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.
One of the things that looks to come across from the US polling is that voters are not convinced of either candidate. That suggests they may look to counterbalance the Presidential winner with a Senate / House controlled by the opposing party.
So, if you think, Trump will be President, one way to play that result is to bet on the GOP having 51 Senators (WV + Montana, where I just cannot see Tester pulling through) because all the other races - even in states like Ohio - are likely to go to the Democrats.
If you think Harris will be President, that is probably more tricky because of the map but my best guess would be 53 (the above 2 + 2 of MI, PA or WI)
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.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
2010: Cameron and the Lib Dem coalition.
1997: aside from the mess with Ecclestone (which IMV was absolutely dodgy), they settled down fast and headed off in the direction they wanted.
Yes, in terms of the internal workings, the coalition is probably a rare - possibly the only - relatively recent example. The advantage of a deliberative process where those involved started by having to sit down and work out what they were going to do? And strengthened by the cross-party machinery that meant that everything got more fully considered and dumb ideas got knocked on the head.
Early Blair seemed decent at the time, but with hindsight the missed opportunities and failings that came back to haunt them appear in sharper resolution.
Attlee in 1945 got an impressive amount delivered in their early years, even though politically they were quickly in trouble.
My view is that any government will make mistakes only visible with hindsight, many years or decades later. Opportunities squandered; traps laid for themselves, to be sprung later. No government is anywhere near perfect.
But Starmer's is making obvious mistakes immediately, and is handling their response very poorly.
I think an interesting question is how Boris's 2019-2024 government would have done without Covid. I'm not a fan of his, and think his personal failings would have got to him eventually. But perhaps he might have done some good in that time.
Nothing good was ever going to come of that man achieving the top office, as was obvious to anyone really watching, decades in advance.
Boris handled Covid vaccines well, and probably better than Corbyn would have. He certainly handled Ukraine better than Corbyn would have.
So that's two good things that came of Boris achieving top office. Aside from that, I'm at a loss...
Brexit Got Done.
I might not be happy about it and would have preferred a different outcome and endstate, but we now have stable trading arrangements and rules which allows business to plan and invest.
So long as the Chancellor doesn’t do something stupid like raise CGT or corporation tax to income tax levels.
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.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
We should remember that early Blair was not without its ructions. Wasn't there a ministerial resignation following the cut to single parent benefits? Quite a bit of unhappiness about sticking to the Tory spending limits. And then the Ecclestone business.
It became a staple in the Observer to ask whether it was Blair's worst week yet.
The main difference is that Blair was elected with 43.2% of the vote and Starmer only 33.7%. Blair had a lot more political credit to work with.
Blair thought he was going to have to resign after Ecclestone.
Did he? Iraq was about a billion Ecclestones and he didn't resign for that!
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.
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.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
2010: Cameron and the Lib Dem coalition.
1997: aside from the mess with Ecclestone (which IMV was absolutely dodgy), they settled down fast and headed off in the direction they wanted.
Yes, in terms of the internal workings, the coalition is probably a rare - possibly the only - relatively recent example. The advantage of a deliberative process where those involved started by having to sit down and work out what they were going to do? And strengthened by the cross-party machinery that meant that everything got more fully considered and dumb ideas got knocked on the head.
Early Blair seemed decent at the time, but with hindsight the missed opportunities and failings that came back to haunt them appear in sharper resolution.
Attlee in 1945 got an impressive amount delivered in their early years, even though politically they were quickly in trouble.
My view is that any government will make mistakes only visible with hindsight, many years or decades later. Opportunities squandered; traps laid for themselves, to be sprung later. No government is anywhere near perfect.
But Starmer's is making obvious mistakes immediately, and is handling their response very poorly.
I think an interesting question is how Boris's 2019-2024 government would have done without Covid. I'm not a fan of his, and think his personal failings would have got to him eventually. But perhaps he might have done some good in that time.
Nothing good was ever going to come of that man achieving the top office, as was obvious to anyone really watching, decades in advance.
Boris handled Covid vaccines well, and probably better than Corbyn would have. He certainly handled Ukraine better than Corbyn would have.
So that's two good things that came of Boris achieving top office. Aside from that, I'm at a loss...
Brexit Got Done.
I might not be happy about it and would have preferreda different outcome and endstate, but we now have stable trading arrangements and rules which allows business to plan and invest.
Whatever you think of him, the direction the country is following now owes more to him than to any of his successors.
Not sure about that. Johnson wanted to increase taxes to spend money. Had he lasted to 2024 the NHS and Social Care Levy would be embedded in the tax system, and public spending would be higher.
There's been a marked change in course since he went.
Britain hasn't had a settled economic and political strategy since Cameron left. Nothing has lasted more than a couple of years.
Ideally that will now be different, *and* the strategy followed will do more good than harm.
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.
How do you raise taxes without discouraging whatever you're taxing? Tax high earners - high earners move abroad. Tax income - people work less. Tax companies - companies go elsewhere or do less. Tax consumption - consumption reduces. And so on. And as a result you collect less tax. We could change our economic model of course so we are more dependent on producing stuff, which tends to be less mobile. But that's very hard to do.
So hard to do that Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden etc. manage it.
See my other post for specific ideas.
Too many in this country are trapped in a narrow-thought box that says we must either borrow more or cut spending. There's an obvious and relatively simple answer.
Those countries you mention tend to show the opposite of what you're arguing.
All of them have better energy, housing and infrastructure policies we do, and none of them are rich because of their large welfare states, but in spite of them. And none of them is the socialist paradise that the left think they are.
