Something that also bothers me at the moment is how Labour are using the treasury to protect Rachel Reeves against allegations of CV fluffing. This is nothing to do with the treasury, it's a political issue and the denials need to come from a Labour source, treasury officials should point people in the direction of the chancellor or the Labour party press office.
She was assistant to the Customer Complaints Manager.
I've been asking some people I know who worked at the Bank when she was there and the reports back of what she did vs what she says she did don't match either.
As for people saying it's not a big deal, maybe it wouldn't be if she was just a functionary but she's not. She's the chancellor and has previously lied about being an economist for a private sector bank and seemingly misrepresented what she did at the Bank of England. She has used that reputation she cultivated as an "Economist for a bank" to get the role of chancellor, if Starmer had any balls he'd sack her for gross misconduct and get a better chancellor in, she's clearly useless anyway and this gives him the right cover to do it.
My company (which I've now quit) spent months licking her arse and those of the rest of the shadow cabinet for months leading up to now, like many business leaders did, and are now having to make redundancies because they've drastically cut back on consultancy spend.
My best guess is the current Labour government will last for 1 or 2 years before it collapses. It is incapable of dealing with the problems it is going to encounter and the only thing going for it is its large majority, but the latter will rapidly erode as MP's flake out.
Which 100 odd Labour MPs are going to vote against in the government in a confidence vote? Not even the Corbynite MPs would do it, nobody wants to unnecessarily lose their jobs.
Starmer could be utterly incompetent and do nothing and this Government would sail on to July / August 2029...
The size of the majority and the fact turkeys don't vote for Christmas should tell everyone how things will play out.
Something that also bothers me at the moment is how Labour are using the treasury to protect Rachel Reeves against allegations of CV fluffing. This is nothing to do with the treasury, it's a political issue and the denials need to come from a Labour source, treasury officials should point people in the direction of the chancellor or the Labour party press office.
She was assistant to the Customer Complaints Manager.
I've been asking some people I know who worked at the Bank when she was there and the reports back of what she did vs what she says she did don't match either.
As for people saying it's not a big deal, maybe it wouldn't be if she was just a functionary but she's not. She's the chancellor and has previously lied about being an economist for a private sector bank and seemingly misrepresented what she did at the Bank of England. She has used that reputation she cultivated as an "Economist for a bank" to get the role of chancellor, if Starmer had any balls he'd sack her for gross misconduct and get a better chancellor in, she's clearly useless anyway and this gives him the right cover to do it.
I see this as very much Starmer's budget, wouldn't you agree?
As for Ministers to go, I'd say it's Milliband who really needs to head off to spend more time with his heat pump. Starmer could hang the worst of the green bollocks on him.
Chalk [the impending Scholz loss] up to another lash of the anti-incumbent fury that has been raging around the world in this year of many elections. The trend is so unmistakable that you can probably see it from outer space. It is certainly visible to, and being twitched over, by Number 10. Labour was the happy beneficiary of anti-incumbency at the July election when the intensity of the loathing for the Conservatives buried them under a landslide defeat. After barely four months in the saddle, now public opinion is bucking like a bronco against Labour.
Phobia towards incumbents in the western democracies is connected to the stagnation in living standards that has persisted in most developed countries since the financial crisis. Politicians find it very hard to persuade people to feel well disposed towards government when they are not feeling happy about their own circumstances. Discontent has been exacerbated by the post-pandemic spike in inflation.
Borders are a big obsession with the recast team in Downing Street. So is another b-word, “bills”. One of Number 10’s responses to anti-incumbency will be to talk less about the “five missions”, a concept that Labour MPs complain has never caught the imagination of voters, and focus more intensely on living standards. The improvement in median incomes in the UK has been so meagre since 2009 that earnings growth over the past quarter of a century was probably the slowest in more than 200 years. If you want a core explanation for why so many voters have been feeling so down on politicians for such a long time, then this is good place to look.
In the first flush of victory in July, many Labour people thought they had time on their side because the size of the parliamentary majority could be interpreted as a 10-year mandate for Sir Keir’s “decade of national renewal”. The paucity of the vote share was a warning against that kind of complacent thinking. Some, even from within the party’s own ranks, are already catastrophising that this is doomed to be a one-term administration. It is way too early to forecast that the Starmer government is destined to suffer that fate. But the Labour leader and his cabinet must try to learn from the growing heap of cast-aside incumbents if they are not to be added to it.
Anti-incumbency rather than Leon's preferred shift to the right. But our economic problem is not just low earnings growth but also increased prices of staples like housing (rent or buy), food and fuel. And for younger generations, we have the scarcity and depressed salaries of early-career jobs coupled with record levels of income tax (once you add in student loan repayments).
Depends on whether the problem was the inflation spike (acute, but now over) or the ongoing stodginess of the economy almost everywhere (chronic and probably quite hard to solve).
Chalk [the impending Scholz loss] up to another lash of the anti-incumbent fury that has been raging around the world in this year of many elections. The trend is so unmistakable that you can probably see it from outer space. It is certainly visible to, and being twitched over, by Number 10. Labour was the happy beneficiary of anti-incumbency at the July election when the intensity of the loathing for the Conservatives buried them under a landslide defeat. After barely four months in the saddle, now public opinion is bucking like a bronco against Labour.
Phobia towards incumbents in the western democracies is connected to the stagnation in living standards that has persisted in most developed countries since the financial crisis. Politicians find it very hard to persuade people to feel well disposed towards government when they are not feeling happy about their own circumstances. Discontent has been exacerbated by the post-pandemic spike in inflation.
Borders are a big obsession with the recast team in Downing Street. So is another b-word, “bills”. One of Number 10’s responses to anti-incumbency will be to talk less about the “five missions”, a concept that Labour MPs complain has never caught the imagination of voters, and focus more intensely on living standards. The improvement in median incomes in the UK has been so meagre since 2009 that earnings growth over the past quarter of a century was probably the slowest in more than 200 years. If you want a core explanation for why so many voters have been feeling so down on politicians for such a long time, then this is good place to look.
In the first flush of victory in July, many Labour people thought they had time on their side because the size of the parliamentary majority could be interpreted as a 10-year mandate for Sir Keir’s “decade of national renewal”. The paucity of the vote share was a warning against that kind of complacent thinking. Some, even from within the party’s own ranks, are already catastrophising that this is doomed to be a one-term administration. It is way too early to forecast that the Starmer government is destined to suffer that fate. But the Labour leader and his cabinet must try to learn from the growing heap of cast-aside incumbents if they are not to be added to it.
As ever, a very good article, by that gentleman.
I’d further suggest that we’ve been seeing a massive decrease in tribal loyalty to parties, in countries where this is a thing.
The American election actually fits into that pattern, when you realise that since the Republican / Democrat duopoly emerged, change has happened by takeover of the parties.
MAGA took over the Republicans and expelled the existing hierarchy.
Not quite right. Maga took over from the Tea Party which had taken over the Republicans.
The Tea Party never took over the Republicans - it was their failure to “reform the party” (as in getting rid of the “RINO”) that left it ripe for MAGA.
Something that also bothers me at the moment is how Labour are using the treasury to protect Rachel Reeves against allegations of CV fluffing. This is nothing to do with the treasury, it's a political issue and the denials need to come from a Labour source, treasury officials should point people in the direction of the chancellor or the Labour party press office.
She was assistant to the Customer Complaints Manager.
I've been asking some people I know who worked at the Bank when she was there and the reports back of what she did vs what she says she did don't match either.
As for people saying it's not a big deal, maybe it wouldn't be if she was just a functionary but she's not. She's the chancellor and has previously lied about being an economist for a private sector bank and seemingly misrepresented what she did at the Bank of England. She has used that reputation she cultivated as an "Economist for a bank" to get the role of chancellor, if Starmer had any balls he'd sack her for gross misconduct and get a better chancellor in, she's clearly useless anyway and this gives him the right cover to do it.
I see this as very much Starmer's budget, wouldn't you agree?
As for Ministers to go, I'd say it's Milliband who really needs to head off to spend more time with his heat pump. Starmer could hang the worst of the green bollocks on him.
Sadly neither looks likely.
The whole government looks to me like what would happen if you put the National Union of Students in charge of Britain.
Looking at the looming further farmer protests, I am now wondering whether Reeves will still even be CoE by the end of next year.
Unforced political error after unforced error.
And there is one group of people that everyone in the country agrees are worthy of being protected - farmers. They grow our food, often in almost impossible conditions. This tax feels vindictive coming from Labour. A punishment against the countryside who voted for Brexit.
The worst part is that it doesn't even raise very much money. It's a rounding error in the OBR report. The budget proposed £150bn of additional borrowing over 5 years, if they'd kept the exemption then it would be about £152bn over 5 years.
I can see the Government being forced into a humiliating reverse on it.
If protests start to hit transport and food supplies, and family farms start to be firesold to big agri-corporations, that isn't a battle the government will win.
Reverse, perhaps. Welcome reverse, maybe. Humiliating reverse, not really.
Something that also bothers me at the moment is how Labour are using the treasury to protect Rachel Reeves against allegations of CV fluffing. This is nothing to do with the treasury, it's a political issue and the denials need to come from a Labour source, treasury officials should point people in the direction of the chancellor or the Labour party press office.
She was assistant to the Customer Complaints Manager.
I've been asking some people I know who worked at the Bank when she was there and the reports back of what she did vs what she says she did don't match either.
As for people saying it's not a big deal, maybe it wouldn't be if she was just a functionary but she's not. She's the chancellor and has previously lied about being an economist for a private sector bank and seemingly misrepresented what she did at the Bank of England. She has used that reputation she cultivated as an "Economist for a bank" to get the role of chancellor, if Starmer had any balls he'd sack her for gross misconduct and get a better chancellor in, she's clearly useless anyway and this gives him the right cover to do it.
You know which other Chancellor was accused of exaggerating his banking experience? John Major. Turns out he ran a branch office in a faraway country of which we know little, and only did PR in the City. John Major became Prime Minister and won a general election. From this we conclude that people don't care.
You are right, however, that CVgate might give Starmer cover to sack Reeves but it's a bit early for that (pace Kwasi Kwarteng).
Chalk [the impending Scholz loss] up to another lash of the anti-incumbent fury that has been raging around the world in this year of many elections. The trend is so unmistakable that you can probably see it from outer space. It is certainly visible to, and being twitched over, by Number 10. Labour was the happy beneficiary of anti-incumbency at the July election when the intensity of the loathing for the Conservatives buried them under a landslide defeat. After barely four months in the saddle, now public opinion is bucking like a bronco against Labour.
Phobia towards incumbents in the western democracies is connected to the stagnation in living standards that has persisted in most developed countries since the financial crisis. Politicians find it very hard to persuade people to feel well disposed towards government when they are not feeling happy about their own circumstances. Discontent has been exacerbated by the post-pandemic spike in inflation.
Borders are a big obsession with the recast team in Downing Street. So is another b-word, “bills”. One of Number 10’s responses to anti-incumbency will be to talk less about the “five missions”, a concept that Labour MPs complain has never caught the imagination of voters, and focus more intensely on living standards. The improvement in median incomes in the UK has been so meagre since 2009 that earnings growth over the past quarter of a century was probably the slowest in more than 200 years. If you want a core explanation for why so many voters have been feeling so down on politicians for such a long time, then this is good place to look.
In the first flush of victory in July, many Labour people thought they had time on their side because the size of the parliamentary majority could be interpreted as a 10-year mandate for Sir Keir’s “decade of national renewal”. The paucity of the vote share was a warning against that kind of complacent thinking. Some, even from within the party’s own ranks, are already catastrophising that this is doomed to be a one-term administration. It is way too early to forecast that the Starmer government is destined to suffer that fate. But the Labour leader and his cabinet must try to learn from the growing heap of cast-aside incumbents if they are not to be added to it.
Anti-incumbency rather than Leon's preferred shift to the right. But our economic problem is not just low earnings growth but also increased prices of staples like housing (rent or buy), food and fuel. And for younger generations, we have the scarcity and depressed salaries of early-career jobs coupled with record levels of income tax (once you add in student loan repayments).
Depends on whether the problem was the inflation spike (acute, but now over) or the ongoing stodginess of the economy almost everywhere (chronic and probably quite hard to solve).
Chalk [the impending Scholz loss] up to another lash of the anti-incumbent fury that has been raging around the world in this year of many elections. The trend is so unmistakable that you can probably see it from outer space. It is certainly visible to, and being twitched over, by Number 10. Labour was the happy beneficiary of anti-incumbency at the July election when the intensity of the loathing for the Conservatives buried them under a landslide defeat. After barely four months in the saddle, now public opinion is bucking like a bronco against Labour.
Phobia towards incumbents in the western democracies is connected to the stagnation in living standards that has persisted in most developed countries since the financial crisis. Politicians find it very hard to persuade people to feel well disposed towards government when they are not feeling happy about their own circumstances. Discontent has been exacerbated by the post-pandemic spike in inflation.
Borders are a big obsession with the recast team in Downing Street. So is another b-word, “bills”. One of Number 10’s responses to anti-incumbency will be to talk less about the “five missions”, a concept that Labour MPs complain has never caught the imagination of voters, and focus more intensely on living standards. The improvement in median incomes in the UK has been so meagre since 2009 that earnings growth over the past quarter of a century was probably the slowest in more than 200 years. If you want a core explanation for why so many voters have been feeling so down on politicians for such a long time, then this is good place to look.
In the first flush of victory in July, many Labour people thought they had time on their side because the size of the parliamentary majority could be interpreted as a 10-year mandate for Sir Keir’s “decade of national renewal”. The paucity of the vote share was a warning against that kind of complacent thinking. Some, even from within the party’s own ranks, are already catastrophising that this is doomed to be a one-term administration. It is way too early to forecast that the Starmer government is destined to suffer that fate. But the Labour leader and his cabinet must try to learn from the growing heap of cast-aside incumbents if they are not to be added to it.
