Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Badenoch is absolutely right on a potential Tory and Reform alliance – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,212
edited December 16 in General
Badenoch is absolutely right on a potential Tory and Reform alliance – politicalbetting.com

This is quite an important point from Badenoch. More Conservative voters would (just) have picked parties of the left as their second choice than Reform UK, but as far as I can tell no one on the left is proposing a pact with the Lib Dems. https://t.co/TRczTkh4lN pic.twitter.com/7WLIZ0Rtms

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,443
    edited December 16
    Fear gets the pulse racing. Starmer… doesn’t

    Edit: and first, like Kemi
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,166
    Sky News reports evidence of mass graves linked to a massacre during the Assad regime in Syria.
    https://x.com/ragipsoylu/status/1868342706189246535
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,934
    Nigelb said:

    Sky News reports evidence of mass graves linked to a massacre during the Assad regime in Syria.
    https://x.com/ragipsoylu/status/1868342706189246535

    No surprise there. It's just a question of finding them.

    The Argentinian regime buried them under a funfair.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,166
    U.S. steel workers are rallying to urge the government to *allow* the sale of the company to Nippon Steel.

    @POTUS do right by American workers, save U.S. Steel and do the deal.

    https://x.com/CNLiberalism/status/1868344396883906965
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,109
    I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    No wonder they lost the Red Wall.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,934
    edited December 16
    Foxy said:

    I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

    I see sneering done as well as you'd expect by the Left.

    The Conservatives had to spend it on Covid and support for lecky bills instead.

    Events.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,940

    Interesting interview and apparently the government have been sounding him out for advice. Rather amusingly, his core criticism is exactly what Big Dom banged on about.

    Economist breaks down how the Treasury rules the UK | Paul Collier interview
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f51urcvWmsM&

    I've not watched the whole hour-long video yet but right from the start, the first thing mentioned is Britain's terrible regional inequality. The government needs to prioritise development around the country rather than bulldozing London's green belt.
    Yes, I think a demand-driven housebuilding programme will further entrench those inequalities as they have in Scotland.

    The west-east shift, with areas around Glasgow depopulating and massive growth around Edinburgh, is demand driven. That demand exists because there is a critical mass of businesses and young people, and a thriving economy. It starts to snowball, so we now have even high house prices here than we did before.

    England desperately needs 1) a plan for towns and 2) a plan for the NE to stop London soaking up all the growth.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,109

    Foxy said:

    I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

    I see sneering done as well as you'd expect by the Left.

    The Conservatives had to spend it on Covid and support for lecky bills instead.

    Events.
    July 5th 2024

    Worst Electoral result for 200 years for the Tories.

    Events.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,884
    edited December 16
    ...

    Foxy said:

    I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

    I see sneering done as well as you'd expect by the Left.

    The Conservatives had to spend it on Covid and support for lecky bills instead.

    Events.
    You missed out Brexit.

    I don't recall PB Tories excusing "events" as a justification for the failure/demise of the Brown Government.
  • Expect a lot of South Korea threads from now on.

    South Koreans blame president’s ‘Lady Macbeth’ for martial law

    Critics suggest Yoon Suk-yeol made his disastrous decision in part to protect his wife Kim Keon-hee from investigation and potential prosecution


    For her Machiavellian politicking, she has been called “Korea’s Lady Macbeth”; for her obvious love of luxury she has been compared to Marie Antoinette; and for her extensive cosmetic surgery to Michael Jackson.

    As President Yoon of South Korea fights an increasingly desperate battle for political survival, angry attention is focusing on the part played in his embattled presidency by his wife, Kim Keon-hee.

    On Saturday the national assembly voted to impeach Yoon, 11 days after his sudden and abortive attempt to impose martial law. The motives for this disastrous move are not completely clear but many South Koreans suspect that, at least in part, it was a means of protecting his wife from investigation and potential prosecution.


    https://www.thetimes.com/article/south-koreans-blame-presidents-lady-macbeth-for-martial-law-jt9fzqfgf
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    Nigelb said:

    U.S. steel workers are rallying to urge the government to *allow* the sale of the company to Nippon Steel.

    @POTUS do right by American workers, save U.S. Steel and do the deal.

    https://x.com/CNLiberalism/status/1868344396883906965

    I think that should very much be left in the hands of the new President to decide - at which point the steel workers are going to regret how they voted...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,166
    On topic, parties are coalitions, obviously - particularly under FPTP.
    The Tory and Reform coalitions overlap, but much of that overlap has already migrated, and there's a significant portion of both parties outside of that overlap.

    Those that haven't yet made the jump, but might (eg Casino or Leon, to pick a couple of random examples) might well be enough to win a majority under FPTP - though very probably not a majority of the vote.

    De facto merger via defection to Reform is perhaps more likely than an actual merger ?
    And might actually work to Reform's advantage as the rump Tories waste their vote on an emasculated party, rather than lending it to Reform's actual competition.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    She is correct. I will not vote Conservative if they merge with Reform.

    Though a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

    The second option is the sensible one and will get rid of this dire government.

    Though making a cabinet thereafter will be the challenge.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,945
    Good morning, everyone.

    If the incumbent government continues to disappoint I might vote Conservative next time if they're lacklustre (although not if they're actviely bad). If they allied with Reform or united with them that would not be the case.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,934
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

    I see sneering done as well as you'd expect by the Left.

    The Conservatives had to spend it on Covid and support for lecky bills instead.

    Events.
    July 5th 2024

    Worst Electoral result for 200 years for the Tories.

    Events.
    They could have saved the furlough money and gone into the election with 5 million unemployed.

    That would have played better how, exactly?
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,125
    edited December 16
    Foxy said:

    I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

    Good. Levelling up may have been decent politics in the short term, but it was never going to work. Shovelling yet more public money at regions with already crushingly large public sectors was never going to do anything to help them. In fact, it probably would have made things much worse, as it penalised the enterprising and successful parts of the country.

    Of course Northerners are a lazy and greedy bunch, who will always vote for the party that promises them the biggest handouts, so you can see how they'd have lapped it up. But it was a socialist policy, and so would have been wasteful, counterproductive, probably corrupt and definitely ineffective.

    Much better to save public money and lower taxes and debt lower than otherwise instead.
  • Sticking a tenner on England to beat New Zealand in the third test at 120s on Betfair.

    Root and Brook just need to repeat their 454 run partnership against Pakistan in October and England are home and hosed because Root and Brook are that awesome.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    She is correct. I will not vote Conservative if they merge with Reform.

    Though a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

    A pact still risks putting Farage in government, that is something I couldn't coutenance.

