I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
Capital equipment producers are usually a leading indicator of changes in economic activity in the wider economy.
If Starmer has to deal with a proper full fat recession, for the first time since people got used to concepts like furlough, then I think we can conclude that his genie didn’t offer unlimited wishes after all.
It’s not as bad, yet, as in parts of Europe (see Germany). But investment decisions have stopped/slowed down massively, in the UK.
I think the locals will be fine for the Tories, but it's spot-on to say the party absolutely loves pissing contests, factionalism and votes of no confidence - rather than thinking and pulling together - so, sadly, I think this is very likely.
I hold out little hope.
The anti-European ‘bastards’ really have wrecked your party, haven’t they?
Its easier to destroy rather than create.
And for some people more fun.
Braverman, for example, seems to be someone who would enjoy stamping on other people's sandcastles.
On Friday 7 boats arrived, carrying 395 people between them. In the previous 6 days only 1 boat, with 59 people. Similar pattern in other weeks. It’s like the smugglers plan a sort of periodic regatta. Perhaps that tactic is intended to overwhelm the border force, like saturation drone strikes.
Rates this autumn continue to be comfortably below last year and way down on 2022. They’re also lower than 2021. Whereas early summer we were ahead of recent years.
Odd that the worst days tend to be Saturdays. From an admin point of view, that points to a fixable loophole. Do half the border patrols take the weekend off?
I think the locals will be fine for the Tories, but it's spot-on to say the party absolutely loves pissing contests, factionalism and votes of no confidence - rather than thinking and pulling together - so, sadly, I think this is very likely.
I hold out little hope.
The 2025 elections are the county elections from 2021 where Covid ensured the Tories did very well. It's going to be bad for the Tories as they tend Lib Dem or Reform..
Boosted by the credibility of having a LibDem MP, in many cases the first in a century, I’d hope for some impressive LibDem results in the Home Counties.
The LDs already got 17% in the 2021 local elections and are polling less than that now. Labour are polling about the NEV they got in 2021 with the Tories down on then.
I would expect the biggest gainers on votes and seats in the county council elections next year to be Reform with them already on 20% with Opinium
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
Were you previously unaware that political party donors donate to parties and politicians?
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial. Were you unaware of this previously?
The mistake was in taking those gifts.
It doesn't matter if its legal if it still looks bad.
Similarly to how most of the 2009 expenses scandal was about legal, declared and even unpaid things.
Were you unaware of the register of members interests previously? Or did you come down in the last shower?
I think the majority of the population were unaware just how much of it goes on. It's all perfectly legal and above board, but the sheer amount of freebies and money washing around is just mind boggling to most of us, even more so if you're a pensioner that's just had the WFA taken from you. MPs are elected to serve the citizens not fill their boots and as the old saying goes, there's no such thing as a free lunch. So legal or not, I'd suspect it's taken a large part of the population by surprise. I'd personally like to see it reined in.
Also the bubble that folk exist in whereby they think thousands for specs and suits and apartments is pretty minor in the scale of things. Gus O’Donnell on this am saying that £200k is a pittance for the Cabinet Secretary job is a symptom of that. One might think it and edge the idea into a discussion that the salary should be more but you don’t open your trap to all and sundry in the media about it.
Utter bollocks and he even gives the reasons for that: “I've been paid a lot more since, to do a lot less”.
It’s like being PM (though the PM should get the Can Sec’s salary). £200k is enough for you and your family to not worry about cash whilst you are in the job at public expense; and then when you leave you will massively top up.
Quite a lot of more junior civil servants are underpaid because they lack the profile to clean up afterwards, including just a rung or two down, and fixing that might nudge the Cab Sec up a bit, but no more.
Exactly, £200k is in the top 1% of earners and it is a public service role paid for by taxpayers. He only earned more than that in the private sector
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
Yes, in both cases. Fallen human nature, if nothing else.
Also, there's something cultural about the Conservative Party, institutionally, where they are secretly embarrassed to be Conservatives and feel the need to constantly show they're ok and totally middle of the road. For example, their willingness to 'accept' whatever progressivism a Labour/LD government puts in place without reversing it, despite opposing it whilst it was being proposed. For example, if they did win the next election I don't think they'd reverse VAT on private schools, or take a difference stance on the Chagos Islands, or reform any changes to the Equality Act. Nor would they reverse the WFA cut, despite opposing it vociferously now.
This is very different to the US Republicans, who never give up; the British Conservatives verbally oppose, then shrug and accept it when it happens, and say 'what can you do'. This really annoys their voters.
It's worse amongst the public school contingent. And it goes all the way back from Cameron to Heath to Macmillan to Halifax and before. What they really want is to be in public office with their brethren.
Only Thatcher and Churchill really broke the mould, and they had a lot of internal party management challenges as a result.
While it is encouraging that Conservatives are embarrassed, the reversals that you crave are hardly core Conservative ideology: removing VAT from school fees and restoring the WFA. It's hard also to see how the Chagos deal is reversed, short of a war and naval task force sent to the Indian Ocean, to secure an Anglo-American base that is protected by the transfer.
Time moves on and all governments start with what they inherit, good or bad, simply reversing the policies of the last government isn't sufficient reason to govern, hence Labour not reversing the 2 child benefit limit, despite falling fertility rates.
I would forgive Keir Starmer any number of costly spectacles if he removed the 2 child benefit limit. I suspect he may do so eventually. Sometimes the right thing and the politically advantageous thing does happen.
The advantage of the 2 child benefit limit is that it's discouraging the welfare claimants who used children as their source of money from having more children.
And believe me I can point to a lot of families around here who previously had children to avoid working...
So you're saying all actual children in poverty should suffer just to discourage a number of feckless parents?
The extra £290 UC per month for an additional child is not a massive amount of money, particular when compared with a benefit like the State Pension which is £960 per month and, unlike UC, has no means testing, earnings taper, savings conditions or the possibility of sanctions.
Removing the limit significantly benefits younger, single parents who tend to be those with kids who have the most difficulties with education, crime etc etc.
I understand why people argue against it on a fairness principle (and I don't disagree), but I think the pros massively outweigh the cons, particularly in the long term. I don't think it would materially affect fertility rates; if you're in this kind of poverty, having another child is never going to be rational. But people do.
Having a third child is entirely rational. That's the child that gets you a chance of a house with garden rather than a flat in a block, in the social housing stakes. Unless the rules have changed in the past few years.
That’s a Bad Fact.
Depends whether one is concerned about the falling birthrate. If poor families are the only ones willing to have more than two children, that's where a lot of our future workers & taxpayers will come from. Provided they get decent education, of course.
973 migrants on 17 boats crossed the channel yesterday
55 per boat, on average?
It sounds a bit simple but there must be something in registering and monitoring every boat bigger than a kayak on the French coast.
These boats are usually large RIBs, bought in by lorry, used once - abandoned on U.K. beaches, if they get that far. Very often force the U.K. coastguard/Border Force/RNLI to pick them up in mid Channel.
So you’d have to monitor RIB sales pretty much everywhere in Western Europe.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
The latter is, certainly. Unite are just whining about the WFA and needed some false equivalence to make their point. Lot of it about!
Capital equipment producers are usually a leading indicator of changes in economic activity in the wider economy.
If Starmer has to deal with a proper full fat recession, for the first time since people got used to concepts like furlough, then I think we can conclude that his genie didn’t offer unlimited wishes after all.
Germany is probably in recession already, and France is not too far behind them. German GDP is lower today than it was 18 months ago, and the Q3 data is likely not positive.
Capital equipment producers are usually a leading indicator of changes in economic activity in the wider economy.
If Starmer has to deal with a proper full fat recession, for the first time since people got used to concepts like furlough, then I think we can conclude that his genie didn’t offer unlimited wishes after all.
