Good to see local government (potentially) being sorted out. It’s an abject mess in most places. Two-tier councils are pointless, and cities like Nottingham and Manchester have ludicrously tight boundaries that make no geographical sense and should have been expanded decades ago.
JFDI.
I believe the favoured solution here is a ‘Solent’ mayoralty covering Portsmouth, Southampton and the island. Presumably with a few adjacent bits of the mainland thrown in. Whether this is sorting out a mess, or creating one, is the question? Quite how a mayoralty covering two cities of obvious and known rivalry plus the island would work politically, or in terms of the personalities, isn’t clear. Yes, you can argue the whole area has, or should have, some economic synergies, but once you get beyond that, the politics and political issues for each of the cities, and for the island, are different.
I would have thought the Isle of Wight as a unitary with a mayor of its own would make sense given its geography, although 20 years of hard labour in the education system has warned me that government policy has nothing to do with common sense and frequently only a passing acquaintance with reality.
The government wants mayoral areas to have populations of at least 500,000, as per the white paper.
That this mostly involves tacking countryside onto large labour-voting cities isn’t, I am sure, part of the consideration…
Although from a Westminster perspective this is being badged as ‘devolution’, it’s going to feel like centralisation to a lot of us on the receiving end. Parishes only get a passing mention in the paper (apparently the relationship with them is going to be “rewired”, whatever that might mean) but the idea that a mayor sitting in Southampton and maybe a local councillor with the chance to ask the mayor a question every month, elected from quite a large slice of the island, represents real local democracy, is a stretch.
City-plus-hinterland is a reasonable model for local services, Italian provinces seem to work that way as do some Northen metropolitan areas. And could be of benefit, eg enough usage of public transport in the central area to make it viable running into more rural areas.
Charlene White to Peston "this is a massive problem for Sir Keir Starmer isn't it"
Cue Peston
2 minutes of anti SKS bull rap, ignoring the pictures on the suspects desk of him with the Camerons and the Mays and Prince Andrew.
Utterly biased, not telling the facts and basically turning it in to another anti Starmer rant whilst completely ignoring the past 14 years and overwhelming failure of security services under Cameron, May, Johnson and Truss.
Something is going on with Celtic singers. Cerys Matthews is 55 and Enya is 63! They’re all ageing!
Even I am older than I was then. What's going on?
What's going on is that a lot more people dye their hair than admit it.
I don't know that the percentage is of the US Senate, but it's perhaps quite significant.
It's a genuine surprise if I see someone under 50 with some amount of grey hair, but that cannot possibly actually be rare. My father is 75 and only has a little at the temples, and insists he is not dyeing; I'd have doubts, but his beard is fully grey.
I saw online an actress who is only in their early 40s who was showing a lot of grey, and it was very shocking.
I have never dyed my hair.. my new grey silver look suits me v well.
Good to see local government (potentially) being sorted out. It’s an abject mess in most places. Two-tier councils are pointless, and cities like Nottingham and Manchester have ludicrously tight boundaries that make no geographical sense and should have been expanded decades ago.
JFDI.
I believe the favoured solution here is a ‘Solent’ mayoralty covering Portsmouth, Southampton and the island. Presumably with a few adjacent bits of the mainland thrown in. Whether this is sorting out a mess, or creating one, is the question? Quite how a mayoralty covering two cities of obvious and known rivalry plus the island would work politically, or in terms of the personalities, isn’t clear. Yes, you can argue the whole area has, or should have, some economic synergies, but once you get beyond that, the politics and political issues for each of the cities, and for the island, are different.
I would have thought the Isle of Wight as a unitary with a mayor of its own would make sense given its geography, although 20 years of hard labour in the education system has warned me that government policy has nothing to do with common sense and frequently only a passing acquaintance with reality.
The government wants mayoral areas to have populations of at least 500,000, as per the white paper.
That this mostly involves tacking countryside onto large labour-voting cities isn’t, I am sure, part of the consideration…
Although from a Westminster perspective this is being badged as ‘devolution’, it’s going to feel like centralisation to a lot of us on the receiving end. Parishes only get a passing mention in the paper (apparently the relationship with them is going to be “rewired”, whatever that might mean) but the idea that a mayor sitting in Southampton and maybe a local councillor with the chance to ask the mayor a question every month, elected from quite a large slice of the island, represents real local democracy is a stretch.
That is interesting as their own research has repeatedly confirmed the sweet spot for unitaries is around 300,000.