As ever, a very good article, by that gentleman.
I’d further suggest that we’ve been seeing a massive decrease in tribal loyalty to parties, in countries where this is a thing.
The American election actually fits into that pattern, when you realise that since the Republican / Democrat duopoly emerged, change has happened by takeover of the parties.
MAGA took over the Republicans and expelled the existing hierarchy.
Not quite right. Maga took over from the Tea Party which had taken over the Republicans.
The Tea Party never took over the Republicans - it was their failure to “reform the party” (as in getting rid of the “RINO”) that left it ripe for MAGA.
Romney won the nomination in 2012 largely on the back of fiscally conservative, small state Tea Party Republicans.
Trump though was a populist right reaction to Obama who was white nationalist, anti immigration, anti free trade and bigger state than the Tea Party
The Tories' problem is that they had 14 years to do something about thought-non-crime and didn't.
So often, they were all talk and no action. Repeatedly, I’m left wondering what the Conservatives thought they were there for, other than enjoying the fruits of office.
I think many were secretly embarrassed at being Conservatives and couldn't bring themselves to act to deliver for their base; the fact their members and voters were not only increased the contempt.
In that sense, it's a bit similar to the difference between the CofE clergy and laity.
Wonder if the two organisations have something of the same underlying problem. Namely, the generation gap between the supporters (mostly retired in both cases) and the staff/leadership (mostly not retired). If you are a post-boomer, you tend to look at both institutions as fundamentally strange.
That leads to a couple of questions which neither institution seems to be answering convincingly. First is what to do about that- go all-in on serving the minority that you do get (red meat Conservatism, or full-on evangelism or traditional Anglo catholicism), or think about the ninety five percent who never darken your door?
The other is what's the right attitude to the future? Aim to pass on a functional institution or society, or spend it all on us now?
In the case of the Conservatives (unlike the C of E), there’s a big potential support base.
39% voted for right of centre parties in July, and polling suggests their support is about 45% now. Neither immigration, nor death, is destroying popular support for the right.
But, a lot of Conservative MP’s give the impression of being uneasy about trying to appeal to that body of support.
I think it’s mostly due to growing up in an era where upper middle class people and graduates still tended to vote right, and quite abruptly finding that is not the case. They find that many of their peers thoroughly disapprove of them and their supporters.
Political loyalty now runs vertically, through social classes, rather than horizontally, across them.
I think the Conservatives are in big trouble if Labour get a better grip of immigration than they did.
After Trump's victory, Labour ignore immigration (both legal and illegal) at their peril.
However successfully Labour handle the small boats it won't be good enough for Farage. Even if Labour bring arrival numbers down considerably that doesn't resolve the issue that vexes Farage and his racist chums, namely "foreigners" who are already here. Although that doesn't necessarily assist the Tories.
Perhaps when it comes down to immigration ("foreigners") the Tories need to out Farage, Farage. Is Badenoch capable of such performative cruelty? If she is not we have Jenrick, who would be quite comfortable with rounding "foreigners" up and packing them on buses to Dundalk, patiently waiting for his moment.
Probably neither are. Opinium confirms Badenoch is just treading water and holding the Tory vote which voted for Rishi in July while it is Farage who is eating into the wwc Labour vote. Jenrick might have made a bit more progress winning back Boris voters now voting Reform but he was an ex Remainer Cameroon which put a ceiling on that.
The only Tory leader who could really squeeze the Reform vote and reunite the Right is probably now Jacob Rees Mogg if he wins back his Somerset seat at the next GE (or moves to a more winnable prospect like the seat Liam Fox only just lost which is also in North Somerset). Assuming Boris doesn't return of course given he was the man who put Farage back in his box in the first place in 2019 when May was leaking voters massively to him
I don’t think Jenrick was disqualified by his past, any more than Boris would be by his comments on immigration (and indeed his policies on immigration). The electorate is interested in the future.
He was to an extent, Rees Mogg as a lifelong Brexiteer would always have been more able to win over Reform voters than ex Remainer Jenrick
This is quite an interesting piece from BBC In Depth about Trump's appeal to American religious demographics, and his lack of appeal to other American religious demographics.
According to the PPRI’s survey, external of 5,027 adults, white evangelical Protestant voters were the strongest backers of Trump over Harris by 72% to 13%. White Catholic voters also backed Trump, with 55% supporting him and 34% aligned with Harris. White “mainline” non-evangelical Protestants showed a similar split.
By contrast 78% black Protestants supported Harris while just 9% backed Trump, according to the survey. Harris’s backers also included Jewish-Americans, the religiously unaffiliated and other non-Christian Americans, according to the PPRI.
Yet also 'When it came to the actual vote, there were signs of departures from familiar patterns.
The results from Michigan showed a clear lurch towards the Republican Party by Muslim voters in the state, likely the result of the Biden administration’s role in aiding Israel in its war in Gaza.
Analysis also shows that more Latino Catholics voted for Trump than expected, when previously they have tended to lean Democrat.'
Another thing on landownership. There is something reassuring about the nation's wealthy choosing to buy land and steward it for the public good. Much less dubious than all those stocks and shares or foreign business interests. Such a pure form of economic activity. Authentic. Incorruptible. It speaks to the public's mixed feelings about industry and capitalism. The spirit of Jerusalem. Take us back to the 18th century.
I quite like the sentiment actually. But it is economically ruinous to prioritise it.
Will Hutton makes a good argument for the changes to farming death duties in The Observer. I hadn't realised Thatcher had introduced it in 1984. So long as the wealthy prioritise and are incentivised to prioritise land ownership we will be a country in decline.
Most farmers aren't wealthy but income poor even if asset rich
Another thing on landownership. There is something reassuring about the nation's wealthy choosing to buy land and steward it for the public good. Much less dubious than all those stocks and shares or foreign business interests. Such a pure form of economic activity. Authentic. Incorruptible. It speaks to the public's mixed feelings about industry and capitalism. The spirit of Jerusalem. Take us back to the 18th century.
I quite like the sentiment actually. But it is economically ruinous to prioritise it.
I didn't realise they were doing it for the public good. That is great, so I assume they won't mind if the government want to take some of it off their hands for free to build some new roads, hospitals and schools? Luvvly jubbly.
Something that also bothers me at the moment is how Labour are using the treasury to protect Rachel Reeves against allegations of CV fluffing. This is nothing to do with the treasury, it's a political issue and the denials need to come from a Labour source, treasury officials should point people in the direction of the chancellor or the Labour party press office.
She was assistant to the Customer Complaints Manager.
I've been asking some people I know who worked at the Bank when she was there and the reports back of what she did vs what she says she did don't match either.
As for people saying it's not a big deal, maybe it wouldn't be if she was just a functionary but she's not. She's the chancellor and has previously lied about being an economist for a private sector bank and seemingly misrepresented what she did at the Bank of England. She has used that reputation she cultivated as an "Economist for a bank" to get the role of chancellor, if Starmer had any balls he'd sack her for gross misconduct and get a better chancellor in, she's clearly useless anyway and this gives him the right cover to do it.
You know which other Chancellor was accused of exaggerating his banking experience? John Major. Turns out he ran a branch office in a faraway country of which we know little, and only did PR in the City. John Major became Prime Minister and won a general election. From this we conclude that people don't care.
You are right, however, that CVgate might give Starmer cover to sack Reeves but it's a bit early for that (pace Kwasi Kwarteng).
Major's image was 'boy from Brixton' with a few O levels and had a suburban family in a commuter town.
A Mr Ordinary who understood the concerns of ordinary people.
He wasn't supposed to be a high flying intellectual.
Reeves purported to be the great chess champion Oxford and City economist.
Something that also bothers me at the moment is how Labour are using the treasury to protect Rachel Reeves against allegations of CV fluffing. This is nothing to do with the treasury, it's a political issue and the denials need to come from a Labour source, treasury officials should point people in the direction of the chancellor or the Labour party press office.
She was assistant to the Customer Complaints Manager.
I've been asking some people I know who worked at the Bank when she was there and the reports back of what she did vs what she says she did don't match either.
As for people saying it's not a big deal, maybe it wouldn't be if she was just a functionary but she's not. She's the chancellor and has previously lied about being an economist for a private sector bank and seemingly misrepresented what she did at the Bank of England. She has used that reputation she cultivated as an "Economist for a bank" to get the role of chancellor, if Starmer had any balls he'd sack her for gross misconduct and get a better chancellor in, she's clearly useless anyway and this gives him the right cover to do it.
You know which other Chancellor was accused of exaggerating his banking experience? John Major. Turns out he ran a branch office in a faraway country of which we know little, and only did PR in the City. John Major became Prime Minister and won a general election. From this we conclude that people don't care.
You are right, however, that CVgate might give Starmer cover to sack Reeves but it's a bit early for that (pace Kwasi Kwarteng).
Major's image was 'boy from Brixton' with a few O levels and had a suburban family in a commuter town.
A Mr Ordinary who understood the concerns of ordinary people.
He wasn't supposed to be a high flying intellectual.
Reeves purported to be the great chess champion Oxford and City economist.
Mrs Thatcher made John Major Chancellor because of his banking past. Ranking John Major from Brixton came after he reached Number 10.
Will Hutton makes a good argument for the changes to farming death duties in The Observer. I hadn't realised Thatcher had introduced it in 1984. So long as the wealthy prioritise and are incentivised to prioritise land ownership we will be a country in decline.
Most farmers aren't wealthy but income poor even if asset rich
Hutton's argument is that they can sell off part of the farm. It might even depress land values.
Will Hutton makes a good argument for the changes to farming death duties in The Observer. I hadn't realised Thatcher had introduced it in 1984. So long as the wealthy prioritise and are incentivised to prioritise land ownership we will be a country in decline.
Most farmers aren't wealthy but income poor even if asset rich
Hutton's argument is that they can sell off part of the farm. It might even depress land values.
They have loads of options. Gift slices of the farm to their inheritors every 7 years and they need pay nothing at all.
Something that also bothers me at the moment is how Labour are using the treasury to protect Rachel Reeves against allegations of CV fluffing. This is nothing to do with the treasury, it's a political issue and the denials need to come from a Labour source, treasury officials should point people in the direction of the chancellor or the Labour party press office.
She was assistant to the Customer Complaints Manager.
I've been asking some people I know who worked at the Bank when she was there and the reports back of what she did vs what she says she did don't match either.
As for people saying it's not a big deal, maybe it wouldn't be if she was just a functionary but she's not. She's the chancellor and has previously lied about being an economist for a private sector bank and seemingly misrepresented what she did at the Bank of England. She has used that reputation she cultivated as an "Economist for a bank" to get the role of chancellor, if Starmer had any balls he'd sack her for gross misconduct and get a better chancellor in, she's clearly useless anyway and this gives him the right cover to do it.
Dishonesty isn't a good look, particularly coming after Boris Johnson as PM.
Really wish it would be possible to go year zero on this and establish better standards for truth-telling, but would any members of the cabinet survive such a standard?
I'm also fuming at Labour now talking up migrant deportation schemes with Vietnam and Kurdistan. We had a deal in place and they fucking scrapped it for no good reason. Record illegal immigrant arrivals and now he's realised that axing the deterrent was a bad idea. As @Casino_Royale said, it's sixth form politics.
Something that also bothers me at the moment is how Labour are using the treasury to protect Rachel Reeves against allegations of CV fluffing. This is nothing to do with the treasury, it's a political issue and the denials need to come from a Labour source, treasury officials should point people in the direction of the chancellor or the Labour party press office.
She was assistant to the Customer Complaints Manager.
I've been asking some people I know who worked at the Bank when she was there and the reports back of what she did vs what she says she did don't match either.
As for people saying it's not a big deal, maybe it wouldn't be if she was just a functionary but she's not. She's the chancellor and has previously lied about being an economist for a private sector bank and seemingly misrepresented what she did at the Bank of England. She has used that reputation she cultivated as an "Economist for a bank" to get the role of chancellor, if Starmer had any balls he'd sack her for gross misconduct and get a better chancellor in, she's clearly useless anyway and this gives him the right cover to do it.
You know which other Chancellor was accused of exaggerating his banking experience? John Major. Turns out he ran a branch office in a faraway country of which we know little, and only did PR in the City. John Major became Prime Minister and won a general election. From this we conclude that people don't care.
You are right, however, that CVgate might give Starmer cover to sack Reeves but it's a bit early for that (pace Kwasi Kwarteng).
Major's image was 'boy from Brixton' with a few O levels and had a suburban family in a commuter town.
A Mr Ordinary who understood the concerns of ordinary people.
He wasn't supposed to be a high flying intellectual.
Reeves purported to be the great chess champion Oxford and City economist.
Mrs Thatcher made John Major Chancellor because of his banking past. Ranking John Major from Brixton came after he reached Number 10.
She made Major Chancellor because Lawson had just resigned and Major had been Chief Secretary only a few months earlier.
She wanted someone boring and 'grey' to steady the ship.
Something that also bothers me at the moment is how Labour are using the treasury to protect Rachel Reeves against allegations of CV fluffing. This is nothing to do with the treasury, it's a political issue and the denials need to come from a Labour source, treasury officials should point people in the direction of the chancellor or the Labour party press office.
She was assistant to the Customer Complaints Manager.
I've been asking some people I know who worked at the Bank when she was there and the reports back of what she did vs what she says she did don't match either.
As for people saying it's not a big deal, maybe it wouldn't be if she was just a functionary but she's not. She's the chancellor and has previously lied about being an economist for a private sector bank and seemingly misrepresented what she did at the Bank of England. She has used that reputation she cultivated as an "Economist for a bank" to get the role of chancellor, if Starmer had any balls he'd sack her for gross misconduct and get a better chancellor in, she's clearly useless anyway and this gives him the right cover to do it.
