So she supports a man who tried to inflame tensions during the riots and whose turned twitter into even more of a cesspit .
She supports a succesful African-American entrepreneur who has created businesses and jobs in the US and overseas and may well get a person onto Mars.
And, hopefully, bring them back again. That's too often forgotten in the hyping of his dreams.
Kennedy said: "this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth". Without that last clause, NASA would have had a much easier job...
Mars to Stay is a thing. Aldrin backed it - though I'm not sure I'd want to risk the people back home getting bored and just giving up on me.
You'd want a plan to quickly get as close to self-sufficiency as possible, and then ideally something relatively light that was valuable enough to send back in trade. Perhaps Martian gemstones?
That's the 'collect underpants' question for Martian habitation. Why is it worth the vast cost and risk? Lunar habitation makes much more sense than Martian IMO.
(Habitation is different from exploration, which I can thoroughly see a reason for.)
On the Tory leadership - it's all gone a bit quiet of late. This article, which doesn't appear to be paywalled, seems a reasonably good summary of where we're up to:
I've eventually resigned myself to a Jenrick victory, only to spot a route to victory for Kemi: if Kemi really is, and remains, the members' choice, then Jenrick-sceptic MP supporters of Tugendhat or Cleverly might, once their candidate is knocked out, decide to switch to Kemi in order to get her to the final two as the only way of avoiding a Jenrick leadership. This relies on the assumption that MPs assume that the order of preference for the members is Kemi-Jenrick-Cleverly/Tom Tug, and that it will remain such up until the last round.
I am coming to the view that Cleverly would be the best bet for the Tories. Was impressed by Ruth Davidson's reasoning which she expounded on Ben Houchen's podcast. He can unite the party and is, personally, an antidote to the fractious, ungenerous nature of politics at the moment. Would appeal to the voting public. He won't win though, sadly.
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
It's an interest free £1.2M loan on property. The loan will be paid back on gaining probate and sale of property (that the MP has also been living in). What about the value of the property, has that changed, who will benefit? Assuming this Labour MP is the beneficiary of the estate of her sister, she has saved a lot of money that her sister would normally have had to have paid, that has instead been paid of the loan.
Understand that it is a friend helping out, but surely the Labour MP has potentially gained massively from this, in numerous ways.
You’re assuming a lot.
If Lord Alli is a friend of the dying sister, why did the loan and purchase of the property (at unknown value) go to the MP? What tax reasons would it be beneficial to do this way, instead of to someone who is seriously ill? The MP now has the property, that was bought for the sister, but not by the sister, who will benefit most financially from all of this? Can you tell me that the MP will not saving significantly from this arrangement.
Read her declaration before you comment further.
I read it on twitter last night. The sort of clarity that is welcome really. She has clearly done nothing wrong.
I do get the impression that the story is running out of steam as the excess troughing stuff, which has clearly gone on, is now being replaced with stuff that is anything but.
A proper public interest story has been replaced with clickbait.
The key swing state, and they're (possibly) trying to avoid making a call.
Or maybe it is that close, and they all have near identical methodologies....
I have noticed that the polls in PA seem to move a lot less than the national polls, with the exception of the NYT/Siena poll that had 50-46 a week or so ago.
It's possible that the saturation of campaigning in the state means that there are fewer undecided voters than elsewhere.
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
But it is a politician - and indeed, a politician gifting a substantial amount to another politician's relative.
Now, on the one hand, this is all being made public, and as such the public can judge the appropriateness of what's gone on - which is as it should be. However, Lord Alli does look to have financial dealings with a lot of senior Labour figures, which is getting to the point (if not already beyond it), where it looks as if he's been seeking to buy a network and exercise influence without ever needing to make explicit his patronage (and, implicitly, the potential future loss of it). Even if it's all innocent and he is simply helping out friends and colleagues, the impression of buying influence - bolstered by the reality of the No 10 pass - is unmistakable.
I think calls to ban all gifts and donations, including in kind, to politicians go much too far. We need MPs to be normal people and to be able to do the sorts of things normal people do. For example, if a friend offers to put up all invitees to his birthday bash for free, then the MP shouldn't be the only one to have to pay for themselves - but they should have to declare that hospitality and opt out of decisions that might be influenced by the freebie. Indeed, the pressing need for reform is to deal with conflicts of interest more effectively, including banning MPs and peers from voting or taking decisions where the interest is close enough (as councillors are so banned).
The problem that Labour has is that an MP should not be receiving hospitality in ways that employees are barred from following the Bribery Act 2010 (which MPs seem to be exempt from).
There doesn’t seem to be anything in the act that suggests MPs are exempt?
I hate the terms bribery and the racist word blackmail.
I prefer the term incentive based decision making.
Saying blackmail is a racist word is, itself bigoted.
It refers to a traditional form of Local Ethnic Community Organised tax collection. Organised by the recognised community leaders of a minority. The minority in question being the Legally Challenged Community.
So she supports a man who tried to inflame tensions during the riots and whose turned twitter into even more of a cesspit .
She supports a succesful African-American entrepreneur who has created businesses and jobs in the US and overseas and may well get a person onto Mars.
And, hopefully, bring them back again. That's too often forgotten in the hyping of his dreams.
Kennedy said: "this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth". Without that last clause, NASA would have had a much easier job...
Mars to Stay is a thing. Aldrin backed it - though I'm not sure I'd want to risk the people back home getting bored and just giving up on me.
You'd want a plan to quickly get as close to self-sufficiency as possible, and then ideally something relatively light that was valuable enough to send back in trade. Perhaps Martian gemstones?
That's the 'collect underpants' question for Martian habitation. Why is it worth the vast cost and risk? Lunar habitation makes much more sense than Martian IMO.
(Habitation is different from exploration, which I can thoroughly see a reason for.)
If you can do the Moon then you're close to being able to do Phobos/Deimos and then the Martian surface likely becomes much easier.
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
It's an interest free £1.2M loan on property. The loan will be paid back on gaining probate and sale of property (that the MP has also been living in). What about the value of the property, has that changed, who will benefit? Assuming this Labour MP is the beneficiary of the estate of her sister, she has saved a lot of money that her sister would normally have had to have paid, that has instead been paid of the loan.
Understand that it is a friend helping out, but surely the Labour MP has potentially gained massively from this, in numerous ways.
You’re assuming a lot.
If Lord Alli is a friend of the dying sister, why did the loan and purchase of the property (at unknown value) go to the MP? What tax reasons would it be beneficial to do this way, instead of to someone who is seriously ill? The MP now has the property, that was bought for the sister, but not by the sister, who will benefit most financially from all of this? Can you tell me that the MP will not saving significantly from this arrangement.
Read her declaration before you comment further.
I read it on twitter last night. The sort of clarity that is welcome really. She has clearly done nothing wrong.
In all the stories at present I do not see any wrong doing in this one
Many families struggle with probate, not least as it takes upto a year and in that time access to the estate money is restricted
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
It's an interest free £1.2M loan on property. The loan will be paid back on gaining probate and sale of property (that the MP has also been living in). What about the value of the property, has that changed, who will benefit? Assuming this Labour MP is the beneficiary of the estate of her sister, she has saved a lot of money that her sister would normally have had to have paid, that has instead been paid of the loan.
Understand that it is a friend helping out, but surely the Labour MP has potentially gained massively from this, in numerous ways.
You’re assuming a lot.
If Lord Alli is a friend of the dying sister, why did the loan and purchase of the property (at unknown value) go to the MP? What tax reasons would it be beneficial to do this way, instead of to someone who is seriously ill? The MP now has the property, that was bought for the sister, but not by the sister, who will benefit most financially from all of this? Can you tell me that the MP will not saving significantly from this arrangement.
Read her declaration before you comment further.
Being helpful, you can read it here. She has also addressed various other questions.
So she supports a man who tried to inflame tensions during the riots and whose turned twitter into even more of a cesspit .
She supports a succesful African-American entrepreneur who has created businesses and jobs in the US and overseas and may well get a person onto Mars.
And, hopefully, bring them back again. That's too often forgotten in the hyping of his dreams.
Kennedy said: "this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth". Without that last clause, NASA would have had a much easier job...
Mars to Stay is a thing. Aldrin backed it - though I'm not sure I'd want to risk the people back home getting bored and just giving up on me.
You'd want a plan to quickly get as close to self-sufficiency as possible, and then ideally something relatively light that was valuable enough to send back in trade. Perhaps Martian gemstones?
That's the 'collect underpants' question for Martian habitation. Why is it worth the vast cost and risk? Lunar habitation makes much more sense than Martian IMO.
(Habitation is different from exploration, which I can thoroughly see a reason for.)
Gravity ? The Moon isn't really a very healthy environment for permanent habitation.
Also, long term, competition for resources. There's a big first mover advantage for the first ones to figure out full self-sufficiency on Mars. Though that's likely a generation away at least.
So she supports a man who tried to inflame tensions during the riots and whose turned twitter into even more of a cesspit .
She supports a succesful African-American entrepreneur who has created businesses and jobs in the US and overseas and may well get a person onto Mars.
And, hopefully, bring them back again. That's too often forgotten in the hyping of his dreams.
Kennedy said: "this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth". Without that last clause, NASA would have had a much easier job...
Mars to Stay is a thing. Aldrin backed it - though I'm not sure I'd want to risk the people back home getting bored and just giving up on me.
You'd want a plan to quickly get as close to self-sufficiency as possible, and then ideally something relatively light that was valuable enough to send back in trade. Perhaps Martian gemstones?