    I wouldn't vote Tory in those circumstances even if David Cameron was my the Tory candidate in my constituency.
    In all honesty I cant see the outcome of the next election hinging on whether you vote or not
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,668
    Starmer might not frighten voters in the same way, but, post election, he seems just as effective in repelling them.
  • She is correct. I will not vote Conservative if they merge with Reform.

    Though a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

    A pact still risks putting Farage in government, that is something I couldn't coutenance.

    I wouldn't vote Tory in those circumstances even if David Cameron was my the Tory candidate in my constituency.
    In all honesty I cant see the outcome of the next election hinging on whether you vote or not
    That's the weakness of FPTP, under AV and other fairer voting systems every vote counts.

    I am one of the few that voted Tory in 2024, so if the Tories start losing significant chunks of their 2024 base.....
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    She is correct. I will not vote Conservative if they merge with Reform.

    Though a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

    A pact still risks putting Farage in government, that is something I couldn't coutenance.

    I wouldn't vote Tory in those circumstances even if David Cameron was my the Tory candidate in my constituency.
    In all honesty I cant see the outcome of the next election hinging on whether you vote or not
    That's the weakness of FPTP, under AV and other fairer voting systems every vote counts.

    I am one of the few that voted Tory in 2024, so if the Tories start losing significant chunks of their 2024 base.....
    I havent voted for anyone one in the last 2 elections, however this government is so crap I will get off my arse and vote against them next time round.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,700

    Sticking a tenner on England to beat New Zealand in the third test at 120s on Betfair.

    Root and Brook just need to repeat their 454 run partnership against Pakistan in October and England are home and hosed because Root and Brook are that awesome.

    Fuxsake, wasn't one golden duck enough?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,668
    On topic, Reform will go away if the Conservatives get a grip on immigration and cease sociocultural sneering. It's that simple.

    The bigger worry for me is that they simply might now be too far gone on relying on elderly voters to ever break out of that box.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,138
    Foxy said:

    I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

    Johnson's interest in anything ended the minute they'd stopped filming him announcing it.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,212
    eek said:

    She is correct. I will not vote Conservative if they merge with Reform.

    Though a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

    A pact would mean that the Tories wouldn't be able to form a Government by themselves so would need Reform to help them to power.

    Hence there is zero difference between a pact and merger if you don't want reform in power.
    We’re following a well trodden path. Centre right parties in the West seem notably quick to facilitate far right parties into power as soon as they look like becoming a threat.

    If Reform continue to rise in the polls the pact will happen, never mind policy or suitability for government. There will be enough Tory Von Papens to make it so, just as their were enough in the GOP to facilitate Trump.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,700
    edited December 16
    FPT
    Nigelb said:

    S Korean conservatives appear to be in denial about what their president just did.
    (With the exception of a dozen of their representatives.)

    https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=388558
    Han Dong-hoon, once a promising figure in the conservative bloc, is now losing his influence in politics after resigning from his position as head of the ruling People Power Party (PPP) following the National Assembly's successful vote to impeach President Yoon Suk Yeol for declaring martial law earlier this month.

    His critics blame him for failing to protect the party and the president by flip-flopping his stance and eventually supporting the opposition-led impeachment motion against Yoon...

    it seems to be an international problem with conservatives at the moment. We could mention India, Brazil, Israel, Mexico, America...even the UK if we consider how many Tories are claiming Massive Johnson was fired for those illegal lockdown parties and conveniently forget it was for lying to the Cabinet and Parliament about the alleged possible criminal behaviour of one of his MPs.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,323
    Eabhal said:

    Interesting interview and apparently the government have been sounding him out for advice. Rather amusingly, his core criticism is exactly what Big Dom banged on about.

    Economist breaks down how the Treasury rules the UK | Paul Collier interview
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f51urcvWmsM&

    I've not watched the whole hour-long video yet but right from the start, the first thing mentioned is Britain's terrible regional inequality. The government needs to prioritise development around the country rather than bulldozing London's green belt.
    Yes, I think a demand-driven housebuilding programme will further entrench those inequalities as they have in Scotland.

    The west-east shift, with areas around Glasgow depopulating and massive growth around Edinburgh, is demand driven. That demand exists because there is a critical mass of businesses and young people, and a thriving economy. It starts to snowball, so we now have even high house prices here than we did before.

    England desperately needs 1) a plan for towns and 2) a plan for the NE to stop London soaking up all the growth.
    Did you see the discussion of the Green Belts a few days ago? The English ones are absolutely enormous compared to the skinny one around Edinburgh.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,212

    She is correct. I will not vote Conservative if they merge with Reform.

    Though a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

    A pact still risks putting Farage in government, that is something I couldn't coutenance.

    I wouldn't vote Tory in those circumstances even if David Cameron was my the Tory candidate in my constituency.
    It would be good news for the Lib Dems though.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,109

    On topic, Reform will go away if the Conservatives get a grip on immigration and cease sociocultural sneering. It's that simple.

    The bigger worry for me is that they simply might now be too far gone on relying on elderly voters to ever break out of that box.

    It's very hard to get a grip on immigration when they are not in office.

    Meanwhile deportations are at a 5 year high under Labour.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/15/deportations-reach-five-year-high-despite-concerns-of-rights-groups?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,700
    edited December 16
    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    Interesting interview and apparently the government have been sounding him out for advice. Rather amusingly, his core criticism is exactly what Big Dom banged on about.

    Economist breaks down how the Treasury rules the UK | Paul Collier interview
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f51urcvWmsM&

    I've not watched the whole hour-long video yet but right from the start, the first thing mentioned is Britain's terrible regional inequality. The government needs to prioritise development around the country rather than bulldozing London's green belt.
    Yes, I think a demand-driven housebuilding programme will further entrench those inequalities as they have in Scotland.

    The west-east shift, with areas around Glasgow depopulating and massive growth around Edinburgh, is demand driven. That demand exists because there is a critical mass of businesses and young people, and a thriving economy. It starts to snowball, so we now have even high house prices here than we did before.

    England desperately needs 1) a plan for towns and 2) a plan for the NE to stop London soaking up all the growth.
    Did you see the discussion of the Green Belts a few days ago? The English ones are absolutely enormous compared to the skinny one around Edinburgh.
    I'm surprised no politician has yet proposed building on all that lovely flat bit to the north of Edinburgh.

    I mean, it's open, it's undeveloped, it's got lots of road and rail links...

    (This may sound like me being slightly daft. But one major problem in England is that there has been far too much development on flood plain land.)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,884
    ...

    On topic, Reform will go away if the Conservatives get a grip on immigration and cease sociocultural sneering. It's that simple.