You know which other Chancellor was accused of exaggerating his banking experience? John Major. Turns out he ran a branch office in a faraway country of which we know little, and only did PR in the City. John Major became Prime Minister and won a general election. From this we conclude that people don't care.
You are right, however, that CVgate might give Starmer cover to sack Reeves but it's a bit early for that (pace Kwasi Kwarteng).
Major's image was 'boy from Brixton' with a few O levels and had a suburban family in a commuter town.
A Mr Ordinary who understood the concerns of ordinary people.
He wasn't supposed to be a high flying intellectual.
Reeves purported to be the great chess champion Oxford and City economist.
Mrs Thatcher made John Major Chancellor because of his banking past. Ranking John Major from Brixton came after he reached Number 10.
She made Major Chancellor because Lawson had just resigned and Major had been Chief Secretary only a few months earlier.
She wanted someone boring and 'grey' to steady the ship.
And more importantly someone who would never directly challenge her for the leadership.
Trump now below 50% of the vote. His popular vote lead is about 1.7%, making this the fourth tightest popular vote since 1900. (I had previously said fourth tightest popular vote margin, but I was wrong: there was a bunch of very close results in the 1880s.)
I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb
Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
Probably. I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station. The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
You don't build one, you build a dozen.
And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."
One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.
Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
As I've pointed out many times, the west giving in to Putin's nuclear blackmail has made the world a much more dangerous place. Now every tinpot regime with expansionist ideas will realise that having nukes means the civilised world will just give in to whatever they wish. Why spend billions on a military that can often be defeated - and which can turn against you - and which puts you in hock to supplier countries, when you can build a nuke for less?
Of the many, many problems inflicted by an old fool's dithering, that's obviously not one. It's been blindingly obvious since the 40s that nuclear weapons have a powerful deterrent effect, and ghastly regimes haven't needed the Ukraine war to demonstrate that to them. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa are varying examples of tinpot regimes who realised this long before 2022.
What the war and Biden's dithering has done is demonstrate to democracies like Ukraine, but perhaps also South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Japan and others, that they can't rely on the US shield. Again, some have been realising that since 2016 or before - Ukraine is not the only example of America's chronic unreliability as an ally. That is where the true damage to the nuclear proliferation framework lies.
“To be America’s enemy is dangerous. To be America’s friend is fatal.”
The original was better:
I would rather be the Englishman’s enemy than their friend. For they buy their enemies and sell their friends.
Who said/wrote that?
I believe it was Nasser, but he was quoting an Arab proverb
Something that also bothers me at the moment is how Labour are using the treasury to protect Rachel Reeves against allegations of CV fluffing. This is nothing to do with the treasury, it's a political issue and the denials need to come from a Labour source, treasury officials should point people in the direction of the chancellor or the Labour party press office.
She was assistant to the Customer Complaints Manager.
I've been asking some people I know who worked at the Bank when she was there and the reports back of what she did vs what she says she did don't match either.
As for people saying it's not a big deal, maybe it wouldn't be if she was just a functionary but she's not. She's the chancellor and has previously lied about being an economist for a private sector bank and seemingly misrepresented what she did at the Bank of England. She has used that reputation she cultivated as an "Economist for a bank" to get the role of chancellor, if Starmer had any balls he'd sack her for gross misconduct and get a better chancellor in, she's clearly useless anyway and this gives him the right cover to do it.
You know which other Chancellor was accused of exaggerating his banking experience? John Major. Turns out he ran a branch office in a faraway country of which we know little, and only did PR in the City. John Major became Prime Minister and won a general election. From this we conclude that people don't care.
You are right, however, that CVgate might give Starmer cover to sack Reeves but it's a bit early for that (pace Kwasi Kwarteng).
Major's image was 'boy from Brixton' with a few O levels and had a suburban family in a commuter town.
A Mr Ordinary who understood the concerns of ordinary people.
He wasn't supposed to be a high flying intellectual.
Reeves purported to be the great chess champion Oxford and City economist.
Mrs Thatcher made John Major Chancellor because of his banking past. Ranking John Major from Brixton came after he reached Number 10.
She made Major Chancellor because Lawson had just resigned and Major had been Chief Secretary only a few months earlier.
She wanted someone boring and 'grey' to steady the ship.
And because Mrs Thatcher thought Major had a substantive banking past.
It would be nice to hear Starmer say 'Now is not the moment to go wobbly on Ukraine.'
He's said that already, in a different form of words, but it doesn't convince.
He's made it very clear that he's sticking to the current level of support, but if Ukraine needs more than that, then he's willing to just watch them be defeated and hope people will blame Trump.
My best guess is the current Labour government will last for 1 or 2 years before it collapses. It is incapable of dealing with the problems it is going to encounter and the only thing going for it is its large majority, but the latter will rapidly erode as MP's flake out.
Which 100 odd Labour MPs are going to vote against in the government in a confidence vote? Not even the Corbynite MPs would do it, nobody wants to unnecessarily lose their jobs.
Starmer could be utterly incompetent and do nothing and this Government would sail on to July / August 2029...
The size of the majority and the fact turkeys don't vote for Christmas should tell everyone how things will play out.
The basis for what I am saying is a sense is that there will be no option to 'sail on' to 2029 without taking paradigm shifting decisions which will fundamentally rupture the coalition of interests that form the basis of the labour party. The decisions would be forced on to the leadership due to world economic/geopolitical/military events. It seems likely to me that this could lead to a split in the party such that its ability to govern is jeapordised, but what exact dynamics this will take on depends on how events unfold.
There is a lot of 'normalcy bias' evident in the comments on this website. It is obviously possible that politics will plod on as normal and my 'predictions' will turn out to be laughably hysterical, but I just don't think that is very likely.
My best guess is the current Labour government will last for 1 or 2 years before it collapses. It is incapable of dealing with the problems it is going to encounter and the only thing going for it is its large majority, but the latter will rapidly erode as MP's flake out.
Which 100 odd Labour MPs are going to vote against in the government in a confidence vote? Not even the Corbynite MPs would do it, nobody wants to unnecessarily lose their jobs.
Starmer could be utterly incompetent and do nothing and this Government would sail on to July / August 2029...
The size of the majority and the fact turkeys don't vote for Christmas should tell everyone how things will play out.
The basis for what I am saying is a sense is that there will be no option to 'sail on' to 2029 without taking paradigm shifting decisions which will fundamentally rupture the coalition of interests that form the basis of the labour party. The decisions would be forced on to the leadership due to world economic/geopolitical/military events. It seems likely to me that this could lead to a split in the party such that its ability to govern is jeapordised, but what exact dynamics this will take on depends on how events unfold.
There is a lot of 'normalcy bias' evident in the comments on this website. It is obviously possible that politics will plod on as normal and my 'predictions' will turn out to be laughably hysterical, but I just don't think that is very likely.
I don't think you know or understand the Labour Party. They've waited an awful long time to get into government, and they're not going to throw it away lightly, even if 'events' cause difficulty.
I'd actually argue that Labour MPs and members have shown a great deal of self-discipline in the run-up to, and since, the election, aside from the small number of permanent malcontents.
My best guess is the current Labour government will last for 1 or 2 years before it collapses. It is incapable of dealing with the problems it is going to encounter and the only thing going for it is its large majority, but the latter will rapidly erode as MP's flake out.
Which 100 odd Labour MPs are going to vote against in the government in a confidence vote? Not even the Corbynite MPs would do it, nobody wants to unnecessarily lose their jobs.
Starmer could be utterly incompetent and do nothing and this Government would sail on to July / August 2029...
The size of the majority and the fact turkeys don't vote for Christmas should tell everyone how things will play out.
The basis for what I am saying is a sense is that there will be no option to 'sail on' to 2029 without taking paradigm shifting decisions which will fundamentally rupture the coalition of interests that form the basis of the labour party. The decisions would be forced on to the leadership due to world economic/geopolitical/military events. It seems likely to me that this could lead to a split in the party such that its ability to govern is jeapordised, but what exact dynamics this will take on depends on how events unfold.
There is a lot of 'normalcy bias' evident in the comments on this website. It is obviously possible that politics will plod on as normal and my 'predictions' will turn out to be laughably hysterical, but I just don't think that is very likely.
You could be right, but I would be sceptical for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, we've seen many massive events in British political history, and few of them have brought a government to a premature end, even if they've led to one PM replacing another. There were hysterical posts about the Tories not being able to stagger on to 2024 after the Truss Calamity, but they did, and in the end everyone was left scratching their heads wondering why Sunak went early.
Secondly, your post reads a lot like the sorts of things people on the far-left say to each other to keep themselves warm on a cold winter's evening. The point of crisis for capitalism is always just over the horizon. The current centrist politics cannot hold. Our time is near.
I do think that, perhaps, there's a greater than normal chance of an extraordinary crisis - but I wouldn't expect an early general election to result, even if there were major political ructions as a consequence.
I bet he was getting contrary advice as well: that going sooner was better.
I really cannot see a delay as having improved things for the Tories - their problems were far more structural than just people feeling better off or not. The changes there would have been tiny, and would have been dwarfed by the fact that people simply wanted change.
So if he had delayed, we would see a threader with other stories about the contrary advice: that going earlier would have been better,
The Tories were doomed.
edit: and first with an on-topic post!
I think it was pretty mad the Tories went in July rather than October, but I concede there may have been further drip-drip-drip by-elections and defections.
However, I don't think they'd have done worse than 120 seats had they waited another 3 months - and the economy would have certainly improved.
And if Rishi had waited another three months, or even till January, then Conservatives would have enjoyed an extra three or six months in office, with jobs and wages to pay their mortgages. That many Conservative colleagues are not very well off and depend on their salaries is often lost on millionaire Conservative leaders from Mrs Thatcher through David Cameron to Rishi Sunak.
This should never be a factor. An absolutely disgraceful reason for any party to extend its governance and I hope one never thinks like that.
I don't think we should believe them. Ukraine is shafted now Trump is in charge. It wouldn't be any different under a Tory PM. We will say the right things, offer what we think we can, but not fully commit at great cost to ourselves which is what will be needed for a different course.
It would be nice to hear Starmer say 'Now is not the moment to go wobbly on Ukraine.'
Ukraine and Russia are already talking about peace next year and making positive noises - just on Trump being elected. Ukraine played a masterstroke in invading part of Russia. And perhaps there's even more the collective West can threaten, to further strengthen their hand in negotiations. We should encourage that.
But it would be a huge blunder for us to try and talk Ukraine out of a negotiated ceasefire and into grinding on. It wouldn't be good for Ukraine and it would be almost impossible for us. And we'd only be doing it to save our own face.
Another thing on landownership. There is something reassuring about the nation's wealthy choosing to buy land and steward it for the public good. Much less dubious than all those stocks and shares or foreign business interests. Such a pure form of economic activity. Authentic. Incorruptible. It speaks to the public's mixed feelings about industry and capitalism. The spirit of Jerusalem. Take us back to the 18th century.
I quite like the sentiment actually. But it is economically ruinous to prioritise it.
I didn't realise they were doing it for the public good. That is great, so I assume they won't mind if the government want to take some of it off their hands for free to build some new roads, hospitals and schools? Luvvly jubbly.
The problem in the U.K. for building infrastructure has never been farm scale landowners. The NIMBYs are almost all home owners and at that scale.
My best guess is the current Labour government will last for 1 or 2 years before it collapses. It is incapable of dealing with the problems it is going to encounter and the only thing going for it is its large majority, but the latter will rapidly erode as MP's flake out.
Which 100 odd Labour MPs are going to vote against in the government in a confidence vote? Not even the Corbynite MPs would do it, nobody wants to unnecessarily lose their jobs.
Starmer could be utterly incompetent and do nothing and this Government would sail on to July / August 2029...
The size of the majority and the fact turkeys don't vote for Christmas should tell everyone how things will play out.
The basis for what I am saying is a sense is that there will be no option to 'sail on' to 2029 without taking paradigm shifting decisions which will fundamentally rupture the coalition of interests that form the basis of the labour party. The decisions would be forced on to the leadership due to world economic/geopolitical/military events. It seems likely to me that this could lead to a split in the party such that its ability to govern is jeapordised, but what exact dynamics this will take on depends on how events unfold.
There is a lot of 'normalcy bias' evident in the comments on this website. It is obviously possible that politics will plod on as normal and my 'predictions' will turn out to be laughably hysterical, but I just don't think that is very likely.
I looked for odds on date of the next election, which would be the obvious bet for you to make, but couldn’t find any. You can get 4/1 and 5/1 respectively on 2025 and 2026 as Starmer’s departure date. Y’know, if you want to put your money where your mouth is.
We seem to go round and round in ever decreasing circles on the issue of social care..🥴
I think the solution here has got to be mandatory insurance for everyone over the age of 50, help given for people on low or fixed incomes. Spread the risk out over the whole population and let insurance companies price up the risks and fund the best care for people.
I thought the point of opposing HS2 was saying other infrastructure projects would be prioritised. Well what were they?
Um the money was going on pot holes in London wasn't it....
As someone who lives in London the money definitely hasn't been spent on fixing potholes.
I think its been spent on cycle lanes, wider pavements and 20mph markings in Yorkshire.
It would need some rabbit holing to find the exact numbers, however in England the amount spent on active travel from transport expenditure is around 2%, if that. And that's on everything not just your 3 items.
London may be slightly higher, but still a rounding error.
That's not where it's gone .
Of course it hasn't.
But the items in my comment are very noticeable and prompts the thought "what's that all about, I thought they had no money to spend".
Yes, but have you found any of the missing? :
Well if money has been spent elsewhere its usually a pretty good bet that's its been spent for the benefit of oldies.
In fact I do wonder if the new wider pavements I've seen installed are for the benefit of oldies in wheelchairs.
I'm also fuming at Labour now talking up migrant deportation schemes with Vietnam and Kurdistan. We had a deal in place and they fucking scrapped it for no good reason. Record illegal immigrant arrivals and now he's realised that axing the deterrent was a bad idea. As @Casino_Royale said, it's sixth form politics.