It’s not as bad, yet, as in parts of Europe (see Germany). But investment decisions have stopped/slowed down massively, in the UK.
Intellectually, if you set aside the impact on people, we could probably do with a recession to make up for a lot of failed business clinging on with state aid in recent years. But that’s ignoring how horrible is for those affected.
I thought Donald Trump said at the RNC he'd never talk about the assassination attempt again?
He’s just trying to milk some sympathy . The whole rally was vomit inducing especially when Ava Maria was sung . Musk looked unhinged and had the gall to accuse the Dems of trying to stop people voting .
Also, there's something cultural about the Conservative Party, institutionally, where they are secretly embarrassed to be Conservatives and feel the need to constantly show they're ok and totally middle of the road. For example, their willingness to 'accept' whatever progressivism a Labour/LD government puts in place without reversing it, despite opposing it whilst it was being proposed. For example, if they did win the next election I don't think they'd reverse VAT on private schools, or take a difference stance on the Chagos Islands, or reform any changes to the Equality Act. Nor would they reverse the WFA cut, despite opposing it vociferously now.
This is very different to the US Republicans, who never give up; the British Conservatives verbally oppose, then shrug and accept it when it happens, and say 'what can you do'. This really annoys their voters.
It's worse amongst the public school contingent. And it goes all the way back from Cameron to Heath to Macmillan to Halifax and before. What they really want is to be in public office with their brethren.
Only Thatcher and Churchill really broke the mould, and they had a lot of internal party management challenges as a result.
While it is encouraging that Conservatives are embarrassed, the reversals that you crave are hardly core Conservative ideology: removing VAT from school fees and restoring the WFA. It's hard also to see how the Chagos deal is reversed, short of a war and naval task force sent to the Indian Ocean, to secure an Anglo-American base that is protected by the transfer.
Time moves on and all governments start with what they inherit, good or bad, simply reversing the policies of the last government isn't sufficient reason to govern, hence Labour not reversing the 2 child benefit limit, despite falling fertility rates.
I would forgive Keir Starmer any number of costly spectacles if he removed the 2 child benefit limit. I suspect he may do so eventually. Sometimes the right thing and the politically advantageous thing does happen.
The advantage of the 2 child benefit limit is that it's discouraging the welfare claimants who used children as their source of money from having more children.
And believe me I can point to a lot of families around here who previously had children to avoid working...
So you're saying all actual children in poverty should suffer just to discourage a number of feckless parents?
The extra £290 UC per month for an additional child is not a massive amount of money, particular when compared with a benefit like the State Pension which is £960 per month and, unlike UC, has no means testing, earnings taper, savings conditions or the possibility of sanctions.
Removing the limit significantly benefits younger, single parents who tend to be those with kids who have the most difficulties with education, crime etc etc.
I understand why people argue against it on a fairness principle (and I don't disagree), but I think the pros massively outweigh the cons, particularly in the long term. I don't think it would materially affect fertility rates; if you're in this kind of poverty, having another child is never going to be rational. But people do.
Having a third child is entirely rational. That's the child that gets you a chance of a house with garden rather than a flat in a block, in the social housing stakes. Unless the rules have changed in the past few years.
That’s a Bad Fact.
Depends whether one is concerned about the falling birthrate. If poor families are the only ones willing to have more than two children, that's where a lot of our future workers & taxpayers will come from. Provided they get decent education, of course.
No, no
They are British born. Therefore they are genetically workshy scroungers and criminals. Unlike the Noble Square Jawed Immigrants - who will work for 50p a week 300 hours a week. And ask for more.
Capital equipment producers are usually a leading indicator of changes in economic activity in the wider economy.
If Starmer has to deal with a proper full fat recession, for the first time since people got used to concepts like furlough, then I think we can conclude that his genie didn’t offer unlimited wishes after all.
Germany is probably in recession already, and France is not too far behind them. German GDP is lower today than it was 18 months ago, and the Q3 data is likely not positive.
Also, there's something cultural about the Conservative Party, institutionally, where they are secretly embarrassed to be Conservatives and feel the need to constantly show they're ok and totally middle of the road. For example, their willingness to 'accept' whatever progressivism a Labour/LD government puts in place without reversing it, despite opposing it whilst it was being proposed. For example, if they did win the next election I don't think they'd reverse VAT on private schools, or take a difference stance on the Chagos Islands, or reform any changes to the Equality Act. Nor would they reverse the WFA cut, despite opposing it vociferously now.
This is very different to the US Republicans, who never give up; the British Conservatives verbally oppose, then shrug and accept it when it happens, and say 'what can you do'. This really annoys their voters.
It's worse amongst the public school contingent. And it goes all the way back from Cameron to Heath to Macmillan to Halifax and before. What they really want is to be in public office with their brethren.
Only Thatcher and Churchill really broke the mould, and they had a lot of internal party management challenges as a result.
While it is encouraging that Conservatives are embarrassed, the reversals that you crave are hardly core Conservative ideology: removing VAT from school fees and restoring the WFA. It's hard also to see how the Chagos deal is reversed, short of a war and naval task force sent to the Indian Ocean, to secure an Anglo-American base that is protected by the transfer.
Time moves on and all governments start with what they inherit, good or bad, simply reversing the policies of the last government isn't sufficient reason to govern, hence Labour not reversing the 2 child benefit limit, despite falling fertility rates.
Casino has things all arse about face, anyhow.
The Conservatives’ very long-running secret is precisely that, when they have lost what were always going to be losing battles, or when ideas turn out not to work as intended, they haven’t clung to past ideologies but have shape-shifted and moved on, emerging again to fight subsequent elections on new ground. Hence the party has changed with the times and avoided becoming distracted by yesterday’s battles or weighed down by an agenda past its sell-by date.
It’s the Brexit obsession that has changed all that, which they won’t give up despite all the evidence that it has been both a tactical and strategic mistake.
The next Conservative PM will be one with a more positive and constructive approach to the EU. Which is why it may be some time in coming.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
The latter is, certainly. Unite are just whining about the WFA and needed some false equivalence to make their point. Lot of it about!
“If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.” - Raylan Givens
973 migrants on 17 boats crossed the channel yesterday
55 per boat, on average?
It sounds a bit simple but there must be something in registering and monitoring every boat bigger than a kayak on the French coast.
Most of the boats themselves appear to be large inflatable dinghys, with an outboard engine, imported from China and only used once.
It really shouldn’t be too difficult to ban them from coming into the EU in the first place, they’re almost certainly not in compliance with European regulations.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
Were you previously unaware that political party donors donate to parties and politicians?
What a stupid question. Of course I was.
Now perhaps you should actually address the point that I made. Or perhaps you shouldn't - your twisting and squirming over the incompetence and grift of this Labour government is hilarious.
973 migrants on 17 boats crossed the channel yesterday
55 per boat, on average?
It sounds a bit simple but there must be something in registering and monitoring every boat bigger than a kayak on the French coast.
Most of the boats themselves appear to be large inflatable dinghys, with an outboard engine, imported from China and only used once.
It really shouldn’t be too difficult to ban them from coming into the EU in the first place, they’re almost certainly not in compliance with European regulations.
On topic, the Sunday Rawnsley, as my ship home turns toward Boston harbour:
Canvassing opinion among Tory MPs about who they intend to back, I find a remarkably large proportion of them replying “I don’t know”. And not because they are keeping their preference secret, but because they are genuinely uncertain at this late stage.
History is not repeating itself. A former cabinet minister who backed the idea of a prolonged contest groaned to me that he was beginning to regret it: “There’s no David Cameron. There’s no person everyone is pointing at and saying: ‘That’s the one!’ ”. If there’s a star among the four remaining contestants, they are keeping it well disguised.