That's the 'collect underpants' question for Martian habitation. Why is it worth the vast cost and risk? Lunar habitation makes much more sense than Martian IMO.
(Habitation is different from exploration, which I can thoroughly see a reason for.)
If you can do the Moon then you're close to being able to do Phobos/Deimos and then the Martian surface likely becomes much easier.
A big question is how much gravity is required to eliminate negative biological effects.
The institutional bias against research into this, by NASA, is a classic example of a few key individuals blocking technology/research because of personal prejudices and beliefs.
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
She will need to hope the markets don't react adversely
Hence letting the OBR do their thing.
Besides, the vibes from the gnomes in Zurich (remember them?) is that they'll be OK with borrowing to spend on tangible things (the sort that gave been cut since 2010) rather than tax cuts.
Look, I know it hurts when you don't get the government you wanted. Heck, I never even voted for Blair. And there are definitely things to criticise Starmer for.
But is this continual drip drip of negativity what you want to be known for?
On the Tory leadership - it's all gone a bit quiet of late. This article, which doesn't appear to be paywalled, seems a reasonably good summary of where we're up to:
I've eventually resigned myself to a Jenrick victory, only to spot a route to victory for Kemi: if Kemi really is, and remains, the members' choice, then Jenrick-sceptic MP supporters of Tugendhat or Cleverly might, once their candidate is knocked out, decide to switch to Kemi in order to get her to the final two as the only way of avoiding a Jenrick leadership. This relies on the assumption that MPs assume that the order of preference for the members is Kemi-Jenrick-Cleverly/Tom Tug, and that it will remain such up until the last round.
I am coming to the view that Cleverly would be the best bet for the Tories. Was impressed by Ruth Davidson's reasoning which she expounded on Ben Houchen's podcast. He can unite the party and is, personally, an antidote to the fractious, ungenerous nature of politics at the moment. Would appeal to the voting public. He won't win though, sadly.
Yeh, he would definitely be a better choice for them than Jenrick. A much more solid and experienced LOTO figure who could claw back some ground.
Sadly, the members seem determined to have Badenoch or Jenrick.
The key swing state, and they're (possibly) trying to avoid making a call.
Or maybe it is that close, and they all have near identical methodologies....
I have noticed that the polls in PA seem to move a lot less than the national polls, with the exception of the NYT/Siena poll that had 50-46 a week or so ago.
It's possible that the saturation of campaigning in the state means that there are fewer undecided voters than elsewhere.
Given the inherent uncertainties in US presidential polling, it just seems odd that they're all landing on the same split.
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
It's an interest free £1.2M loan on property. The loan will be paid back on gaining probate and sale of property (that the MP has also been living in). What about the value of the property, has that changed, who will benefit? Assuming this Labour MP is the beneficiary of the estate of her sister, she has saved a lot of money that her sister would normally have had to have paid, that has instead been paid of the loan.
Understand that it is a friend helping out, but surely the Labour MP has potentially gained massively from this, in numerous ways.
You’re assuming a lot.
If Lord Alli is a friend of the dying sister, why did the loan and purchase of the property (at unknown value) go to the MP? What tax reasons would it be beneficial to do this way, instead of to someone who is seriously ill? The MP now has the property, that was bought for the sister, but not by the sister, who will benefit most financially from all of this? Can you tell me that the MP will not saving significantly from this arrangement.
Read her declaration before you comment further.
I have read it. Lord Alli lends £1.2M interest free to MP to buy a house. The money will be repaid when the sale of the 'other' house they (her and her sister) own is sold.
All very nice and sympathetic. However, can you not see how the MP has and is going to benefit financially from this, massively.
The key swing state, and they're (possibly) trying to avoid making a call.
Or maybe it is that close, and they all have near identical methodologies....
I have noticed that the polls in PA seem to move a lot less than the national polls, with the exception of the NYT/Siena poll that had 50-46 a week or so ago.
It's possible that the saturation of campaigning in the state means that there are fewer undecided voters than elsewhere.
Given the inherent uncertainties in US presidential polling, it just seems odd that they're all landing on the same split.
The phenomenon of poll herding has been noticed in the past….
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
But it is a politician - and indeed, a politician gifting a substantial amount to another politician's relative.
Now, on the one hand, this is all being made public, and as such the public can judge the appropriateness of what's gone on - which is as it should be. However, Lord Alli does look to have financial dealings with a lot of senior Labour figures, which is getting to the point (if not already beyond it), where it looks as if he's been seeking to buy a network and exercise influence without ever needing to make explicit his patronage (and, implicitly, the potential future loss of it). Even if it's all innocent and he is simply helping out friends and colleagues, the impression of buying influence - bolstered by the reality of the No 10 pass - is unmistakable.
I think calls to ban all gifts and donations, including in kind, to politicians go much too far. We need MPs to be normal people and to be able to do the sorts of things normal people do. For example, if a friend offers to put up all invitees to his birthday bash for free, then the MP shouldn't be the only one to have to pay for themselves - but they should have to declare that hospitality and opt out of decisions that might be influenced by the freebie. Indeed, the pressing need for reform is to deal with conflicts of interest more effectively, including banning MPs and peers from voting or taking decisions where the interest is close enough (as councillors are so banned).
The problem that Labour has is that an MP should not be receiving hospitality in ways that employees are barred from following the Bribery Act 2010 (which MPs seem to be exempt from).
There doesn’t seem to be anything in the act that suggests MPs are exempt?
I hate the terms bribery and the racist word blackmail.
I prefer the term incentive based decision making.
Saying blackmail is a racist word is, itself bigoted.
It refers to a traditional form of Local Ethnic Community Organised tax collection. Organised by the recognised community leaders of a minority. The minority in question being the Legally Challenged Community.
So being judgemental about it is Punching Down.
Used to work for an organization where the "ethics and bribery" online training required you to be able to distinguish between an unacceptable gift and an acceptable "facilitating payment required to conduct business".
Hilariously, a few years later, a recipient of a "facilitating payment" pleaded in mitigation in court that 90% went back to the person in the organization who'd approved it.
So she supports a man who tried to inflame tensions during the riots and whose turned twitter into even more of a cesspit .
She supports a succesful African-American entrepreneur who has created businesses and jobs in the US and overseas and may well get a person onto Mars.
And, hopefully, bring them back again. That's too often forgotten in the hyping of his dreams.
Kennedy said: "this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth". Without that last clause, NASA would have had a much easier job...
Mars to Stay is a thing. Aldrin backed it - though I'm not sure I'd want to risk the people back home getting bored and just giving up on me.
You'd want a plan to quickly get as close to self-sufficiency as possible, and then ideally something relatively light that was valuable enough to send back in trade. Perhaps Martian gemstones?
That's the 'collect underpants' question for Martian habitation. Why is it worth the vast cost and risk? Lunar habitation makes much more sense than Martian IMO.
(Habitation is different from exploration, which I can thoroughly see a reason for.)
I'm very convinced by the argument that it's easier to live on Mars than on the Moon. And it's not that much harder to get to Mars than the Moon in terms of the delta-v required.
And, ultimately, it's possible to imagine an entirely self-sustaining settlement on Mars, which would be much harder, if not impossible, to achieve on the Moon.
Come on, any investment decisions within the last year were clearly based on the certainty of an incoming Labour government
1) Starmer is a lawyer and therefore always correct. 2) He has referred to Sunak as the PM, since the election. More than once. 3) Therefore Sunak is PM
It all becomes clear. Sunak despaired of the Conservative Party, and using Lord Ali, conducted an internal takeover of the Labour Party. Which is now the vehicle for his genius.
On the Tory leadership - it's all gone a bit quiet of late. This article, which doesn't appear to be paywalled, seems a reasonably good summary of where we're up to:
I've eventually resigned myself to a Jenrick victory, only to spot a route to victory for Kemi: if Kemi really is, and remains, the members' choice, then Jenrick-sceptic MP supporters of Tugendhat or Cleverly might, once their candidate is knocked out, decide to switch to Kemi in order to get her to the final two as the only way of avoiding a Jenrick leadership. This relies on the assumption that MPs assume that the order of preference for the members is Kemi-Jenrick-Cleverly/Tom Tug, and that it will remain such up until the last round.
I am coming to the view that Cleverly would be the best bet for the Tories. Was impressed by Ruth Davidson's reasoning which she expounded on Ben Houchen's podcast. He can unite the party and is, personally, an antidote to the fractious, ungenerous nature of politics at the moment. Would appeal to the voting public. He won't win though, sadly.
Agreed that Cleverly has always seemed their best choice from the candidates. I have trading bets on him and Tugendhat, I may not trade it all in if either makes the final two against Jenrick, as I struggle to conceive that Jenrick could be preferred even by Conservative members.
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
She will need to hope the markets don't react adversely
Hence letting the OBR do their thing.
Besides, the vibes from the gnomes in Zurich (remember them?) is that they'll be OK with borrowing to spend on tangible things (the sort that gave been cut since 2010) rather than tax cuts.
Look, I know it hurts when you don't get the government you wanted. Heck, I never even voted for Blair. And there are definitely things to criticise Starmer for.
But is this continual drip drip of negativity what you want to be known for?