    The bigger worry for me is that they simply might now be too far gone on relying on elderly voters to ever break out of that box.

    Your immigration point was more easily achievable from a position of government. The last memory the voter has of your party on immigration is you dropped the ball. Any threats to strafe the boats or paint over migrants with Disney cartoons count for nothing. You will not be believed. If shouting at foreigners is the way to win an election, Farage is your man.

    Anyway I suspect when it comes to immigration, "events" may, over four and a half years be Starmer's friend.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,109
    edited December 16
    Nigelb said:

    On topic, parties are coalitions, obviously - particularly under FPTP.
    The Tory and Reform coalitions overlap, but much of that overlap has already migrated, and there's a significant portion of both parties outside of that overlap.

    Those that haven't yet made the jump, but might (eg Casino or Leon, to pick a couple of random examples) might well be enough to win a majority under FPTP - though very probably not a majority of the vote.

    De facto merger via defection to Reform is perhaps more likely than an actual merger ?
    And might actually work to Reform's advantage as the rump Tories waste their vote on an emasculated party, rather than lending it to Reform's actual competition.

    I think we need to remember that the Tory membership is highly congruent with Reform, but the remaining voters are not, and neither are the Tory MPs.

    It's quite likely that the Tory membership will want a pact/merger with Reform, thereby putting off the voters, while the Tory MPs oppose Reform, thereby the party falls between stools.
  • Goodness, a thread header from TSE with which I agree. I must go and do some real work to recover.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,868
    FPT:
    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I note the Archbishop of York is under pressure now too (although if that standard was applied consistently a number of former Ofsted chiefs would not rest easily).

    I was trying to work out what would happen in the event of a vacancy in both Canterbury and York. That’s not happened since the 1650s and never, as far as I know, while the hierarchy was functioning.

    I presume either the Bishop of London - who is also under pressure - would be asked to take charge, or the Bench of Bishops would elect one of their number to carry out the functions of the office of Archbishop until an appointment is made.

    If the latter, that has interesting betting implications depending on who they choose. Whoever it is might suddenly become favourite to be archbishop especially if, as seems possible, they picked Martyn Snow.

    The situation in York province is complicated by the vacancies of Durham and Carlisle. I imagine Nick Baines as the longest serving Bishop would have to step up.

    There's been some reporting this morning on R4.

    There is a copy of File on Four on the Archbishop of York, here. I recommend listening.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00260xs

    If it were the case that he did everything he could for reasons of law, and had done everything he could to keep the offender from anything that looked like preferment, then I would reluctantly support him remaining in post.

    But I don't believe - listening to the programme - that that is the case. He had the moral authority and responsibility to intervene, for example by withdrawing the offender's permission to officiate (PTO) in his Diocese. He did not take action.

    Therefore imo ++York needs to stand down.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585

    ...

    On topic, Reform will go away if the Conservatives get a grip on immigration and cease sociocultural sneering. It's that simple.

    The bigger worry for me is that they simply might now be too far gone on relying on elderly voters to ever break out of that box.

    Your immigration point was more easily achievable from a position of government. The last memory the voter has of your party on immigration is you dropped the ball. Any threats to strafe the boats or paint over migrants with Disney cartoons count for nothing. You will not be believed. If shouting at foreigners is the way to win an election, Farage is your man.

    Anyway I suspect when it comes to immigration, "events" may, over four and a half years be Starmer's friend.
    I wonder were Reform to merge with Tories it would be possible to say when you were last in power you failed to deliver...

    There is the interesting question of would Reform actually want to merge with the Tories, some Tory members may want it but I suspect a lot of Reform voters are very establishment and the Tories are part of that..
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,868
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    On topic, parties are coalitions, obviously - particularly under FPTP.
    The Tory and Reform coalitions overlap, but much of that overlap has already migrated, and there's a significant portion of both parties outside of that overlap.

    Those that haven't yet made the jump, but might (eg Casino or Leon, to pick a couple of random examples) might well be enough to win a majority under FPTP - though very probably not a majority of the vote.

    De facto merger via defection to Reform is perhaps more likely than an actual merger ?
    And might actually work to Reform's advantage as the rump Tories waste their vote on an emasculated party, rather than lending it to Reform's actual competition.

    I think we need to remember that the Tory membership is highly congruent with Reform, but the remaining voters are not, and neither are the Tory MPs.
    "Remaining" voters, wouldn't be congruent with Reform, would they? :wink:

    Good morning everyone.

  • Foxy said:

    I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

    I see sneering done as well as you'd expect by the Left.

    The Conservatives had to spend it on Covid and support for lecky bills instead.

    Events.
    Then-Chancellor Rishi Sunak was famously hostile to levelling up, which was a Dominic Cummings project. That's why it never happened.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    MattW said:

    FPT:

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I note the Archbishop of York is under pressure now too (although if that standard was applied consistently a number of former Ofsted chiefs would not rest easily).

    I was trying to work out what would happen in the event of a vacancy in both Canterbury and York. That’s not happened since the 1650s and never, as far as I know, while the hierarchy was functioning.

    I presume either the Bishop of London - who is also under pressure - would be asked to take charge, or the Bench of Bishops would elect one of their number to carry out the functions of the office of Archbishop until an appointment is made.

    If the latter, that has interesting betting implications depending on who they choose. Whoever it is might suddenly become favourite to be archbishop especially if, as seems possible, they picked Martyn Snow.

    The situation in York province is complicated by the vacancies of Durham and Carlisle. I imagine Nick Baines as the longest serving Bishop would have to step up.

    There's been some reporting this morning on R4.

    There is a copy of File on Four on the Archbishop of York, here. I recommend listening.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00260xs

    If it were the case that he did everything he could for reasons of law, and had done everything he could to keep the offender from anything that looked like preferment, then I would reluctantly support him remaining in post.

    But I don't believe - listening to the programme - that that is the case. He had the moral authority and responsibility to intervene, for example by withdrawing the offender's permission to officiate (PTO) in his Diocese. He did not take action.

    Therefore imo ++York needs to stand down.
    There is however the issue that if the standards Helen is setting are not exactly achievable. As I said in the previous thread had she been in charge in 2013-15 I have sufficient evidence about the diocese education department that would force her to stand down because of the very argument you are making...
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,443

    She is correct. I will not vote Conservative if they merge with Reform.

    Though a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

    That’s strategically disastrous though. There can be only one.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,004
    There is a problem here and it is not unique to the Tories. FPTP means that you need a broad coalition to gain power. If you don't have it, you get hammered.