This uncertainty about who to choose reflects confusions and contradictions in the Conservative psyche. One of the cases for taking their time before picking a new chief was to make space for a comprehensive postmortem into the worst defeat in the party’s history. Psephologists and other analysts have done some illuminating work on what inspired so many voters to loathe the Tories with such intensity. Answer: just about everything. The more serious-minded Conservative commentators recognise that the party has been in the throes of an identity crisis since the Brexit referendum eight years ago. To which I’d add, it has also suffered from an integrity crisis and a competency crisis.
Those capable of self-criticism at the conference were heavily outnumbered by those in the grip of self-delusion. Rather than confront any of the ugly truths about their party, speakers sought and secured applause by trotting out familiar Tory tropes: slash immigration, cut taxes, bring back grammar schools. No one was brave enough to tell the Tory party how it looks to the vast majority of the electorate.
Lurking in the back of the minds of many Conservative MPs who will be voting this week is the thought that they could soon be doing it all over again. Of the next leader, one shrewd Tory remarked: “If they fuck up, they’ll be out. It wouldn’t surprise me if there’s another leadership election in two years’ time.”
973 migrants on 17 boats crossed the channel yesterday
55 per boat, on average?
It sounds a bit simple but there must be something in registering and monitoring every boat bigger than a kayak on the French coast.
These boats are usually large RIBs, bought in by lorry, used once - abandoned on U.K. beaches, if they get that far. Very often force the U.K. coastguard/Border Force/RNLI to pick them up in mid Channel.
So you’d have to monitor RIB sales pretty much everywhere in Western Europe.
It would be trivially easy to stop the boats on the French beaches but would require the French to actually want to stop them. Cheap drones scanning the shoreline and a 24hr response unit. It doesn’t happen because the French would rather they went to the UK than stayed.
Of course if you were so minded, you could achieve similar just prior to the point of entry to UK territorial waters but it would require actions that some might get queasy about. I imagine by around 2040-50 this will end up happening anyway, if climate migration from the Sahel and just below is half as bad as predicted.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
Were you previously unaware that political party donors donate to parties and politicians?
What a stupid question. Of course I was.
Now perhaps you should actually address the point that I made. Or perhaps you shouldn't - your twisting and squirming over the incompetence and grift of this Labour government is hilarious.
So why didn’t you spend hours fapping on about the Register last year, or the year before that, or the year before that? Funny old world.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
The latter is, certainly. Unite are just whining about the WFA and needed some false equivalence to make their point. Lot of it about!
It doesn’t matter if it’s lawful or not. What matters is that it shows SKS’s judgement stinks.
When you accept big gifts from people, you incur obligations to them.
I think the locals will be fine for the Tories, but it's spot-on to say the party absolutely loves pissing contests, factionalism and votes of no confidence - rather than thinking and pulling together - so, sadly, I think this is very likely.
I hold out little hope.
The 2025 elections are the county elections from 2021 where Covid ensured the Tories did very well. It's going to be bad for the Tories as they tend Lib Dem or Reform..
Boosted by the credibility of having a LibDem MP, in many cases the first in a century, I’d hope for some impressive LibDem results in the Home Counties.
The LDs already got 17% in the 2021 local elections and are polling less than that now. Labour are polling about the NEV they got in 2021 with the Tories down on then.
I would expect the biggest gainers on votes and seats in the county council elections next year to be Reform with them already on 20% with Opinium
Reform will gain 50 seats, the Lib Dems will gain 200 , and all the headlines will be about Reform.
973 migrants on 17 boats crossed the channel yesterday
55 per boat, on average?
It sounds a bit simple but there must be something in registering and monitoring every boat bigger than a kayak on the French coast.
Most of the boats themselves appear to be large inflatable dinghys, with an outboard engine, imported from China and only used once.
It really shouldn’t be too difficult to ban them from coming into the EU in the first place, they’re almost certainly not in compliance with European regulations.
The boats are legal, but generally overloaded.
The regulations on boats are pretty easy to pass.
iirc I read somewhere the other day that it was Turkey that was the route in/supplier of these boats and Yvette was trying to do something about that.
Despite the increasingly desperate subsampling and frothing, Labour have a notable lead with all pollsters, a parliamentary majority of 172, and five years to a general election. All this after a bunch of over-excitable hypocrites have been chasing Lady Vic around Selfridges for weeks on end and whining about the removal of iniquitous freebies.
Sir Keir will be pretty happy. The PB Tories might be spitting, but who really cares?
People care for honesty, integrity, and end to sleaze and cronyism all of which were promised by Starmer and after just a few weeks he has proven the same as the rest and just a hypocrite
It is not this meme you use of PB Tories, but ordinary people across this land who are dismayed as Starmer's approval ratings disappears below Sunak
The election campaign was not largely about sleaze and cronyism. It was about competence.
Across four September polls, Starmer’s approval rating remains, on average, 6pp higher than Sunak’s. This is a massive narrowing of the gap since the election, but a bit of perspective is needed.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
It's actually afaics not clear whether Viggers was paid or not ... "not allowable" was written on the claim, but in a culture where expenses fiddling was on an industrial scale it's not clear that the notes were withheld.
I think there's a difference of kind between "gifts" and fiddling the system. Starmer has not stolen money from the public purse over a period of years. If Starmer is shown corruptly handing out, or attempting to hand out, benefits in return, then that is more serious and on a Jenrick level.
Sir Peter Viggers thought he was entitled to have his ducks' duck house paid for by the public, and signed a chitty saying it was a necessary expense for his work in Parliament. So it's a good job he went, anyway.
He also thought the same about £500 for 28 tones of manure, repairs to a fountain and a lot of other stuff, to a total of £30k for gardening expenses in a period of 3 years. The average salary at the time was around £22k.
Even the Conservative Party thought he was out of his tree.
Tory MP Sir Peter Viggers said today he felt "ashamed and humiliated" over his expenses claim for an island to house the ducks in his pond.
He described his decision to include the feature in his taxpayer-funded second home claims as a "ridiculous and grave error of judgment".
The ducks had never liked the feature and it was no longer being used, he added.
The veteran MP was forced to announce he was standing down at the next election after details of the claims were published this week.
Among them were £30,000 towards gardening at his home, including £500 for manure, and £1,645 on a "floating duck island" for his pond.
Also, there's something cultural about the Conservative Party, institutionally, where they are secretly embarrassed to be Conservatives and feel the need to constantly show they're ok and totally middle of the road. For example, their willingness to 'accept' whatever progressivism a Labour/LD government puts in place without reversing it, despite opposing it whilst it was being proposed. For example, if they did win the next election I don't think they'd reverse VAT on private schools, or take a difference stance on the Chagos Islands, or reform any changes to the Equality Act. Nor would they reverse the WFA cut, despite opposing it vociferously now.
This is very different to the US Republicans, who never give up; the British Conservatives verbally oppose, then shrug and accept it when it happens, and say 'what can you do'. This really annoys their voters.
It's worse amongst the public school contingent. And it goes all the way back from Cameron to Heath to Macmillan to Halifax and before. What they really want is to be in public office with their brethren.
Only Thatcher and Churchill really broke the mould, and they had a lot of internal party management challenges as a result.
While it is encouraging that Conservatives are embarrassed, the reversals that you crave are hardly core Conservative ideology: removing VAT from school fees and restoring the WFA. It's hard also to see how the Chagos deal is reversed, short of a war and naval task force sent to the Indian Ocean, to secure an Anglo-American base that is protected by the transfer.
Time moves on and all governments start with what they inherit, good or bad, simply reversing the policies of the last government isn't sufficient reason to govern, hence Labour not reversing the 2 child benefit limit, despite falling fertility rates.
I would forgive Keir Starmer any number of costly spectacles if he removed the 2 child benefit limit. I suspect he may do so eventually. Sometimes the right thing and the politically advantageous thing does happen.