I think the ones being negative are the doom and gloom speeches from Starmer and Reeves and no I do not support Labour, but expected Starmer to be above all this cronyism but then that has proved wrong
I am not hurting at all, am relieved the conservatives are out office, and am entitled to post critiques of the government mostly from Sky but try to source reports/articles from a wide number of outlets including the Guardian and non conservative supporting groups as well as Guido if it is relevant to the topic, but not inappropriate nonsense
Of course some may be upset, but as far as I am aware this is a political forum with interest in betting so I try to be responsible and hope that in some way it contributes to discussion on the topics of the day
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
But it is a politician - and indeed, a politician gifting a substantial amount to another politician's relative.
Now, on the one hand, this is all being made public, and as such the public can judge the appropriateness of what's gone on - which is as it should be. However, Lord Alli does look to have financial dealings with a lot of senior Labour figures, which is getting to the point (if not already beyond it), where it looks as if he's been seeking to buy a network and exercise influence without ever needing to make explicit his patronage (and, implicitly, the potential future loss of it). Even if it's all innocent and he is simply helping out friends and colleagues, the impression of buying influence - bolstered by the reality of the No 10 pass - is unmistakable.
I think calls to ban all gifts and donations, including in kind, to politicians go much too far. We need MPs to be normal people and to be able to do the sorts of things normal people do. For example, if a friend offers to put up all invitees to his birthday bash for free, then the MP shouldn't be the only one to have to pay for themselves - but they should have to declare that hospitality and opt out of decisions that might be influenced by the freebie. Indeed, the pressing need for reform is to deal with conflicts of interest more effectively, including banning MPs and peers from voting or taking decisions where the interest is close enough (as councillors are so banned).
The problem that Labour has is that an MP should not be receiving hospitality in ways that employees are barred from following the Bribery Act 2010 (which MPs seem to be exempt from).
There doesn’t seem to be anything in the act that suggests MPs are exempt?
I hate the terms bribery and the racist word blackmail.
I prefer the term incentive based decision making.
- Sir Humphrey: "Blackmail."
- President Col. Selim Mohammed/Charles Umtali: "Are you describing me or my proposal?"
-Jim Hacker: "Your proposal obviously. [Sir Humphrey and Jim laugh, then panic] No, no, not even your proposal."
So she supports a man who tried to inflame tensions during the riots and whose turned twitter into even more of a cesspit .
She supports a succesful African-American entrepreneur who has created businesses and jobs in the US and overseas and may well get a person onto Mars.
And, hopefully, bring them back again. That's too often forgotten in the hyping of his dreams.
Kennedy said: "this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth". Without that last clause, NASA would have had a much easier job...
Mars to Stay is a thing. Aldrin backed it - though I'm not sure I'd want to risk the people back home getting bored and just giving up on me.
You'd want a plan to quickly get as close to self-sufficiency as possible, and then ideally something relatively light that was valuable enough to send back in trade. Perhaps Martian gemstones?
That's the 'collect underpants' question for Martian habitation. Why is it worth the vast cost and risk? Lunar habitation makes much more sense than Martian IMO.
(Habitation is different from exploration, which I can thoroughly see a reason for.)
I'm very convinced by the argument that it's easier to live on Mars than on the Moon. And it's not that much harder to get to Mars than the Moon in terms of the delta-v required.
And, ultimately, it's possible to imagine an entirely self-sustaining settlement on Mars, which would be much harder, if not impossible, to achieve on the Moon.
I'm unconvinced that it's easier to live on Mars than the Moon. TBF, we have very little clue about either.
The Moon has several advantages. It is near, only a few days travel away, instead of many months. We know much more about it and potential resources. And transport, trade and industry will be an order, if not orders, of magnitude easier between Moon and Earth than Mars and Earth. A Lunar colony will cost much less than a Martian one for that reason alone.
I can easily imagine an entirely self-sustaining settlement on Mars or the Moon (*). Why do you think Mars is easier?
But in the very long term: why not both?
(*) Gestation and growth being a potentially massive issue for both...
So she supports a man who tried to inflame tensions during the riots and whose turned twitter into even more of a cesspit .
She supports a succesful African-American entrepreneur who has created businesses and jobs in the US and overseas and may well get a person onto Mars.
And, hopefully, bring them back again. That's too often forgotten in the hyping of his dreams.
Kennedy said: "this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth". Without that last clause, NASA would have had a much easier job...
Mars to Stay is a thing. Aldrin backed it - though I'm not sure I'd want to risk the people back home getting bored and just giving up on me.
You'd want a plan to quickly get as close to self-sufficiency as possible, and then ideally something relatively light that was valuable enough to send back in trade. Perhaps Martian gemstones?
That's the 'collect underpants' question for Martian habitation. Why is it worth the vast cost and risk? Lunar habitation makes much more sense than Martian IMO.
(Habitation is different from exploration, which I can thoroughly see a reason for.)
If you can do the Moon then you're close to being able to do Phobos/Deimos and then the Martian surface likely becomes much easier.
Given that escape velocity on Phobos is about 25 mph, that rules out playing or watching cricket - so that excludes 75%+ of PB members from staying there. Hmmm...Elon? Are you taking bookings?
Starmer needs to make sure he doesn't get pushed off track, spending time focusing on these non-stories... that no one will remember in five years.
What does matter is what he and Reeves do in the budget to get the country growing again. Early signs are mixed in my view. Worrying to see cuts in investment spending. WFA shows some signs he is prepared to be unpopular for a period.
So I plan to clear out the loft and I have so much tat to sell. Old DVD’s, Dr Who books, Magazines and the like that will go for cash.
The Virgin New Adventures still sell well as they're permanently out of print.
Tell me about it. I have So Vile a Sin, Lungbarrow and Dying Days in Mint condition too. I also have the Missing Adventures and many of the EDA's and PDA's as well as plenty of the figures.
I have the first DWW's with transfers.
I also have the Big Finish Novellas.
Just looked at EBAY. The ones I mentioned always went for good money. But it looks like the money on offer for the range as a whole is just silly.
I have a complete set of New and Missing Adventures, and a box full of signed issue 1s of Lance Parkin's spin-off comic. Early DWWs with transfers must go for a pretty pile.
Starmer needs to make sure he doesn't get pushed off track, spending time focusing on these non-stories... that no one will remember in five years.
What does matter is what he and Reeves do in the budget to get the country growing again. Early signs are mixed in my view. Worrying to see cuts in investment spending. WFA shows some signs he is prepared to be unpopular for a period.
In a WhatsApp group I am in with political saddos somebody pointed Bernie Ecclestone wasn’t mentioned in the 2001 election.
”If you’re putting to me Beth that I should have stayed at my home & disrupted my son’s GCSEs & that was the right thing to do, then I think you should put that to me”
That was my second understanding, the first being that this property was effectively well equipped and located offices for the campaign. Then I understood that he had moved out so the media would leave his family alone. Then there was a confusing bit when it seemed to be suggested that his son had moved out to get peace. Then maybe both of them. And now back to plan B.
Well, that's clear anyway.
Has Starmer perhaps been using the flat as his own for months and only declared the period around the election to avoid any difficult questions around campaign spending?
Who knows? The British public certainly don't and Starmer is keen to keep it that way.
Campaign spending limits were almost doubled for July's election, so they should be OK.
Keir Starmer’s top No10 business adviser Varun Chandra retains multi-million pound stakes in his former company, whose clients aren’t public
He’s agreed to sell a stake in Hakluyt, valued at £7.2m in 2023, back to the firm at a set price over an undisclosed period of time
But he still has a stake in its investment arm, Hakluyt Capital, where finding a buyer quickly is proving difficult
Hakluyt says it represents many of the biggest companies and private equity firms in the world. Its client list is secret
Chandra, a senior No10 Spad who is the gatekeeper between the PM and business, will know who they are. He will inevitably deal with Hakluyt client interests in his No10 job
The arrangement had to be signed off by Sue Gray, according to the Spad code of conduct
Alex Wickham@alexwickham · 12m Last year Bloomberg revealed Labour was working with Hakluyt to help its business engagement. So Hakluyt had an opportunity to introduce its clients and push its clients’ interests to Starmer. Then Starmer made Hakluyt’s boss a senior Spad in No10. And he retains a stake…
Alex Wickham@alexwickham · 10m You guessed it… Sue Gray’s supposed choice (Olly Robbins) to replace Simon Case as cabinet secretary currently runs European operations at… Hakluyt
Whoops. That kinda stinks.
The next issue (or 20) of Private Eye is going to be well worth reading!
I'm waiting for the Good Law Project and Led By Donkeys to get onto this too.
The Tories really do need to think about how they managed to lose to this mob. How they managed to be even worse, and make them look superficially attractive to many.
14 years in government. We're not a one party state.
I don't recall the same sense of ineptitude about any government in the first few months of the time in office. Apart, perhaps, from Johnson's in 2019.
TBF there was Fizzy Lizzy's first 1.5 months, and Rishi Sunak's entire term spent on political efforts to backside cover for the Election, and any difficult decision, even the most basic stuff, being pushed out into 2025.
I'm nto sure about Gordon Brown in detail, but then we are back into the 1970s and Ted Heath etc.
...And the piece de resistance BREXIT! Perhaps the most egregious costly and foolhardy of the lot! In fact looking back to the Johnson fiascos- not including Lulu Little -which I had no problem with onto his disastrous implementation of Brexit Owen Patterson Barnard Castle losing his Remain MPs it was surely the worst governance we've ever seen.
Then Liz Truss (enough said) and then Rishi who employed Suella Braverman as HS (again enough said)
I would say Sir Keir who stopped the most disgusting racist riots in my lifetime- overnight - and Theresa May are by a distance the best PMs we've had since Tony Blair.