You don’t buy the argument, processing overseas and letting successful applicants live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, and processing abroad and not allow successful applicants to live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, are two completely different things?
A few months ago, Meloni’s overseas processing schemes were being held up as an example for us, and rest of Europe - now those schemes are in tatters, and Meloni could be on the way out soon.
Another thing on landownership. There is something reassuring about the nation's wealthy choosing to buy land and steward it for the public good. Much less dubious than all those stocks and shares or foreign business interests. Such a pure form of economic activity. Authentic. Incorruptible. It speaks to the public's mixed feelings about industry and capitalism. The spirit of Jerusalem. Take us back to the 18th century.
I quite like the sentiment actually. But it is economically ruinous to prioritise it.
I didn't realise they were doing it for the public good. That is great, so I assume they won't mind if the government want to take some of it off their hands for free to build some new roads, hospitals and schools? Luvvly jubbly.
The problem in the U.K. for building infrastructure has never been farm scale landowners. The NIMBYs are almost all home owners and at that scale.
When we sold some family land for development (grandparents' smallholding), it was amazing how many people suddenly became REALLY interested in watching foxes for the first time in 5 or 30 years .
I bet he was getting contrary advice as well: that going sooner was better.
I really cannot see a delay as having improved things for the Tories - their problems were far more structural than just people feeling better off or not. The changes there would have been tiny, and would have been dwarfed by the fact that people simply wanted change.
So if he had delayed, we would see a threader with other stories about the contrary advice: that going earlier would have been better,
The Tories were doomed.
edit: and first with an on-topic post!
I think it was pretty mad the Tories went in July rather than October, but I concede there may have been further drip-drip-drip by-elections and defections.
However, I don't think they'd have done worse than 120 seats had they waited another 3 months - and the economy would have certainly improved.
You are wrong.
Firstly, and to be fair to you, it’s hard to compute how having an election was a reset on the mood. Things like record boat crossings, covid reports, murders in kindergarten by terrorist, are a counterfactual how they would have been received by an electorate and played out by fever pitched media on war footing awaiting an imminent General Election. But it’s likely the election and government change a reset button was pressed on mood - meaning Labour didn’t get the degree of flak for these bad news stories Sunak’s government would have done.
To be unfair to you, you should realise the economy didn’t leap into election saving sunlit uplands, it was never going to, and the way people were going to vote the Tories down to 120 MPs was already baked in and decided a long time ago, regardless of little ticks in economic upturn.
Inflation in US is lower on November 1st 2024 was lower, nearly halved from what Trump left Biden, but people didn’t rejoice at that news. To laugh at the highly paid Spad who wrote that memo, if they couldn’t see there would be no second hand punching due to fantastic news in economy, then they shouldn’t have been highly paid in first place. Alternatively they created the memo simply to cover their own professional arse - we shouldn’t listen to it but know they were actually pleased to cash the cheque and move on from a shit hole that theoretically could still be in place this week and everyday since July 4th.
At turn of year it should have been obvious to all political bettors, the election was never going to be this side of the summer recess.
Gentle tip: I don't actually read your posts.
They are a lot of waffle, and an unstructured braindump from your head.
Maybe try brushing up on some basic comprehension skills first, and then I might find you interesting to engage with.
That response made me properly laugh 🤣
I always read your posts, you really are a crazy, unserious person compared to the rest of us overly sober posters. 😀
I'm also fuming at Labour now talking up migrant deportation schemes with Vietnam and Kurdistan. We had a deal in place and they fucking scrapped it for no good reason. Record illegal immigrant arrivals and now he's realised that axing the deterrent was a bad idea. As @Casino_Royale said, it's sixth form politics.
You don’t buy the argument, processing overseas and letting successful applicants live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, and processing abroad and not allow successful applicants to live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, are two completely different things?
A few months ago, Meloni’s overseas processing schemes were being held up as an example for us, and rest of Europe - now those schemes are in tatters, and Meloni could be on the way out soon.
I take a much tougher line on it. I'd only accept refugees where we have invited them, so only in the case of Ukraine, Hong Kong, Afghans who worked with the UK and Syrians from the camps more recently. It's a firm no to everyone else from me. Asylum rules are too easy to abuse otherwise and you end up with a free for all as we see now where people are coached by charities to say the right phrases to get into the asylum system and then abscond. Having mandatory deportation for anyone who just arrives in the UK uninvited is the only way to prevent this. If that breaks international law then so be it. We need to look after our own citizens and those we have chosen to help, not every Tom, Dick and Harry who pays the people smugglers enough money to get here illegally.
I'm also fuming at Labour now talking up migrant deportation schemes with Vietnam and Kurdistan. We had a deal in place and they fucking scrapped it for no good reason. Record illegal immigrant arrivals and now he's realised that axing the deterrent was a bad idea. As @Casino_Royale said, it's sixth form politics.
You don’t buy the argument, processing overseas and letting successful applicants live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, and processing abroad and not allow successful applicants to live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, are two completely different things?
A few months ago, Meloni’s overseas processing schemes were being held up as an example for us, and rest of Europe - now those schemes are in tatters, and Meloni could be on the way out soon.
They aren't, if anything they are being held up by liberal judges and Meloni's party still has a comfortable 7% lead in the latest Italian poll
I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb
Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
Probably. I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station. The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
You don't build one, you build a dozen.
And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."
One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.
Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
As I've pointed out many times, the west giving in to Putin's nuclear blackmail has made the world a much more dangerous place. Now every tinpot regime with expansionist ideas will realise that having nukes means the civilised world will just give in to whatever they wish. Why spend billions on a military that can often be defeated - and which can turn against you - and which puts you in hock to supplier countries, when you can build a nuke for less?
Of the many, many problems inflicted by an old fool's dithering, that's obviously not one. It's been blindingly obvious since the 40s that nuclear weapons have a powerful deterrent effect, and ghastly regimes haven't needed the Ukraine war to demonstrate that to them. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa are varying examples of tinpot regimes who realised this long before 2022.
What the war and Biden's dithering has done is demonstrate to democracies like Ukraine, but perhaps also South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Japan and others, that they can't rely on the US shield. Again, some have been realising that since 2016 or before - Ukraine is not the only example of America's chronic unreliability as an ally. That is where the true damage to the nuclear proliferation framework lies.
“To be America’s enemy is dangerous. To be America’s friend is fatal.”
The original was better:
I would rather be the Englishman’s enemy than their friend. For they buy their enemies and sell their friends.
Who said/wrote that?
I tried Google but it doesn't seem to be able to pin it down. It references George Orwell but doesn't give the exact quote or even anything close to it.
Yep - me too.
I guess we'll have to wait for the wisdom of @StillWaters to enlighten us.
I am sure I have heard it before. So surprised it is not appearing anywhere.
AI tells me:
The quote "better to be the enemy of the English than their friend. for they buy their enemies and sell their friends" is attributed to Lord Palmerston, a British statesman and Prime Minister from 1855–8 and 1859–65.
I thought the point of opposing HS2 was saying other infrastructure projects would be prioritised. Well what were they?
Um the money was going on pot holes in London wasn't it....
As someone who lives in London the money definitely hasn't been spent on fixing potholes.
I think its been spent on cycle lanes, wider pavements and 20mph markings in Yorkshire.
It would need some rabbit holing to find the exact numbers, however in England the amount spent on active travel from transport expenditure is around 2%, if that. And that's on everything not just your 3 items.
London may be slightly higher, but still a rounding error.
That's not where it's gone .
Of course it hasn't.
But the items in my comment are very noticeable and prompts the thought "what's that all about, I thought they had no money to spend".
Yes, but have you found any of the missing? :
Well if money has been spent elsewhere its usually a pretty good bet that's its been spent for the benefit of oldies.
In fact I do wonder if the new wider pavements I've seen installed are for the benefit of oldies in wheelchairs.
Not everyone in a wheelchair is old.
And prams are another very good reason for wider pavements. Not many oldies in prams.
Trump now below 50% of the vote. His popular vote lead is about 1.7%, making this the fourth tightest popular vote since 1900. (I had previously said fourth tightest popular vote margin, but I was wrong: there was a bunch of very close results in the 1880s.)
Harris now 0.1% above Hillary's 2016 voteshare too. Nonetheless still the first GOP popular vote win in a presidential election since 2004.
I bet he was getting contrary advice as well: that going sooner was better.
I really cannot see a delay as having improved things for the Tories - their problems were far more structural than just people feeling better off or not. The changes there would have been tiny, and would have been dwarfed by the fact that people simply wanted change.
So if he had delayed, we would see a threader with other stories about the contrary advice: that going earlier would have been better,
The Tories were doomed.
edit: and first with an on-topic post!
I think it was pretty mad the Tories went in July rather than October, but I concede there may have been further drip-drip-drip by-elections and defections.
However, I don't think they'd have done worse than 120 seats had they waited another 3 months - and the economy would have certainly improved.
And if Rishi had waited another three months, or even till January, then Conservatives would have enjoyed an extra three or six months in office, with jobs and wages to pay their mortgages. That many Conservative colleagues are not very well off and depend on their salaries is often lost on millionaire Conservative leaders from Mrs Thatcher through David Cameron to Rishi Sunak.
This should never be a factor. An absolutely disgraceful reason for any party to extend its governance and I hope one never thinks like that.
You mean, subsist entirely on their salaries?
There's some irony somewhere in this discussion, though I'm not quite sure where.
It would be nice to hear Starmer say 'Now is not the moment to go wobbly on Ukraine.'
Ukraine and Russia are already talking about peace next year and making positive noises - just on Trump being elected. Ukraine played a masterstroke in invading part of Russia. And perhaps there's even more the collective West can threaten, to further strengthen their hand in negotiations. We should encourage that.
But it would be a huge blunder for us to try and talk Ukraine out of a negotiated ceasefire and into grinding on. It wouldn't be good for Ukraine and it would be almost impossible for us. And we'd only be doing it to save our own face.
Talking about peace on the day Russia targeted their power grid.
I'm sorry but you are talking absolute bullshit...
Will Hutton makes a good argument for the changes to farming death duties in The Observer. I hadn't realised Thatcher had introduced it in 1984. So long as the wealthy prioritise and are incentivised to prioritise land ownership we will be a country in decline.
Most farmers aren't wealthy but income poor even if asset rich
Hutton's argument is that they can sell off part of the farm. It might even depress land values.
They have loads of options. Gift slices of the farm to their inheritors every 7 years and they need pay nothing at all.
The most obvious way to do this is by means of a partnership through which the capital can be transferred from one generation to the next over time whilst regulating the shares of profits (or losses) to reflect the work actually done on the farm.
We seem to go round and round in ever decreasing circles on the issue of social care..🥴
Yep.
More delay incoming.
A Royal Commission will take three years and mean literally nothing will be done before the next GE other than the Fair Pay Agreement for care workers which will increase costs with no one seemingly able to say if LAs will be able to cover the additional costs.
Something that also bothers me at the moment is how Labour are using the treasury to protect Rachel Reeves against allegations of CV fluffing. This is nothing to do with the treasury, it's a political issue and the denials need to come from a Labour source, treasury officials should point people in the direction of the chancellor or the Labour party press office.
She was assistant to the Customer Complaints Manager.
I've been asking some people I know who worked at the Bank when she was there and the reports back of what she did vs what she says she did don't match either.
As for people saying it's not a big deal, maybe it wouldn't be if she was just a functionary but she's not. She's the chancellor and has previously lied about being an economist for a private sector bank and seemingly misrepresented what she did at the Bank of England. She has used that reputation she cultivated as an "Economist for a bank" to get the role of chancellor, if Starmer had any balls he'd sack her for gross misconduct and get a better chancellor in, she's clearly useless anyway and this gives him the right cover to do it.
You know which other Chancellor was accused of exaggerating his banking experience? John Major. Turns out he ran a branch office in a faraway country of which we know little, and only did PR in the City. John Major became Prime Minister and won a general election. From this we conclude that people don't care.
You are right, however, that CVgate might give Starmer cover to sack Reeves but it's a bit early for that (pace Kwasi Kwarteng).
Major's image was 'boy from Brixton' with a few O levels and had a suburban family in a commuter town.
A Mr Ordinary who understood the concerns of ordinary people.
He wasn't supposed to be a high flying intellectual.
Reeves purported to be the great chess champion Oxford and City economist.
Mind you the fact she was not RBS economist pre the 2008 crash is a bullet dodged on her CV
I'm also fuming at Labour now talking up migrant deportation schemes with Vietnam and Kurdistan. We had a deal in place and they fucking scrapped it for no good reason. Record illegal immigrant arrivals and now he's realised that axing the deterrent was a bad idea. As @Casino_Royale said, it's sixth form politics.
You don’t buy the argument, processing overseas and letting successful applicants live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, and processing abroad and not allow successful applicants to live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, are two completely different things?
A few months ago, Meloni’s overseas processing schemes were being held up as an example for us, and rest of Europe - now those schemes are in tatters, and Meloni could be on the way out soon.
Meloni's Albania scheme has been ruled unlawful by Italian judges, apparently in accordance with the European Court of Justice. Disappointing for Meloni but shit all (thank goodness) to do with the UK, which thankfully is free of the ECJ.
I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb
Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
Probably. I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station. The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
You don't build one, you build a dozen.
And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."
One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.
Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
As I've pointed out many times, the west giving in to Putin's nuclear blackmail has made the world a much more dangerous place. Now every tinpot regime with expansionist ideas will realise that having nukes means the civilised world will just give in to whatever they wish. Why spend billions on a military that can often be defeated - and which can turn against you - and which puts you in hock to supplier countries, when you can build a nuke for less?
Of the many, many problems inflicted by an old fool's dithering, that's obviously not one. It's been blindingly obvious since the 40s that nuclear weapons have a powerful deterrent effect, and ghastly regimes haven't needed the Ukraine war to demonstrate that to them. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa are varying examples of tinpot regimes who realised this long before 2022.