The advantage of the 2 child benefit limit is that it's discouraging the welfare claimants who used children as their source of money from having more children.
And believe me I can point to a lot of families around here who previously had children to avoid working...
So you're saying all actual children in poverty should suffer just to discourage a number of feckless parents?
The extra £290 UC per month for an additional child is not a massive amount of money, particular when compared with a benefit like the State Pension which is £960 per month and, unlike UC, has no means testing, earnings taper, savings conditions or the possibility of sanctions.
Removing the limit significantly benefits younger, single parents who tend to be those with kids who have the most difficulties with education, crime etc etc.
I understand why people argue against it on a fairness principle (and I don't disagree), but I think the pros massively outweigh the cons, particularly in the long term. I don't think it would materially affect fertility rates; if you're in this kind of poverty, having another child is never going to be rational. But people do.
I agree with this and should also apologise for my shortness to @eek. The moral and effectiveness cases for removing the cap nee to be made. It's to Starmer's discredit he hasn't made the case when he is clearly aware of the iniquity of the policy. I think it could help him politically to have a policy to clearly distinguish Labour from the Conservatives when many people think they're just the same.
I would argue the fairness principle is a further argument for removing the cap. Punishing children simply for being born is really unfair.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
Were you previously unaware that political party donors donate to parties and politicians?
What a stupid question. Of course I was.
Now perhaps you should actually address the point that I made. Or perhaps you shouldn't - your twisting and squirming over the incompetence and grift of this Labour government is hilarious.
The people entitled to be most angry at these donations are Labour Party members, who might have reasonably assumed that political donations were there to pay for campaigning and not clothes. I had assumed they mostly were.
973 migrants on 17 boats crossed the channel yesterday
55 per boat, on average?
It sounds a bit simple but there must be something in registering and monitoring every boat bigger than a kayak on the French coast.
These boats are usually large RIBs, bought in by lorry, used once - abandoned on U.K. beaches, if they get that far. Very often force the U.K. coastguard/Border Force/RNLI to pick them up in mid Channel.
So you’d have to monitor RIB sales pretty much everywhere in Western Europe.
It would be trivially easy to stop the boats on the French beaches but would require the French to actually want to stop them. Cheap drones scanning the shoreline and a 24hr response unit. It doesn’t happen because the French would rather they went to the UK than stayed.
Of course if you were so minded, you could achieve similar just prior to the point of entry to UK territorial waters but it would require actions that some might get queasy about. I imagine by around 2040-50 this will end up happening anyway, if climate migration from the Sahel and just below is half as bad as predicted.
Dead simple. Hire the Libyan Coastguard. The migrants will strangely vanish, in middle channel
We could even demand half the money they will make off the slave labour of those they capture.
The Libyans can base out of Bristol - tradition and all that. Could I have a nice statue overlooking the harbour?
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
973 migrants on 17 boats crossed the channel yesterday
55 per boat, on average?
It sounds a bit simple but there must be something in registering and monitoring every boat bigger than a kayak on the French coast.
These boats are usually large RIBs, bought in by lorry, used once - abandoned on U.K. beaches, if they get that far. Very often force the U.K. coastguard/Border Force/RNLI to pick them up in mid Channel.
So you’d have to monitor RIB sales pretty much everywhere in Western Europe.
It would be trivially easy to stop the boats on the French beaches but would require the French to actually want to stop them. Cheap drones scanning the shoreline and a 24hr response unit. It doesn’t happen because the French would rather they went to the UK than stayed.
Of course if you were so minded, you could achieve similar just prior to the point of entry to UK territorial waters but it would require actions that some might get queasy about. I imagine by around 2040-50 this will end up happening anyway, if climate migration from the Sahel and just below is half as bad as predicted.
As I mentioned upthread the numbers of boat crossings prevented is generally higher than those succeeding, so evidently the French police are actively stopping a lot on the coast (given the UK doesn’t do pushbacks as there are no international waters).
There’s no evidence other than folkloric supposition that French border control are deliberately trying to let migrants cross the channel.
As I also commented, the boats are arriving in weekly waves, peaking on Saturdays. Hence you also tend to see the PB commentary on big boatloads coming up at the weekend. There are clearly some smuggler tactics going on behind that.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Fair enough, but what have Taylor Swift tickets got to do with campaigning? I do agree that our political parties should be self funding.
I think the locals will be fine for the Tories, but it's spot-on to say the party absolutely loves pissing contests, factionalism and votes of no confidence - rather than thinking and pulling together - so, sadly, I think this is very likely.
I hold out little hope.
The 2025 elections are the county elections from 2021 where Covid ensured the Tories did very well. It's going to be bad for the Tories as they tend Lib Dem or Reform..
Boosted by the credibility of having a LibDem MP, in many cases the first in a century, I’d hope for some impressive LibDem results in the Home Counties.
The LDs already got 17% in the 2021 local elections and are polling less than that now. Labour are polling about the NEV they got in 2021 with the Tories down on then.
I would expect the biggest gainers on votes and seats in the county council elections next year to be Reform with them already on 20% with Opinium
973 migrants on 17 boats crossed the channel yesterday
55 per boat, on average?
It sounds a bit simple but there must be something in registering and monitoring every boat bigger than a kayak on the French coast.
These boats are usually large RIBs, bought in by lorry, used once - abandoned on U.K. beaches, if they get that far. Very often force the U.K. coastguard/Border Force/RNLI to pick them up in mid Channel.
So you’d have to monitor RIB sales pretty much everywhere in Western Europe.
It would be trivially easy to stop the boats on the French beaches but would require the French to actually want to stop them. Cheap drones scanning the shoreline and a 24hr response unit. It doesn’t happen because the French would rather they went to the UK than stayed.
Of course if you were so minded, you could achieve similar just prior to the point of entry to UK territorial waters but it would require actions that some might get queasy about. I imagine by around 2040-50 this will end up happening anyway, if climate migration from the Sahel and just below is half as bad as predicted.
Dead simple. Hire the Libyan Coastguard. The migrants will strangely vanish, in middle channel
We could even demand half the money they will make off the slave labour of those they capture.
The Libyans can base out of Bristol - tradition and all that. Could I have a nice statue overlooking the harbour?
My plan would be to rely on geography. All the pressure is for the Europeans to stop immigration at source in the Med and they are the ones that eventually make it to us. Let them do that, using dubious methods, then take the moral high ground and criticise them whilst reaping the benefits.
I think the locals will be fine for the Tories, but it's spot-on to say the party absolutely loves pissing contests, factionalism and votes of no confidence - rather than thinking and pulling together - so, sadly, I think this is very likely.
I hold out little hope.
The 2025 elections are the county elections from 2021 where Covid ensured the Tories did very well. It's going to be bad for the Tories as they tend Lib Dem or Reform..
Boosted by the credibility of having a LibDem MP, in many cases the first in a century, I’d hope for some impressive LibDem results in the Home Counties.
The LDs already got 17% in the 2021 local elections and are polling less than that now. Labour are polling about the NEV they got in 2021 with the Tories down on then.
I would expect the biggest gainers on votes and seats in the county council elections next year to be Reform with them already on 20% with Opinium
I looked at the most recent 20 local by-elections and Reform UK only stood in 9. Co they have their act together enough to capitalise on their polling support? Will they stand enough candidates? Do they know how to get out the vote?
973 migrants on 17 boats crossed the channel yesterday
55 per boat, on average?
It sounds a bit simple but there must be something in registering and monitoring every boat bigger than a kayak on the French coast.
These boats are usually large RIBs, bought in by lorry, used once - abandoned on U.K. beaches, if they get that far. Very often force the U.K. coastguard/Border Force/RNLI to pick them up in mid Channel.
So you’d have to monitor RIB sales pretty much everywhere in Western Europe.