If they want unitaries of that size they are going to have to do major reorganisation on the existing ones.
I wonder if Rayner* has any idea of just what fury that would unleash. Or how expensive and time-consuming it would be.
Unitaries out of larger districts with elected mayors at a county level would make a great deal of sense, as long as they were filtered through a modicum of common sense (e.g. the IoW and Cornwall being treated separately due to geographical considerations).
These proposals look like an idiot from London who has no idea of England beyond looking at a map thinking they’ve come up with something clever.
*Autocorrect does - it made her into ‘Ratner.’
It does seem like a number pulled out of someone's arse, which will make things far more difficult and more removed from the electorate.
There's an urgent need for local government reform, but this is totally Baldric cunning plan-level. Less and less accountability, "ooh, we like metropolitan mayors, have those everywhere, that will solve everything, shut up about SEN and funding crises, fix the responsibility problem by them having none, really, isn't local government just a headache, we can just decree stuff and it will happen"
Everyone gets a supercouncil that'll be shit for anywhere not completely urban so Central Government don't have to deal with annoying local government who keep asking awkward questions of them and exposing their ignorance.
Did Labour not do ANY thinking in advance prior to the election? I didn't have high hopes of them, but they've consistently undershot the low expectations I did have.
Businesses are cutting jobs at the fastest pace in nearly four years as Labour’s ‘downbeat rhetoric and policies’ take their toll.
The closely-watched purchasing managers’ index (PMI) report showed the steepest decline in private sector workforce numbers since January 2021 when Britain was still in the grip of Covid lockdowns.
Labour is making systemic change. At least unlike the last lot, they are doing things.
We can say all day how bad they are but the Tories really were utterly pointless in the end.
Not just pointless but actually toxic. However bad Labour are or even become, the Tories were the worst government in modern history, and on some measures the worst since the Cabal.
The issue though is the MSM has basically written off any reference back / investigation / proper analysis of the 14 years of Tory Government and especially the toxic years since 2019 as old news and simply and ruthlessly attacked the NEW Government literally since Friday 5th July (I'll never forget a scowling Rigby outside No 10 that morning), and blamed labour for anything and everything that needs sorting literally from that date.
NO PM has ever had a more hostile and totally unfair reception in to No 10.
Their negativity lies slander and denial of the crisis he inherited like a self professing doom loop!
I used to watch a YouTube channel called 'BlackBeltBarrister' (*). As a non-lawyer, I felt he gave interesting and informed commentary on a few legal issues of interest. I enjoyed it.
Since the election though, he has become rabidly anti-government, with clickbait titles. The last few videos:
"Which of these is worse?" with pictures of Starmer and Lammy. "This could bring them down!" (TV licensing) "None of this adds up" (Reeves) "I was right" (Starmer) "This must be EMBARASSING" (Reeves) "How many will it takre" (Starmer) etc
I am not a Labour supporter, and have not been massively impressed with Starmer's first few months in power. But the BBB channel has become unwatchable due to an utter lack of balance and, sadly, insight. My opinion of him has changed from him being a thoughtful guy who makes insightful comments, to him being an utter nutcase. I wouldn't trust him with giving me an opinion on what to eat at McDonalds, let alone anything legal.
He gets hundreds of thousands of views, and seemingly more than he did before the election, which I think must be why he does it. I'm no longer a viewer of his, sadly.
(Again; it's not the fact he's attacking Labour; it's the consistency of his attacks compared to attacks on the previous government, and the utter lack of any balance or insight.)
(*) Someone else mentioned this the other week...
Think you've hit the nail on the head.
Clickbait and monetary inducements for some to drive the "anti establishment" establishment backing of the right wing paymasters
In MSM the likes of Burley / Rigby / Mason / Zeffernan / Kuenssberg / Peston / Astana et al are effectively on the payroll earning telephone numbers and will basically do what they are told....
Shining lights of fairness but firmness imho are Derbyshire and Ridge atm....
Labour is making systemic change. At least unlike the last lot, they are doing things.
We can say all day how bad they are but the Tories really were utterly pointless in the end.
Not just pointless but actually toxic. However bad Labour are or even become, the Tories were the worst government in modern history, and on some measures the worst since the Cabal.
The issue though is the MSM has basically written off any reference back / investigation / proper analysis of the 14 years of Tory Government and especially the toxic years since 2019 as old news and simply and ruthlessly attacked the NEW Government literally since Friday 5th July (I'll never forget a scowling Rigby outside No 10 that morning), and blamed labour for anything and everything that needs sorting literally from that date.
