent they even played up to that my making Henry Plumb first elected leader of the European Parliament.
The saddest part of it is sometimes the Rejoiners STILL think they would let us lead if we went back. Sorry lads, ain't gonna happen.
Do they - or are you projecting ?
As one of the largest nations the UK would have significant influence (remember how the Single Market came about?), but no one I've ever spoken to, pro or anti, has ever said we'd lead the EU.
Haiti’s one of those countries that has very strong deep seated imagery and folklore associated with it, isn’t it? Voodoo, magic, the tontons macoute, Graham Greene etc.
Therefore easy to use as a vehicle for outlandish yet compelling rumours.
A few other countries have similarly powerful associations: Germany and jackbooted nazis, Ireland and cheerful music loving green-suited leprechauns, Mexico and the drug cartels (something we know Trump also uses), Congo and heart of darkness, Saudi Arabia and the bearded fundamentalist etc. Usually a mixed blessing.
Except it's universally agreed that vodou is widely believed in Haiti, and does animal sacrifice. Personally I find this easy to believe and no more bizarre than the sinister sect in which I was brought up which was based around weekly acts of simulated cannibalism.
Same with eating things. Poor people understandably steal food to ward off starvation. If it was me I would shoplift a supermarket chicken but if you have the know-how and tenacity to kill, pluck and dress a goose it makes perfect sense to do that. Those guys deported to Australia weren't poaching as a sort of exhilarating open air hobby.
The weird thing about this story is that if you go back 20-30 years you will find American liberals - and liberal media - complaining about exactly this. Voodoo and Santeria worshippers killing American animals. Goats, ducks, pets
Animal rights were seen as more important than racial identity, in certain circumstances. No one doubted that it happened
Now Trump trumps everything and everything he says must be 100% wrong and everyone must agree on that
GOP governor of Ohio:
Sam Stein @samstein · 2h Gov. DeWine on the cat and dog eating stuff. "DEWINE: Look, there’s a lot of garbage on the internet and, you know, this is a piece of garbage that was simply not true. There’s no evidence of this at all."
Since @Leon is in Canada, he perhaps has an opportunity to sniff out the possibly for my proposed Anglo-Canadian alliance: a single market and customs union spanning from Yorkshire to the Yukon, with structures to support a more co-ordinated foreign and defence policy.
Such an alliance would become the third wealthiest sovereign entity on the planet (or fourth if you include the EU).
One can tell the unpopularity of a government by the ratio of negative to positive posts on PB. At present the ratio is something like 95 negative to 5 positive posts for Starmer/Labour. Granted 90 of those 100 posts are by Leon.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
The opportunity is highly unlikely to arise again
11 (15 with by-elections) to 72 is better than my wildest dreams -! expected 30 seats, hoped for 40, went to bed at 50, and woke at 70!! They have played a blinder. With Reform still there, Labour's pensioner £300 (the Labour party's University fees) and the Tories broke and still in a mess goodness knows what will happen next time!
No, you fucked it up
And your comment shows why. You can’t imagine being the actual Opposition, you’re content in your tiny little role
The Tories will return in 2029 (perhaps doing a deal with Reform, but not merging) and you will go back down to 30 seats. You missed your chance
The Tories will return? Without a popular or charismatic leader - which of the current lot would you suggest? - not a hope. Members are dropping like flies, who under 60 would vote Tory?
You can feel the energy returning to the Tories already. They expected to be killed. Instead they’ve woken up in hospital with broken bones, and the doc just told them they might be out and about in weeks
They genuinely hate Starmer, he’s also a flailing clown making errors everywhere. More pointedly, the Tories have noticed his massive majority is built on ice. Under 34% of the vote on a pitiful turnout
They can win next time, much to their own surprise
I agree mostly. I very much doubt they can win next time, but they can certainly create a meaningful contest.
I think the Tories can win easily. Not because they are about to elect a brilliant leader but because I predict Labour are gonna fuck up on multiple fronts and people will want to punish them severely
The way to do that is to vote Tory again
However, there are several caveats, and top of the list is Reform. How to neutralise that threat without alienating centrists? Not easy but has to be done
Yes they can win again but, from here, not easily. Several reasons: 1) There is no reason to think they can sort of the leadership problem, and the ideas problem, now acute since 2016 and continuing.
2) The centre right/right vote is split
3) It is psephologically possible for Labour and LDs to clean up English seats by each opposing and splitting Tory/Reform but not opposing/splitting each other. Both parties gain by this tactic. The last election showed voters getting wise to it.
4) Labour won't make silly mistakes by doing impossible things like taking £200 off poor pensioners or enriching themselves from rich donors buying favours from already well off leaders will they?
It’s the failure to project a positive vision of the future that makes the WFA cut seem arbitrary and mean, even though the essential case that pensioners have been cosseted for too long is unanswerable.