It would be trivially easy to stop the boats on the French beaches but would require the French to actually want to stop them. Cheap drones scanning the shoreline and a 24hr response unit. It doesn’t happen because the French would rather they went to the UK than stayed.
Of course if you were so minded, you could achieve similar just prior to the point of entry to UK territorial waters but it would require actions that some might get queasy about. I imagine by around 2040-50 this will end up happening anyway, if climate migration from the Sahel and just below is half as bad as predicted.
As I mentioned upthread the numbers of boat crossings prevented is generally higher than those succeeding, so evidently the French police are actively stopping a lot on the coast (given the UK doesn’t do pushbacks as there are no international waters).
There’s no evidence other than folkloric supposition that French border control are deliberately trying to let migrants cross the channel.
As I also commented, the boats are arriving in weekly waves, peaking on Saturdays. Hence you also tend to see the PB commentary on big boatloads coming up at the weekend. There are clearly some smuggler tactics going on behind that.
The other thing to remember is that the French border control have zero chance of stopping all boats because the area they have to cover is far longer than the UK's
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
The latter is, certainly. Unite are just whining about the WFA and needed some false equivalence to make their point. Lot of it about!
It doesn’t matter if it’s lawful or not. What matters is that it shows SKS’s judgement stinks.
When you accept big gifts from people, you incur obligations to them.
There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Were you previously unaware that party donors donate to parties?
Also, there's something cultural about the Conservative Party, institutionally, where they are secretly embarrassed to be Conservatives and feel the need to constantly show they're ok and totally middle of the road. For example, their willingness to 'accept' whatever progressivism a Labour/LD government puts in place without reversing it, despite opposing it whilst it was being proposed. For example, if they did win the next election I don't think they'd reverse VAT on private schools, or take a difference stance on the Chagos Islands, or reform any changes to the Equality Act. Nor would they reverse the WFA cut, despite opposing it vociferously now.
This is very different to the US Republicans, who never give up; the British Conservatives verbally oppose, then shrug and accept it when it happens, and say 'what can you do'. This really annoys their voters.
It's worse amongst the public school contingent. And it goes all the way back from Cameron to Heath to Macmillan to Halifax and before. What they really want is to be in public office with their brethren.
Only Thatcher and Churchill really broke the mould, and they had a lot of internal party management challenges as a result.
While it is encouraging that Conservatives are embarrassed, the reversals that you crave are hardly core Conservative ideology: removing VAT from school fees and restoring the WFA. It's hard also to see how the Chagos deal is reversed, short of a war and naval task force sent to the Indian Ocean, to secure an Anglo-American base that is protected by the transfer.
Time moves on and all governments start with what they inherit, good or bad, simply reversing the policies of the last government isn't sufficient reason to govern, hence Labour not reversing the 2 child benefit limit, despite falling fertility rates.
I would forgive Keir Starmer any number of costly spectacles if he removed the 2 child benefit limit. I suspect he may do so eventually. Sometimes the right thing and the politically advantageous thing does happen.
The advantage of the 2 child benefit limit is that it's discouraging the welfare claimants who used children as their source of money from having more children.
And believe me I can point to a lot of families around here who previously had children to avoid working...
So you're saying all actual children in poverty should suffer just to discourage a number of feckless parents?
The extra £290 UC per month for an additional child is not a massive amount of money, particular when compared with a benefit like the State Pension which is £960 per month and, unlike UC, has no means testing, earnings taper, savings conditions or the possibility of sanctions.
Removing the limit significantly benefits younger, single parents who tend to be those with kids who have the most difficulties with education, crime etc etc.
I understand why people argue against it on a fairness principle (and I don't disagree), but I think the pros massively outweigh the cons, particularly in the long term. I don't think it would materially affect fertility rates; if you're in this kind of poverty, having another child is never going to be rational. But people do.
Having a third child is entirely rational. That's the child that gets you a chance of a house with garden rather than a flat in a block, in the social housing stakes. Unless the rules have changed in the past few years.
That’s a Bad Fact.
Depends whether one is concerned about the falling birthrate. If poor families are the only ones willing to have more than two children, that's where a lot of our future workers & taxpayers will come from. Provided they get decent education, of course.
No, no
They are British born. Therefore they are genetically workshy scroungers and criminals. Unlike the Noble Square Jawed Immigrants - who will work for 50p a week 300 hours a week. And ask for more.
Think the racism of Oriental Lassitude, reversed.
I'm inclined to see the arduous & dangerous journeys of the migrants as analogous to the American pioneers, with small boats instead of covered wagons., and the rioters as analogous to the futile attacks on the settlers of the indigenous American peoples.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
You can argue until the cows come home that the donations are legal, it is PB Tories fault, or any number of excuses or denials, but it cannot be argued this has not cut through with the public and when added to other debacle, like the WFP, then the disappointment is tangible as it was hoped Starmer and his cabinet would be a new start and that has all vanished into thin air and utter hypocrisy
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Suits are for campaigning in. Why should they be excluded?
I still think far too much is being made of the Tories making an error by shifting to the right. It comes up all the time on here.
The Tories are in a tactical quandary and face being outflanked on their right. It makes complete sense to me, tactically, to try and deal with that.
The Tories have been chasing votes to their right for a decade.
They ended up with their worst election result.
Yes, chasing further right is DEFINITELY wh they should do now...
Sunak and Hunt were the current Tory left, Boris won from the right in 2019. Corbyn almost won from the left in 2017
I think the country does need to have the decent right-wing view represented in Parliament, young HY. Do you not have a single Conservative MP who fits this description who could take over the leadership?
The nearest you got to it in this election was poor, old Mel Stride, and he could attract the support of only 16 of his fellow MPs.
Mel Stride has no charisma and polled worse with voters than Tugendhat. If you want to appeal to ex Tory LD voters pick Tugendhat, Labour voters Cleverly, if you want to appeal to Tory to Reform voters Jenrick or Badenoch.
Stride offered nothing the above didn’t, a half decent Treasury Minister is his level
The fact that he actually became a Cabinet Minister just illustrates the paucity of talent on the Tory benches in the last Parliament as well as this one.
973 migrants on 17 boats crossed the channel yesterday
55 per boat, on average?
It sounds a bit simple but there must be something in registering and monitoring every boat bigger than a kayak on the French coast.
Most of the boats themselves appear to be large inflatable dinghys, with an outboard engine, imported from China and only used once.
It really shouldn’t be too difficult to ban them from coming into the EU in the first place, they’re almost certainly not in compliance with European regulations.
The boats are legal, but generally overloaded.
The regulations on boats are pretty easy to pass.
iirc I read somewhere the other day that it was Turkey that was the route in/supplier of these boats and Yvette was trying to do something about that.
It’s a supply chain problem and demands supply chain solutions. That’s where I’m hopeful the European powers can learn from experience and, along with the UK, make boat crossings harder.
The Rwanda scheme was a demand side response, seeking to make the destination less attractive. Disrupting the smugglers is a supply side policy.
The lessons of the “war on drugs” are that neither approach is a silver bullet, but constant disruption of drug trafficking routes does keep prices high and supply lower than it would otherwise be. There are parallels in the arguments about legalisation too - the asylum equivalent being opening up safe routes.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
There should be tighter restrictions on donations allowed by any individual or organisation, as well as what they can be spent on.
It shouldn’t be possible for one wealthy donor to effectively buy off half the Cabinet with expensive gifts, nor for parties to spend their donations on dressing politicians.
Starmer has earned six figures for decades as a lawyer, prosecutor, and now politician. He can afford to dress himself and his wife. If Mrs Starmer really needs a new wardrobe for events, there will be dozens of young British designers falling over each other to lend her dresses.
I thought Donald Trump said at the RNC he'd never talk about the assassination attempt again?