NO PM has ever had a more hostile and totally unfair reception in to No 10.
Their negativity lies slander and denial of the crisis he inherited like a self professing doom loop!
Clearly you’ve never read the press reports on Macdonald’s appointment in 1924.
No ... but no doubt you have and they would be of similar bile!
Good to see local government (potentially) being sorted out. It’s an abject mess in most places. Two-tier councils are pointless, and cities like Nottingham and Manchester have ludicrously tight boundaries that make no geographical sense and should have been expanded decades ago.
JFDI.
I believe the favoured solution here is a ‘Solent’ mayoralty covering Portsmouth, Southampton and the island. Presumably with a few adjacent bits of the mainland thrown in. Whether this is sorting out a mess, or creating one, is the question? Quite how a mayoralty covering two cities of obvious and known rivalry plus the island would work politically, or in terms of the personalities, isn’t clear. Yes, you can argue the whole area has, or should have, some economic synergies, but once you get beyond that, the politics and political issues for each of the cities, and for the island, are different.
I would have thought the Isle of Wight as a unitary with a mayor of its own would make sense given its geography, although 20 years of hard labour in the education system has warned me that government policy has nothing to do with common sense and frequently only a passing acquaintance with reality.
The government wants mayoral areas to have populations of at least 500,000, as per the white paper.
That this mostly involves tacking countryside onto large labour-voting cities isn’t, I am sure, part of the consideration…
Although from a Westminster perspective this is being badged as ‘devolution’, it’s going to feel like centralisation to a lot of us on the receiving end. Parishes only get a passing mention in the paper (apparently the relationship with them is going to be “rewired”, whatever that might mean) but the idea that a mayor sitting in Southampton and maybe a local councillor with the chance to ask the mayor a question every month, elected from quite a large slice of the island, represents real local democracy is a stretch.
That is interesting as their own research has repeatedly confirmed the sweet spot for unitaries is around 300,000.
If they want unitaries of that size they are going to have to do major reorganisation on the existing ones.
I wonder if Rayner* has any idea of just what fury that would unleash. Or how expensive and time-consuming it would be.
Unitaries out of larger districts with elected mayors at a county level would make a great deal of sense, as long as they were filtered through a modicum of common sense (e.g. the IoW and Cornwall being treated separately due to geographical considerations).
These proposals look like an idiot from London who has no idea of England beyond looking at a map thinking they’ve come up with something clever.
*Autocorrect does - it made her into ‘Ratner.’
It does seem like a number pulled out of someone's arse, which will make things far more difficult and more removed from the electorate.
There's an urgent need for local government reform, but this is totally Baldric cunning plan-level. Less and less accountability, "ooh, we like metropolitan mayors, have those everywhere, that will solve everything, shut up about SEN and funding crises, fix the responsibility problem by them having none, really, isn't local government just a headache, we can just decree stuff and it will happen"
Everyone gets a supercouncil that'll be shit for anywhere not completely urban so Central Government don't have to deal with annoying local government who keep asking awkward questions of them and exposing their ignorance.
Did Labour not do ANY thinking in advance prior to the election? I didn't have high hopes of them, but they've consistently undershot the low expectations I did have.
Nope, I had those very low expectations from Day One and, what they have done, I absolutely expected.
Good to see local government (potentially) being sorted out. It’s an abject mess in most places. Two-tier councils are pointless, and cities like Nottingham and Manchester have ludicrously tight boundaries that make no geographical sense and should have been expanded decades ago.
JFDI.
I believe the favoured solution here is a ‘Solent’ mayoralty covering Portsmouth, Southampton and the island. Presumably with a few adjacent bits of the mainland thrown in. Whether this is sorting out a mess, or creating one, is the question? Quite how a mayoralty covering two cities of obvious and known rivalry plus the island would work politically, or in terms of the personalities, isn’t clear. Yes, you can argue the whole area has, or should have, some economic synergies, but once you get beyond that, the politics and political issues for each of the cities, and for the island, are different.
The updates coming out of Vanuatu suggest the earthquake has caused significant damage and loss of life in and around Port Vila.
The tsunami warnings for Fiji and New Zealand have been lifted but it appears a mudslide has hit the port part of Port Vila but the extent of the damage isn’t clear at this time.
Very conspiriatorial that Pacific techtonic plates are moving at both ends of the ocean, nothing surprising there per se but a trand to keep an eye on....if there is suddently a landslide in La Palma and the resultant wave moves eastwards....allied to mysterious drones in the skies it can only mean one thing....