Norway is totally exceptional because of its gigantic oil and gas revenues. Sweden taxes income very heavily but doesn't levy an inheritance tax, so obviously keeps old money wealth very effectively while the skilled middle class and many aspiring entreprenurs leave. Denmark has a very flexible labour market and no minimum wage, and it is much easier to build stuff there. It has also grown fast with Germany, which won't be so easy without Russian gas any more. Finland gives business more freedom than the UK does. Belgium and Austria have benefited hugely from cheap Russian gas and Germany's boom over the last twenty years which won't continue, and Belgium in particular is on some measures noticeably poorer than the UK in any case.
Dozens of factors determine a country's wealth besides its tax and welfare systems. If this country were getting everything right except its tax and welfare systems, it could afford to have high tax and lots of welfare and still be prosperous. But it would be prosperous IN SPITE OF those burdens not BECAUSE OF them. And as we are cocking so much else up, for a start making it close to impossible to build houses and having about the most expensive energy in the world, we can't.
Not that we have nothing to learn from Scandanavia. I'd be happy to follow Denmark in scrapping the minimum wage, Finland in freeing up our industry and commerce, Sweden in abolishing inheritance taxes, Norway in extracting all the oil and gas we can and just about everywhere in making it easier to build.
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.
Taking a £1.2m interest free loan from an individual so you don’t have to borrow money from the bank is, however, something you might like
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....
That’s totally bonkers. This has the look of Florida 2000 all over it. Let’s hope it’s not that close, and that both sides can agree on the result.
Just think how much better the aftermath of American elections would be, if they counted overnight and announced the results early the next morning. Do it the same as we do in the UK, rushing ballot boxes to counting centres, and have the USPS sweep mailboxes starting at midnight looking for last-minute PVs.
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.
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.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
What? Apologies if it wasn't clear, but I meant to imply Starmer is going nowhere! My view is Alligate is damaging, but it isn't going to shift Starmer as leader - the Labour Party just don't tend to act like that.
EDIT: Thanks for considering me sane though. And also for bracketing me with DavidL!
You want Roger's approval?
If he didn't detest me, I'd try harder
One of my heroes in Benjamin Franklin, who liked to be able to express an idea robustly to someone he disagreed with without making an enemy of the person. I disagree with Roger about most things we discuss on here but I'm sure if I met him socially I wouldn't detest him and we could find plenty to agree on.
IMV (and IM limited E) most people on PB would get on with others socially, even if they argue robustly on here.
I can only think of one absolute arse hole I could never suffer
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.
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.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
2010: Cameron and the Lib Dem coalition.
1997: aside from the mess with Ecclestone (which IMV was absolutely dodgy), they settled down fast and headed off in the direction they wanted.
Yes, in terms of the internal workings, the coalition is probably a rare - possibly the only - relatively recent example. The advantage of a deliberative process where those involved started by having to sit down and work out what they were going to do? And strengthened by the cross-party machinery that meant that everything got more fully considered and dumb ideas got knocked on the head.
Early Blair seemed decent at the time, but with hindsight the missed opportunities and failings that came back to haunt them appear in sharper resolution.
Attlee in 1945 got an impressive amount delivered in their early years, even though politically they were quickly in trouble.
My view is that any government will make mistakes only visible with hindsight, many years or decades later. Opportunities squandered; traps laid for themselves, to be sprung later. No government is anywhere near perfect.
But Starmer's is making obvious mistakes immediately, and is handling their response very poorly.
I think an interesting question is how Boris's 2019-2024 government would have done without Covid. I'm not a fan of his, and think his personal failings would have got to him eventually. But perhaps he might have done some good in that time.
Nothing good was ever going to come of that man achieving the top office, as was obvious to anyone really watching, decades in advance.
Boris handled Covid vaccines well, and probably better than Corbyn would have. He certainly handled Ukraine better than Corbyn would have.
So that's two good things that came of Boris achieving top office. Aside from that, I'm at a loss...
Brexit Got Done.
I might not be happy about it and would have preferreda different outcome and endstate, but we now have stable trading arrangements and rules which allows business to plan and invest.
Whatever you think of him, the direction the country is following now owes more to him than to any of his successors.
Comments
One of the things that looks to come across from the US polling is that voters are not convinced of either candidate. That suggests they may look to counterbalance the Presidential winner with a Senate / House controlled by the opposing party.
So, if you think, Trump will be President, one way to play that result is to bet on the GOP having 51 Senators (WV + Montana, where I just cannot see Tester pulling through) because all the other races - even in states like Ohio - are likely to go to the Democrats.
If you think Harris will be President, that is probably more tricky because of the map but my best guess would be 53 (the above 2 + 2 of MI, PA or WI)
NEW THREAD
Eight female councillors in Dacorum, Hertfordshire, have resigned the whip, accusing officials of enabling toxic behaviour towards women"
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/lib-dem-councillors-quit-en-masse-in-sexual-harassment-row-xsq80ds08
It only follows logically, therefore, that…
There's been a marked change in course since he went.
Britain hasn't had a settled economic and political strategy since Cameron left. Nothing has lasted more than a couple of years.
Ideally that will now be different, *and* the strategy followed will do more good than harm.
Shame you can only ‘like’ a post once.
https://x.com/Taniel/status/1838960580083798313
As for your "both sides" hope...
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1839057209797308785
Iraq was a catastrophic mistake, but our armed forces obeying orders hardly qualifies as "naughty", whatever your position on it.
Dura can do Iraq jokes, because they're funny - but they'd disqualify him for Tory leader (fun though that idea might be).