    This is often uncomfortable. A lot of people in the Tory party winced for years at the open racism of some of their number but bit their tongues. In Labour, the pretense that the upper middle class pseudo intellectuals who run the show had anything in common with where the bulk of their support came from is stretched to breaking point. In the US, for the Dems, it has actually broken.

    I agree with @TSE and indeed Kemi that I am not interested in a coalition with Reform nor am I interested in voting for such a coalition. But there is a price to pay for that attitude. And it may be opposition, just as Labour endured in the 80s and early 90s when the SDP took away an element of their "natural" support.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,956

    Foxy said:

    I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

    I see sneering done as well as you'd expect by the Left.

    The Conservatives had to spend it on Covid and support for lecky bills instead.

    Events.
    Yes, someone who usually has nothing but disdain for the Red Wall and it’s inhabitants and their views suddenly cares passionately about it when it’s a club to beat the Tories with.

    Surreal.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,668

    She is correct. I will not vote Conservative if they merge with Reform.

    Though a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

    I would be very sad to see a Conservative Party that essentially gave up on the Midlands - the bedrock of Thatcher's majorities - and ceded it to the likes of Reform.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,166
    .
    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

    Good. Levelling up may have been decent politics in the short term, but it was never going to work. Shovelling yet more public money at regions with already crushingly large public sectors was never going to do anything to help them. In fact, it probably would have made things much worse, as it penalised the enterprising and successful parts of the country.

    Of course Northerners are a lazy and greedy bunch, who will always vote for the party that promises them the biggest handouts, so you can see how they'd have lapped it up. But it was a socialist policy, and so would have been wasteful, counterproductive, probably corrupt and definitely ineffective.

    Much better to save public money and lower taxes and debt lower than otherwise instead.
    Charmless, and ignorant.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,443
    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

    Good. Levelling up may have been decent politics in the short term, but it was never going to work. Shovelling yet more public money at regions with already crushingly large public sectors was never going to do anything to help them. In fact, it probably would have made things much worse, as it penalised the enterprising and successful parts of the country.

    Of course Northerners are a lazy and greedy bunch, who will always vote for the party that promises them the biggest handouts, so you can see how they'd have lapped it up. But it was a socialist policy, and so would have been wasteful, counterproductive, probably corrupt and definitely ineffective.

    Much better to save public money and lower taxes and debt lower than otherwise instead.
    Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,668
    eek said:

    ...

    On topic, Reform will go away if the Conservatives get a grip on immigration and cease sociocultural sneering. It's that simple.

    The bigger worry for me is that they simply might now be too far gone on relying on elderly voters to ever break out of that box.

    Your immigration point was more easily achievable from a position of government. The last memory the voter has of your party on immigration is you dropped the ball. Any threats to strafe the boats or paint over migrants with Disney cartoons count for nothing. You will not be believed. If shouting at foreigners is the way to win an election, Farage is your man.

    Anyway I suspect when it comes to immigration, "events" may, over four and a half years be Starmer's friend.
    I wonder were Reform to merge with Tories it would be possible to say when you were last in power you failed to deliver...

    There is the interesting question of would Reform actually want to merge with the Tories, some Tory members may want it but I suspect a lot of Reform voters are very establishment and the Tories are part of that..
    I suspect Reform would rather be high profile, zero responsibility. Quite how far that envelope would push in some hypothetical future where they have significantly more MPs? Maybe even as far as some putative coalition arrangement that they would inevitably blow-up when it suited them...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,323
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    Interesting interview and apparently the government have been sounding him out for advice. Rather amusingly, his core criticism is exactly what Big Dom banged on about.

    Economist breaks down how the Treasury rules the UK | Paul Collier interview
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f51urcvWmsM&

    I've not watched the whole hour-long video yet but right from the start, the first thing mentioned is Britain's terrible regional inequality. The government needs to prioritise development around the country rather than bulldozing London's green belt.
    Yes, I think a demand-driven housebuilding programme will further entrench those inequalities as they have in Scotland.

    The west-east shift, with areas around Glasgow depopulating and massive growth around Edinburgh, is demand driven. That demand exists because there is a critical mass of businesses and young people, and a thriving economy. It starts to snowball, so we now have even high house prices here than we did before.

    England desperately needs 1) a plan for towns and 2) a plan for the NE to stop London soaking up all the growth.
    Did you see the discussion of the Green Belts a few days ago? The English ones are absolutely enormous compared to the skinny one around Edinburgh.
    I'm surprised no politician has yet proposed building on all that lovely flat bit to the north of Edinburgh.

    I mean, it's open, it's undeveloped, it's got lots of road and rail links...

    (This may sound like me being slightly daft. But one major problem in England is that there has been far too much development on flood plain land.)
    The local rivers tend to flow in ravines and valleys cut into the postglacial crap but with some stepped terraces to form riverside haughland in the valley bottoms. So flooding doesn't mean the same thing as in say Oxford or Tewkesbury unless one is silly enough to buy a house on a haugh (which does flood), or on the former postglacial lakes around Edinburfgh, ditto - an example of the latter being I think Murrayfield stadium. Thoujgh there are the seaside developments eg on the reclaimed land in the docks.

    I see SEPA have now helpfully provided flood maps of future prospects as a new layer on their fllod risk maps: for those who are interested the button is at the botton of this page: https://map.sepa.org.uk/floodmaps/FloodRisk/PostCode
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,443
    MattW said:

    FPT:

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I note the Archbishop of York is under pressure now too (although if that standard was applied consistently a number of former Ofsted chiefs would not rest easily).

    I was trying to work out what would happen in the event of a vacancy in both Canterbury and York. That’s not happened since the 1650s and never, as far as I know, while the hierarchy was functioning.

    I presume either the Bishop of London - who is also under pressure - would be asked to take charge, or the Bench of Bishops would elect one of their number to carry out the functions of the office of Archbishop until an appointment is made.

    If the latter, that has interesting betting implications depending on who they choose. Whoever it is might suddenly become favourite to be archbishop especially if, as seems possible, they picked Martyn Snow.

    The situation in York province is complicated by the vacancies of Durham and Carlisle. I imagine Nick Baines as the longest serving Bishop would have to step up.

    There's been some reporting this morning on R4.

    There is a copy of File on Four on the Archbishop of York, here. I recommend listening.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00260xs

    If it were the case that he did everything he could for reasons of law, and had done everything he could to keep the offender from anything that looked like preferment, then I would reluctantly support him remaining in post.

    But I don't believe - listening to the programme - that that is the case. He had the moral authority and responsibility to intervene, for example by withdrawing the offender's permission to officiate (PTO) in his Diocese. He did not take action.