Labour is making systemic change. At least unlike the last lot, they are doing things.
We can say all day how bad they are but the Tories really were utterly pointless in the end.
Not just pointless but actually toxic. However bad Labour are or even become, the Tories were the worst government in modern history, and on some measures the worst since the Cabal.
The issue though is the MSM has basically written off any reference back / investigation / proper analysis of the 14 years of Tory Government and especially the toxic years since 2019 as old news and simply and ruthlessly attacked the NEW Government literally since Friday 5th July (I'll never forget a scowling Rigby outside No 10 that morning), and blamed labour for anything and everything that needs sorting literally from that date.
NO PM has ever had a more hostile and totally unfair reception in to No 10.
Their negativity lies slander and denial of the crisis he inherited like a self professing doom loop!
Clearly you’ve never read the press reports on Macdonald’s appointment in 1924.
No ... but no doubt you have and they would be of similar bile!
I have, but they were nothing like this.
Nobody to my knowledge has accused Starmer of being a paid stooge for a hostile foreign power on the basis of forged documents.
Good to see local government (potentially) being sorted out. It’s an abject mess in most places. Two-tier councils are pointless, and cities like Nottingham and Manchester have ludicrously tight boundaries that make no geographical sense and should have been expanded decades ago.
JFDI.
I believe the favoured solution here is a ‘Solent’ mayoralty covering Portsmouth, Southampton and the island. Presumably with a few adjacent bits of the mainland thrown in. Whether this is sorting out a mess, or creating one, is the question? Quite how a mayoralty covering two cities of obvious and known rivalry plus the island would work politically, or in terms of the personalities, isn’t clear. Yes, you can argue the whole area has, or should have, some economic synergies, but once you get beyond that, the politics and political issues for each of the cities, and for the island, are different.
I would have thought the Isle of Wight as a unitary with a mayor of its own would make sense given its geography, although 20 years of hard labour in the education system has warned me that government policy has nothing to do with common sense and frequently only a passing acquaintance with reality.
The government wants mayoral areas to have populations of at least 500,000, as per the white paper.
That this mostly involves tacking countryside onto large labour-voting cities isn’t, I am sure, part of the consideration…
Although from a Westminster perspective this is being badged as ‘devolution’, it’s going to feel like centralisation to a lot of us on the receiving end. Parishes only get a passing mention in the paper (apparently the relationship with them is going to be “rewired”, whatever that might mean) but the idea that a mayor sitting in Southampton and maybe a local councillor with the chance to ask the mayor a question every month, elected from quite a large slice of the island, represents real local democracy, is a stretch.
City-plus-hinterland is a reasonable model for local services, Italian provinces seem to work that way as do some Northen metropolitan areas. And could be of benefit, eg enough usage of public transport in the central area to make it viable running into more rural areas.
Italian provinces have councils below, as does London. The issue is whether unitary can work over a large, disparate area, especially when the power is going to be put in one person’s hands, with an appointed, not elected, team of ‘commissioners’
Got to say something is missing in this story and I can’t work out who is to blame - it feels a bit too risky for Ukraine to be responsible
It came a day after the Ukrainians convicted him in absentia as being responsible for using banned chemical weapons in Ukraine. The missile development software guy also killed recently.
Does feel like these attacks have stepped up in frequency recently. A sigh of desperation from Ukraine? Attempting to concentrate minds among senior figures in the regime ahead of negotiations?
Good to see local government (potentially) being sorted out. It’s an abject mess in most places. Two-tier councils are pointless, and cities like Nottingham and Manchester have ludicrously tight boundaries that make no geographical sense and should have been expanded decades ago.
JFDI.
I believe the favoured solution here is a ‘Solent’ mayoralty covering Portsmouth, Southampton and the island. Presumably with a few adjacent bits of the mainland thrown in. Whether this is sorting out a mess, or creating one, is the question? Quite how a mayoralty covering two cities of obvious and known rivalry plus the island would work politically, or in terms of the personalities, isn’t clear. Yes, you can argue the whole area has, or should have, some economic synergies, but once you get beyond that, the politics and political issues for each of the cities, and for the island, are different.
I would have thought the Isle of Wight as a unitary with a mayor of its own would make sense given its geography, although 20 years of hard labour in the education system has warned me that government policy has nothing to do with common sense and frequently only a passing acquaintance with reality.
The government wants mayoral areas to have populations of at least 500,000, as per the white paper.