So far Labour have come for private school parents, non-doms, pub garden smokers, and junk food fans. I get that none of those are especially popular interest groups, but it does create a picture of something akin to spitefulness, especially since none of these tax or policy changes have a damn thing to do with the core issues facing the country.
Meanwhile, courts focus on penalising private business with bizarre wage awards and killing off the prospect of jobs from the proposed mine in Cumbria.
The budget will be key, but so far it’s looking rather shite for Keir Starmer’s Labour (and Keir Starmer’s Britain).
Good post. I don't think spitefulness is quite right. It's more that they want the things they disapprove of strengthened and enforced by state interference. It's the statism that makes their creed essentially illiberal.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. RAngry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
The opportunity is highly unlikely to arise again
11 (15 with by-elections) to 72 is better than my wildest dreams -! expected 30 seats, hoped for 40, went to bed at 50, and woke at 70!! They have played a blinder. With Reform still there, Labour's pensioner £300 (the Labour party's University fees) and the Tories broke and still in a mess goodness knows what will happen next time!
No, you fucked it up
And your comment shows why. You can’t imagine being the actual Opposition, you’re content in your tiny little role
The Tories will return in 2029 (perhaps doing a deal with Reform, but not merging) and you will go back down to 30 seats. You missed your chance
The Tories will return? Without a popular or charismatic leader - which of the current lot would you suggest? - not a hope. Members are dropping like flies, who under 60 would vote Tory?
You can feel the energy returning to the Tories already. They expected to be killed. Instead they’ve woken up in hospital with broken bones, and the doc just told them they might be out and about in weeks
They genuinely hate Starmer, he’s also a flailing clown making errors everywhere. More pointedly, the Tories have noticed his massive majority is built on ice. Under 34% of the vote on a pitiful turnout
They can win next time, much to their own surprise
I agree mostly. I very much doubt they can win next time, but they can certainly create a meaningful contest.
I think the Tories can win easily. Not because they are about to elect a brilliant leader but because I predict Labour are gonna fuck up on multiple fronts and people will want to punish them severely
The way to do that is to vote Tory
again.
However, there are several caveats, and top of the list is Reform. How to neutralise that threat without alienating centrists? Not easy but has to be done
Reform can also win some white working class seats Labour hold no Tory other than Boris could. So they are not entirely negative for a Tory leader wanting to see Labour lose seats.
Starmer also exudes misery and dourness like Brown, he is not Blair who exuded optimism and was pro business not merely tolerated it as a means to fund the public sector as Brown did and Starmer does
Haiti’s one of those countries that has very strong deep seated imagery and folklore associated with it, isn’t it? Voodoo, magic, the tontons macoute, Graham Greene etc.
Therefore easy to use as a vehicle for outlandish yet compelling rumours.
A few other countries have similarly powerful associations: Germany and jackbooted nazis, Ireland and cheerful music loving green-suited leprechauns, Mexico and the drug cartels (something we know Trump also uses), Congo and heart of darkness, Saudi Arabia and the bearded fundamentalist etc. Usually a mixed blessing.
Except it's universally agreed that vodou is widely believed in Haiti, and does animal sacrifice. Personally I find this easy to believe and no more bizarre than the sinister sect in which I was brought up which was based around weekly acts of simulated cannibalism.
Same with eating things. Poor people understandably steal food to ward off starvation. If it was me I would shoplift a supermarket chicken but if you have the know-how and tenacity to kill, pluck and dress a goose it makes perfect sense to do that. Those guys deported to Australia weren't poaching as a sort of exhilarating open air hobby.
The weird thing about this story is that if you go back 20-30 years you will find American liberals - and liberal media - complaining about exactly this. Voodoo and Santeria worshippers killing American animals. Goats, ducks, pets
Animal rights were seen as more important than racial identity, in certain circumstances. No one doubted that it happened
Now Trump trumps everything and everything he says must be 100% wrong and everyone must agree on that
And if you think it might be true you obviously love trump and want him to win.
It's a horrible thing he has done, and close enough to the Jewish blood libel that I suspect some little shit on his team has been reading some history and thinking That worked rather well. But there may be some truth in it. I can't say it worries me or would influence my vote if I had one.
Since @Leon is in Canada, he perhaps has an opportunity to sniff out the possibly for my proposed Anglo-Canadian alliance: a single market and customs union spanning from Yorkshire to the Yukon, with structures to support a more co-ordinated foreign and defence policy.
Such an alliance would become the third wealthiest sovereign entity on the planet (or fourth if you include the EU).
What would be the synergies ?
Economically, the same synergies as between New York and Texas.
Politically, a shared commitment to liberal and social democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
Culturally, a stronger competitor to US domination of traditional and digital media.
Demographically, the opportunity for population growth while other rich club nations face decline.
New John Gray article in the New Statesman, about JG Ballard.
"11 September 2024
JG Ballard’s apocalyptic art In Empire of the Sun, published 40 years ago, the great novelist turned his childhood experiences in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp into a form of personal liberation.