    Therefore imo ++York needs to stand down.
    Although if the individual had been through due process and the church authorities had decided on a punishment (I don’t know the specifics of this case) then how is it just for ++York to apply an extra punishment

  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,868
    On a domestic note, a very early start means I have already made some jam this morning, which unusually for me has come out just about right.

    Chuckeberries work for jam. Now to make some more for last minute Christmas Hampers.

    Have a good day, everyone.

    :smile:
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,068
    I agree with Luke Tryl's analysis pretty much word for word here. I find it exasperating that it needs saying.

    On MattW's note, surely chuckleberries come from the Roald Dahl universe?
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,351
    edited December 16
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    Interesting interview and apparently the government have been sounding him out for advice. Rather amusingly, his core criticism is exactly what Big Dom banged on about.

    Economist breaks down how the Treasury rules the UK | Paul Collier interview
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f51urcvWmsM&

    I've not watched the whole hour-long video yet but right from the start, the first thing mentioned is Britain's terrible regional inequality. The government needs to prioritise development around the country rather than bulldozing London's green belt.
    Yes, I think a demand-driven housebuilding programme will further entrench those inequalities as they have in Scotland.

    The west-east shift, with areas around Glasgow depopulating and massive growth around Edinburgh, is demand driven. That demand exists because there is a critical mass of businesses and young people, and a thriving economy. It starts to snowball, so we now have even high house prices here than we did before.

    England desperately needs 1) a plan for towns and 2) a plan for the NE to stop London soaking up all the growth.
    Did you see the discussion of the Green Belts a few days ago? The English ones are absolutely enormous compared to the skinny one around Edinburgh.
    I'm surprised no politician has yet proposed building on all that lovely flat bit to the north of Edinburgh.

    I mean, it's open, it's undeveloped, it's got lots of road and rail links...

    (This may sound like me being slightly daft. But one major problem in England is that there has been far too much development on flood plain land.)
    In the manner of the proposed Southend-on-Sea southern by-pass, you mean? (note Sunil's contribution btl)

    https://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/m13/
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,323
    edited December 16
    Pro_Rata said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    Interesting interview and apparently the government have been sounding him out for advice. Rather amusingly, his core criticism is exactly what Big Dom banged on about.

    Economist breaks down how the Treasury rules the UK | Paul Collier interview
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f51urcvWmsM&

    I've not watched the whole hour-long video yet but right from the start, the first thing mentioned is Britain's terrible regional inequality. The government needs to prioritise development around the country rather than bulldozing London's green belt.
    Yes, I think a demand-driven housebuilding programme will further entrench those inequalities as they have in Scotland.

    The west-east shift, with areas around Glasgow depopulating and massive growth around Edinburgh, is demand driven. That demand exists because there is a critical mass of businesses and young people, and a thriving economy. It starts to snowball, so we now have even high house prices here than we did before.

    England desperately needs 1) a plan for towns and 2) a plan for the NE to stop London soaking up all the growth.
    Did you see the discussion of the Green Belts a few days ago? The English ones are absolutely enormous compared to the skinny one around Edinburgh.
    I'm surprised no politician has yet proposed building on all that lovely flat bit to the north of Edinburgh.

    I mean, it's open, it's undeveloped, it's got lots of road and rail links...

    (This may sound like me being slightly daft. But one major problem in England is that there has been far too much development on flood plain land.)
    In the manner of the proposed Southend-on-Sea southern by-pass, you mean? (note Sunil's contribution btl)

    https://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/m13/
    ...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,099

    Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

    And the Tories showed their commitment to this by (check notes) "cancelling HS2"
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,140

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

    Good. Levelling up may have been decent politics in the short term, but it was never going to work. Shovelling yet more public money at regions with already crushingly large public sectors was never going to do anything to help them. In fact, it probably would have made things much worse, as it penalised the enterprising and successful parts of the country.

    Of course Northerners are a lazy and greedy bunch, who will always vote for the party that promises them the biggest handouts, so you can see how they'd have lapped it up. But it was a socialist policy, and so would have been wasteful, counterproductive, probably corrupt and definitely ineffective.

    Much better to save public money and lower taxes and debt lower than otherwise instead.
    Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

    I thought it was about winning votes up north with false promises?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,373
    edited December 16



    a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

    But what if the upshot of that ends up with a Con-Ref coalition government?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,109

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

    Good. Levelling up may have been decent politics in the short term, but it was never going to work. Shovelling yet more public money at regions with already crushingly large public sectors was never going to do anything to help them. In fact, it probably would have made things much worse, as it penalised the enterprising and successful parts of the country.

    Of course Northerners are a lazy and greedy bunch, who will always vote for the party that promises them the biggest handouts, so you can see how they'd have lapped it up. But it was a socialist policy, and so would have been wasteful, counterproductive, probably corrupt and definitely ineffective.

    Much better to save public money and lower taxes and debt lower than otherwise instead.
    Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

    I thought it was about winning votes up north with false promises?
    Well, that didn't work out too well in July did it?

    Promise "Levelling Up" and to crack down on immigration, then doing the complete opposite is why the Tories are no longer trusted.

    Reform don't want to be tainted by association.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    Scott_xP said:

    Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

    And the Tories showed their commitment to this by (check notes) "cancelling HS2"
    And by seemingly randomly approving projects based on the ideas of what looked good instead of what the locals actually wanted - although that game involved everyone (councils and Treasury) trying to work out what the other side would accept.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,140
    I disagree with the consensus. Yes if the parties merged today and there was an election tomorrow it would play out as per the header and posters.

    But over time, as we have seen with the Republicans in the US, voters can come round to positions they themselves would have seen as absurd, and not "them", a decade earlier.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,166

    “Levelling up” didn’t happen because like everything Johnson did, it was a slogan not a policy.

    Oven ready vs not even half baked.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585

    I disagree with the consensus. Yes if the parties merged today and there was an election tomorrow it would play out as per the header and posters.

    But over time, as we have seen with the Republicans in the US, voters can come round to positions they themselves would have seen as absurd, and not "them", a decade earlier.

    That works if Reform merge into the Tories but Farage isn't going to do that.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,140
    eek said:

    I disagree with the consensus. Yes if the parties merged today and there was an election tomorrow it would play out as per the header and posters.

    But over time, as we have seen with the Republicans in the US, voters can come round to positions they themselves would have seen as absurd, and not "them", a decade earlier.

    That works if Reform merge into the Tories but Farage isn't going to do that.
    Why not? It has been his stated and long term ambition for over a decade. Of course he will, if the time and circumstance is right.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,166
    Needs a lot more ERA fitting, judging by Ukraine's experience with it.