What the war and Biden's dithering has done is demonstrate to democracies like Ukraine, but perhaps also South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Japan and others, that they can't rely on the US shield. Again, some have been realising that since 2016 or before - Ukraine is not the only example of America's chronic unreliability as an ally. That is where the true damage to the nuclear proliferation framework lies.
“To be America’s enemy is dangerous. To be America’s friend is fatal.”
The original was better:
I would rather be the Englishman’s enemy than their friend. For they buy their enemies and sell their friends.
Who said/wrote that?
I tried Google but it doesn't seem to be able to pin it down. It references George Orwell but doesn't give the exact quote or even anything close to it.
Yep - me too.
I guess we'll have to wait for the wisdom of @StillWaters to enlighten us.
I am sure I have heard it before. So surprised it is not appearing anywhere.
AI tells me:
The quote "better to be the enemy of the English than their friend. for they buy their enemies and sell their friends" is attributed to Lord Palmerston, a British statesman and Prime Minister from 1855–8 and 1859–65.
Which makes no sense - why would he say that?
It's A not very I. It got confused because Palmerston said 'we have no eternal allies and have no perpetual enemies' which sounded vaguely similar.
I'm also fuming at Labour now talking up migrant deportation schemes with Vietnam and Kurdistan. We had a deal in place and they fucking scrapped it for no good reason. Record illegal immigrant arrivals and now he's realised that axing the deterrent was a bad idea. As @Casino_Royale said, it's sixth form politics.
You don’t buy the argument, processing overseas and letting successful applicants live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, and processing abroad and not allow successful applicants to live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, are two completely different things?
A few months ago, Meloni’s overseas processing schemes were being held up as an example for us, and rest of Europe - now those schemes are in tatters, and Meloni could be on the way out soon.
I take a much tougher line on it. I'd only accept refugees where we have invited them, so only in the case of Ukraine, Hong Kong, Afghans who worked with the UK and Syrians from the camps more recently. It's a firm no to everyone else from me. Asylum rules are too easy to abuse otherwise and you end up with a free for all as we see now where people are coached by charities to say the right phrases to get into the asylum system and then abscond. Having mandatory deportation for anyone who just arrives in the UK uninvited is the only way to prevent this. If that breaks international law then so be it. We need to look after our own citizens and those we have chosen to help, not every Tom, Dick and Harry who pays the people smugglers enough money to get here illegally.
So you do understand there is that key difference, why UK signed up to the international asylum laws in the first place - Churchill and his cabinets were so keen on them and helped set them up, and remaining in them is still so important to many Conservative Party members even today, despite asylum system under pressure amidst waves of economic migration?
I thought the point of opposing HS2 was saying other infrastructure projects would be prioritised. Well what were they?
Um the money was going on pot holes in London wasn't it....
As someone who lives in London the money definitely hasn't been spent on fixing potholes.
I think its been spent on cycle lanes, wider pavements and 20mph markings in Yorkshire.
It would need some rabbit holing to find the exact numbers, however in England the amount spent on active travel from transport expenditure is around 2%, if that. And that's on everything not just your 3 items.
London may be slightly higher, but still a rounding error.
That's not where it's gone .
Of course it hasn't.
But the items in my comment are very noticeable and prompts the thought "what's that all about, I thought they had no money to spend".
Yes, but have you found any of the missing? :
Well if money has been spent elsewhere its usually a pretty good bet that's its been spent for the benefit of oldies.
In fact I do wonder if the new wider pavements I've seen installed are for the benefit of oldies in wheelchairs.
I'm also fuming at Labour now talking up migrant deportation schemes with Vietnam and Kurdistan. We had a deal in place and they fucking scrapped it for no good reason. Record illegal immigrant arrivals and now he's realised that axing the deterrent was a bad idea. As @Casino_Royale said, it's sixth form politics.
You don’t buy the argument, processing overseas and letting successful applicants live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, and processing abroad and not allow successful applicants to live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, are two completely different things?
A few months ago, Meloni’s overseas processing schemes were being held up as an example for us, and rest of Europe - now those schemes are in tatters, and Meloni could be on the way out soon.
I take a much tougher line on it. I'd only accept refugees where we have invited them, so only in the case of Ukraine, Hong Kong, Afghans who worked with the UK and Syrians from the camps more recently. It's a firm no to everyone else from me. Asylum rules are too easy to abuse otherwise and you end up with a free for all as we see now where people are coached by charities to say the right phrases to get into the asylum system and then abscond. Having mandatory deportation for anyone who just arrives in the UK uninvited is the only way to prevent this. If that breaks international law then so be it. We need to look after our own citizens and those we have chosen to help, not every Tom, Dick and Harry who pays the people smugglers enough money to get here illegally.
But you do understand why UK signed up to the international laws in the first place - Churchill and his cabinets were so keen on them and helped set them up, and remaining in them is still so important to many Conservative Party members even today, despite asylum system under pressure amidst waves of economic migration?
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has announced plans to temporarily suspend the right to asylum as part of a new migration strategy to combat irregular migration.
During a speech at a meeting of his centre-right Civic Coalition political grouping in Warsaw, Tusk said people smugglers - aided by Belarus and Russia - were abusing the right to asylum.
We seem to go round and round in ever decreasing circles on the issue of social care..🥴
Yep.
More delay incoming.
A Royal Commission will take three years and mean literally nothing will be done before the next GE other than the Fair Pay Agreement for care workers which will increase costs with no one seemingly able to say if LAs will be able to cover the additional costs.
Inevitable after voters rewarded Theresa May's 'brave' plan to take all old people's assets over £100k to pay for social care in 2017 by almost making Corbyn PM and seeing her lose her majority.
No party will ever touch tough choices on social care again themselves unless a cross party agreement (I prefer a Japanese style insurance system but still needs cross party agreement)
My best guess is the current Labour government will last for 1 or 2 years before it collapses. It is incapable of dealing with the problems it is going to encounter and the only thing going for it is its large majority, but the latter will rapidly erode as MP's flake out.
Which 100 odd Labour MPs are going to vote against in the government in a confidence vote? Not even the Corbynite MPs would do it, nobody wants to unnecessarily lose their jobs.
Starmer could be utterly incompetent and do nothing and this Government would sail on to July / August 2029...
The size of the majority and the fact turkeys don't vote for Christmas should tell everyone how things will play out.
The basis for what I am saying is a sense is that there will be no option to 'sail on' to 2029 without taking paradigm shifting decisions which will fundamentally rupture the coalition of interests that form the basis of the labour party. The decisions would be forced on to the leadership due to world economic/geopolitical/military events. It seems likely to me that this could lead to a split in the party such that its ability to govern is jeapordised, but what exact dynamics this will take on depends on how events unfold.
There is a lot of 'normalcy bias' evident in the comments on this website. It is obviously possible that politics will plod on as normal and my 'predictions' will turn out to be laughably hysterical, but I just don't think that is very likely.
You could be right, but I would be sceptical for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, we've seen many massive events in British political history, and few of them have brought a government to a premature end, even if they've led to one PM replacing another. There were hysterical posts about the Tories not being able to stagger on to 2024 after the Truss Calamity, but they did, and in the end everyone was left scratching their heads wondering why Sunak went early.
Secondly, your post reads a lot like the sorts of things people on the far-left say to each other to keep themselves warm on a cold winter's evening. The point of crisis for capitalism is always just over the horizon. The current centrist politics cannot hold. Our time is near.
I do think that, perhaps, there's a greater than normal chance of an extraordinary crisis - but I wouldn't expect an early general election to result, even if there were major political ructions as a consequence.
Those are fair points. Perhaps this goes down to the ability of Starmer to read the situation and manage the party through the change that is likely to occur. He should be by far the most able and competent politician in the party to do that, but the decisions taken to date don't give me much confidence.
It would be nice to hear Starmer say 'Now is not the moment to go wobbly on Ukraine.'
Ukraine and Russia are already talking about peace next year and making positive noises - just on Trump being elected. Ukraine played a masterstroke in invading part of Russia. And perhaps there's even more the collective West can threaten, to further strengthen their hand in negotiations. We should encourage that.
But it would be a huge blunder for us to try and talk Ukraine out of a negotiated ceasefire and into grinding on. It wouldn't be good for Ukraine and it would be almost impossible for us. And we'd only be doing it to save our own face.
Talking about peace on the day Russia targeted their power grid.
I'm sorry but you are talking absolute bullshit...
And of course the combatants are still fighting a brutal war - that's why stopping it would be a good idea, if unfathomably unpopular in some quarters.
We seem to go round and round in ever decreasing circles on the issue of social care..🥴
Yep.
More delay incoming.
A Royal Commission will take three years and mean literally nothing will be done before the next GE other than the Fair Pay Agreement for care workers which will increase costs with no one seemingly able to say if LAs will be able to cover the additional costs.
Inevitable after voters rewarded Theresa May's 'brave' plan to take all old people's assets over £100k to pay for social care in 2017 by almost making Corbyn PM and seeing her lose her majority.
No party will ever touch tough choices on social care again themselves unless a cross party agreement (I prefer a Japanese style insurance system but still needs cross party agreement)
Blair had a Royal Commission but didn't like the results so nothing happened.
Same could happen again.
To govern is to choose. The whole political class are cowards.
I'm also fuming at Labour now talking up migrant deportation schemes with Vietnam and Kurdistan. We had a deal in place and they fucking scrapped it for no good reason. Record illegal immigrant arrivals and now he's realised that axing the deterrent was a bad idea. As @Casino_Royale said, it's sixth form politics.
You don’t buy the argument, processing overseas and letting successful applicants live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, and processing abroad and not allow successful applicants to live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, are two completely different things?
A few months ago, Meloni’s overseas processing schemes were being held up as an example for us, and rest of Europe - now those schemes are in tatters, and Meloni could be on the way out soon.
I take a much tougher line on it. I'd only accept refugees where we have invited them, so only in the case of Ukraine, Hong Kong, Afghans who worked with the UK and Syrians from the camps more recently. It's a firm no to everyone else from me. Asylum rules are too easy to abuse otherwise and you end up with a free for all as we see now where people are coached by charities to say the right phrases to get into the asylum system and then abscond. Having mandatory deportation for anyone who just arrives in the UK uninvited is the only way to prevent this. If that breaks international law then so be it. We need to look after our own citizens and those we have chosen to help, not every Tom, Dick and Harry who pays the people smugglers enough money to get here illegally.
So you do understand there is that key difference, why UK signed up to the international asylum laws in the first place - Churchill and his cabinets were so keen on them and helped set them up, and remaining in them is still so important to many Conservative Party members even today, despite asylum system under pressure amidst waves of economic migration?
I have made the same argument as @MaxPB on this repeatedly. Our asylum system reflects the guilt of a generation that turned Jews away and then discovered the horrors of the camps. Understandable, but simply not sustainable in a much more mobile world that is still full of chaos, bigotry and threats.
I would not want the UK to be unilateral about this but the current asylum system needs radical change. We need to work with others to ensure that asylum is not a right but a gift which we can make or withhold according to our judgment and our interests. The collapse of the current system is one beacon of light in the deep darkness of a second Trump Presidency.
I'm also fuming at Labour now talking up migrant deportation schemes with Vietnam and Kurdistan. We had a deal in place and they fucking scrapped it for no good reason. Record illegal immigrant arrivals and now he's realised that axing the deterrent was a bad idea. As @Casino_Royale said, it's sixth form politics.
You don’t buy the argument, processing overseas and letting successful applicants live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, and processing abroad and not allow successful applicants to live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, are two completely different things?
A few months ago, Meloni’s overseas processing schemes were being held up as an example for us, and rest of Europe - now those schemes are in tatters, and Meloni could be on the way out soon.
I take a much tougher line on it. I'd only accept refugees where we have invited them, so only in the case of Ukraine, Hong Kong, Afghans who worked with the UK and Syrians from the camps more recently. It's a firm no to everyone else from me. Asylum rules are too easy to abuse otherwise and you end up with a free for all as we see now where people are coached by charities to say the right phrases to get into the asylum system and then abscond. Having mandatory deportation for anyone who just arrives in the UK uninvited is the only way to prevent this. If that breaks international law then so be it. We need to look after our own citizens and those we have chosen to help, not every Tom, Dick and Harry who pays the people smugglers enough money to get here illegally.
So you do understand there is that key difference, why UK signed up to the international asylum laws in the first place - Churchill and his cabinets were so keen on them and helped set them up, and remaining in them is still so important to many Conservative Party members even today, despite asylum system under pressure amidst waves of economic migration?
Also the convention that Churchill signed up to had a time-based limitation and only covered people affected by "events occuring before 1 January 1951", so it was essentially limited to people affected by WW2 and its aftermath. It was only after Churchill died that it was changed into a universal right.
I'm also fuming at Labour now talking up migrant deportation schemes with Vietnam and Kurdistan. We had a deal in place and they fucking scrapped it for no good reason. Record illegal immigrant arrivals and now he's realised that axing the deterrent was a bad idea. As @Casino_Royale said, it's sixth form politics.
You don’t buy the argument, processing overseas and letting successful applicants live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, and processing abroad and not allow successful applicants to live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, are two completely different things?
A few months ago, Meloni’s overseas processing schemes were being held up as an example for us, and rest of Europe - now those schemes are in tatters, and Meloni could be on the way out soon.
I take a much tougher line on it. I'd only accept refugees where we have invited them, so only in the case of Ukraine, Hong Kong, Afghans who worked with the UK and Syrians from the camps more recently. It's a firm no to everyone else from me. Asylum rules are too easy to abuse otherwise and you end up with a free for all as we see now where people are coached by charities to say the right phrases to get into the asylum system and then abscond. Having mandatory deportation for anyone who just arrives in the UK uninvited is the only way to prevent this. If that breaks international law then so be it. We need to look after our own citizens and those we have chosen to help, not every Tom, Dick and Harry who pays the people smugglers enough money to get here illegally.