Haiti’s one of those countries that has very strong deep seated imagery and folklore associated with it, isn’t it? Voodoo, magic, the tontons macoute, Graham Greene etc.
Therefore easy to use as a vehicle for outlandish yet compelling rumours.
A few other countries have similarly powerful associations: Germany and jackbooted nazis, Ireland and cheerful music loving green-suited leprechauns, Mexico and the drug cartels (something we know Trump also uses), Congo and heart of darkness, Saudi Arabia and the bearded fundamentalist etc. Usually a mixed blessing.
Except it's universally agreed that vodou is widely believed in Haiti, and does animal sacrifice. Personally I find this easy to believe and no more bizarre than the sinister sect in which I was brought up which was based around weekly acts of simulated cannibalism.
Same with eating things. Poor people understandably steal food to ward off starvation. If it was me I would shoplift a supermarket chicken but if you have the know-how and tenacity to kill, pluck and dress a goose it makes perfect sense to do that. Those guys deported to Australia weren't poaching as a sort of exhilarating open air hobby.
The weird thing about this story is that if you go back 20-30 years you will find American liberals - and liberal media - complaining about exactly this. Voodoo and Santeria worshippers killing American animals. Goats, ducks, pets
Animal rights were seen as more important than racial identity, in certain circumstances. No one doubted that it happened
Now Trump trumps everything and everything he says must be 100% wrong and everyone must agree on that
And if you think it might be true you obviously love trump and want him to win.
It's a horrible thing he has done, and close enough to the Jewish blood libel that I suspect some little shit on his team has been reading some history and thinking That worked rather well. But there may be some truth in it. I can't say it worries me or would influence my vote if I had one.
What a silly comment. Whether someone wants Trump to win or not shouldn't be a factor in establishing whether any particular claim is true or not.
"Victim's anger over attacker's early jail release
An assault victim has said she felt "sick" after being told her attacker could be released from jail earlier than she expected. Martin Underwood, 49, attacked Elizabeth Hudson at their home in Barnsley in April 2021, before assaulting a second victim while out on police bail. In February last year, Underwood was jailed for six years and three months, but under the Ministry of Justice's new emergency plan to ease prison overcrowding, he could now be let out in June."
There are no victims of significant violence who want to see their attacker come out of prison early, or in most cases at all. However in the actual world roughly 999 out of every 1000 prisoners are due for release at some point, almost all of them way before their full sentence is served. No I don't like it either. But it is why, among many reasons, prison as a school for making bad people worse is not a great idea. And it is worst of all for their victims.
The reason prison is a good idea is that when criminals are in prison you know they're not committing more crimes.
Agree, and for that reason there are some who should never be let out. But not comitting crimes when out of prison is top priority for the poor old victims
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
No, wasting time and effort on "Rejoining" is an elephant trap of epic proportions.
The first problem is we have no idea under what terms the EU would consider the UK (re)joining. Would we have to accept the Euro and Schengen for example? I'm sure plenty would object to that.
Even if the EU offered status quo ante referendum, we'd still have issues over QMV and the rebates.
We had to leave because our half-hearted mean-spirited rebate-obsessed membership wasn't doing either us or the EU any good and we took a democratic vote deciding to leave.
There would also be huge resistance to any attempt to reintroduce Freedom of Movement which I believe is a prerequisite for membership of the Single Market - indeed, it would be a huge gift for Reform if anyone were to try.
We were never honest as to why we wanted to join in the first place. Because of that our membership was always false, incomplete, unsatisfying.
Why did we want to join ? Well the Empire was finished but of course we had superb management experience, in our own eyes. This European thing was all very well but well, Johnny Foreigner had had a century and a half to sort things out since 1815 and what had he done, 2 1/2 world wars and the possibility of another. The truth is we ASSUMED that if we joined the Common Market we would not just be primus inter pares, but like the Empire, we alone would be the leader. To some extent they even played up to that my making Henry Plumb first elected leader of the European Parliament.
The saddest part of it is sometimes the Rejoiners STILL think they would let us lead if we went back. Sorry lads, ain't gonna happen.
Other way round. Britain sought salvation, and Europe feared we would take over. In the 1950s and 60s the Establishment saw Britain as in terminal decline, and viewed entry to the Common Market as our last hope, only for us to be denied repeatedly, until Ted Heath finally got us in.
What ‘got us in’ was the death of Charles de Gaulle.
Haiti’s one of those countries that has very strong deep seated imagery and folklore associated with it, isn’t it? Voodoo, magic, the tontons macoute, Graham Greene etc.
Therefore easy to use as a vehicle for outlandish yet compelling rumours.
A few other countries have similarly powerful associations: Germany and jackbooted nazis, Ireland and cheerful music loving green-suited leprechauns, Mexico and the drug cartels (something we know Trump also uses), Congo and heart of darkness, Saudi Arabia and the bearded fundamentalist etc. Usually a mixed blessing.