So I plan to clear out the loft and I have so much tat to sell. Old DVD’s, Dr Who books, Magazines and the like that will go for cash.
The Virgin New Adventures still sell well as they're permanently out of print.
Tell me about it. I have So Vile a Sin, Lungbarrow and Dying Days in Mint condition too. I also have the Missing Adventures and many of the EDA's and PDA's as well as plenty of the figures.
I have the first DWW's with transfers.
I also have the Big Finish Novellas.
Just looked at EBAY. The ones I mentioned always went for good money. But it looks like the money on offer for the range as a whole is just silly.
I have a complete set of New and Missing Adventures, and a box full of signed issue 1s of Lance Parkin's spin-off comic. Early DWWs with transfers must go for a pretty pile.
We are an odd bunch on PB. Many years ago I collected Dr Who videos as it was the only way to watch old episodes. I sold them years later as a job lot for lots. And now I can stream basically everything.
But nothing beats that feeling of a new video of an episode I had only read about and seen photos of.
”If you’re putting to me Beth that I should have stayed at my home & disrupted my son’s GCSEs & that was the right thing to do, then I think you should put that to me”
That was my second understanding, the first being that this property was effectively well equipped and located offices for the campaign. Then I understood that he had moved out so the media would leave his family alone. Then there was a confusing bit when it seemed to be suggested that his son had moved out to get peace. Then maybe both of them. And now back to plan B.
Well, that's clear anyway.
Has Starmer perhaps been using the flat as his own for months and only declared the period around the election to avoid any difficult questions around campaign spending?
Starmer needs to make sure he doesn't get pushed off track, spending time focusing on these non-stories... that no one will remember in five years.
What does matter is what he and Reeves do in the budget to get the country growing again. Early signs are mixed in my view. Worrying to see cuts in investment spending. WFA shows some signs he is prepared to be unpopular for a period.
Echos my views.
Happy for the PB rightists to be enjoying these non-stories though. Fill yer boots, it's going to be a long 10-15 years in the wilderness - mocking the government eases the pain, take it from me.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
The key swing state, and they're (possibly) trying to avoid making a call.
Or maybe it is that close, and they all have near identical methodologies....
I have noticed that the polls in PA seem to move a lot less than the national polls, with the exception of the NYT/Siena poll that had 50-46 a week or so ago.
It's possible that the saturation of campaigning in the state means that there are fewer undecided voters than elsewhere.
Given the inherent uncertainties in US presidential polling, it just seems odd that they're all landing on the same split.
The phenomenon of poll herding has been noticed in the past….
So she supports a man who tried to inflame tensions during the riots and whose turned twitter into even more of a cesspit .
She supports a succesful African-American entrepreneur who has created businesses and jobs in the US and overseas and may well get a person onto Mars.
And, hopefully, bring them back again. That's too often forgotten in the hyping of his dreams.
Kennedy said: "this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth". Without that last clause, NASA would have had a much easier job...
Mars to Stay is a thing. Aldrin backed it - though I'm not sure I'd want to risk the people back home getting bored and just giving up on me.
You'd want a plan to quickly get as close to self-sufficiency as possible, and then ideally something relatively light that was valuable enough to send back in trade. Perhaps Martian gemstones?
That's the 'collect underpants' question for Martian habitation. Why is it worth the vast cost and risk? Lunar habitation makes much more sense than Martian IMO.
(Habitation is different from exploration, which I can thoroughly see a reason for.)
I'm very convinced by the argument that it's easier to live on Mars than on the Moon. And it's not that much harder to get to Mars than the Moon in terms of the delta-v required.
And, ultimately, it's possible to imagine an entirely self-sustaining settlement on Mars, which would be much harder, if not impossible, to achieve on the Moon.
I'm unconvinced that it's easier to live on Mars than the Moon. TBF, we have very little clue about either.
The Moon has several advantages. It is near, only a few days travel away, instead of many months. We know much more about it and potential resources. And transport, trade and industry will be an order, if not orders, of magnitude easier between Moon and Earth than Mars and Earth. A Lunar colony will cost much less than a Martian one for that reason alone.
I can easily imagine an entirely self-sustaining settlement on Mars or the Moon (*). Why do you think Mars is easier?
But in the very long term: why not both?
(*) Gestation and growth being a potentially massive issue for both...
Mars is easier because: 1. Higher surface gravity. 2. Atmosphere (albeit thin and not breathable, but still, something is better than nothing). 3. Roughly the same day length.
The transport cost is mainly a function of delta-v, which is mostly a question of escaping the Earth's gravity well. It doesn't matter much if your supplies take nine months to travel instead of three days. And for a one-way trip the travel time doesn't matter much to your colonists either.
The Moon is a distraction. We should head directly to Mars.
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
Yes, it's one of the least problematic things to have come out. Take out the MP (who doesn't seem to be someone of influence in the party) and it's a complete non-story. The MP would have been wise not to get involved - i.e. channel the money through someone else if it could not be given directly to her sister - but it's not that big a deal.
There's far more to question over gifts to the leader and cabinet ministers, where there is at least the potential for influence (or the perception of that).
Actually, no, it is a big deal
“You know I lent you £1.2m? Well I really want you to vote X next week.”
MPs simply should not be entering into agreements with the potential to compromise them. The sheer magnitude of the loan puts it firmly in that category.
MPs are real people. They are sometimes going to enter into agreements with the potential to compromise them. They cannot live like abstemious hermits. The solution is to have them declare everything, so everything can be seen.
We can all see the arrangements made between Alli, McDonagh and her sister. We can see that this was someone wealthy helping out a friend in tragic circumstances. I think it is sad that McDonagh's grief should be intruded upon by people trying to turn this into something sinister.
So she supports a man who tried to inflame tensions during the riots and whose turned twitter into even more of a cesspit .
She supports a succesful African-American entrepreneur who has created businesses and jobs in the US and overseas and may well get a person onto Mars.
And, hopefully, bring them back again. That's too often forgotten in the hyping of his dreams.
Kennedy said: "this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth". Without that last clause, NASA would have had a much easier job...
Mars to Stay is a thing. Aldrin backed it - though I'm not sure I'd want to risk the people back home getting bored and just giving up on me.
You'd want a plan to quickly get as close to self-sufficiency as possible, and then ideally something relatively light that was valuable enough to send back in trade. Perhaps Martian gemstones?
That's the 'collect underpants' question for Martian habitation. Why is it worth the vast cost and risk? Lunar habitation makes much more sense than Martian IMO.
(Habitation is different from exploration, which I can thoroughly see a reason for.)
I'm very convinced by the argument that it's easier to live on Mars than on the Moon. And it's not that much harder to get to Mars than the Moon in terms of the delta-v required.
And, ultimately, it's possible to imagine an entirely self-sustaining settlement on Mars, which would be much harder, if not impossible, to achieve on the Moon.
I'm unconvinced that it's easier to live on Mars than the Moon. TBF, we have very little clue about either.
The Moon has several advantages. It is near, only a few days travel away, instead of many months. We know much more about it and potential resources. And transport, trade and industry will be an order, if not orders, of magnitude easier between Moon and Earth than Mars and Earth. A Lunar colony will cost much less than a Martian one for that reason alone.
I can easily imagine an entirely self-sustaining settlement on Mars or the Moon (*). Why do you think Mars is easier?
But in the very long term: why not both?
(*) Gestation and growth being a potentially massive issue for both...
Mars is easier because: 1. Higher surface gravity. 2. Atmosphere (albeit thin and not breathable, but still, something is better than nothing). 3. Roughly the same day length.
The transport cost is mainly a function of delta-v, which is mostly a question of escaping the Earth's gravity well. It doesn't matter much if your supplies take nine months to travel instead of three days. And for a one-way trip the travel time doesn't matter much to your colonists either.
The Moon is a distraction. We should head directly to Mars.
You can backfill the Moon later.
1) 1/3 rather than 1/6. It probably will not make a vast difference. 2) 1% of Earths is negligible for practical purposes, though useful for aerobraking. 3) Yep, that's a fair point. Lunar days and nights are uncomfortably long.
You could also add: 4) Temperature variations much less on Mars.
But you can get to and from the Moon in days, pretty much monthly. Mars takes months; six months usually, once every two years. If you are doing any trade, of there's any interdependence, than that's a massive advantage for the Moon.
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
It's an interest free £1.2M loan on property. The loan will be paid back on gaining probate and sale of property (that the MP has also been living in). What about the value of the property, has that changed, who will benefit? Assuming this Labour MP is the beneficiary of the estate of her sister, she has saved a lot of money that her sister would normally have had to have paid, that has instead been paid of the loan.
Understand that it is a friend helping out, but surely the Labour MP has potentially gained massively from this, in numerous ways.
You’re assuming a lot.
If Lord Alli is a friend of the dying sister, why did the loan and purchase of the property (at unknown value) go to the MP? What tax reasons would it be beneficial to do this way, instead of to someone who is seriously ill? The MP now has the property, that was bought for the sister, but not by the sister, who will benefit most financially from all of this? Can you tell me that the MP will not saving significantly from this arrangement.
Read her declaration before you comment further.
I have read it. Lord Alli lends £1.2M interest free to MP to buy a house. The money will be repaid when the sale of the 'other' house they (her and her sister) own is sold.
All very nice and sympathetic. However, can you not see how the MP has and is going to benefit financially from this, massively.