So you do understand there is that key difference, why UK signed up to the international asylum laws in the first place - Churchill and his cabinets were so keen on them and helped set them up, and remaining in them is still so important to many Conservative Party members even today, despite asylum system under pressure amidst waves of economic migration?
I understand that those decisions were taken in an age that never envisioned the kind of mobility in global populations that we have today and applied to people displaced by WW2, it's time to revisit them. I also think if you polled conservative members on my approach you'd get overwhelming majority support for it. I'm a member and meet these people on a very regular basis. There is very little ideological support for asylum seekers, the most common refrain is that illegal immigrants are abusing the system so we need to rewrite it to stop that. An invitation only asylum system would get wide support among Tory members and voters and it would bring back a big chunk of reform voters.
I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb
Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
Probably. I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station. The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
You don't build one, you build a dozen.
And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."
One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.
Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
As I've pointed out many times, the west giving in to Putin's nuclear blackmail has made the world a much more dangerous place. Now every tinpot regime with expansionist ideas will realise that having nukes means the civilised world will just give in to whatever they wish. Why spend billions on a military that can often be defeated - and which can turn against you - and which puts you in hock to supplier countries, when you can build a nuke for less?
Of the many, many problems inflicted by an old fool's dithering, that's obviously not one. It's been blindingly obvious since the 40s that nuclear weapons have a powerful deterrent effect, and ghastly regimes haven't needed the Ukraine war to demonstrate that to them. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa are varying examples of tinpot regimes who realised this long before 2022.
What the war and Biden's dithering has done is demonstrate to democracies like Ukraine, but perhaps also South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Japan and others, that they can't rely on the US shield. Again, some have been realising that since 2016 or before - Ukraine is not the only example of America's chronic unreliability as an ally. That is where the true damage to the nuclear proliferation framework lies.
“To be America’s enemy is dangerous. To be America’s friend is fatal.”
The original was better:
I would rather be the Englishman’s enemy than their friend. For they buy their enemies and sell their friends.
Who said/wrote that?
I believe it was Nasser, but he was quoting an Arab proverb
I have it in the back of my mind that it was said by a ruler in Afghanistan during The Great Game. The British Government - or the British India officials - often played one local ruler off against another and them some years later did the reverse.
Public policy as a means to manage the psychological state of the PM. Imagine cancelling a decades-long infrastructure project in an attempt to gee up the Prime Minister.
The short answer then is that Sunak called an early election because he fundamentally doesn't understand politics.
I do have to give him credit for sticking around as Tory leader for an extended leadership election despite obviously being beyond sick of the whole thing.
It was done because as Chief Secretary and Chancellor often complained HS2 was a waste of money.
Which it is.
Why is creating the necessary capacity on the West Coast Mainline a problem that has existed since the 1980s a waste of money?
It’s the great British asset sweat-off isn’t it. Don’t build, and somehow they’ll come anyway. Or not.
We can't sweat it anymore and parts of it are now falling apart - see for example the current boarding problems at Euston...
That won’t stop some people being reflexively anti any kind of major infrastructure investment. Penny pinching is in the country’s genes.
Shouldn't really be though. What happened to the country of the industrial revolution? Lost an empire to pay for it I guess.
Infrastructure in those days was build by the private sector not the state…
I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb
Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
Probably. I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station. The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
You don't build one, you build a dozen.
And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."
One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.
Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
As I've pointed out many times, the west giving in to Putin's nuclear blackmail has made the world a much more dangerous place. Now every tinpot regime with expansionist ideas will realise that having nukes means the civilised world will just give in to whatever they wish. Why spend billions on a military that can often be defeated - and which can turn against you - and which puts you in hock to supplier countries, when you can build a nuke for less?
Of the many, many problems inflicted by an old fool's dithering, that's obviously not one. It's been blindingly obvious since the 40s that nuclear weapons have a powerful deterrent effect, and ghastly regimes haven't needed the Ukraine war to demonstrate that to them. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa are varying examples of tinpot regimes who realised this long before 2022.
What the war and Biden's dithering has done is demonstrate to democracies like Ukraine, but perhaps also South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Japan and others, that they can't rely on the US shield. Again, some have been realising that since 2016 or before - Ukraine is not the only example of America's chronic unreliability as an ally. That is where the true damage to the nuclear proliferation framework lies.
“To be America’s enemy is dangerous. To be America’s friend is fatal.”
The original was better:
I would rather be the Englishman’s enemy than their friend. For they buy their enemies and sell their friends.
Who said/wrote that?
I believe it was Nasser, but he was quoting an Arab proverb
I have it in the back of my mind that it was said by a ruler in Afghanistan during The Great Game. The British Government - or the British India officials - often played one local ruler off against another and them some years later did the reverse.
It was in my mind that it was said to TE Lawrence during his negotiations with the Arabs after WW1 and the collapse of the Turkish empire in the middle east but let's face it, there is no shortage of scenarios in the history of the British empire that it would fit.
I'm also fuming at Labour now talking up migrant deportation schemes with Vietnam and Kurdistan. We had a deal in place and they fucking scrapped it for no good reason. Record illegal immigrant arrivals and now he's realised that axing the deterrent was a bad idea. As @Casino_Royale said, it's sixth form politics.
You don’t buy the argument, processing overseas and letting successful applicants live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, and processing abroad and not allow successful applicants to live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, are two completely different things?
A few months ago, Meloni’s overseas processing schemes were being held up as an example for us, and rest of Europe - now those schemes are in tatters, and Meloni could be on the way out soon.
I take a much tougher line on it. I'd only accept refugees where we have invited them, so only in the case of Ukraine, Hong Kong, Afghans who worked with the UK and Syrians from the camps more recently. It's a firm no to everyone else from me. Asylum rules are too easy to abuse otherwise and you end up with a free for all as we see now where people are coached by charities to say the right phrases to get into the asylum system and then abscond. Having mandatory deportation for anyone who just arrives in the UK uninvited is the only way to prevent this. If that breaks international law then so be it. We need to look after our own citizens and those we have chosen to help, not every Tom, Dick and Harry who pays the people smugglers enough money to get here illegally.
So you do understand there is that key difference, why UK signed up to the international asylum laws in the first place - Churchill and his cabinets were so keen on them and helped set them up, and remaining in them is still so important to many Conservative Party members even today, despite asylum system under pressure amidst waves of economic migration?
I have made the same argument as @MaxPB on this repeatedly. Our asylum system reflects the guilt of a generation that turned Jews away and then discovered the horrors of the camps. Understandable, but simply not sustainable in a much more mobile world that is still full of chaos, bigotry and threats.
I would not want the UK to be unilateral about this but the current asylum system needs radical change. We need to work with others to ensure that asylum is not a right but a gift which we can make or withhold according to our judgment and our interests. The collapse of the current system is one beacon of light in the deep darkness of a second Trump Presidency.
If Labour wanted to keep the Tories out for a generation then they would lead on this with the US and other European countries and be the party that fixed the illegal immigration problem. They won't because the idea probably disgusts Starmer and he probably views anyone who wants to stop illegal immigration as bigots and racists.
My best guess is the current Labour government will last for 1 or 2 years before it collapses. It is incapable of dealing with the problems it is going to encounter and the only thing going for it is its large majority, but the latter will rapidly erode as MP's flake out.
Plenty of betting opportunities out there. My kneejerk response is that incapacity to deal with problems has rarely stopped other governments going the full term.
My best guess is the current Labour government will last for 1 or 2 years before it collapses. It is incapable of dealing with the problems it is going to encounter and the only thing going for it is its large majority, but the latter will rapidly erode as MP's flake out.
Which 100 odd Labour MPs are going to vote against in the government in a confidence vote? Not even the Corbynite MPs would do it, nobody wants to unnecessarily lose their jobs.
Starmer could be utterly incompetent and do nothing and this Government would sail on to July / August 2029...
The size of the majority and the fact turkeys don't vote for Christmas should tell everyone how things will play out.
The basis for what I am saying is a sense is that there will be no option to 'sail on' to 2029 without taking paradigm shifting decisions which will fundamentally rupture the coalition of interests that form the basis of the labour party. The decisions would be forced on to the leadership due to world economic/geopolitical/military events. It seems likely to me that this could lead to a split in the party such that its ability to govern is jeapordised, but what exact dynamics this will take on depends on how events unfold.
There is a lot of 'normalcy bias' evident in the comments on this website. It is obviously possible that politics will plod on as normal and my 'predictions' will turn out to be laughably hysterical, but I just don't think that is very likely.
I looked for odds on date of the next election, which would be the obvious bet for you to make, but couldn’t find any. You can get 4/1 and 5/1 respectively on 2025 and 2026 as Starmer’s departure date. Y’know, if you want to put your money where your mouth is.
Another interesting bet for someone of a Darkage disposition is Farage next PM at 7.6. If it does all go to pot in that way he'll most likely be there to dip his bread in it.
I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb
Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
Probably. I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station. The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
You don't build one, you build a dozen.
And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."
One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.
Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
As I've pointed out many times, the west giving in to Putin's nuclear blackmail has made the world a much more dangerous place. Now every tinpot regime with expansionist ideas will realise that having nukes means the civilised world will just give in to whatever they wish. Why spend billions on a military that can often be defeated - and which can turn against you - and which puts you in hock to supplier countries, when you can build a nuke for less?
Of the many, many problems inflicted by an old fool's dithering, that's obviously not one. It's been blindingly obvious since the 40s that nuclear weapons have a powerful deterrent effect, and ghastly regimes haven't needed the Ukraine war to demonstrate that to them. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa are varying examples of tinpot regimes who realised this long before 2022.
What the war and Biden's dithering has done is demonstrate to democracies like Ukraine, but perhaps also South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Japan and others, that they can't rely on the US shield. Again, some have been realising that since 2016 or before - Ukraine is not the only example of America's chronic unreliability as an ally. That is where the true damage to the nuclear proliferation framework lies.
“To be America’s enemy is dangerous. To be America’s friend is fatal.”
The original was better:
I would rather be the Englishman’s enemy than their friend. For they buy their enemies and sell their friends.
Who said/wrote that?
I believe it was Nasser, but he was quoting an Arab proverb
I have it in the back of my mind that it was said by a ruler in Afghanistan during The Great Game. The British Government - or the British India officials - often played one local ruler off against another and them some years later did the reverse.
More that the British Government paid hostile warlords in the area “pensions” to tone down the hostile war lording.
Actual allies of the British government, in the area, sometimes found that their complaints of being raided by said warlords were not given priority over “maintaining the peace”.
Beginning to think it’s not fanciful that this Government might collapse. Rumours whirling around Starmer; allegations Rachel Reeve not even an economist; 100 days of Government so chaotic it was not even celebrated; furious farmers about to stop food and petrol; debt heading towards IMF visit levels; business up in arms; big taxpayers leaving country. The Opposition better get its act together. May not have years to think about it.
Getting a heavy 'move over Leon, there's a new hystericist in town' vibe.
I think I am right in the centre ground of politics, and it is everyone else who is out at the extremes. IE the position I took on the US election was an absolutely centrist position (Both very bad options, Trump very slightly preferable).
The assumption now that 'everything will carry on as normal, order will be restored' is flawed. We are going through structural change, and I think the likelihood that Labour (who I voted for, again evidence of my 'centrism') will be able to successfully deal with it is minimal. Not impossible but minimal. As cited in the quote above, they have done almost nothing in the first 100 days, despite its massive majority.
On the US, now we have an anti-vaxxer responsible for public health and a Russian asset as director of national intelligence… so you still hold that view?
We seem to go round and round in ever decreasing circles on the issue of social care..🥴
Yep.
More delay incoming.
A Royal Commission will take three years and mean literally nothing will be done before the next GE other than the Fair Pay Agreement for care workers which will increase costs with no one seemingly able to say if LAs will be able to cover the additional costs.
Inevitable after voters rewarded Theresa May's 'brave' plan to take all old people's assets over £100k to pay for social care in 2017 by almost making Corbyn PM and seeing her lose her majority.
No party will ever touch tough choices on social care again themselves unless a cross party agreement (I prefer a Japanese style insurance system but still needs cross party agreement)
Blair had a Royal Commission but didn't like the results so nothing happened.
Same could happen again.
To govern is to choose. The whole political class are cowards.
Theresa May governed and chose, just the voters, especially home owning pensioners and their heirs, decided her choice would cost them and said 'sod off' at the next general election as she lost her majority and had to back down
I'm also fuming at Labour now talking up migrant deportation schemes with Vietnam and Kurdistan. We had a deal in place and they fucking scrapped it for no good reason. Record illegal immigrant arrivals and now he's realised that axing the deterrent was a bad idea. As @Casino_Royale said, it's sixth form politics.
You don’t buy the argument, processing overseas and letting successful applicants live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, and processing abroad and not allow successful applicants to live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, are two completely different things?
A few months ago, Meloni’s overseas processing schemes were being held up as an example for us, and rest of Europe - now those schemes are in tatters, and Meloni could be on the way out soon.
I take a much tougher line on it. I'd only accept refugees where we have invited them, so only in the case of Ukraine, Hong Kong, Afghans who worked with the UK and Syrians from the camps more recently. It's a firm no to everyone else from me. Asylum rules are too easy to abuse otherwise and you end up with a free for all as we see now where people are coached by charities to say the right phrases to get into the asylum system and then abscond. Having mandatory deportation for anyone who just arrives in the UK uninvited is the only way to prevent this. If that breaks international law then so be it. We need to look after our own citizens and those we have chosen to help, not every Tom, Dick and Harry who pays the people smugglers enough money to get here illegally.
So you do understand there is that key difference, why UK signed up to the international asylum laws in the first place - Churchill and his cabinets were so keen on them and helped set them up, and remaining in them is still so important to many Conservative Party members even today, despite asylum system under pressure amidst waves of economic migration?