Except it's universally agreed that vodou is widely believed in Haiti, and does animal sacrifice. Personally I find this easy to believe and no more bizarre than the sinister sect in which I was brought up which was based around weekly acts of simulated cannibalism.
Same with eating things. Poor people understandably steal food to ward off starvation. If it was me I would shoplift a supermarket chicken but if you have the know-how and tenacity to kill, pluck and dress a goose it makes perfect sense to do that. Those guys deported to Australia weren't poaching as a sort of exhilarating open air hobby.
The weird thing about this story is that if you go back 20-30 years you will find American liberals - and liberal media - complaining about exactly this. Voodoo and Santeria worshippers killing American animals. Goats, ducks, pets
Animal rights were seen as more important than racial identity, in certain circumstances. No one doubted that it happened
Now Trump trumps everything and everything he says must be 100% wrong and everyone must agree on that
And if you think it might be true you obviously love trump and want him to win.
It's a horrible thing he has done, and close enough to the Jewish blood libel that I suspect some little shit on his team has been reading some history and thinking That worked rather well. But there may be some truth in it. I can't say it worries me or would influence my vote if I had one.
What a silly comment. Whether someone wants Trump to win or not shouldn't be a factor in establishing whether any particular claim is true or not.
"Victim's anger over attacker's early jail release
An assault victim has said she felt "sick" after being told her attacker could be released from jail earlier than she expected. Martin Underwood, 49, attacked Elizabeth Hudson at their home in Barnsley in April 2021, before assaulting a second victim while out on police bail. In February last year, Underwood was jailed for six years and three months, but under the Ministry of Justice's new emergency plan to ease prison overcrowding, he could now be let out in June."
There are no victims of significant violence who want to see their attacker come out of prison early, or in most cases at all. However in the actual world roughly 999 out of every 1000 prisoners are due for release at some point, almost all of them way before their full sentence is served. No I don't like it either. But it is why, among many reasons, prison as a school for making bad people worse is not a great idea. And it is worst of all for their victims.
The reason prison is a good idea is that when criminals are in prison you know they're not committing more crimes.
Agree, and for that reason there are some who should never be let out. But not comitting crimes when out of prison is top priority for the poor old victims
Something that we do very poorly on. Our prisons do not rehabilitate, they are crime schools with added drug addiction.
I’m driving up beautiful Myra Canyon and a sudden conundrum has struck me. Why do we LIKE being scared? Being scared is not obviously fun. Your heart pounds, you perspire, you cower away and shriek
And yet we seek it out. We love roller coasters and off piste skiing and ghost stories and horror movies
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
No, wasting time and effort on "Rejoining" is an elephant trap of epic proportions.
The first problem is we have no idea under what terms the EU would consider the UK (re)joining. Would we have to accept the Euro and Schengen for example? I'm sure plenty would object to that.
Even if the EU offered status quo ante referendum, we'd still have issues over QMV and the rebates.
We had to leave because our half-hearted mean-spirited rebate-obsessed membership wasn't doing either us or the EU any good and we took a democratic vote deciding to leave.
There would also be huge resistance to any attempt to reintroduce Freedom of Movement which I believe is a prerequisite for membership of the Single Market - indeed, it would be a huge gift for Reform if anyone were to try.
We were never honest as to why we wanted to join in the first place. Because of that our membership was always false, incomplete, unsatisfying.
Why did we want to join ? Well the Empire was finished but of course we had superb management experience, in our own eyes. This European thing was all very well but well, Johnny Foreigner had had a century and a half to sort things out since 1815 and what had he done, 2 1/2 world wars and the possibility of another. The truth is we ASSUMED that if we joined the Common Market we would not just be primus inter pares, but like the Empire, we alone would be the leader. To some extent they even played up to that my making Henry Plumb first elected leader of the European Parliament.
The saddest part of it is sometimes the Rejoiners STILL think they would let us lead if we went back. Sorry lads, ain't gonna happen.
Other way round. Britain sought salvation, and Europe feared we would take over. In the 1950s and 60s the Establishment saw Britain as in terminal decline, and viewed entry to the Common Market as our last hope, only for us to be denied repeatedly, until Ted Heath finally got us in.
What ‘got us in’ was the death of Charles de Gaulle.
I've never quite understood why he disliked us so, given all the help we gave him personally. (Open to biography suggestions - in English)
I’m driving up beautiful Myra Canyon and a sudden conundrum has struck me. Why do we LIKE being scared? Being scared is not obviously fun. Your heart pounds, you perspire, you cower away and shriek
And yet we seek it out. We love roller coasters and off piste skiing and ghost stories and horror movies
But WHY?
Maybe because back in time humans were scared a lot of the time - disease, hungry lions, rapey vikings, total eclipses, and so it’s inbuilt as a natural state and without that fear we aren’t complete.