That this mostly involves tacking countryside onto large labour-voting cities isn’t, I am sure, part of the consideration…
Although from a Westminster perspective this is being badged as ‘devolution’, it’s going to feel like centralisation to a lot of us on the receiving end. Parishes only get a passing mention in the paper (apparently the relationship with them is going to be “rewired”, whatever that might mean) but the idea that a mayor sitting in Southampton and maybe a local councillor with the chance to ask the mayor a question every month, elected from quite a large slice of the island, represents real local democracy is a stretch.
That is interesting as their own research has repeatedly confirmed the sweet spot for unitaries is around 300,000.
If they want unitaries of that size they are going to have to do major reorganisation on the existing ones.
I wonder if Rayner* has any idea of just what fury that would unleash. Or how expensive and time-consuming it would be.
Unitaries out of larger districts with elected mayors at a county level would make a great deal of sense, as long as they were filtered through a modicum of common sense (e.g. the IoW and Cornwall being treated separately due to geographical considerations).
These proposals look like an idiot from London who has no idea of England beyond looking at a map thinking they’ve come up with something clever.
*Autocorrect does - it made her into ‘Ratner.’
It does seem like a number pulled out of someone's arse, which will make things far more difficult and more removed from the electorate.
There's an urgent need for local government reform, but this is totally Baldric cunning plan-level. Less and less accountability, "ooh, we like metropolitan mayors, have those everywhere, that will solve everything, shut up about SEN and funding crises, fix the responsibility problem by them having none, really, isn't local government just a headache, we can just decree stuff and it will happen"
Everyone gets a supercouncil that'll be shit for anywhere not completely urban so Central Government don't have to deal with annoying local government who keep asking awkward questions of them and exposing their ignorance.
Did Labour not do ANY thinking in advance prior to the election? I didn't have high hopes of them, but they've consistently undershot the low expectations I did have.
300,000-350,000 for a council was a figure knocked around by the previous Government as well. Most London Boroughs operate at about 350,000.
For Surrey, as an example, the County and the eleven District/Borough Councils would be replaced by three unitaries basically covering west, central and east. The Conservative-controlled County wanted to take over everything and operate as a unitary like Cornwall. There was significant disagreement even among those Councillors who served on both the County and a District Council (twin hatters as they are known).
Were the Conservatives to lose control of the County in 2025, I suspect a deal will be done.
"I believe the U.S. Government knows what the “drones” are and doesn’t wish to clear this up definitively, preferring panic & loss of credibility to disclosure.
That is the least crazy thing that could be happening. And that is totally crazy."
Of course it knows. It knows that they are aeroplanes.
So why doesn't Trump say that? Belittle the story, accuse the government of allowing hysteria to multiply
He doens't. He explictly says "something strange is going on", and when he's asked if he's been briefed he says "no comment" - he surely has been briefed. He will be president in about a month
Also, this:
"Drone Incursions Closed Wright Patterson Air Force Base’s Airspace Friday Night
Wright Patterson AFB, a high-profile base that's home to critical Air Force units, is the latest installation to deal with mysterious drones.
“I can confirm small aerial systems were spotted over Wright-Patterson between Friday night and Saturday morning,” base spokesman Bob Purtiman told The War Zone on Sunday in response to our questions about the sightings. “Today leaders have determined that they did not impact base residents, facilities, or assets. The Air Force is taking all appropriate measures to safeguard our installations and residents.”
The drones “ranged in sizes and configurations,” Purtiman said. “Our units are working with local authorities to ensure the safety of base personnel, facilities, and assets.”
‘Most of the New Jersey drone sightings were misidentified, so it is notable that the ones spotted over Wright Patterson, as with the other U.S. military installations, were seen by trained observers that are equipped with high-end gear to maintain security and to discriminate between friend and foe.’
Oh good we are back at trained observers again. Why on Earth do you believe anything coming out of Trumps mouth? He is a complete and utter arse who lies and blusters his way through life. And to remind you again, Gatwick was closed with no evidence of an actual drone ever being found. Who says that didn’t happen at Wright Patterson?
This is not just one airbase. From the same report:
"Still, as we have reported in the past, there are several confirmed drone sightings in New Jersey reported by trained observers at Picatinny and Naval Weapons Station Earle in New Jersey. A Coast Guard vessel off New Jersey also had a recent encounter with what it called “multiple low-altitude aircraft.” U.S. officials are still trying to discover the origin of drones that appeared over four U.S. Air Force bases in the U.K., a story we first broke. They’ve been spotted over RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall, and RAF Feltwell, all within close proximity, and RAF Fairford, about 130 miles to the west."