In the snippets I heard Trump sounded worryingly on form yesterday, horrible as that form is. Otoh Musk's absolutely cringworthy performance may negate that.
I find it hard to give him objective reviews - can only tolerate a few seconds - but, yes, I think I know what you mean. That mono whiney noise he emits, it has a certain rhythm, it's weirdly mesmerizing.
Phillips O'Brien thinks that the Biden administration has basically decided to throw the towel in on Ukraine before the election. The other question would be what does the Biden administration do after the election particularly if Trump wins? The right thing in my view would be to accelerate support to Ukraine so they are in as strong a position as possible if Trump pulls the plug on them. My guess is they will do nothing. I suspect Biden has all along wanted the war to run to his own election timetable and he probably isn't pleased with Zelensky for refusing a peace deal that Joe could sell as his legacy.
If Trump does win we ought to be making a point of having a substantial donation to Ukraine at the ready, with a certain flexibility to the fiscal rules. I'm doubtful of this too.
973 migrants on 17 boats crossed the channel yesterday
55 per boat, on average?
It sounds a bit simple but there must be something in registering and monitoring every boat bigger than a kayak on the French coast.
These boats are usually large RIBs, bought in by lorry, used once - abandoned on U.K. beaches, if they get that far. Very often force the U.K. coastguard/Border Force/RNLI to pick them up in mid Channel.
So you’d have to monitor RIB sales pretty much everywhere in Western Europe.
It would be trivially easy to stop the boats on the French beaches but would require the French to actually want to stop them. Cheap drones scanning the shoreline and a 24hr response unit. It doesn’t happen because the French would rather they went to the UK than stayed.
Of course if you were so minded, you could achieve similar just prior to the point of entry to UK territorial waters but it would require actions that some might get queasy about. I imagine by around 2040-50 this will end up happening anyway, if climate migration from the Sahel and just below is half as bad as predicted.
Dead simple. Hire the Libyan Coastguard. The migrants will strangely vanish, in middle channel
We could even demand half the money they will make off the slave labour of those they capture.
The Libyans can base out of Bristol - tradition and all that. Could I have a nice statue overlooking the harbour?
My plan would be to rely on geography. All the pressure is for the Europeans to stop immigration at source in the Med and they are the ones that eventually make it to us. Let them do that, using dubious methods, then take the moral high ground and criticise them whilst reaping the benefits.
The Libyan Coastguard is exactly the dubious method of stopping migration at source. That the EU funded.
They kidnap migrants in boats. Imprison them. Then auction their labour in market place to the local farmers.
Yes, that’s right - they keep them as literal slaves.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
If Labour's central campaign team think that the most effective use of 20K of campaign funds is "make sure the leader has a wardrobe that means he looks the part of a leader-in-waiting", why should that be blocked? It might very well swing more votes overall than a couple of dozen extra billboard ads...
(I do think that part of the problem with the Lord Alli stuff is the directness of it -- it would I think have looked less dodgy if Alli and others had being donating to central party funds and then Labour had been making decisions to spend that on clothes or ads or whatever, even if the overall effect was the same in the end.)
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
Were you previously unaware that political party donors donate to parties and politicians?
What a stupid question. Of course I was.
Now perhaps you should actually address the point that I made. Or perhaps you shouldn't - your twisting and squirming over the incompetence and grift of this Labour government is hilarious.
The people entitled to be most angry at these donations are Labour Party members, who might have reasonably assumed that political donations were there to pay for campaigning and not clothes. I had assumed they mostly were.
Nice clothes are part of a modern political campaign.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
The latter is, certainly. Unite are just whining about the WFA and needed some false equivalence to make their point. Lot of it about!
It doesn’t matter if it’s lawful or not. What matters is that it shows SKS’s judgement stinks.
When you accept big gifts from people, you incur obligations to them.
There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Were you previously unaware that party donors donate to parties?
I’m well aware that politicians accept big gifts. And, it’s stupid and sleazy.
The same way, it may be lawful for Clarence Thomas to accept freebies, but it’s stupid and sleazy.
I think the locals will be fine for the Tories, but it's spot-on to say the party absolutely loves pissing contests, factionalism and votes of no confidence - rather than thinking and pulling together - so, sadly, I think this is very likely.
I hold out little hope.
The 2025 elections are the county elections from 2021 where Covid ensured the Tories did very well. It's going to be bad for the Tories as they tend Lib Dem or Reform..
Boosted by the credibility of having a LibDem MP, in many cases the first in a century, I’d hope for some impressive LibDem results in the Home Counties.
The LDs already got 17% in the 2021 local elections and are polling less than that now. Labour are polling about the NEV they got in 2021 with the Tories down on then.
I would expect the biggest gainers on votes and seats in the county council elections next year to be Reform with them already on 20% with Opinium
Another post of yours to save….
Reminder to HYUFD that the Lib Dems always outperform Westminster polling at local elections.
If they’re on 13-14% in the polls I’d expect 18-19% in the locals.
Greens will do very well too. Labour will do calamatously, I think. Tories will perform reasonably well and Reform will underperform polling but consolidate in their heartlands.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
Were you previously unaware that political party donors donate to parties and politicians?
What a stupid question. Of course I was.
Now perhaps you should actually address the point that I made. Or perhaps you shouldn't - your twisting and squirming over the incompetence and grift of this Labour government is hilarious.
The people entitled to be most angry at these donations are Labour Party members, who might have reasonably assumed that political donations were there to pay for campaigning and not clothes. I had assumed they mostly were.
Nice clothes are part of a modern political campaign.
All the front line campaigners are on a minimum of £80k and will want and have them anyway…..
I thought Donald Trump said at the RNC he'd never talk about the assassination attempt again?
In the snippets I heard Trump sounded worryingly on form yesterday, horrible as that form is. Otoh Musk's absolutely cringworthy performance may negate that.
I'm seeing more somewhat notable people on Twitter planning to move their social media feeds elsewhere, and currently dual posting whilst they migrate, including a few charities.
If enough people move, Twitter will lose their hold.
The tipping point will perhaps be when Google deprioritises it in searches.
In the end, Twitter is subject to a rule similar to a law of blog audience selection - blogs choose their core audience, not the other way round, predominantly by their content. So if Twitter becomes an echo chamber promoting Chumps and Trumps, the rest will select themselves out.
Musk is currently eating or throwing away his capital base.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Fair enough: that is a consistent position. You run into grey areas (I think smart clothes can be part of a campaign; we’re Sunak’s helicopter rides necessary campaign costs or not?).
The donations that clearly haven’t been for campaigning purposes (e.g., partying abroad) are tiny in comparison. We could ban them, but I struggle with the idea that we should worry about small donations of one type leading to undue influence while we allow donations a hundred times as large for campaigning purposes. A Labour peer letting a Labour MP stay in his NY pad while he’s not there does not strike me as being as concerning as Frank Hester donating £5 million to the Conservative Party in May this year. Yet I recognise that the Conservative Party needs funds to function.
So, ban the small stuff, but allow the huge donations seems like missing the forest for the trees.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Fair enough, but what have Taylor Swift tickets got to do with campaigning? I do agree that our political parties should be self funding.
When Starmer went to the Swift show, he got a lot of positive media coverage for simply being there. Everything can be to do with campaigning! But, sure, you could ban the small stuff: see my other post on that.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Fair enough, but what have Taylor Swift tickets got to do with campaigning? I do agree that our political parties should be self funding.
When Starmer went to the Swift show, he got a lot of positive media coverage for simply being there. Everything can be to do with campaigning! But, sure, you could ban the small stuff: see my other post on that.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Suits are for campaigning in. Why should they be excluded?
I used to go to work in a suit. I earned an awful lot less than Starmer, but funded it myself.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Suits are for campaigning in. Why should they be excluded?
I used to go to work in a suit. I earned an awful lot less than Starmer, but funded it myself.