I received an email this morning from a commercial enterprise called 'the fish society'. Apparently I should buy some of their fish because it's 'National Linguine Day'. Baffling!
New John Gray article in the New Statesman, about JG Ballard.
"11 September 2024
JG Ballard’s apocalyptic art In Empire of the Sun, published 40 years ago, the great novelist turned his childhood experiences in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp into a form of personal liberation.
"Victim's anger over attacker's early jail release
An assault victim has said she felt "sick" after being told her attacker could be released from jail earlier than she expected. Martin Underwood, 49, attacked Elizabeth Hudson at their home in Barnsley in April 2021, before assaulting a second victim while out on police bail. In February last year, Underwood was jailed for six years and three months, but under the Ministry of Justice's new emergency plan to ease prison overcrowding, he could now be let out in June."
There are no victims of significant violence who want to see their attacker come out of prison early, or in most cases at all. However in the actual world roughly 999 out of every 1000 prisoners are due for release at some point, almost all of them way before their full sentence is served. No I don't like it either. But it is why, among many reasons, prison as a school for making bad people worse is not a great idea. And it is worst of all for their victims.
The reason prison is a good idea is that when criminals are in prison you know they're not committing more crimes.
Agree, and for that reason there are some who should never be let out. But not comitting crimes when out of prison is top priority for the poor old victims
Something that we do very poorly on. Our prisons do not rehabilitate, they are crime schools with added drug addiction.
Timpson, the new prison minister, does have good ideas on that and emplys ex cons in his family firm
"Victim's anger over attacker's early jail release
An assault victim has said she felt "sick" after being told her attacker could be released from jail earlier than she expected. Martin Underwood, 49, attacked Elizabeth Hudson at their home in Barnsley in April 2021, before assaulting a second victim while out on police bail. In February last year, Underwood was jailed for six years and three months, but under the Ministry of Justice's new emergency plan to ease prison overcrowding, he could now be let out in June."
There are no victims of significant violence who want to see their attacker come out of prison early, or in most cases at all. However in the actual world roughly 999 out of every 1000 prisoners are due for release at some point, almost all of them way before their full sentence is served. No I don't like it either. But it is why, among many reasons, prison as a school for making bad people worse is not a great idea. And it is worst of all for their victims.
The reason prison is a good idea is that when criminals are in prison you know they're not committing more crimes.
Agree, and for that reason there are some who should never be let out. But not comitting crimes when out of prison is top priority for the poor old victims
Something that we do very poorly on. Our prisons do not rehabilitate, they are crime schools with added drug addiction.
Timpson, the new prison minister, does have good ideas on that and emplys ex cons in his family firm
That's nothing, your party employed an active criminal* as PM.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
Also in the context of an 8.5% increase in April 2024, or £900 per year
I can't get over the simplicity and elegance of extending NI to pensioners as a way of squeezing the rich ones and leaving the poor alone. I don't think it was ruled out by the pledge not to increase NI because it's a broadening of scope not an increase.
Better to position it as a first step to merge income tax and NI in the interests of cutting administrative costs
The furore over this is surprising IMO over a proposal to means-test a single £300 per annum payment.
I'd abolish the whole thing.
My understanding is that what is proposed is abolition. You can then alleviate the situation by claiming pension credit but that's not the same as means testing
Incorrect. It's being means rested using pension credit, universal credit, income-related employment and support allowance, income-based jobseeker's allowance, income support, child tax credit or working tax credit all as a piggy back eligibility.
By boosting uptake of Pension Credit to 100%, it ends up a fiscally neutral transfer to the poorest pensioners.
Yes sorry you are right
But nothing boosts uptake of any benefit to anything like 100% (currently 63% of those eligible for pension credit are applying for it), so it's a transfer to a subset of the poorest pensioners.
The Scottish Government routinely gets higher take ups for equivalent devolved benefits simply because they invest more in the agency that administers them. This causes all sorts of bother with higher than expected spending on social security.
Much depends on DWP replicating that (after 14 years of institutional misery), so you're probably right!
Or, in some cases, saving so much on *not* administering them - by making them universal that it almost pays the difference in itself, as we were discussing the other month.
But yes, more efficient government can cause problems with Barnett differentials.
Surely Barnett has had its day?
More logical to negotiate an annual budget and then leave them to get on with it.
The contrast fo £19 grand on frocks and thongs versus £300 to help a pensioner get through the winter just int a good look.
It’s incredible. And it’s not like the Starmers are poor. They are multi millionaires with groaning huge pensions and earning maybe £300k a year as a household? £400k?
And the wife accepts pretty dresses as a gift??? Right at the start of their first term?
WTAF
It screams: meet the new boss same as the old boss, only the new boss is a fucking hypocrite who wants to make you miserable and stop you eating pies, whereas the old boss was just a greedy shit and didn’t care what you do
Most governments end in sleaze.