The Tories really do need to think about how they managed to lose to this mob. How they managed to be even worse, and make them look superficially attractive to many.
14 years in government. We're not a one party state.
I don't recall the same sense of ineptitude about any government in the first few months of the time in office. Apart, perhaps, from Johnson's in 2019.
TBF there was Fizzy Lizzy's first 1.5 months, and Rishi Sunak's entire term spent on political efforts to backside cover for the Election, and any difficult decision, even the most basic stuff, being pushed out into 2025.
I'm nto sure about Gordon Brown in detail, but then we are back into the 1970s and Ted Heath etc.
...And the piece de resistance BREXIT! Perhaps the most egregious costly and foolhardy of the lot! In fact looking back to the Johnson fiascos- not including Lulu Little -which I had no problem with onto his disastrous implementation of Brexit Owen Patterson Barnard Castle losing his Remain MPs it was surely the worst governance we've ever seen.
Then Liz Truss (enough said) and then Rishi who employed Suella Braverman as HS (again enough said)
I would say Sir Keir who stopped the most disgusting racist riots in my lifetime- overnight - and Theresa May are by a distance the best PMs we've had since Tony Blair.
For once I very much agree with you: Starmer is every bit as impressive a PM as Theresa May was.
FWIW I think that there are some underlying trends in the US and elsewhere that are helping Trump in this election.
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
This evening’s local accuweather forecast: Heavy rain and strong winds from hurricane; life-threatening flooding, mudslides, debris flows and power outages. Rainfall over next 24 hrs could reach 18 inches.
Unfortunately for Downing Street, exactly 37 minutes after their line was published Guido went to pixel with evidence that Starmer paid tribute to the Queen on the day of her death from the very same ‘one-off’ penthouse. Gone were the family photos – replaced with some dark urns and books including an Obama biography…
This is going to become untenable for Keir Starmer. The revelations about Lord Alli’s apartment have only just started…
Cavaet emptor....recent record on scalps is very poor, and he was giving the big 'un during the GE about a scandal that was nothing.
It's what you do. It's called FILM MAKING. You don't let a film crew into your house unless you are demented. Houses are not designed to shoot in so you recreate them. I really cant believe the morons they're letting onto this site anymore.. I know Livermore hasn't got a brain but I thought you would be more clued up.
Huh, are you having a problem reading. My comment is buyer beware, have heard it all before, not convinced at all. However, this is a political betting website, its sort of relevant that somebody is claiming they have big dirt coming.
Then why repeat such an absurd story? You wouldn't shoot anything in someones house. You either use a studio with a set designer with a brief 'recreate Starmer's home' or you get a location finder to find somewhere that would be suitable.In other words you build the set on location.
Typically it would be several times the size of someone's house to acomodate a crew of abut 12 and equipment that would take up more space than the crew.
You expect this ignorance from Guido and his super-dim readers but not on PB.
You protest too much
I picture you sitting in front of your TV watching Sky when The Nespresso ad comes on 'Look Olwyn! Have you ever seen such a fantastic house as George Clooney's?"
Unfortunately for Downing Street, exactly 37 minutes after their line was published Guido went to pixel with evidence that Starmer paid tribute to the Queen on the day of her death from the very same ‘one-off’ penthouse. Gone were the family photos – replaced with some dark urns and books including an Obama biography…
This is going to become untenable for Keir Starmer. The revelations about Lord Alli’s apartment have only just started…
Cavaet emptor....recent record on scalps is very poor, and he was giving the big 'un during the GE about a scandal that was nothing.
It's what you do. It's called FILM MAKING. You don't let a film crew into your house unless you are demented. Houses are not designed to shoot in so you recreate them. I really cant believe the morons they're letting onto this site anymore.. I know Livermore hasn't got a brain but I thought you would be more clued up.
Huh, are you having a problem reading. My comment is buyer beware, have heard it all before, not convinced at all. However, this is a political betting website, its sort of relevant that somebody is claiming they have big dirt coming.
Then why repeat such an absurd story? You wouldn't shoot anything in someones house. You either use a studio with a set designer with a brief 'recreate Starmer's home' or you get a location finder to find somewhere that would be suitable.In other words you build the set on location.
Typically it would be several times the size of someone's house to acomodate a crew of abut 12 and equipment that would take up more space than the crew.
You expect this ignorance from Guido and his super-dim readers but not on PB.
You protest too much
I picture you sitting in front of your TV watching Sky when The Nespresso ad comes on 'Look Olwyn! Have you ever seen such a fantastic house as George Clooney's?"
Well you would be wrong
Neither my wife or I have any time for celebrities whatsoever or the soulless homes they live in
So she supports a man who tried to inflame tensions during the riots and whose turned twitter into even more of a cesspit .
She supports a succesful African-American entrepreneur who has created businesses and jobs in the US and overseas and may well get a person onto Mars.
And, hopefully, bring them back again. That's too often forgotten in the hyping of his dreams.
Kennedy said: "this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth". Without that last clause, NASA would have had a much easier job...
Mars to Stay is a thing. Aldrin backed it - though I'm not sure I'd want to risk the people back home getting bored and just giving up on me.
You'd want a plan to quickly get as close to self-sufficiency as possible, and then ideally something relatively light that was valuable enough to send back in trade. Perhaps Martian gemstones?
That's the 'collect underpants' question for Martian habitation. Why is it worth the vast cost and risk? Lunar habitation makes much more sense than Martian IMO.
(Habitation is different from exploration, which I can thoroughly see a reason for.)
I'm very convinced by the argument that it's easier to live on Mars than on the Moon. And it's not that much harder to get to Mars than the Moon in terms of the delta-v required.
And, ultimately, it's possible to imagine an entirely self-sustaining settlement on Mars, which would be much harder, if not impossible, to achieve on the Moon.
I'm unconvinced that it's easier to live on Mars than the Moon. TBF, we have very little clue about either.
The Moon has several advantages. It is near, only a few days travel away, instead of many months. We know much more about it and potential resources. And transport, trade and industry will be an order, if not orders, of magnitude easier between Moon and Earth than Mars and Earth. A Lunar colony will cost much less than a Martian one for that reason alone.
I can easily imagine an entirely self-sustaining settlement on Mars or the Moon (*). Why do you think Mars is easier?
But in the very long term: why not both?
(*) Gestation and growth being a potentially massive issue for both...
Mars is easier because: 1. Higher surface gravity. 2. Atmosphere (albeit thin and not breathable, but still, something is better than nothing). 3. Roughly the same day length.
The transport cost is mainly a function of delta-v, which is mostly a question of escaping the Earth's gravity well. It doesn't matter much if your supplies take nine months to travel instead of three days. And for a one-way trip the travel time doesn't matter much to your colonists either.
The Moon is a distraction. We should head directly to Mars.
You can backfill the Moon later.
But we only have until 1999 for it to be ready to take off.
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
It's an interest free £1.2M loan on property. The loan will be paid back on gaining probate and sale of property (that the MP has also been living in). What about the value of the property, has that changed, who will benefit? Assuming this Labour MP is the beneficiary of the estate of her sister, she has saved a lot of money that her sister would normally have had to have paid, that has instead been paid of the loan.
Understand that it is a friend helping out, but surely the Labour MP has potentially gained massively from this, in numerous ways.
You’re assuming a lot.
If Lord Alli is a friend of the dying sister, why did the loan and purchase of the property (at unknown value) go to the MP? What tax reasons would it be beneficial to do this way, instead of to someone who is seriously ill? The MP now has the property, that was bought for the sister, but not by the sister, who will benefit most financially from all of this? Can you tell me that the MP will not saving significantly from this arrangement.
Read her declaration before you comment further.
I have read it. Lord Alli lends £1.2M interest free to MP to buy a house. The money will be repaid when the sale of the 'other' house they (her and her sister) own is sold.
All very nice and sympathetic. However, can you not see how the MP has and is going to benefit financially from this, massively.
Matter for the Metropolitan Police I believe.
There's a flaw in that somewhere. Can't quite put my finger on it.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
But it is a politician - and indeed, a politician gifting a substantial amount to another politician's relative.
Now, on the one hand, this is all being made public, and as such the public can judge the appropriateness of what's gone on - which is as it should be. However, Lord Alli does look to have financial dealings with a lot of senior Labour figures, which is getting to the point (if not already beyond it), where it looks as if he's been seeking to buy a network and exercise influence without ever needing to make explicit his patronage (and, implicitly, the potential future loss of it). Even if it's all innocent and he is simply helping out friends and colleagues, the impression of buying influence - bolstered by the reality of the No 10 pass - is unmistakable.
I think calls to ban all gifts and donations, including in kind, to politicians go much too far. We need MPs to be normal people and to be able to do the sorts of things normal people do. For example, if a friend offers to put up all invitees to his birthday bash for free, then the MP shouldn't be the only one to have to pay for themselves - but they should have to declare that hospitality and opt out of decisions that might be influenced by the freebie. Indeed, the pressing need for reform is to deal with conflicts of interest more effectively, including banning MPs and peers from voting or taking decisions where the interest is close enough (as councillors are so banned).
The problem that Labour has is that an MP should not be receiving hospitality in ways that employees are barred from following the Bribery Act 2010 (which MPs seem to be exempt from).
There doesn’t seem to be anything in the act that suggests MPs are exempt?
I hate the terms bribery and the racist word blackmail.
I prefer the term incentive based decision making.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
This actually makes me feel more positive about Jenrick. From the Spectator:
For Theresa May, it was running through fields of wheat; what’s the naughtiest thing you’ve ever done?