Most of the freebies to you and I are taxable benefits in kind. So even if we were gifted them we have to pay tax on them.
I think the locals will be fine for the Tories, but it's spot-on to say the party absolutely loves pissing contests, factionalism and votes of no confidence - rather than thinking and pulling together - so, sadly, I think this is very likely.
I hold out little hope.
The 2025 elections are the county elections from 2021 where Covid ensured the Tories did very well. It's going to be bad for the Tories as they tend Lib Dem or Reform..
Boosted by the credibility of having a LibDem MP, in many cases the first in a century, I’d hope for some impressive LibDem results in the Home Counties.
The LDs already got 17% in the 2021 local elections and are polling less than that now. Labour are polling about the NEV they got in 2021 with the Tories down on then.
I would expect the biggest gainers on votes and seats in the county council elections next year to be Reform with them already on 20% with Opinium
I looked at the most recent 20 local by-elections and Reform UK only stood in 9. Co they have their act together enough to capitalise on their polling support? Will they stand enough candidates? Do they know how to get out the vote?
Isn't their new electoral infrastructure guru for the last month and a bit the Velocity Black chap?
He's talked a good game so far, but that was afaics what he did with his company.
I'd say we haven't had enough time get to see whether he does substance as well as short term attention-seeking.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Fair enough: that is a consistent position. You run into grey areas (I think smart clothes can be part of a campaign; we’re Sunak’s helicopter rides necessary campaign costs or not?).
The donations that clearly haven’t been for campaigning purposes (e.g., partying abroad) are tiny in comparison. We could ban them, but I struggle with the idea that we should worry about small donations of one type leading to undue influence while we allow donations a hundred times as large for campaigning purposes. A Labour peer letting a Labour MP stay in his NY pad while he’s not there does not strike me as being as concerning as Frank Hester donating £5 million to the Conservative Party in May this year. Yet I recognise that the Conservative Party needs funds to function.
So, ban the small stuff, but allow the huge donations seems like missing the forest for the trees.
It's all a mess, isn't it? Which is why it requires people being sensible. Starmer's glasses or the partying is *not* sensible, which is why they're getting criticised. The clothes are less silly, but still poor IMO.
I actually disagree with your penultimate line: I think donations to political parties as a whole are less worrying than influence to one (or in the case of the good Lord, many) MPs.
Actually letting a donor have an underling involved with candidate selection is abhorrent, as is giving a donor a pass.
Sue Gray is late sixties and successfully manoeuvred her son into Parliament, helped change the Government and professionalise Labour, and helped take down Boris to pave the road. Maybe she just decided she doesn’t fancy being the story and has done enough, and has just said “#### it I’m off”.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Suits are for campaigning in. Why should they be excluded?
I used to go to work in a suit. I earned an awful lot less than Starmer, but funded it myself.
Most of the freebies to you and I are taxable benefits in kind. So even if we were gifted them we have to pay tax on them.
Maybe we simply make donations to politicians taxable then.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Suits are for campaigning in. Why should they be excluded?
I used to go to work in a suit. I earned an awful lot less than Starmer, but funded it myself.
Most of the freebies to you and I are taxable benefits in kind. So even if we were gifted them we have to pay tax on them.
Maybe we simply make donations to politicians taxable then.
I am not an expert, but I have seen it mentioned that by the strictest letter of the law really they should be already, but just sort of convention that the taxman doesn't enforce it.
Her position was unsustainable given her situation. She's helped Labour into power, and her son is still on the gravy train, with his snout in the 'donations' trough.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
There should be tighter restrictions on donations allowed by any individual or organisation, as well as what they can be spent on.
It shouldn’t be possible for one wealthy donor to effectively buy off half the Cabinet with expensive gifts, nor for parties to spend their donations on dressing politicians.
Starmer has earned six figures for decades as a lawyer, prosecutor, and now politician. He can afford to dress himself and his wife. If Mrs Starmer really needs a new wardrobe for events, there will be dozens of young British designers falling over each other to lend her dresses.
OK, but can you detail what these restrictions should be? The devil’s in the detail.
I don’t think Alli has bought off half the Cabinet. You’re exaggerating how many people he’s donated to. Parties historically have often relied on big donors, e.g. Frank Hester donated over half the Tories’ total donations in the run up to the last election. Are your restrictions going to apply to Hester too?
Comments
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
And for some people more fun.
Braverman, for example, seems to be someone who would enjoy stamping on other people's sandcastles.
On Friday 7 boats arrived, carrying 395 people between them. In the previous 6 days only 1 boat, with 59 people. Similar pattern in other weeks. It’s like the smugglers plan a sort of periodic regatta. Perhaps that tactic is intended to overwhelm the border force, like saturation drone strikes.
Rates this autumn continue to be comfortably below last year and way down on 2022. They’re also lower than 2021. Whereas early summer we were ahead of recent years.
Odd that the worst days tend to be Saturdays. From an admin point of view, that points to a fixable loophole. Do half the border patrols take the weekend off?
I would expect the biggest gainers on votes and seats in the county council elections next year to be Reform with them already on 20% with Opinium
It sounds a bit simple but there must be something in registering and monitoring every boat bigger than a kayak on the French coast.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/5ecd286e-07a6-42b8-9855-46ba7579decb?shareToken=921af7121771da50d65bee062ae20087
General election poll
🔴 Trump 49%
🔵 Harris 49%
Last poll - 🔵 Harris +2
RMG #C - (@NapolitanNews ) - 2965 LV - 10/3
So you’d have to monitor RIB sales pretty much everywhere in Western Europe.
It is just horrific
https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth
The UK looks like it will grow 1-2% this year, even if it doesn’t feel like that to the average consumer thanks to recent inflation.
Just as energy prices fell to the lowest level in ages, a little bit of regional instability has got Brent Crude heading back towards $80.
They are British born. Therefore they are genetically workshy scroungers and criminals. Unlike the Noble Square Jawed Immigrants - who will work for 50p a week 300 hours a week. And ask for more.
Think the racism of Oriental Lassitude, reversed.
John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
1h
Cleverly overtakes Jenrick to take 2nd place in post-conference
@ConHome
survey https://conservativehome.com/2024/10/06/cleverly-overtakes-jenrick-in-our-post-conference-leadership-survey/
The Conservatives’ very long-running secret is precisely that, when they have lost what were always going to be losing battles, or when ideas turn out not to work as intended, they haven’t clung to past ideologies but have shape-shifted and moved on, emerging again to fight subsequent elections on new ground. Hence the party has changed with the times and avoided becoming distracted by yesterday’s battles or weighed down by an agenda past its sell-by date.
It’s the Brexit obsession that has changed all that, which they won’t give up despite all the evidence that it has been both a tactical and strategic mistake.
The next Conservative PM will be one with a more positive and constructive approach to the EU. Which is why it may be some time in coming.
It really shouldn’t be too difficult to ban them from coming into the EU in the first place, they’re almost certainly not in compliance with European regulations.
Now perhaps you should actually address the point that I made. Or perhaps you shouldn't - your twisting and squirming over the incompetence and grift of this Labour government is hilarious.
The regulations on boats are pretty easy to pass.
Canvassing opinion among Tory MPs about who they intend to back, I find a remarkably large proportion of them replying “I don’t know”. And not because they are keeping their preference secret, but because they are genuinely uncertain at this late stage.
History is not repeating itself. A former cabinet minister who backed the idea of a prolonged contest groaned to me that he was beginning to regret it: “There’s no David Cameron. There’s no person everyone is pointing at and saying: ‘That’s the one!’ ”. If there’s a star among the four remaining contestants, they are keeping it well disguised.