Starmer's government has started in sleaze.
Something it shares in common with labour in 97 and cash for fags
What’s the quid pro quo? This is nothing like “cash for fags”.
Keir seems to have been careless. The optics are not great but this is not a government that has “started in sleaze”.
“Careless”???
He knowingly accepted tens of thousands in freebies not only for himself. But for his wife, also
In return the donor was given a free pass to the commons - completely against the rules
Whoops! Butter fingers!
If I was about to become PM, I feel like Mrs Walker might also need a telegenic spruce up. Suddenly, she is in the public eye.
The British state affords no such largesse, and I don’t think the Starmers are personally wealthy.
It therefore seems that this rather shabby compromise has developed whereby PMs get some kind of image support from well placed donors.
Starmer’s sin is administrative. He should have declared it all. It’s not obvious why and how he overlooked it.
They are both high earners and have been for a long time - many many people manage to look good each day without a state bung for their clothes. If you don’t want to deal with that then you could just not run for leadership of a party where you might end up as PM.
Its not as if it’s a lifetime problem - they can blow a bit of cash because he will more than make up for it afterwards on the speaking circuit, books, whatever. It just looks grasping.
It stinks of corruption. After what's gone on with the previous government, this Labour government is showing it's not any better. And the stink is coming from the very top.
Why, Starmer, why? What the **** were you thinking? You're supposed to be the sensible adult in the room. And then you accept this sort of 'deal', and 'forget' to declare it.
"Victim's anger over attacker's early jail release
An assault victim has said she felt "sick" after being told her attacker could be released from jail earlier than she expected. Martin Underwood, 49, attacked Elizabeth Hudson at their home in Barnsley in April 2021, before assaulting a second victim while out on police bail. In February last year, Underwood was jailed for six years and three months, but under the Ministry of Justice's new emergency plan to ease prison overcrowding, he could now be let out in June."
There are no victims of significant violence who want to see their attacker come out of prison early, or in most cases at all. However in the actual world roughly 999 out of every 1000 prisoners are due for release at some point, almost all of them way before their full sentence is served. No I don't like it either. But it is why, among many reasons, prison as a school for making bad people worse is not a great idea. And it is worst of all for their victims.
The reason prison is a good idea is that when criminals are in prison you know they're not committing more crimes.
Agree, and for that reason there are some who should never be let out. But not comitting crimes when out of prison is top priority for the poor old victims
Something that we do very poorly on. Our prisons do not rehabilitate, they are crime schools with added drug addiction.
Timpson, the new prison minister, does have good ideas on that and emplys ex cons in his family firm
That's nothing, your party employed an active criminal* as PM.
*Well, lockdown breaker.
Boris the cat-burglar - mission 'you-just-have-to-see-it-at-the-cinema'!
I think I saw polling that showed potential Libertarian voters breaking for Harris in forced Harris-Trump choice. I guess they are difficult to poll though. Trump got a hostile reception at their convention I think.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
Also in the context of an 8.5% increase in April 2024, or £900 per year
I can't get over the simplicity and elegance of extending NI to pensioners as a way of squeezing the rich ones and leaving the poor alone. I don't think it was ruled out by the pledge not to increase NI because it's a broadening of scope not an increase.
Better to position it as a first step to merge income tax and NI in the interests of cutting administrative costs
Absolutely not, NI funds should be ringfenced for the state pension and JSA and some NHS funds and social care costs
Comments
https://www.thestreet.com/economy/gas-prices-are-plunging-and-its-bigger-news-than-you-think#:~:text=Gas prices keep falling and it's a trend that should spread,-Read More&text=That's down around 15%
Plus, the Fed meets Sept. 17-18 and almost certainly will cut its key federal fund rate from 5.25%-to-5.5%, the level in place since July 2023.
The conventional wisdom is the first cut will be to 5%-to-5.25%. Not a big cut but the first cut since July 2023. All good news for Harris - and takes the wind out of Donald Doomster's sails.
I very much doubt they can win next time, but they can certainly create a meaningful contest.
Don’t think the stars will align, so perfectly, a second time
The way to do that is to vote Tory again
However, there are several caveats, and top of the list is Reform. How to neutralise that threat without alienating centrists? Not easy but has to be done
But it's an illustration of national polling being semi-useless. Working out what might constitute representative sampling in a state is hard enough; doing so nationally is trying to hit several moving targets all at once, wearing a blindfold.
I'm really enjoying this Conference. Ed was brilliant just now on a Q&A facing some really tough questions.
And the wife accepts pretty dresses as a gift??? Right at the start of their first term?
WTAF
It screams: meet the new boss same as the old boss, only the new boss is a fucking hypocrite who wants to make you miserable and stop you eating pies, whereas the old boss was just a greedy shit and didn’t care what you do
Aaron Blake
@AaronBlake
·
21h
A majority of Trump supporters believe the Haitian immigrants-stealing-and-eating-pets thing.