    Taiwan has received its first batch of 38 x M1A2T Abrams tanks from the U.S., part of a total order of 108

    This marks Taiwan’s first new tank delivery since the M60A3 tanks in 1994.

    https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/1868568437401804836
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,884
    ...

    She is correct. I will not vote Conservative if they merge with Reform.

    Though a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

    Of course you will.

    Fash or commie? If handing power to Farage keeps the Marxists out what is your choice?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805
    edited December 16

    She is correct. I will not vote Conservative if they merge with Reform.

    Though a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

    A pact still risks putting Farage in government, that is something I couldn't coutenance.

    I wouldn't vote Tory in those circumstances even if David Cameron was my the Tory candidate in my constituency.
    In all honesty I cant see the outcome of the next election hinging on whether you vote or not
    That's the weakness of FPTP, under AV and other fairer voting systems every vote counts.

    I am one of the few that voted Tory in 2024, so if the Tories start losing significant chunks of their 2024 base.....
    I havent voted for anyone one in the last 2 elections, however this government is so crap I will get off my arse and vote against them next time round.
    In all honesty I can't see the outcome of the next election hinging on whether you vote or not.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,760
    FPT regarding cardboard Russian tankers. The ships in question were Volgoneft class so primarily river/lake vessels - the clue's in the name. Neft is Russian for oil/petroleum products. You do see them in the Black Sea but they are not oceangoing vessels in the sense that you'd want to go on an ocean in one.

    The Ukrainians took a very similar vessel - a Volgobalt bulk carrier - into the Black Sea a few years ago and it folded in half on YouTube.

    I did a long passage (smuggling diamonds, lol) on a merchant vessel from Cape Town to Rotterdam on a sanctions busting British owned, Liberian flagged vessel in my 20s. It didn't seem that bad to me. The crew definitely had superior accommodation and working conditions to your average junior rate in the RN.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,403

    eek said:

    I disagree with the consensus. Yes if the parties merged today and there was an election tomorrow it would play out as per the header and posters.

    But over time, as we have seen with the Republicans in the US, voters can come round to positions they themselves would have seen as absurd, and not "them", a decade earlier.

    That works if Reform merge into the Tories but Farage isn't going to do that.
    Why not? It has been his stated and long term ambition for over a decade. Of course he will, if the time and circumstance is right.
    Agree:
    Amongst the solid tips (Laying Farage not to be PM) I can sense the general direction of the broad right of UK politics heading toward Reform/changing the Tories to a more Reform like direction which seems to be being dismissed (tepid analysis pace Dura-Ace) here..
  • eek said:

    I disagree with the consensus. Yes if the parties merged today and there was an election tomorrow it would play out as per the header and posters.

    But over time, as we have seen with the Republicans in the US, voters can come round to positions they themselves would have seen as absurd, and not "them", a decade earlier.

    That works if Reform merge into the Tories but Farage isn't going to do that.
    At risk of Godwinning the conversation, I suspect Nigel sees merging with the Conservatives much as 1930s Germany saw merging with Austria.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,140
    Scott_xP said:

    Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

    And the Tories showed their commitment to this by (check notes) "cancelling HS2"
    Reinvested in Network North, which ended up being used to fund fixing potholes in Peckham.....
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585

    Scott_xP said:

    Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

    And the Tories showed their commitment to this by (check notes) "cancelling HS2"
    Reinvested in Network North, which ended up being used to fund fixing potholes in Peckham.....
    You can't reinvest money that doesn't exist.

    So the money that doesn't exist was promised to fix potholes in Peckham (and elsewhere) but the money was never actually budgeted (see the NI cuts) so the potholes won't be filled.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,443
    Scott_xP said:

    Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

    And the Tories showed their commitment to this by (check notes) "cancelling HS2"
    What makes you think I’m a Tory?
  • What's still missing from Badenoch's comments is any sense of why the Conservatives oppose Reform, beyond the electoral dynamics.

    What are the proposals of Reform that are bad policies that should be opposed by good Conservatives? Until they can come up with a few examples, the battle on the right is going to continue to be rather one-sided.

    Trying to box Reform in as a bargain basement version of the Conservatives for bargain basement places isn't going to work.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,443

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

    Good. Levelling up may have been decent politics in the short term, but it was never going to work. Shovelling yet more public money at regions with already crushingly large public sectors was never going to do anything to help them. In fact, it probably would have made things much worse, as it penalised the enterprising and successful parts of the country.

    Of course Northerners are a lazy and greedy bunch, who will always vote for the party that promises them the biggest handouts, so you can see how they'd have lapped it up. But it was a socialist policy, and so would have been wasteful, counterproductive, probably corrupt and definitely ineffective.

    Much better to save public money and lower taxes and debt lower than otherwise instead.
    Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

    I thought it was about winning votes
    up north with false promises?
    Some of us focus on doing stuff that needs to be done not making cynical comments from the sidelines
  • Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    I disagree with the consensus. Yes if the parties merged today and there was an election tomorrow it would play out as per the header and posters.

    But over time, as we have seen with the Republicans in the US, voters can come round to positions they themselves would have seen as absurd, and not "them", a decade earlier.

    That works if Reform merge into the Tories but Farage isn't going to do that.
    Why not? It has been his stated and long term ambition for over a decade. Of course he will, if the time and circumstance is right.
    Agree:
    Amongst the solid tips (Laying Farage not to be PM) I can sense the general direction of the broad right of UK politics heading toward Reform/changing the Tories to a more Reform like direction which seems to be being dismissed (tepid analysis pace Dura-Ace) here..
    I’m happy to be laying Farage as next PM but if there was a market on if Farage was to ever be PM I wouldn’t be laying him.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,857
    MattW said:

    FPT:

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I note the Archbishop of York is under pressure now too (although if that standard was applied consistently a number of former Ofsted chiefs would not rest easily).

    I was trying to work out what would happen in the event of a vacancy in both Canterbury and York. That’s not happened since the 1650s and never, as far as I know, while the hierarchy was functioning.

    I presume either the Bishop of London - who is also under pressure - would be asked to take charge, or the Bench of Bishops would elect one of their number to carry out the functions of the office of Archbishop until an appointment is made.

    If the latter, that has interesting betting implications depending on who they choose. Whoever it is might suddenly become favourite to be archbishop especially if, as seems possible, they picked Martyn Snow.

    The situation in York province is complicated by the vacancies of Durham and Carlisle. I imagine Nick Baines as the longest serving Bishop would have to step up.

    There's been some reporting this morning on R4.