A few days ago, Ramstein Air Base in Germany joined the growing list of places registering unknown drone overflights."
Yes, it could still be a flap, but it is now a flap of quite astonishing proportions and duration, if so. And Trump's reaction tells me that there is more to this. He has surely been briefed on the truth, and if there is one thing he hates it is looking like a stupid loser. I don't think he would say this stuff if he didn't have reason to say it
Who are these trained observers? And what training do they have?
They're military personnel at a US airforce base, or RAF bases. Pretty much their entire job is staring at the sky, looking for threats
So I give them more credence than some drunk guy in Jersey City misidentifying planes heading for JFK (which is definitely happening a lot, as that same report says)
And they are not just the latest batch of trainee airforce crew on late night guard duty looking up? Seriously? Lakenheath/Rendlesham was the guards on watch at night, if I recall correctly.
I may be wrong in all this. But it all just smacks of a self sustaining flap, and I give very little credence to (a) Trump and (b) Military spokesmen.
It's easy to imagine that, after there's one anomalous sighting at one military base, the order is sent out by a senior staff officer to the base commanding officers that they want to hear about anything odd that is seen. So all the guards are told to be extra vigilant and they report anything and everything (even if it's nothing) and the "thing" snowballs from there. Meanwhile the staff officers don't know what these things are, because there's nothing there so nothing to definitively identify, but it's impossible to prove the absence of something - so they're left with the only thing they can say, which is that they're trying to work out what's going on, but don't have any details to share right now.
And in steps credulous fools like Leon to put their favourite conspiracy into the gaps.
It's actually easier to see how something like this can spread among a hierarchical organisation like the military, than among the population generally. And the Chinese balloon incident should have taught us that the military know a lot less about what's up in the sky than most people think.
I don't think this is a patch on the moving statues in Ireland of 1985. Now that was a mass population psychosis event of astonishing proportions and duration. A few misidentified aircraft and some hobby drones is but nothing in comparison.
"A Christmas market in the German city of Cologne was evacuated for a second consecutive day on Sunday due to an unattended suitcase that was later found to contain sand."
"I believe the U.S. Government knows what the “drones” are and doesn’t wish to clear this up definitively, preferring panic & loss of credibility to disclosure.
That is the least crazy thing that could be happening. And that is totally crazy."
Of course it knows. It knows that they are aeroplanes.
So why doesn't Trump say that? Belittle the story, accuse the government of allowing hysteria to multiply
He doens't. He explictly says "something strange is going on", and when he's asked if he's been briefed he says "no comment" - he surely has been briefed. He will be president in about a month
Also, this:
"Drone Incursions Closed Wright Patterson Air Force Base’s Airspace Friday Night
Wright Patterson AFB, a high-profile base that's home to critical Air Force units, is the latest installation to deal with mysterious drones.
“I can confirm small aerial systems were spotted over Wright-Patterson between Friday night and Saturday morning,” base spokesman Bob Purtiman told The War Zone on Sunday in response to our questions about the sightings. “Today leaders have determined that they did not impact base residents, facilities, or assets. The Air Force is taking all appropriate measures to safeguard our installations and residents.”
The drones “ranged in sizes and configurations,” Purtiman said. “Our units are working with local authorities to ensure the safety of base personnel, facilities, and assets.”
‘Most of the New Jersey drone sightings were misidentified, so it is notable that the ones spotted over Wright Patterson, as with the other U.S. military installations, were seen by trained observers that are equipped with high-end gear to maintain security and to discriminate between friend and foe.’
Oh good we are back at trained observers again. Why on Earth do you believe anything coming out of Trumps mouth? He is a complete and utter arse who lies and blusters his way through life. And to remind you again, Gatwick was closed with no evidence of an actual drone ever being found. Who says that didn’t happen at Wright Patterson?
This is not just one airbase. From the same report:
"Still, as we have reported in the past, there are several confirmed drone sightings in New Jersey reported by trained observers at Picatinny and Naval Weapons Station Earle in New Jersey. A Coast Guard vessel off New Jersey also had a recent encounter with what it called “multiple low-altitude aircraft.” U.S. officials are still trying to discover the origin of drones that appeared over four U.S. Air Force bases in the U.K., a story we first broke. They’ve been spotted over RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall, and RAF Feltwell, all within close proximity, and RAF Fairford, about 130 miles to the west."