Independents disbelieve it more than 2-to-1, though.
And 5 times as many independents are sure it’s false as are sure it’s true.
https://x.com/AaronBlake/status/1835020077776707692
The Blair/Cameron/Starmer solution, basically saying "the door's over there" to their fundamentalists, isn't really available to the Conservatives, because it would mean losing too many people.
Reform is a much bigger challenge than UKIP 2010 or left wing parties were in 1997, significantly bigger than Corbyn and chums were this year.
However the choice of leader is vital, not least because of the Reform aspect, as noted above.
Critically, does any new leader have a theory of change, and an electoral strategy which supports that?
Boris actually did, in his own chaotic fashion.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats
If someone were given to making sweeping generalised statements about policy based on very short term statistics, then they could argue Yvette and Keir have had stunning success in turning around the small boats trend since their election.
Period from 5 July to 14 September
2022: 16k
2023: 12k
2024: 9k (and 8k until yesterday’s 800)
Period from 1 Jan to 4 July:
2022: 13k
2023: 11k
2024: 13k
So the runrate was higher than last year and equal with 2022’s record up to election date under Rishi, then significantly lower since SKS’s election victory.
But as we all know, 2 months is way too short a time to make any kind of policy judgment.
However I have learned that 20,000 Haitians have turned up in Springfield in the past few years, and I’m reminded that the Democrats have been “weak on immigration”, especially the so-called border tsar, Kamala Harris.
So that should incentivise some creative thinking
It is also possible Reform might move towards the Tories, if the Tories rise in the polls and look
stronger. Farage is in his 60s. The next election will likely be his last meaningful chance to impact UK politics (if he lasts that long)
Do a deal with the Tories on migration and then step back?
I'm not sure either is going to find attacking her particularly productive.
Starmer's government has started in sleaze.
James Surowiecki
@JamesSurowiecki
In 2012, Gallup called Springfield, Ohio the "unhappiest city" in America. It was a dying,deindustrialized city with a deserted downtown that had lost 20% of its population since 1990.
https://x.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/1834358721356394534
But I doubt that matters to migration-hostile swing voters?
I wonder what actual Springfielders think.
I expected Labour to be squeaky clean for a year or two, at least, to prove a point. Then inevitably yield to temptation, as we all do
Instead they couldn’t wait to get their boots under the table and start tucking in. Indeed before they crossed the door they were leaning in through the window to get some hot cherry pie
This is nothing like “cash for fags”.
Keir seems to have been careless. The optics are not great but this is not a government that has “started in sleaze”.
Therefore easy to use as a vehicle for outlandish yet compelling rumours.
A few other countries have similarly powerful associations: Germany and jackbooted nazis, Ireland and cheerful music loving green-suited leprechauns, Mexico and the drug cartels (something we know Trump also uses), Congo and heart of darkness, Saudi Arabia and the bearded fundamentalist etc. Usually a mixed blessing.
How many of those independents who don't believe it will change their vote to Harris ?
How many of those independents who do believe it will change their vote to Trump ?
But perhaps more relevant questions would be:
"Were you aware that 20,000 Haitians had moved to Springfield, Ohio in recent years ? Do you think 20,000 Haitians should be able to move to your town ? Do you think it would make your life better or worse if they did so ?"
Why did we want to join ? Well the Empire was finished but of course we had superb management experience, in our own eyes. This European thing was all very well but well, Johnny Foreigner had had a century and a half to sort things out since 1815 and what had he done, 2 1/2 world wars and the possibility of another. The truth is we ASSUMED that if we joined the Common Market we would not just be primus inter pares, but like the Empire, we alone would be the leader. To some extent they even played up to that my making Henry Plumb first elected leader of the European Parliament.
The saddest part of it is sometimes the Rejoiners STILL think they would let us lead if we went back. Sorry lads, ain't gonna happen.
The same Clark county which the Guardian thought it a good idea to send letters to the inhabitants telling them how to vote in the 2004 election.
With predictable negative result.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/15/uselections2004.usa14
If I lived in a town of 60,000 people and then 20,000 Haitians (or Russians or Nicaraguans or Greenlanders) all arrived in 3 years I might use several different words to describe the phenomenon but not one of them would be “trickle”
He knowingly accepted tens of thousands in freebies not only for himself. But for his wife, also
In return the donor was given a free pass to the commons - completely against the rules
Whoops! Butter fingers!
True story. A guide in Greenland showed me the cliff. “Suicide beach”
Tough people the Inuit. But then they have a tough gig
Trump loses Electric Avenue song legal fight
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1488zz8jnzo
Places losing population tend to be deprived, people moving to deprived areas tend to be deprived.
That tends to upset the deprived people already living in the deprived place.
Perhaps more importantly in electoral terms the people in the nearby non-deprived places look at what is happening and worry that it might happen to their place next.