I understand that those decisions were taken in an age that never envisioned the kind of mobility in global populations that we have today and applied to people displaced by WW2, it's time to revisit them. I also think if you polled conservative members on my approach you'd get overwhelming majority support for it. I'm a member and meet these people on a very regular basis. There is very little ideological support for asylum seekers, the most common refrain is that illegal immigrants are abusing the system so we need to rewrite it to stop that. An invitation only asylum system would get wide support among Tory members and voters and it would bring back a big chunk of reform voters.
I agree that would be a good way of doing it.
Another way would be to process every single claim overseas - completely separating the asylum application process (a) from the ability to arrive in the UK and work illegally or claim benefits whilst waiting for an interminable application process to complete (b). Have processing centres in all the 6 continents.
Public policy as a means to manage the psychological state of the PM. Imagine cancelling a decades-long infrastructure project in an attempt to gee up the Prime Minister.
The short answer then is that Sunak called an early election because he fundamentally doesn't understand politics.
I do have to give him credit for sticking around as Tory leader for an extended leadership election despite obviously being beyond sick of the whole thing.
It was done because as Chief Secretary and Chancellor often complained HS2 was a waste of money.
Which it is.
Why is creating the necessary capacity on the West Coast Mainline a problem that has existed since the 1980s a waste of money?
It’s the great British asset sweat-off isn’t it. Don’t build, and somehow they’ll come anyway. Or not.
We can't sweat it anymore and parts of it are now falling apart - see for example the current boarding problems at Euston...
That won’t stop some people being reflexively anti any kind of major infrastructure investment. Penny pinching is in the country’s genes.
Shouldn't really be though. What happened to the country of the industrial revolution? Lost an empire to pay for it I guess.
Infrastructure in those days was build by the private sector not the state…
It’s about choices.
The canals and railways were built using Afts of Parliament to finalise the horse trading that went on in design phase. After the act was passed, there was little legal recourse.
If you choose to have a system where 5-10 years is standard for the Enquiry Industrial Complex to do its thing, followed by the farce of non stop redesign during implementation, for even quite minor projects…. Well, you will be lucky to have even minor projects.
Renowned pollster Ann Selzer is stepping away from election polling, citing the changing nature of the industry and a desire to explore new opportunities. Her work shaped political forecasting for years.
I bet he was getting contrary advice as well: that going sooner was better.
I really cannot see a delay as having improved things for the Tories - their problems were far more structural than just people feeling better off or not. The changes there would have been tiny, and would have been dwarfed by the fact that people simply wanted change.
So if he had delayed, we would see a threader with other stories about the contrary advice: that going earlier would have been better,
The Tories were doomed.
edit: and first with an on-topic post!
I think it was pretty mad the Tories went in July rather than October, but I concede there may have been further drip-drip-drip by-elections and defections.
However, I don't think they'd have done worse than 120 seats had they waited another 3 months - and the economy would have certainly improved.
And if Rishi had waited another three months, or even till January, then Conservatives would have enjoyed an extra three or six months in office, with jobs and wages to pay their mortgages. That many Conservative colleagues are not very well off and depend on their salaries is often lost on millionaire Conservative leaders from Mrs Thatcher through David Cameron to Rishi Sunak.
This should never be a factor. An absolutely disgraceful reason for any party to extend its governance and I hope one never thinks like that.
OK, how about Conservative governments think they are better than Labour ones, and vice versa, and therefore should aim to maximise their time in office?
I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb
Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
Probably. I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station. The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
You don't build one, you build a dozen.
And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."
One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.
Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
As I've pointed out many times, the west giving in to Putin's nuclear blackmail has made the world a much more dangerous place. Now every tinpot regime with expansionist ideas will realise that having nukes means the civilised world will just give in to whatever they wish. Why spend billions on a military that can often be defeated - and which can turn against you - and which puts you in hock to supplier countries, when you can build a nuke for less?
Of the many, many problems inflicted by an old fool's dithering, that's obviously not one. It's been blindingly obvious since the 40s that nuclear weapons have a powerful deterrent effect, and ghastly regimes haven't needed the Ukraine war to demonstrate that to them. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa are varying examples of tinpot regimes who realised this long before 2022.
What the war and Biden's dithering has done is demonstrate to democracies like Ukraine, but perhaps also South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Japan and others, that they can't rely on the US shield. Again, some have been realising that since 2016 or before - Ukraine is not the only example of America's chronic unreliability as an ally. That is where the true damage to the nuclear proliferation framework lies.
“To be America’s enemy is dangerous. To be America’s friend is fatal.”
The original was better:
I would rather be the Englishman’s enemy than their friend. For they buy their enemies and sell their friends.
Who said/wrote that?
I believe it was Nasser, but he was quoting an Arab proverb
I have it in the back of my mind that it was said by a ruler in Afghanistan during The Great Game. The British Government - or the British India officials - often played one local ruler off against another and them some years later did the reverse.
More that the British Government paid hostile warlords in the area “pensions” to tone down the hostile war lording.
Actual allies of the British government, in the area, sometimes found that their complaints of being raided by said warlords were not given priority over “maintaining the peace”.
I'm also fuming at Labour now talking up migrant deportation schemes with Vietnam and Kurdistan. We had a deal in place and they fucking scrapped it for no good reason. Record illegal immigrant arrivals and now he's realised that axing the deterrent was a bad idea. As @Casino_Royale said, it's sixth form politics.
You don’t buy the argument, processing overseas and letting successful applicants live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, and processing abroad and not allow successful applicants to live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, are two completely different things?
A few months ago, Meloni’s overseas processing schemes were being held up as an example for us, and rest of Europe - now those schemes are in tatters, and Meloni could be on the way out soon.
They aren't, if anything they are being held up by liberal judges and Meloni's party still has a comfortable 7% lead in the latest Italian poll
I think you will find the following points are accurate.
Meloni’s governments argument in court was their scheme was okay by internal commitments because it was obviously more humane than the UK Tory Governments that was consigning people to developing countries.
Polling shows already 55% of Italians hate this costly fiasco of a policy, But despite what opinion polls show right now, the political scandal of wasting money, on what they were told would not work and would waste money, is what costs votes and credibility, as this part of it is exactly what hurt the recent Tory government too - shredded credibility from years talking up a priority and delivering zilch on it in face of rising costs. The Italian government is concurrently struggling to balance the budget – austerity budget for education, health and social security – so the “financial disaster” of wasting money on something that so obviously couldn’t happen with Italy’s international agreements as they are, has certainly sunk Meloni’s government. If you don’t believe me just watch.
Public policy as a means to manage the psychological state of the PM. Imagine cancelling a decades-long infrastructure project in an attempt to gee up the Prime Minister.
The short answer then is that Sunak called an early election because he fundamentally doesn't understand politics.
I do have to give him credit for sticking around as Tory leader for an extended leadership election despite obviously being beyond sick of the whole thing.
It was done because as Chief Secretary and Chancellor often complained HS2 was a waste of money.
Which it is.
Why is creating the necessary capacity on the West Coast Mainline a problem that has existed since the 1980s a waste of money?
It’s the great British asset sweat-off isn’t it. Don’t build, and somehow they’ll come anyway. Or not.
We can't sweat it anymore and parts of it are now falling apart - see for example the current boarding problems at Euston...
That won’t stop some people being reflexively anti any kind of major infrastructure investment. Penny pinching is in the country’s genes.
Shouldn't really be though. What happened to the country of the industrial revolution? Lost an empire to pay for it I guess.
Infrastructure in those days was build by the private sector not the state…
It’s about choices.
The canals and railways were built using Afts of Parliament to finalise the horse trading that went on in design phase. After the act was passed, there was little legal recourse.
If you choose to have a system where 5-10 years is standard for the Enquiry Industrial Complex to do its thing, followed by the farce of non stop redesign during implementation, for even quite minor projects…. Well, you will be lucky to have even minor projects.
I'd comment that in those times much of the Government / Parliament was controlled by the private sector.
I'm also fuming at Labour now talking up migrant deportation schemes with Vietnam and Kurdistan. We had a deal in place and they fucking scrapped it for no good reason. Record illegal immigrant arrivals and now he's realised that axing the deterrent was a bad idea. As @Casino_Royale said, it's sixth form politics.
You don’t buy the argument, processing overseas and letting successful applicants live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, and processing abroad and not allow successful applicants to live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, are two completely different things?
A few months ago, Meloni’s overseas processing schemes were being held up as an example for us, and rest of Europe - now those schemes are in tatters, and Meloni could be on the way out soon.
They aren't, if anything they are being held up by liberal judges and Meloni's party still has a comfortable 7% lead in the latest Italian poll
I think you will find the following points are accurate.
Meloni’s governments argument in court was their scheme was okay by internal commitments because it was obviously more humane than the UK Tory Governments that was consigning people to developing countries.
Polling shows already 55% of Italians hate this costly fiasco of a policy, But despite what opinion polls show right now, the political scandal of wasting money, on what they were told would not work and would waste money, is what costs votes and credibility, as this part of it is exactly what hurt the recent Tory government too - shredded credibility from years talking up a priority and delivering zilch on it in face of rising costs. The Italian government is concurrently struggling to balance the budget – austerity budget for education, health and social security – so the “financial disaster” of wasting money on something that so obviously couldn’t happen with Italy’s international agreements as they are, has certainly sunk Meloni’s government. If you don’t believe me just watch.
And it all sounds so very similar?
The policy was blocked by judges in line with EU law.
If there is any backlash it won't be to Meloni but potentially for ItalExit from the EU
We seem to go round and round in ever decreasing circles on the issue of social care..🥴
Yep.
More delay incoming.
A Royal Commission will take three years and mean literally nothing will be done before the next GE other than the Fair Pay Agreement for care workers which will increase costs with no one seemingly able to say if LAs will be able to cover the additional costs.
Inevitable after voters rewarded Theresa May's 'brave' plan to take all old people's assets over £100k to pay for social care in 2017 by almost making Corbyn PM and seeing her lose her majority.
No party will ever touch tough choices on social care again themselves unless a cross party agreement (I prefer a Japanese style insurance system but still needs cross party agreement)
Blair had a Royal Commission but didn't like the results so nothing happened.
Same could happen again.
To govern is to choose. The whole political class are cowards.
Theresa May governed and chose, just the voters, especially home owning pensioners and their heirs, decided her choice would cost them and said 'sod off' at the next general election as she lost her majority and had to back down
It was not social care but the two terrorist outrages during the election campaign that cost Theresa May her majority. Two terrorist outrages, lots of dead children and Theresa May's denial that cutting 20,000 police officers might have been a factor.
Renowned pollster Ann Selzer is stepping away from election polling, citing the changing nature of the industry and a desire to explore new opportunities. Her work shaped political forecasting for years.
No connection with her final Iowa poll being massively out of line with Trump's 13% lead over Harris in the state when the results came in I am sure
We seem to go round and round in ever decreasing circles on the issue of social care..🥴
Yep.
More delay incoming.
A Royal Commission will take three years and mean literally nothing will be done before the next GE other than the Fair Pay Agreement for care workers which will increase costs with no one seemingly able to say if LAs will be able to cover the additional costs.
Inevitable after voters rewarded Theresa May's 'brave' plan to take all old people's assets over £100k to pay for social care in 2017 by almost making Corbyn PM and seeing her lose her majority.
No party will ever touch tough choices on social care again themselves unless a cross party agreement (I prefer a Japanese style insurance system but still needs cross party agreement)
Blair had a Royal Commission but didn't like the results so nothing happened.
Same could happen again.
To govern is to choose. The whole political class are cowards.
Theresa May governed and chose, just the voters, especially home owning pensioners and their heirs, decided her choice would cost them and said 'sod off' at the next general election as she lost her majority and had to back down
There is a special place in hell for Tim Farron and the rest of them:
We seem to go round and round in ever decreasing circles on the issue of social care..🥴
Yep.
More delay incoming.
A Royal Commission will take three years and mean literally nothing will be done before the next GE other than the Fair Pay Agreement for care workers which will increase costs with no one seemingly able to say if LAs will be able to cover the additional costs.
Inevitable after voters rewarded Theresa May's 'brave' plan to take all old people's assets over £100k to pay for social care in 2017 by almost making Corbyn PM and seeing her lose her majority.
No party will ever touch tough choices on social care again themselves unless a cross party agreement (I prefer a Japanese style insurance system but still needs cross party agreement)
Blair had a Royal Commission but didn't like the results so nothing happened.
Same could happen again.
To govern is to choose. The whole political class are cowards.
Theresa May governed and chose, just the voters, especially home owning pensioners and their heirs, decided her choice would cost them and said 'sod off' at the next general election as she lost her majority and had to back down
It was not social care but the two terrorist outrages during the election campaign that cost Theresa May her majority. Two terrorist outrages, lots of dead children and Theresa May's denial that cutting 20,000 police officers might have been a factor.
It wasn't, the Tory manifesto including the dementia tax was launched on 18th May 2017.
Survation on 12th-13th May had the Conservatives on 48% and Labour on just 30% ie a May landslide.
Survation on 19th-20th May after the manifesto launch had the Tories down to 43% (their final voteshare was 42.3%) and Labour up to 34% which they further increased by polling day squeezing minor parties on issues like police officer cuts but it was the dementia tax that hit the Tory vote above all
Public policy as a means to manage the psychological state of the PM. Imagine cancelling a decades-long infrastructure project in an attempt to gee up the Prime Minister.
The short answer then is that Sunak called an early election because he fundamentally doesn't understand politics.
I do have to give him credit for sticking around as Tory leader for an extended leadership election despite obviously being beyond sick of the whole thing.
It was done because as Chief Secretary and Chancellor often complained HS2 was a waste of money.
Which it is.
Why is creating the necessary capacity on the West Coast Mainline a problem that has existed since the 1980s a waste of money?