CLEVERLY: It’s all on a [BBC] interview I did with John Pienaar in 2015. [Cleverly told Pienaar he had smoked cannabis at university and watched online porn.]
JENRICK: I was actually quite naughty as a child and teenager. So a lot of the things I did probably should not enter the public domain. I’ll give you one, which, I’m afraid, is by no means the naughtiest thing I did. After a few too many drinks, as a teenager, I did accept a bet to climb the Christmas tree in Wolverhampton’s city centre. That did not end well.
BADENOCH: I don’t care to say. It definitely is not running through fields of wheat, but I’m not going to tell you the naughtiest thing I’ve ever done.
TUGENDHAT: I invaded a country once which was a few years ago, 2003; I was part of the invading army in Iraq.
This evening’s local accuweather forecast: Heavy rain and strong winds from hurricane; life-threatening flooding, mudslides, debris flows and power outages. Rainfall over next 24 hrs could reach 18 inches.
This actually makes me feel more positive about Jenrick. From the Spectator:
For Theresa May, it was running through fields of wheat; what’s the naughtiest thing you’ve ever done?
CLEVERLY: It’s all on a [BBC] interview I did with John Pienaar in 2015. [Cleverly told Pienaar he had smoked cannabis at university and watched online porn.]
JENRICK: I was actually quite naughty as a child and teenager. So a lot of the things I did probably should not enter the public domain. I’ll give you one, which, I’m afraid, is by no means the naughtiest thing I did. After a few too many drinks, as a teenager, I did accept a bet to climb the Christmas tree in Wolverhampton’s city centre. That did not end well.
BADENOCH: I don’t care to say. It definitely is not running through fields of wheat, but I’m not going to tell you the naughtiest thing I’ve ever done.
TUGENDHAT: I invaded a country once which was a few years ago, 2003; I was part of the invading army in Iraq.
This actually makes me feel more positive about Jenrick. From the Spectator:
For Theresa May, it was running through fields of wheat; what’s the naughtiest thing you’ve ever done?
CLEVERLY: It’s all on a [BBC] interview I did with John Pienaar in 2015. [Cleverly told Pienaar he had smoked cannabis at university and watched online porn.]
JENRICK: I was actually quite naughty as a child and teenager. So a lot of the things I did probably should not enter the public domain. I’ll give you one, which, I’m afraid, is by no means the naughtiest thing I did. After a few too many drinks, as a teenager, I did accept a bet to climb the Christmas tree in Wolverhampton’s city centre. That did not end well.
BADENOCH: I don’t care to say. It definitely is not running through fields of wheat, but I’m not going to tell you the naughtiest thing I’ve ever done.
TUGENDHAT: I invaded a country once which was a few years ago, 2003; I was part of the invading army in Iraq.
This evening’s local accuweather forecast: Heavy rain and strong winds from hurricane; life-threatening flooding, mudslides, debris flows and power outages. Rainfall over next 24 hrs could reach 18 inches.
I hadn’t realised you’d returned home.
Why the fuck do people live in Florida? Too hot in summer, unspeakable storms in winter
This actually makes me feel more positive about Jenrick. From the Spectator:
For Theresa May, it was running through fields of wheat; what’s the naughtiest thing you’ve ever done?
CLEVERLY: It’s all on a [BBC] interview I did with John Pienaar in 2015. [Cleverly told Pienaar he had smoked cannabis at university and watched online porn.]
JENRICK: I was actually quite naughty as a child and teenager. So a lot of the things I did probably should not enter the public domain. I’ll give you one, which, I’m afraid, is by no means the naughtiest thing I did. After a few too many drinks, as a teenager, I did accept a bet to climb the Christmas tree in Wolverhampton’s city centre. That did not end well.
BADENOCH: I don’t care to say. It definitely is not running through fields of wheat, but I’m not going to tell you the naughtiest thing I’ve ever done.
TUGENDHAT: I invaded a country once which was a few years ago, 2003; I was part of the invading army in Iraq.
I agree. Pranks and high jinks are the good kind of naughtiness. Not enough of that sort of thing these days, or at least it seems not.
You're a school teacher: do pupils still engage in pranks and dares, or is their naughtiness just expressed as sullen backchat and ignoring the teacher?
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
Yes, it's one of the least problematic things to have come out. Take out the MP (who doesn't seem to be someone of influence in the party) and it's a complete non-story. The MP would have been wise not to get involved - i.e. channel the money through someone else if it could not be given directly to her sister - but it's not that big a deal.
There's far more to question over gifts to the leader and cabinet ministers, where there is at least the potential for influence (or the perception of that).
Actually, no, it is a big deal
“You know I lent you £1.2m? Well I really want you to vote X next week.”
MPs simply should not be entering into agreements with the potential to compromise them. The sheer magnitude of the loan puts it firmly in that category.
MPs are real people. They are sometimes going to enter into agreements with the potential to compromise them. They cannot live like abstemious hermits. The solution is to have them declare everything, so everything can be seen.
We can all see the arrangements made between Alli, McDonagh and her sister. We can see that this was someone wealthy helping out a friend in tragic circumstances. I think it is sad that McDonagh's grief should be intruded upon by people trying to turn this into something sinister.
There is a gap between “hermits” and a £1.2m loan.
The position of MP is one of huge responsibility. And with that comes consequences.
One of those consequences is that you don’t get to do everything you might like to.
This actually makes me feel more positive about Jenrick. From the Spectator:
For Theresa May, it was running through fields of wheat; what’s the naughtiest thing you’ve ever done?
CLEVERLY: It’s all on a [BBC] interview I did with John Pienaar in 2015. [Cleverly told Pienaar he had smoked cannabis at university and watched online porn.]
JENRICK: I was actually quite naughty as a child and teenager. So a lot of the things I did probably should not enter the public domain. I’ll give you one, which, I’m afraid, is by no means the naughtiest thing I did. After a few too many drinks, as a teenager, I did accept a bet to climb the Christmas tree in Wolverhampton’s city centre. That did not end well.
BADENOCH: I don’t care to say. It definitely is not running through fields of wheat, but I’m not going to tell you the naughtiest thing I’ve ever done.
TUGENDHAT: I invaded a country once which was a few years ago, 2003; I was part of the invading army in Iraq.
This evening’s local accuweather forecast: Heavy rain and strong winds from hurricane; life-threatening flooding, mudslides, debris flows and power outages. Rainfall over next 24 hrs could reach 18 inches.
I hadn’t realised you’d returned home.
Why the fuck do people live in Florida? Too hot in summer, unspeakable storms in winter
And Trump as a neighbour.
I did once visit Miami beach for a work do, the only time I've ever set foot in the state, and that was quite fun. The Fontainebleau hotel or "fountain blue" as they call it.
This actually makes me feel more positive about Jenrick. From the Spectator:
For Theresa May, it was running through fields of wheat; what’s the naughtiest thing you’ve ever done?
CLEVERLY: It’s all on a [BBC] interview I did with John Pienaar in 2015. [Cleverly told Pienaar he had smoked cannabis at university and watched online porn.]
JENRICK: I was actually quite naughty as a child and teenager. So a lot of the things I did probably should not enter the public domain. I’ll give you one, which, I’m afraid, is by no means the naughtiest thing I did. After a few too many drinks, as a teenager, I did accept a bet to climb the Christmas tree in Wolverhampton’s city centre. That did not end well.
BADENOCH: I don’t care to say. It definitely is not running through fields of wheat, but I’m not going to tell you the naughtiest thing I’ve ever done.
TUGENDHAT: I invaded a country once which was a few years ago, 2003; I was part of the invading army in Iraq.
True, it's an elegant answer. But Jenrick's is human, whereas Badenoch's shows that she doesn't really get how hard it is for opposition politicians to get attention. You have to say something.
FWIW I think that there are some underlying trends in the US and elsewhere that are helping Trump in this election.
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
Take a look at Harris' latest MSNBC interview. Even MSNBC is saying she dodged the questions.
She is a fundamentally poor candidate.
Agree re the trends helping Trump. Look at the Gallup polling on which party is best trusted to sort voters' priorities.
This actually makes me feel more positive about Jenrick. From the Spectator:
For Theresa May, it was running through fields of wheat; what’s the naughtiest thing you’ve ever done?
CLEVERLY: It’s all on a [BBC] interview I did with John Pienaar in 2015. [Cleverly told Pienaar he had smoked cannabis at university and watched online porn.]
JENRICK: I was actually quite naughty as a child and teenager. So a lot of the things I did probably should not enter the public domain. I’ll give you one, which, I’m afraid, is by no means the naughtiest thing I did. After a few too many drinks, as a teenager, I did accept a bet to climb the Christmas tree in Wolverhampton’s city centre. That did not end well.
BADENOCH: I don’t care to say. It definitely is not running through fields of wheat, but I’m not going to tell you the naughtiest thing I’ve ever done.
TUGENDHAT: I invaded a country once which was a few years ago, 2003; I was part of the invading army in Iraq.
Labour are struggling for a number of reasons, most of which were predictable. They have inherited the pilot’s seat of a plane on fire and pointing downwards. Any incoming administration would be struggling with the controls.
It didn’t help that they came in unsure of where they want to land.
Plus the absence of any spending plans for next year (a wildly irresponsible bit of politics from the Tories) was always going to slow things down while the Treasury ran a spending review. Anything that requires money is on hold until that is resolved, leaving Labour’s conference this week feeling policy-lite.