A few days ago, Ramstein Air Base in Germany joined the growing list of places registering unknown drone overflights."
Yes, it could still be a flap, but it is now a flap of quite astonishing proportions and duration, if so. And Trump's reaction tells me that there is more to this. He has surely been briefed on the truth, and if there is one thing he hates it is looking like a stupid loser. I don't think he would say this stuff if he didn't have reason to say it
Who are these trained observers? And what training do they have?
They're military personnel at a US airforce base, or RAF bases. Pretty much their entire job is staring at the sky, looking for threats
So I give them more credence than some drunk guy in Jersey City misidentifying planes heading for JFK (which is definitely happening a lot, as that same report says)
And they are not just the latest batch of trainee airforce crew on late night guard duty looking up? Seriously? Lakenheath/Rendlesham was the guards on watch at night, if I recall correctly.
I may be wrong in all this. But it all just smacks of a self sustaining flap, and I give very little credence to (a) Trump and (b) Military spokesmen.
It's easy to imagine that, after there's one anomalous sighting at one military base, the order is sent out by a senior staff officer to the base commanding officers that they want to hear about anything odd that is seen. So all the guards are told to be extra vigilant and they report anything and everything (even if it's nothing) and the "thing" snowballs from there. Meanwhile the staff officers don't know what these things are, because there's nothing there so nothing to definitively identify, but it's impossible to prove the absence of something - so they're left with the only thing they can say, which is that they're trying to work out what's going on, but don't have any details to share right now.
And in steps credulous fools like Leon to put their favourite conspiracy into the gaps.
It's actually easier to see how something like this can spread among a hierarchical organisation like the military, than among the population generally. And the Chinese balloon incident should have taught us that the military know a lot less about what's up in the sky than most people think.
I don't think this is a patch on the moving statues in Ireland of 1985. Now that was a mass population psychosis event of astonishing proportions and duration. A few misidentified aircraft and some hobby drones is but nothing in comparison.
"A Christmas market in the German city of Cologne was evacuated for a second consecutive day on Sunday due to an unattended suitcase that was later found to contain sand."
That's pretty horrible becauase they will have to be as vigilant with the 19th sand suitcase as they were with the first.
Good to see local government (potentially) being sorted out. It’s an abject mess in most places. Two-tier councils are pointless, and cities like Nottingham and Manchester have ludicrously tight boundaries that make no geographical sense and should have been expanded decades ago.
JFDI.
I believe the favoured solution here is a ‘Solent’ mayoralty covering Portsmouth, Southampton and the island. Presumably with a few adjacent bits of the mainland thrown in. Whether this is sorting out a mess, or creating one, is the question? Quite how a mayoralty covering two cities of obvious and known rivalry plus the island would work politically, or in terms of the personalities, isn’t clear. Yes, you can argue the whole area has, or should have, some economic synergies, but once you get beyond that, the politics and political issues for each of the cities, and for the island, are different.
I would have thought the Isle of Wight as a unitary with a mayor of its own would make sense given its geography, although 20 years of hard labour in the education system has warned me that government policy has nothing to do with common sense and frequently only a passing acquaintance with reality.
The government wants mayoral areas to have populations of at least 500,000, as per the white paper.
That this mostly involves tacking countryside onto large labour-voting cities isn’t, I am sure, part of the consideration…
Although from a Westminster perspective this is being badged as ‘devolution’, it’s going to feel like centralisation to a lot of us on the receiving end. Parishes only get a passing mention in the paper (apparently the relationship with them is going to be “rewired”, whatever that might mean) but the idea that a mayor sitting in Southampton and maybe a local councillor with the chance to ask the mayor a question every month, elected from quite a large slice of the island, represents real local democracy is a stretch.
That is interesting as their own research has repeatedly confirmed the sweet spot for unitaries is around 300,000.
If they want unitaries of that size they are going to have to do major reorganisation on the existing ones.
I wonder if Rayner* has any idea of just what fury that would unleash. Or how expensive and time-consuming it would be.
Unitaries out of larger districts with elected mayors at a county level would make a great deal of sense, as long as they were filtered through a modicum of common sense (e.g. the IoW and Cornwall being treated separately due to geographical considerations).
These proposals look like an idiot from London who has no idea of England beyond looking at a map thinking they’ve come up with something clever.
*Autocorrect does - it made her into ‘Ratner.’
It does seem like a number pulled out of someone's arse, which will make things far more difficult and more removed from the electorate.