This uncertainty about who to choose reflects confusions and contradictions in the Conservative psyche. One of the cases for taking their time before picking a new chief was to make space for a comprehensive postmortem into the worst defeat in the party’s history. Psephologists and other analysts have done some illuminating work on what inspired so many voters to loathe the Tories with such intensity. Answer: just about everything. The more serious-minded Conservative commentators recognise that the party has been in the throes of an identity crisis since the Brexit referendum eight years ago. To which I’d add, it has also suffered from an integrity crisis and a competency crisis.
Those capable of self-criticism at the conference were heavily outnumbered by those in the grip of self-delusion. Rather than confront any of the ugly truths about their party, speakers sought and secured applause by trotting out familiar Tory tropes: slash immigration, cut taxes, bring back grammar schools. No one was brave enough to tell the Tory party how it looks to the vast majority of the electorate.
Lurking in the back of the minds of many Conservative MPs who will be voting this week is the thought that they could soon be doing it all over again. Of the next leader, one shrewd Tory remarked: “If they fuck up, they’ll be out. It wouldn’t surprise me if there’s another leadership election in two years’ time.”
Of course if you were so minded, you could achieve similar just prior to the point of entry to UK territorial waters but it would require actions that some might get queasy about. I imagine by around 2040-50 this will end up happening anyway, if climate migration from the Sahel and just below is half as bad as predicted.
When you accept big gifts from people, you incur obligations to them.
There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Across four September polls, Starmer’s approval rating remains, on average, 6pp higher than Sunak’s. This is a massive narrowing of the gap since the election, but a bit of perspective is needed.
Data for Progress
Harris 49% Trump 46%
https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/10/4/harris-leads-trump-by-3-improves-standing-on-economic-issues
I think there's a difference of kind between "gifts" and fiddling the system. Starmer has not stolen money from the public purse over a period of years. If Starmer is shown corruptly handing out, or attempting to hand out, benefits in return, then that is more serious and on a Jenrick level.
Sir Peter Viggers thought he was entitled to have his ducks' duck house paid for by the public, and signed a chitty saying it was a necessary expense for his work in Parliament. So it's a good job he went, anyway.
He also thought the same about £500 for 28 tones of manure, repairs to a fountain and a lot of other stuff, to a total of £30k for gardening expenses in a period of 3 years. The average salary at the time was around £22k.
Even the Conservative Party thought he was out of his tree.
Tory MP Sir Peter Viggers said today he felt "ashamed and humiliated" over his expenses claim for an island to house the ducks in his pond.
He described his decision to include the feature in his taxpayer-funded second home claims as a "ridiculous and grave error of judgment".
The ducks had never liked the feature and it was no longer being used, he added.
The veteran MP was forced to announce he was standing down at the next election after details of the claims were published this week.
Among them were £30,000 towards gardening at his home, including £500 for manure, and £1,645 on a "floating duck island" for his pond.
However, it is not clear whether he was in fact reimbursed for the duck home, as a Commons official wrote "not allowable" by the side of the claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/23/mps-expenses-conservatives
I would argue the fairness principle is a further argument for removing the cap. Punishing children simply for being born is really unfair.
We could even demand half the money they will make off the slave labour of those they capture.
The Libyans can base out of Bristol - tradition and all that. Could I have a nice statue overlooking the harbour?
There’s no evidence other than folkloric supposition that French border control are deliberately trying to let migrants cross the channel.
As I also commented, the boats are arriving in weekly waves, peaking on Saturdays. Hence you also tend to see the PB commentary on big boatloads coming up at the weekend. There are clearly some smuggler tactics going on behind that.
I do agree that our political parties should be self funding.
The Rwanda scheme was a demand side response, seeking to make the destination less attractive. Disrupting the smugglers is a supply side policy.
The lessons of the “war on drugs” are that neither approach is a silver bullet, but constant disruption of drug trafficking routes does keep prices high and supply lower than it would otherwise be. There are parallels in the arguments about legalisation too - the asylum equivalent being opening up safe routes.
BoZo didn't win "from the right" and "govern left"
BoZo appealed to and won the stupid vote, then governed as an entitled asshole
Don't try and emulate that.
Make the case for genuinely Conservative and Unionists policies.
It shouldn’t be possible for one wealthy donor to effectively buy off half the Cabinet with expensive gifts, nor for parties to spend their donations on dressing politicians.
Starmer has earned six figures for decades as a lawyer, prosecutor, and now politician. He can afford to dress himself and his wife. If Mrs Starmer really needs a new wardrobe for events, there will be dozens of young British designers falling over each other to lend her dresses.
If Trump does win we ought to be making a point of having a substantial donation to Ukraine at the ready, with a certain flexibility to the fiscal rules. I'm doubtful of this too.
They kidnap migrants in boats. Imprison them. Then auction their labour in market place to the local farmers.
Yes, that’s right - they keep them as literal slaves.
(I do think that part of the problem with the Lord Alli stuff is the directness of it -- it would I think have looked less dodgy if Alli and others had being donating to central party funds and then Labour had been making decisions to spend that on clothes or ads or whatever, even if the overall effect was the same in the end.)
The same way, it may be lawful for Clarence Thomas to accept freebies, but it’s stupid and sleazy.
If they’re on 13-14% in the polls I’d expect 18-19% in the locals.
Greens will do very well too. Labour will do calamatously, I think. Tories will perform reasonably well and Reform will underperform polling but consolidate in their heartlands.
She handed in her notice this morning said one though rumours it was likely surfaced on Thursday
She lost a big internal power battle over PPS appointment
Jill Cuthbertson amongst the names it he frame to replace
https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1842894470590935418
Sue Gray resigns
As for Starmer's gatekeeper that's up to him really.
The poll, I mean, William, not you ... or do I?
If enough people move, Twitter will lose their hold.
The tipping point will perhaps be when Google deprioritises it in searches.
In the end, Twitter is subject to a rule similar to a law of blog audience selection - blogs choose their core audience, not the other way round, predominantly by their content. So if Twitter becomes an echo chamber promoting Chumps and Trumps, the rest will select themselves out.
Musk is currently eating or throwing away his capital base.
And it's very clear Starmer has no plan to deal with them whatsoever
The donations that clearly haven’t been for campaigning purposes (e.g., partying abroad) are tiny in comparison. We could ban them, but I struggle with the idea that we should worry about small donations of one type leading to undue influence while we allow donations a hundred times as large for campaigning purposes. A Labour peer letting a Labour MP stay in his NY pad while he’s not there does not strike me as being as concerning as Frank Hester donating £5 million to the Conservative Party in May this year. Yet I recognise that the Conservative Party needs funds to function.
So, ban the small stuff, but allow the huge donations seems like missing the forest for the trees.
How many days did she last?
To spending more time
with the familyas far away from #10 as possible.He's talked a good game so far, but that was afaics what he did with his company.
I'd say we haven't had enough time get to see whether he does substance as well as short term attention-seeking.
I actually disagree with your penultimate line: I think donations to political parties as a whole are less worrying than influence to one (or in the case of the good Lord, many) MPs.
Actually letting a donor have an underling involved with candidate selection is abhorrent, as is giving a donor a pass.
Vidhya Alakeson and Jill Cuthbertson will be deputy chiefs of staff
Nin Pandit will be PPS to PM
James Lyons — former NHS comms chief and Sunday Times journalist — will head up new strategic comms team
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/1842897953649811797
New Chief of Staff is election campaign chief Morgan McSweeney, 47, much more of a background figure.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/06/sue-gray-live-resigns-as-starmers-cheif-of-staff/
Get rid of someone who is too Whitehall for someone who knows nothing about it?
Moronic.
I don’t think Alli has bought off half the Cabinet. You’re exaggerating how many people he’s donated to. Parties historically have often relied on big donors, e.g. Frank Hester donated over half the Tories’ total donations in the run up to the last election. Are your restrictions going to apply to Hester too?