Of course, Labour made this harder for themselves by refusing to acknowledge fiscal reality during the campaign. Though Rachel Reeves is now strongly hinting that she will amend the fiscal rules to at least allow for more infrastructure spending.
On top of these predictable problems they are making life harder for themselves due to No. 10 being even more of a shambles than usual. This is where I thought they would be better placed given that Starmer and Gray, unusually for an incoming PM and Chief of Staff, have experience of the centre of the government.
There is time to sort all this out. Narratives always contains the seeds of their own reversal, and none has ever lasted for an entire Parliament. By April departments will know their three-year spending plans, and we will have a stream of more substantive policy announcements. None of this will matter if, in four years’ time, people feel better off and that public services are improving. (Equally if they don’t feel that then no amount of great speeches or “vision” will make any difference).
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
Yes, it's one of the least problematic things to have come out. Take out the MP (who doesn't seem to be someone of influence in the party) and it's a complete non-story. The MP would have been wise not to get involved - i.e. channel the money through someone else if it could not be given directly to her sister - but it's not that big a deal.
There's far more to question over gifts to the leader and cabinet ministers, where there is at least the potential for influence (or the perception of that).
Actually, no, it is a big deal
“You know I lent you £1.2m? Well I really want you to vote X next week.”
MPs simply should not be entering into agreements with the potential to compromise them. The sheer magnitude of the loan puts it firmly in that category.
MPs are real people. They are sometimes going to enter into agreements with the potential to compromise them. They cannot live like abstemious hermits. The solution is to have them declare everything, so everything can be seen.
We can all see the arrangements made between Alli, McDonagh and her sister. We can see that this was someone wealthy helping out a friend in tragic circumstances. I think it is sad that McDonagh's grief should be intruded upon by people trying to turn this into something sinister.
There is a gap between “hermits” and a £1.2m loan.
The position of MP is one of huge responsibility. And with that comes consequences.
One of those consequences is that you don’t get to do everything you might like to.
I don't think having her sister die of brain cancer was something McDonagh liked to do.
This evening’s local accuweather forecast: Heavy rain and strong winds from hurricane; life-threatening flooding, mudslides, debris flows and power outages. Rainfall over next 24 hrs could reach 18 inches.
I assume you are referring to your current location (USA) not the Isle of White?
Still think this should have been Starmer's BoE independence equivalent.
Cleave off the Met's special responsibilities on counter-terror, diplomatic protection etc to BTP. Shake things up a bit.
British Transport Police? You're aving a larf.
Why not? It's a pan-GB outfit that avoids NI and the various controversies that would come with a police force that rests above the devolved administrations in Wales and Scotland.
This evening’s local accuweather forecast: Heavy rain and strong winds from hurricane; life-threatening flooding, mudslides, debris flows and power outages. Rainfall over next 24 hrs could reach 18 inches.
This evening’s local accuweather forecast: Heavy rain and strong winds from hurricane; life-threatening flooding, mudslides, debris flows and power outages. Rainfall over next 24 hrs could reach 18 inches.
I hadn’t realised you’d returned home.
Why the fuck do people live in Florida? Too hot in summer, unspeakable storms in winter
I’ve been to the southeast coast four times in the autumn. The first time we got wrapped up in Hurricane Sandy; the later part of the ‘trip of a lifetime’ arranged for my mother’s 80th was wrecked and ended with a night for the three of us sleeping in the hire car in JFK airport car park, with police tapping on the window to make sure we weren’t gasoline thieves. The second saw warm sunshine. My last trip, me and the dog were on the edge of a diminishing hurricane, and the demon storm that shared by own name pursued me up the coast bringing a whole week of rain. This time it looks like a quicker experience with hopefully just three wet days in total.
And, yes, until Tuesday this week it had been unspeakably hot. It’s been a warm summer in the US, and Gulf ocean temperatures are at record highs - heralding a risky hurricane season.
Today I reckon I will mostly be binge watching Slow Horses and the dog will mostly be bored.
The Tories really do need to think about how they managed to lose to this mob. How they managed to be even worse, and make them look superficially attractive to many.
14 years in government. We're not a one party state.
I don't recall the same sense of ineptitude about any government in the first few months of the time in office. Apart, perhaps, from Johnson's in 2019.
TBF there was Fizzy Lizzy's first 1.5 months, and Rishi Sunak's entire term spent on political efforts to backside cover for the Election, and any difficult decision, even the most basic stuff, being pushed out into 2025.
I'm nto sure about Gordon Brown in detail, but then we are back into the 1970s and Ted Heath etc.
. I would say Sir Keir who stopped the most disgusting racist riots in my lifetime- overnight - and Theresa May are by a distance the best PMs we've had since Tony Blair.
Come on, that's a bit January 6th precious isn't it? From what I can gather there was a few dozen marches which were peaceful enough, though I would imagine could feel a bit intimidating, and then three, maybe four even when it got out of hand, and even then it was tiny numbers. Those idiots who set fire to the bins outside a hostel, the one in sunderland high street, and maybe another hotel one.
And that was it. If you think this disorder was the worst in your life, you have probably lived the most cossetted and peaceful existence in the history of all humanity.
I never understand why people make things out more than they are. The disturbances that happened in Leeds a few days earlier were not far off as bad.
FWIW I think that there are some underlying trends in the US and elsewhere that are helping Trump in this election.
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
Take a look at Harris' latest MSNBC interview. Even MSNBC is saying she dodged the questions.
She is a fundamentally poor candidate.
Agree re the trends helping Trump. Look at the Gallup polling on which party is best trusted to sort voters' priorities.
I think she is an ok but not exceptional candidate. She may be a better President. She seems to be a competent administrator.
And the alternative is Trump so wind in her sails.
FWIW I think that there are some underlying trends in the US and elsewhere that are helping Trump in this election.
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
Take a look at Harris' latest MSNBC interview. Even MSNBC is saying she dodged the questions.
She is a fundamentally poor candidate.
Agree re the trends helping Trump. Look at the Gallup polling on which party is best trusted to sort voters' priorities.
Yes, the trend does help Trump and she is a poor candidate. She was not tested at all prior to getting the nomination. Just a coronation.
She is lucky she is up against the Trumpdozer.
I think HYUFD is correct. If she was up against Haley she'd be toast.
Unfortunately for Downing Street, exactly 37 minutes after their line was published Guido went to pixel with evidence that Starmer paid tribute to the Queen on the day of her death from the very same ‘one-off’ penthouse. Gone were the family photos – replaced with some dark urns and books including an Obama biography…
This is going to become untenable for Keir Starmer. The revelations about Lord Alli’s apartment have only just started…
Which implies Guido can have as many examples as there have been broadcasts, but also that they do not add up to very much.
There’s two things that might be of relevance to the story. One is his compliance with Covid restrictions, and the other is that the cost of his use of the apartment was properly recorded to the appropriate authorities.
From the Telegraph piece, it almost certainly did comply with the Covid rules at the time of recording, if not the time of broadcast. The use of the flat for recording speeches would be an expense or donation to the Labour Party and not Starmer personally.
You can put up a false background of course. When I am on Teams at work, I have a background with the company logo.
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
Unfortunately for Downing Street, exactly 37 minutes after their line was published Guido went to pixel with evidence that Starmer paid tribute to the Queen on the day of her death from the very same ‘one-off’ penthouse. Gone were the family photos – replaced with some dark urns and books including an Obama biography…
This is going to become untenable for Keir Starmer. The revelations about Lord Alli’s apartment have only just started…
Which implies Guido can have as many examples as there have been broadcasts, but also that they do not add up to very much.
There’s two things that might be of relevance to the story. One is his compliance with Covid restrictions, and the other is that the cost of his use of the apartment was properly recorded to the appropriate authorities.
From the Telegraph piece, it almost certainly did comply with the Covid rules at the time of recording, if not the time of broadcast. The use of the flat for recording speeches would be an expense or donation to the Labour Party and not Starmer personally.
You can put up a false background of course. When I am on Teams at work, I have a background with the company logo.
I just don,t switch on the camera
Same here. When I am WFH no one wants to see me in my undies.
FWIW I think that there are some underlying trends in the US and elsewhere that are helping Trump in this election.
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
Take a look at Harris' latest MSNBC interview. Even MSNBC is saying she dodged the questions.
She is a fundamentally poor candidate.
Agree re the trends helping Trump. Look at the Gallup polling on which party is best trusted to sort voters' priorities.
I think she is an ok but not exceptional candidate. She may be a better President. She seems to be a competent administrator.
And the alternative is Trump so wind in her sails.
She is a normal, but B- at national level, candidate
Unfortunately for Downing Street, exactly 37 minutes after their line was published Guido went to pixel with evidence that Starmer paid tribute to the Queen on the day of her death from the very same ‘one-off’ penthouse. Gone were the family photos – replaced with some dark urns and books including an Obama biography…
This is going to become untenable for Keir Starmer. The revelations about Lord Alli’s apartment have only just started…
Which implies Guido can have as many examples as there have been broadcasts, but also that they do not add up to very much.
There’s two things that might be of relevance to the story. One is his compliance with Covid restrictions, and the other is that the cost of his use of the apartment was properly recorded to the appropriate authorities.
From the Telegraph piece, it almost certainly did comply with the Covid rules at the time of recording, if not the time of broadcast. The use of the flat for recording speeches would be an expense or donation to the Labour Party and not Starmer personally.
You can put up a false background of course. When I am on Teams at work, I have a background with the company logo.