    There is a copy of File on Four on the Archbishop of York, here. I recommend listening.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00260xs

    If it were the case that he did everything he could for reasons of law, and had done everything he could to keep the offender from anything that looked like preferment, then I would reluctantly support him remaining in post.

    But I don't believe - listening to the programme - that that is the case. He had the moral authority and responsibility to intervene, for example by withdrawing the offender's permission to officiate (PTO) in his Diocese. He did not take action.

    Therefore imo ++York needs to stand down.
    I have no views - don't know enough - on the Cottrell/Tudor thing. However, a bishop can only act in ways that are lawful. So, for example a permission to officiate could not be removed because there wasn't one in the first place. Tudor was an office holder continuously from 1997-2024. He could only be removed under the Discipline Measure, which in the end he was, having been suspended from office since 2019.

    The recent judgment of the Tribunal (a public document), useful for some chronology and facts is here:

    https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/determination-on-penalty-the-revd-david-tudor-29-october-2024-4130-4263-1764-v.1.pdf
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,166
    edited December 16

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

    Good. Levelling up may have been decent politics in the short term, but it was never going to work. Shovelling yet more public money at regions with already crushingly large public sectors was never going to do anything to help them. In fact, it probably would have made things much worse, as it penalised the enterprising and successful parts of the country.

    Of course Northerners are a lazy and greedy bunch, who will always vote for the party that promises them the biggest handouts, so you can see how they'd have lapped it up. But it was a socialist policy, and so would have been wasteful, counterproductive, probably corrupt and definitely ineffective.

    Much better to save public money and lower taxes and debt lower than otherwise instead.
    Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

    I thought it was about winning votes
    up north with false promises?
    Some of us focus on doing stuff that needs to be done not making cynical comments from the sidelines
    It's not entirely cynical.
    Levelling up was never given the amount of resources needed to really shift the economic balance between north and south.
    And that was very definitely implied in the politicians' promises.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,423
    It's quite incredible that North Korea has now invaded Europe.

    And Europe's reaction is a mere shoulder-shrug and "meh!"

    (And yes, I think 'invasion' is the correct word, given the reported number of troops, and the fact they're officially sanctioned by the NK government.)
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,896
    I agree: Badenoch is right. Despite its best efforts to the contrary, the Conservatives remain a serious party of the centre right. Reform are a rag-tag collection of populist opportunists and paranoid conspiracy theorists. The party is literally owned by Nigel Farage, a lazy grifter. The Tories already made a tragic error, for themelves and the country, in embracing Farage's Brexit fantasy. They shouldn't go anywhere near Reform if they hope to survive as a party.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,140

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

    Good. Levelling up may have been decent politics in the short term, but it was never going to work. Shovelling yet more public money at regions with already crushingly large public sectors was never going to do anything to help them. In fact, it probably would have made things much worse, as it penalised the enterprising and successful parts of the country.

    Of course Northerners are a lazy and greedy bunch, who will always vote for the party that promises them the biggest handouts, so you can see how they'd have lapped it up. But it was a socialist policy, and so would have been wasteful, counterproductive, probably corrupt and definitely ineffective.

    Much better to save public money and lower taxes and debt lower than otherwise instead.
    Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

    I thought it was about winning votes
    up north with false promises?
    Some of us focus on doing stuff that needs to be done not making cynical comments from the sidelines
    I normally vote for the election losers so am comfortable enough in the snidelands. Maybe I'm too cynical but even Tory insiders say they scapped HS2 simply to give Sunak a personal boost because he was a bit gloomy. Why should I take such politicians seriously?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,760

    What's still missing from Badenoch's comments is any sense of why the Conservatives oppose Reform, beyond the electoral dynamics.

    What are the proposals of Reform that are bad policies that should be opposed by good Conservatives? Until they can come up with a few examples, the battle on the right is going to continue to be rather one-sided.

    Trying to box Reform in as a bargain basement version of the Conservatives for bargain basement places isn't going to work.

    No, it's not. The Fukkers are basically the chavvy end of the tory party who intend to do what they say they will on immigration.

    KB needs to come up with a basis on which the tories can attack the Fukkers because at the moment she has zero.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,896

    Scott_xP said:

    Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

    And the Tories showed their commitment to this by (check notes) "cancelling HS2"
    Reinvested in Network North, which ended up being used to fund fixing potholes in Peckham.....
    And yet the potholes of Peckham endure.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,140

    Scott_xP said:

    Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

    And the Tories showed their commitment to this by (check notes) "cancelling HS2"
    Reinvested in Network North, which ended up being used to fund fixing potholes in Peckham.....
    And yet the potholes of Peckham endure.
    They probably got Del Boy in for the fix.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,857

    What's still missing from Badenoch's comments is any sense of why the Conservatives oppose Reform, beyond the electoral dynamics.

    What are the proposals of Reform that are bad policies that should be opposed by good Conservatives? Until they can come up with a few examples, the battle on the right is going to continue to be rather one-sided.

    Trying to box Reform in as a bargain basement version of the Conservatives for bargain basement places isn't going to work.

    The greatest unmet need from the Tories right now is different. There is no difficulty in the modern political climate in being against things. Usually for opposition that's fine and enough, because we have a reasonable idea of what the opposition thinks.

    But now we have no idea. Because the 'standard model' is in trouble; by which I mean we appear not to be able to manage and pay for the universal post war settlement of the social democratic welfare state. There is neither the money nor the competence. So far both Tories and Labour have exactly the same difficulties.

    The fear must be that the parties will stick to the old solution of obtaining power by attacking those in power and other parties too, but without a seriously explained programme of their own WRT tax, spend, borrowing, competence, and so on.
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 4,089
    edited December 16
    Reform UK is currently seeing a lot of success but I struggle to see how this coalition of voters holds together.

    Farage and Anderson are not ideologically aligned except for immigration.

    You can maybe unite the coalition once but long term how does that coalition not fall apart? This is exactly what happened with Johnson.

    People like Matthew Goodwin called it a great realignment, it turns out it was just a fluke one off election. Why is this time different?
  • It's quite incredible that North Korea has now invaded Europe.

    And Europe's reaction is a mere shoulder-shrug and "meh!"

    (And yes, I think 'invasion' is the correct word, given the reported number of troops, and the fact they're officially sanctioned by the NK government.)

    Wait until you hear about the time Europe, including the UK, invaded North Korea.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,668

    It's quite incredible that North Korea has now invaded Europe.

    And Europe's reaction is a mere shoulder-shrug and "meh!"

    (And yes, I think 'invasion' is the correct word, given the reported number of troops, and the fact they're officially sanctioned by the NK government.)