Same with eating things. Poor people understandably steal food to ward off starvation. If it was me I would shoplift a supermarket chicken but if you have the know-how and tenacity to kill, pluck and dress a goose it makes perfect sense to do that. Those guys deported to Australia weren't poaching as a sort of exhilarating open air hobby.
The British state affords no such largesse, and I don’t think the Starmers are personally wealthy.
It therefore seems that this rather shabby compromise has developed whereby PMs get some kind of image support from well placed donors.
Starmer’s sin is administrative. He should have declared it all. It’s not obvious why and how he overlooked it.
Animal rights were seen as more important than racial identity, in certain circumstances. No one doubted that it happened
Now Trump trumps everything and everything he says must be 100% wrong and everyone must agree on that
From 1958 it was incredibly obvious that the Empire model was no longer an option.
Britain still faces a broadly similar problem.
USA? Europe? Some form of both? Or something more independent?
And it’s no good pretending each of these are somehow equally advantageous economically.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1835309555938480462
JD Vance.
In a joint statement first obtained by CBS News, the staff members wrote that Reagan, if alive, would have supported Harris.
"President Ronald Reagan famously spoke about a 'Time for Choosing.' While he is not here to experience the current moment, we who worked for him in the White House, in the administration, in campaigns and on his personal staff, know he would join us in supporting the Harris-Walz ticket," the group writes."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ronald-reagan-former-staff-back-harris-walz-ticket/
Its not as if it’s a lifetime problem - they can blow a bit of cash because he will more than make up for it afterwards on the speaking circuit, books, whatever. It just looks grasping.
https://archive.is/8YAQb
"Sweden Will Offer Migrants $34,000 to Go Home"
Such an alliance would become the third wealthiest sovereign entity on the planet (or fourth if you include the EU).
As one of the largest nations the UK would have significant influence (remember how the Single Market came about?), but no one I've ever spoken to, pro or anti, has ever said we'd lead the EU.
GOP governor of Ohio:
Sam Stein
@samstein
·
2h
Gov. DeWine on the cat and dog eating stuff. "DEWINE: Look, there’s a lot of garbage on the internet and, you know, this is a piece of garbage that was simply not true. There’s no evidence of this at all."
https://x.com/samstein
Not that I believe he did!
1) There is no reason to think they can sort of the leadership problem, and the ideas problem, now acute since 2016 and continuing.
2) The centre right/right vote is split
3) It is psephologically possible for Labour and LDs to clean up English seats by each opposing and splitting Tory/Reform but not opposing/splitting each other. Both parties gain by this tactic. The last election showed voters getting wise to it.
4) Labour won't make silly mistakes by doing impossible things like taking £200 off poor pensioners or enriching themselves from rich donors buying favours from already well off leaders will they?
5) Scrub (4). Tories can win easily.
Reform can also win some white
working class seats Labour hold
no Tory other than Boris could. So
they are not entirely negative for
a Tory leader wanting to see
Labour lose seats.
Starmer also exudes misery and
dourness like Brown, he is not Blair who exuded optimism and was pro business not merely tolerated it as a means to fund the public sector as Brown did and Starmer does
https://x.com/Annie_Wu_22/status/1835347607104737550
"Who the fuck IS this guy ?"
It's a horrible thing he has done, and close enough to the Jewish blood libel that I suspect some little shit on his team has been reading some history and thinking That worked rather well. But there may be some truth in it. I can't say it worries me or would influence my vote if I had one.
Politically, a shared commitment to liberal and social democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
Culturally, a stronger competitor to US domination of traditional and digital media.
Demographically, the opportunity for population growth while other rich club nations face decline.
"11 September 2024
JG Ballard’s apocalyptic art
In Empire of the Sun, published 40 years ago, the great novelist turned his childhood experiences in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp into a form of personal liberation.
By John Gray"
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2024/09/jg-ballards-apocalyptic-art
"Visa's gone. Everything's dead."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrHoMSRZOS4
I’m driving up beautiful Myra Canyon and a sudden conundrum has struck me. Why do we LIKE being scared? Being scared is not obviously fun. Your heart pounds, you perspire, you cower away and shriek
And yet we seek it out. We love roller coasters and off piste skiing and ghost stories and horror movies
But WHY?
"...for what it’s worth, your pets are safe in Springfield, Ohio.”
https://x.com/adamwren/status/1835352489828176163
We deleted a tweet because we don't want to break the terms of this website we agreed to.
It's a shame that even on a "free speech" website that libertarians cannot speak freely.
Libertarians are truly the most oppressed minority.
https://x.com/LPNH/status/1835310685095628880
*Well, lockdown breaker.
More logical to negotiate an annual budget and then leave them to get on with it.
Why, Starmer, why? What the **** were you thinking? You're supposed to be the sensible adult in the room. And then you accept this sort of 'deal', and 'forget' to declare it.
You're no better than the last lot.