I just don,t switch on the camera
Starmer doing a televised broadcast with the camera off might not work so well though...
Comments
(Habitation is different from exploration, which I can thoroughly see a reason for.)
I do get the impression that the story is running out of steam as the excess troughing stuff, which has clearly gone on, is now being replaced with stuff that is anything but.
A proper public interest story has been replaced with clickbait.
It's possible that the saturation of campaigning in the state means that there are fewer undecided voters than elsewhere.
It refers to a traditional form of Local Ethnic Community Organised tax collection. Organised by the recognised community leaders of a minority. The minority in question being the Legally Challenged Community.
So being judgemental about it is Punching Down.
Many families struggle with probate, not least as it takes upto a year and in that time access to the estate money is restricted
Seems perfectly sensible
https://x.com/Siobhain_Mc/status/1838952867660484795
The Moon isn't really a very healthy environment for permanent habitation.
Also, long term, competition for resources. There's a big first mover advantage for the first ones to figure out full self-sufficiency on Mars.
Though that's likely a generation away at least.
The institutional bias against research into this, by NASA, is a classic example of a few key individuals blocking technology/research because of personal prejudices and beliefs.
Besides, the vibes from the gnomes in Zurich (remember them?) is that they'll be OK with borrowing to spend on tangible things (the sort that gave been cut since 2010) rather than tax cuts.
Look, I know it hurts when you don't get the government you wanted. Heck, I never even voted for Blair. And there are definitely things to criticise Starmer for.
But is this continual drip drip of negativity what you want to be known for?
Sadly, the members seem determined to have Badenoch or Jenrick.
All very nice and sympathetic. However, can you not see how the MP has and is going to benefit financially from this, massively.
Hilariously, a few years later, a recipient of a "facilitating payment" pleaded in mitigation in court that 90% went back to the person in the organization who'd approved it.
And, ultimately, it's possible to imagine an entirely self-sustaining settlement on Mars, which would be much harder, if not impossible, to achieve on the Moon.
2) He has referred to Sunak as the PM, since the election. More than once.
3) Therefore Sunak is PM
It all becomes clear. Sunak despaired of the Conservative Party, and using Lord Ali, conducted an internal takeover of the Labour Party. Which is now the vehicle for his genius.
I have trading bets on him and Tugendhat, I may not trade it all in if either makes the final two against Jenrick, as I struggle to conceive that Jenrick could be preferred even by Conservative members.
I am not hurting at all, am relieved the conservatives are out office, and am entitled to post critiques of the government mostly from Sky but try to source reports/articles from a wide number of outlets including the Guardian and non conservative supporting groups as well as Guido if it is relevant to the topic, but not inappropriate nonsense
Of course some may be upset, but as far as I am aware this is a political forum with interest in betting so I try to be responsible and hope that in some way it contributes to discussion on the topics of the day
- President Col. Selim Mohammed/Charles Umtali: "Are you describing me or my proposal?"
-Jim Hacker: "Your proposal obviously. [Sir Humphrey and Jim laugh, then panic] No, no, not even your proposal."
The Moon has several advantages. It is near, only a few days travel away, instead of many months. We know much more about it and potential resources. And transport, trade and industry will be an order, if not orders, of magnitude easier between Moon and Earth than Mars and Earth. A Lunar colony will cost much less than a Martian one for that reason alone.
I can easily imagine an entirely self-sustaining settlement on Mars or the Moon (*). Why do you think Mars is easier?
But in the very long term: why not both?
(*) Gestation and growth being a potentially massive issue for both...
Hmmm...Elon? Are you taking bookings?
What does matter is what he and Reeves do in the budget to get the country growing again. Early signs are mixed in my view. Worrying to see cuts in investment spending. WFA shows some signs he is prepared to be unpopular for a period.
Then Liz Truss (enough said) and then Rishi who employed Suella Braverman as HS (again enough said)
I would say Sir Keir who stopped the most disgusting racist riots in my lifetime- overnight - and Theresa May are by a distance the best PMs we've had since Tony Blair.
But nothing beats that feeling of a new video of an episode I had only read about and seen photos of.
Happy for the PB rightists to be enjoying these non-stories though. Fill yer boots, it's going to be a long 10-15 years in the wilderness - mocking the government eases the pain, take it from me.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and
when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Dull and underwhelming is a better fit.
The things I used to do in the name of twitching...
1. Higher surface gravity.
2. Atmosphere (albeit thin and not breathable, but still, something is better than nothing).
3. Roughly the same day length.
The transport cost is mainly a function of delta-v, which is mostly a question of escaping the Earth's gravity well. It doesn't matter much if your supplies take nine months to travel instead of three days. And for a one-way trip the travel time doesn't matter much to your colonists either.
The Moon is a distraction. We should head directly to Mars.
You can backfill the Moon later.
The "up to our necks" can be inferred.
We can all see the arrangements made between Alli, McDonagh and her sister. We can see that this was someone wealthy helping out a friend in tragic circumstances. I think it is sad that McDonagh's grief should be intruded upon by people trying to turn this into something sinister.
2) 1% of Earths is negligible for practical purposes, though useful for aerobraking.
3) Yep, that's a fair point. Lunar days and nights are uncomfortably long.
You could also add:
4) Temperature variations much less on Mars.
But you can get to and from the Moon in days, pretty much monthly. Mars takes months; six months usually, once every two years. If you are doing any trade, of there's any interdependence, than that's a massive advantage for the Moon.
To vote Starmer
Free Gear?
Vote Keir
First Tier?
Vote Keir
Vote Keir?
No Fear!
Met Police officers 'accessed Sarah Everard murder files without authorisation'
Police officers in the Met are accused of repeatedly looking at the confidential investigation files without a proper reason
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-police-officers-sarah-everard-murder-files-misconduct-b1184338.html
Cleave off the Met's special responsibilities on counter-terror, diplomatic protection etc to BTP. Shake things up a bit.
Would vote Jenrick
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
Neither my wife or I have any time for celebrities whatsoever or the soulless homes they live in
The special responsibilities need to go to a new, national level force. Complete with an independent internal affairs unit to investigate them.
That would be interesting.
For Theresa May, it was running through fields of wheat; what’s the naughtiest thing you’ve ever done?
CLEVERLY: It’s all on a [BBC] interview I did with John Pienaar in 2015. [Cleverly told Pienaar he had smoked cannabis at university and watched online porn.]
JENRICK: I was actually quite naughty as a child and teenager. So a lot of the things I did probably should not enter the public domain. I’ll give you one, which, I’m afraid, is by no means the naughtiest thing I did. After a few too many drinks, as a teenager, I did accept a bet to climb the Christmas tree in Wolverhampton’s city centre. That did not end well.
BADENOCH: I don’t care to say. It definitely is not running through fields of wheat, but I’m not going to tell you the naughtiest thing I’ve ever done.
TUGENDHAT: I invaded a country once which was a few years ago, 2003; I was part of the invading army in Iraq.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-the-tories-lost-by-the-tory-leadership-candidates/
No beer
Vote Keir
You're a school teacher: do pupils still engage in pranks and dares, or is their naughtiness just expressed as sullen backchat and ignoring the teacher?
The position of MP is one of huge responsibility. And with that comes consequences.
One of those consequences is that you don’t get to do everything you might like to.
I did once visit Miami beach for a work do, the only time I've ever set foot in the state, and that was quite fun. The Fontainebleau hotel or "fountain blue" as they call it.
She is a fundamentally poor candidate.
Agree re the trends helping Trump. Look at the Gallup polling on which party is best trusted to sort voters' priorities.
Labour are struggling for a number of reasons, most of which were predictable. They have inherited the pilot’s seat of a plane on fire and pointing downwards. Any incoming administration would be struggling with the controls.
It didn’t help that they came in unsure of where they want to land.
Plus the absence of any spending plans for next year (a wildly irresponsible bit of politics from the Tories) was always going to slow things down while the Treasury ran a spending review. Anything that requires money is on hold until that is resolved, leaving Labour’s conference this week feeling policy-lite.
Of course, Labour made this harder for themselves by refusing to acknowledge fiscal reality during the campaign. Though Rachel Reeves is now strongly hinting that she will amend the fiscal rules to at least allow for more infrastructure spending.
On top of these predictable problems they are making life harder for themselves due to No. 10 being even more of a shambles than usual. This is where I thought they would be better placed given that Starmer and Gray, unusually for an incoming PM and Chief of Staff, have experience of the centre of the government.
There is time to sort all this out. Narratives always contains the seeds of their own reversal, and none has ever lasted for an entire Parliament. By April departments will know their three-year spending plans, and we will have a stream of more substantive policy announcements. None of this will matter if, in four years’ time, people feel better off and that public services are improving. (Equally if they don’t feel that then no amount of great speeches or “vision” will make any difference).
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
And, yes, until Tuesday this week it had been unspeakably hot. It’s been a warm summer in the US, and Gulf ocean temperatures are at record highs - heralding a risky hurricane season.
Today I reckon I will mostly be binge watching Slow Horses and the dog will mostly be bored.
And that was it. If you think this disorder was the worst in your life, you have probably lived the most cossetted and peaceful existence in the history of all humanity.
I never understand why people make things out more than they are. The disturbances that happened in Leeds a few days earlier were not far off as bad.
And the alternative is Trump so wind in her sails.
She is lucky she is up against the Trumpdozer.
I think HYUFD is correct. If she was up against Haley she'd be toast.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
Trump is... well, Trump.