    Wait until you hear about the time Europe, including the UK, invaded North Korea.
    To be fair, I don't think they shrugged their shoulders and went "meh" on that occasion, though.
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 4,089
    edited December 16
    54% of Labour voters satisfied with SKS as PM.

    27% of all voters satisfied.

    Ruh roh
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,857
    edit
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,700

    It's quite incredible that North Korea has now invaded Europe.

    And Europe's reaction is a mere shoulder-shrug and "meh!"

    (And yes, I think 'invasion' is the correct word, given the reported number of troops, and the fact they're officially sanctioned by the NK government.)

    Wait until you hear about the time Europe, including the UK, invaded North Korea.
    It was however Seoul-ly in response to Kim's aggression.

    Admittedly that twat MacArthur then got a bit carried away.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,122
    edited December 16

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    I disagree with the consensus. Yes if the parties merged today and there was an election tomorrow it would play out as per the header and posters.

    But over time, as we have seen with the Republicans in the US, voters can come round to positions they themselves would have seen as absurd, and not "them", a decade earlier.

    That works if Reform merge into the Tories but Farage isn't going to do that.
    Why not? It has been his stated and long term ambition for over a decade. Of course he will, if the time and circumstance is right.
    Agree:
    Amongst the solid tips (Laying Farage not to be PM) I can sense the general direction of the broad right of UK politics heading toward Reform/changing the Tories to a more Reform like direction which seems to be being dismissed (tepid analysis pace Dura-Ace) here..
    I’m happy to be laying Farage as next PM but if there was a market on if Farage was to ever be PM I wouldn’t be laying him.
    Well then the issue becomes "if so, then when?". He is already 60 and we have a clear 5 year Parliament ahead.

    The oldest PM to assume office for the first time was Palmerston who was aged 70, but who had been a key figure in Parliament and government for several decades before. The oldest PM ever was Gladstone who was 84 when he retired at the end of his fourth term.

    So, if you decide to back Farage becoming PM "sometime", you need to ask yourself a) how long Farage will live in health and strength and b) how long it would take RefUk to become a party of government that would allow Farage to be PM. While obviously "Farage next PM" is a clear lay, I think "Farage PM sometime" is also probably a lay, just at much lower prices. Father Time may be a bigger enemy than Kemi here.

    Reform currently have 5 seats in the House of Commons.
  • It's quite incredible that North Korea has now invaded Europe.

    And Europe's reaction is a mere shoulder-shrug and "meh!"

    (And yes, I think 'invasion' is the correct word, given the reported number of troops, and the fact they're officially sanctioned by the NK government.)

    Wait until you hear about the time Europe, including the UK, invaded North Korea.
    Morris Dancer-esque levels of history comprehension! That was in response to the North invading South a few months earlier!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,141

    54% of Labour voters satisfied with SKS as PM.

    27% of all voters satisfied.

    Ruh roh

    The era of PMs lasting a whole parliament, let alone a decade, is well and truly over.

    Labour will need to get very ruthless, very quickly, if they want to hold on to power.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,668

    54% of Labour voters satisfied with SKS as PM.

    27% of all voters satisfied.

    Ruh roh

    While I generally agree with your scooby doo response, 54% is more than I would've expected.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

    And the Tories showed their commitment to this by (check notes) "cancelling HS2"
    Reinvested in Network North, which ended up being used to fund fixing potholes in Peckham.....
    And yet the potholes of Peckham endure.
    They probably got Del Boy in for the fix.
    Cushty!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,027

    54% of Labour voters satisfied with SKS as PM.

    27% of all voters satisfied.

    Ruh roh

    It's because he's shit.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,152
    Eabhal said:

    Interesting interview and apparently the government have been sounding him out for advice. Rather amusingly, his core criticism is exactly what Big Dom banged on about.

    Economist breaks down how the Treasury rules the UK | Paul Collier interview
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f51urcvWmsM&

    I've not watched the whole hour-long video yet but right from the start, the first thing mentioned is Britain's terrible regional inequality. The government needs to prioritise development around the country rather than bulldozing London's green belt.
    Yes, I think a demand-driven housebuilding programme will further entrench those inequalities as they have in Scotland.

    The west-east shift, with areas around Glasgow depopulating and massive growth around Edinburgh, is demand driven. That demand exists because there is a critical mass of businesses and young people, and a thriving economy. It starts to snowball, so we now have even high house prices here than we did before.

    England desperately needs 1) a plan for towns and 2) a plan for the NE to stop London soaking up all the growth.
    Like what? If there was an obvious way to produce more growth in areas of the country that are underperforming then some government since the 1980s would have done it already. It's clear that massive regional inequality is a bad thing, and we definitely shouldn't be investing in London exclusively and starving Manchester of resources, for example. But where an area does not already have a critical mass of business and economic activity I find it hard to see that government activity can create one. Answers on a postcard, but in the meantime I think providing enough housing to the areas that *are* at critical mass that we don't constrict them is better than doing nothing and hoping that growth will thus somehow happen elsewhere instead.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,760
    Cicero said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    I disagree with the consensus. Yes if the parties merged today and there was an election tomorrow it would play out as per the header and posters.

    But over time, as we have seen with the Republicans in the US, voters can come round to positions they themselves would have seen as absurd, and not "them", a decade earlier.

    That works if Reform merge into the Tories but Farage isn't going to do that.
    Why not? It has been his stated and long term ambition for over a decade. Of course he will, if the time and circumstance is right.
    Agree:
    Amongst the solid tips (Laying Farage not to be PM) I can sense the general direction of the broad right of UK politics heading toward Reform/changing the Tories to a more Reform like direction which seems to be being dismissed (tepid analysis pace Dura-Ace) here..
    I’m happy to be laying Farage as next PM but if there was a market on if Farage was to ever be PM I wouldn’t be laying him.
    Well then the issue becomes "if so, then when?". He is already 60 and we have a clear 5 year Parliament ahead.

    The oldest PM to assume office for the first time was Palmerston who was aged 70, but who had been a key figure in Parliament and government for several decades before. The oldest PM ever was Gladstone who was 84 when he retired at the end of his fourth term.

    So, if you decide to back Farage becoming PM "sometime", you need to ask yourself a) how long Farage will live in health and strength and b) how long it would take RefUk to become a party of government that would allow Farage to be PM. While obviously "Farage next PM" is a clear lay, I think "Farage PM sometime" is also probably a lay, just at much lower prices. Father Time may be a bigger enemy than Kemi here.

    Reform currently have 5 seats in the House of Commons.
    This feels like Trump's going to jail/Putin's got cancer level analysis.
Sign In or Register to comment.