It’s the great British asset sweat-off isn’t it. Don’t build, and somehow they’ll come anyway. Or not.
We can't sweat it anymore and parts of it are now falling apart - see for example the current boarding problems at Euston...
That won’t stop some people being reflexively anti any kind of major infrastructure investment. Penny pinching is in the country’s genes.
Shouldn't really be though. What happened to the country of the industrial revolution? Lost an empire to pay for it I guess.
Infrastructure in those days was build by the private sector not the state…
It’s about choices.
The canals and railways were built using Afts of Parliament to finalise the horse trading that went on in design phase. After the act was passed, there was little legal recourse.
If you choose to have a system where 5-10 years is standard for the Enquiry Industrial Complex to do its thing, followed by the farce of non stop redesign during implementation, for even quite minor projects…. Well, you will be lucky to have even minor projects.
I'd comment that in those times much of the Government / Parliament was controlled by the private sector.
Eg Earl Something of Somewhere.
There was still enormous amounts of horse trading before the Acts passed - to get the votes.
The modern equivalent would be using primary legislation to override all the obligations and duties that have been created over the years.
Will Hutton makes a good argument for the changes to farming death duties in The Observer. I hadn't realised Thatcher had introduced it in 1984. So long as the wealthy prioritise and are incentivised to prioritise land ownership we will be a country in decline.
Most farmers aren't wealthy but income poor even if asset rich
That's another outrageous sweeping statement and without citation.
If they were that concerned they shouldn't have voted Brexit. If they voted Brexit it is their own fault that the Bentley Bentaga has to last four rather than two years.
If their farming portfolio is below £3m they have nothing to fear.
I'm also fuming at Labour now talking up migrant deportation schemes with Vietnam and Kurdistan. We had a deal in place and they fucking scrapped it for no good reason. Record illegal immigrant arrivals and now he's realised that axing the deterrent was a bad idea. As @Casino_Royale said, it's sixth form politics.
You don’t buy the argument, processing overseas and letting successful applicants live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, and processing abroad and not allow successful applicants to live in your country in line with your international legal obligations on refugee’s, are two completely different things?
A few months ago, Meloni’s overseas processing schemes were being held up as an example for us, and rest of Europe - now those schemes are in tatters, and Meloni could be on the way out soon.
I take a much tougher line on it. I'd only accept refugees where we have invited them, so only in the case of Ukraine, Hong Kong, Afghans who worked with the UK and Syrians from the camps more recently. It's a firm no to everyone else from me. Asylum rules are too easy to abuse otherwise and you end up with a free for all as we see now where people are coached by charities to say the right phrases to get into the asylum system and then abscond. Having mandatory deportation for anyone who just arrives in the UK uninvited is the only way to prevent this. If that breaks international law then so be it. We need to look after our own citizens and those we have chosen to help, not every Tom, Dick and Harry who pays the people smugglers enough money to get here illegally.
So you do understand there is that key difference, why UK signed up to the international asylum laws in the first place - Churchill and his cabinets were so keen on them and helped set them up, and remaining in them is still so important to many Conservative Party members even today, despite asylum system under pressure amidst waves of economic migration?
I understand that those decisions were taken in an age that never envisioned the kind of mobility in global populations that we have today and applied to people displaced by WW2, it's time to revisit them. I also think if you polled conservative members on my approach you'd get overwhelming majority support for it. I'm a member and meet these people on a very regular basis. There is very little ideological support for asylum seekers, the most common refrain is that illegal immigrants are abusing the system so we need to rewrite it to stop that. An invitation only asylum system would get wide support among Tory members and voters and it would bring back a big chunk of reform voters.
Aside from the moral arguments of asylum historic and present, recognising an issue still doesn’t excuse lack of delivery on putting it right. Does not excuse the bad politics strapping self to any proposed solution, defending the indefensible impracticalities of delivering it, and going down the political u bend of history with that solution, as Sunak and Meloni have done.
Do you believe the scheme Starmer has scrapped calling it a gimmick, would have worked as a deterrent? The Starmer government has scrapped a deterrent?
It seems so obvious, like writing on a wall, something was never going to work whilst international commitments were as they were, yet still money was pissed up the wall, over that writing in the wall, and zilch delivered year after year on what was talked up as a priority issue.
Will Hutton makes a good argument for the changes to farming death duties in The Observer. I hadn't realised Thatcher had introduced it in 1984. So long as the wealthy prioritise and are incentivised to prioritise land ownership we will be a country in decline.
Most farmers aren't wealthy but income poor even if asset rich
That's another outrageous sweeping statement a without citation.
If they were that concerned they shouldn't have voted Brexit. If they voted Brexit it is their own fault that the Bentley Bentaga has to last four rather than two years.
If their farming portfolio is below £3m they have nothing to fear.
Renowned pollster Ann Selzer is stepping away from election polling, citing the changing nature of the industry and a desire to explore new opportunities. Her work shaped political forecasting for years.
No connection with her final Iowa poll being massively out of line with Trump's 13% lead over Harris in the state when the results came in I am sure
Yes, she really did soil herself whilst wearing white trousers. Likewise Lichtman.
Renowned pollster Ann Selzer is stepping away from election polling, citing the changing nature of the industry and a desire to explore new opportunities. Her work shaped political forecasting for years.
No connection with her final Iowa poll being massively out of line with Trump's 13% lead over Harris in the state when the results came in I am sure
Yes, she really did soil herself whilst wearing white trousers. Likewise Lichtman.
Yes Lichtman can't even say he got the popular vote right as he did with his only other wrong call in 2000 when he called it for Gore.
His call for Harris was equally disastrous for his reputation as a forecaster going forward
Will Hutton makes a good argument for the changes to farming death duties in The Observer. I hadn't realised Thatcher had introduced it in 1984. So long as the wealthy prioritise and are incentivised to prioritise land ownership we will be a country in decline.
Most farmers aren't wealthy but income poor even if asset rich
That's another outrageous sweeping statement a without citation.
If they were that concerned they shouldn't have voted Brexit. If they voted Brexit it is their own fault that the Bentley Bentaga has to last four rather than two years.
If their farming portfolio is below £3m they have nothing to fear.
Comments
@Foxy 's got something on someone, because it's prominently Leicester and the Isle of Wight.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86qy500545o
Dreadfully naive.
The size of the majority and the fact turkeys don't vote for Christmas should tell everyone how things will play out.
As for Ministers to go, I'd say it's Milliband who really needs to head off to spend more time with his heat pump. Starmer could hang the worst of the green bollocks on him.
Sadly neither looks likely.
None of them have grown up.
You are right, however, that CVgate might give Starmer cover to sack Reeves but it's a bit early for that (pace Kwasi Kwarteng).
Trump though was a populist right reaction to Obama who was white nationalist, anti immigration, anti free trade and bigger state than the Tea Party
The results from Michigan showed a clear lurch towards the Republican Party by Muslim voters in the state, likely the result of the Biden administration’s role in aiding Israel in its war in Gaza.
Analysis also shows that more Latino Catholics voted for Trump than expected, when previously they have tended to lean Democrat.'
I quite like the sentiment actually. But it is economically ruinous to prioritise it.
A Mr Ordinary who understood the concerns of ordinary people.
He wasn't supposed to be a high flying intellectual.
Reeves purported to be the great chess champion Oxford and City economist.
Really wish it would be possible to go year zero on this and establish better standards for truth-telling, but would any members of the cabinet survive such a standard?
She wanted someone boring and 'grey' to steady the ship.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/54a202f5-8412-45fb-9e09-ea532a3bf1d5?shareToken=38d696d7ded6d372ebff53e40b951cca
I’m a centrist. And, as such, I’m far, far to the right of the mad socialists of today — blue and red — taking our nation towards bankruptcy.
He's made it very clear that he's sticking to the current level of support, but if Ukraine needs more than that, then he's willing to just watch them be defeated and hope people will blame Trump.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8dz0n8xldo
There is a lot of 'normalcy bias' evident in the comments on this website. It is obviously possible that politics will plod on as normal and my 'predictions' will turn out to be laughably hysterical, but I just don't think that is very likely.
I'd actually argue that Labour MPs and members have shown a great deal of self-discipline in the run-up to, and since, the election, aside from the small number of permanent malcontents.
Firstly, we've seen many massive events in British political history, and few of them have brought a government to a premature end, even if they've led to one PM replacing another. There were hysterical posts about the Tories not being able to stagger on to 2024 after the Truss Calamity, but they did, and in the end everyone was left scratching their heads wondering why Sunak went early.
Secondly, your post reads a lot like the sorts of things people on the far-left say to each other to keep themselves warm on a cold winter's evening. The point of crisis for capitalism is always just over the horizon. The current centrist politics cannot hold. Our time is near.
I do think that, perhaps, there's a greater than normal chance of an extraordinary crisis - but I wouldn't expect an early general election to result, even if there were major political ructions as a consequence.
But it would be a huge blunder for us to try and talk Ukraine out of a negotiated ceasefire and into grinding on. It wouldn't be good for Ukraine and it would be almost impossible for us. And we'd only be doing it to save our own face.
We seem to go round and round in ever decreasing circles on the issue of social care..🥴
A few months ago, Meloni’s overseas processing schemes were being held up as an example for us, and rest of Europe - now those schemes are in tatters, and Meloni could be on the way out soon.
"I'm the chief passenger, not the Fat Controller."
I always read your posts, you really are a crazy, unserious person compared to the rest of us overly sober posters. 😀
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Italian_general_election
Edit: and just plain parents with children afoot.
There's some irony somewhere in this discussion, though I'm not quite sure where.
I'm sorry but you are talking absolute bullshit...
More delay incoming.
A Royal Commission will take three years and mean literally nothing will be done before the next GE other than the Fair Pay Agreement for care workers which will increase costs with no one seemingly able to say if LAs will be able to cover the additional costs.
But many of them are.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx20186mjleo
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has announced plans to temporarily suspend the right to asylum as part of a new migration strategy to combat irregular migration.
During a speech at a meeting of his centre-right Civic Coalition political grouping in Warsaw, Tusk said people smugglers - aided by Belarus and Russia - were abusing the right to asylum.
No party will ever touch tough choices on social care again themselves unless a cross party agreement (I prefer a Japanese style insurance system but still needs cross party agreement)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2024/11/16/zelensky-says-ukraine-russia-war-ends-faster-with-trump-heres-what-trump-has-said-about-ending-conflict/
And of course the combatants are still fighting a brutal war - that's why stopping it would be a good idea, if unfathomably unpopular in some quarters.
Same could happen again.
To govern is to choose. The whole political class are cowards.
I would not want the UK to be unilateral about this but the current asylum system needs radical change. We need to work with others to ensure that asylum is not a right but a gift which we can make or withhold according to our judgment and our interests. The collapse of the current system is one beacon of light in the deep darkness of a second Trump Presidency.
Actual allies of the British government, in the area, sometimes found that their complaints of being raided by said warlords were not given priority over “maintaining the peace”.
Another way would be to process every single claim overseas - completely separating the asylum application process (a) from the ability to arrive in the UK and work illegally or claim benefits whilst waiting for an interminable application process to complete (b). Have processing centres in all the 6 continents.
The canals and railways were built using Afts of Parliament to finalise the horse trading that went on in design phase. After the act was passed, there was little legal recourse.
If you choose to have a system where 5-10 years is standard for the Enquiry Industrial Complex to do its thing, followed by the farce of non stop redesign during implementation, for even quite minor projects…. Well, you will be lucky to have even minor projects.
Renowned pollster Ann Selzer is stepping away from election polling, citing the changing nature of the industry and a desire to explore new opportunities. Her work shaped political forecasting for years.
TBF that was the Fat Controller, though the SWP would probably call Gordon a Blue Engine.
(I win the competition for tortured comparisons.)
Meloni’s governments argument in court was their scheme was okay by internal commitments because it was obviously more humane than the UK Tory Governments that was consigning people to developing countries.
Polling shows already 55% of Italians hate this costly fiasco of a policy, But despite what opinion polls show right now, the political scandal of wasting money, on what they were told would not work and would waste money, is what costs votes and credibility, as this part of it is exactly what hurt the recent Tory government too - shredded credibility from years talking up a priority and delivering zilch on it in face of rising costs. The Italian government is concurrently struggling to balance the budget – austerity budget for education, health and social security – so the “financial disaster” of wasting money on something that so obviously couldn’t happen with Italy’s international agreements as they are, has certainly sunk Meloni’s government. If you don’t believe me just watch.
And it all sounds so very similar?
Eg Earl Something of Somewhere.
If there is any backlash it won't be to Meloni but potentially for ItalExit from the EU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UADY1jhDilY
Survation on 12th-13th May had the Conservatives on 48% and Labour on just 30% ie a May landslide.
Survation on 19th-20th May after the manifesto launch had the Tories down to 43% (their final voteshare was 42.3%) and Labour up to 34% which they further increased by polling day squeezing minor parties on issues like police officer cuts but it was the dementia tax that hit the Tory vote above all
https://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Final-GMB-II-Tables-120517TOCH-1c0d1h6.pdf
https://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Final-GMB-GE2017-III-Tables-190517TOCH-1c0d3h4.pdf
The modern equivalent would be using primary legislation to override all the obligations and duties that have been created over the years.
If they were that concerned they shouldn't have voted Brexit. If they voted Brexit it is their own fault that the Bentley Bentaga has to last four rather than two years.
If their farming portfolio is below £3m they have nothing to fear.
Do you believe the scheme Starmer has scrapped calling it a gimmick, would have worked as a deterrent? The Starmer government has scrapped a deterrent?
It seems so obvious, like writing on a wall, something was never going to work whilst international commitments were as they were, yet still money was pissed up the wall, over that writing in the wall, and zilch delivered year after year on what was talked up as a priority issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/18/british-farmers-uk-eu-nfu-brexit-farming
His call for Harris was equally disastrous for his reputation as a forecaster going forward