There's an urgent need for local government reform, but this is totally Baldric cunning plan-level. Less and less accountability, "ooh, we like metropolitan mayors, have those everywhere, that will solve everything, shut up about SEN and funding crises, fix the responsibility problem by them having none, really, isn't local government just a headache, we can just decree stuff and it will happen"
Everyone gets a supercouncil that'll be shit for anywhere not completely urban so Central Government don't have to deal with annoying local government who keep asking awkward questions of them and exposing their ignorance.
Did Labour not do ANY thinking in advance prior to the election? I didn't have high hopes of them, but they've consistently undershot the low expectations I did have.
300,000-350,000 for a council was a figure knocked around by the previous Government as well. Most London Boroughs operate at about 350,000.
For Surrey, as an example, the County and the eleven District/Borough Councils would be replaced by three unitaries basically covering west, central and east. The Conservative-controlled County wanted to take over everything and operate as a unitary like Cornwall. There was significant disagreement even among those Councillors who served on both the County and a District Council (twin hatters as they are known).
Were the Conservatives to lose control of the County in 2025, I suspect a deal will be done.
There's a risk of US style "ring doughnutting" problems here, if the rural area tacked onto a urban centre holds sway then they can vote for low expenditure and the urban centre becomes run down and empties. It does need to be done with some thought as to potential adverse consequences
Good to see local government (potentially) being sorted out. It’s an abject mess in most places. Two-tier councils are pointless, and cities like Nottingham and Manchester have ludicrously tight boundaries that make no geographical sense and should have been expanded decades ago.
JFDI.
I believe the favoured solution here is a ‘Solent’ mayoralty covering Portsmouth, Southampton and the island. Presumably with a few adjacent bits of the mainland thrown in. Whether this is sorting out a mess, or creating one, is the question? Quite how a mayoralty covering two cities of obvious and known rivalry plus the island would work politically, or in terms of the personalities, isn’t clear. Yes, you can argue the whole area has, or should have, some economic synergies, but once you get beyond that, the politics and political issues for each of the cities, and for the island, are different.
Good to see local government (potentially) being sorted out. It’s an abject mess in most places. Two-tier councils are pointless, and cities like Nottingham and Manchester have ludicrously tight boundaries that make no geographical sense and should have been expanded decades ago.
JFDI.
I believe the favoured solution here is a ‘Solent’ mayoralty covering Portsmouth, Southampton and the island. Presumably with a few adjacent bits of the mainland thrown in. Whether this is sorting out a mess, or creating one, is the question? Quite how a mayoralty covering two cities of obvious and known rivalry plus the island would work politically, or in terms of the personalities, isn’t clear. Yes, you can argue the whole area has, or should have, some economic synergies, but once you get beyond that, the politics and political issues for each of the cities, and for the island, are different.
I would have thought the Isle of Wight as a unitary with a mayor of its own would make sense given its geography, although 20 years of hard labour in the education system has warned me that government policy has nothing to do with common sense and frequently only a passing acquaintance with reality.
The government wants mayoral areas to have populations of at least 500,000, as per the white paper.
That this mostly involves tacking countryside onto large labour-voting cities isn’t, I am sure, part of the consideration…
Although from a Westminster perspective this is being badged as ‘devolution’, it’s going to feel like centralisation to a lot of us on the receiving end. Parishes only get a passing mention in the paper (apparently the relationship with them is going to be “rewired”, whatever that might mean) but the idea that a mayor sitting in Southampton and maybe a local councillor with the chance to ask the mayor a question every month, elected from quite a large slice of the island, represents real local democracy is a stretch.
That is interesting as their own research has repeatedly confirmed the sweet spot for unitaries is around 300,000.
If they want unitaries of that size they are going to have to do major reorganisation on the existing ones.
I wonder if Rayner* has any idea of just what fury that would unleash. Or how expensive and time-consuming it would be.
Unitaries out of larger districts with elected mayors at a county level would make a great deal of sense, as long as they were filtered through a modicum of common sense (e.g. the IoW and Cornwall being treated separately due to geographical considerations).
These proposals look like an idiot from London who has no idea of England beyond looking at a map thinking they’ve come up with something clever.
*Autocorrect does - it made her into ‘Ratner.’
It does seem like a number pulled out of someone's arse, which will make things far more difficult and more removed from the electorate.
There's an urgent need for local government reform, but this is totally Baldric cunning plan-level. Less and less accountability, "ooh, we like metropolitan mayors, have those everywhere, that will solve everything, shut up about SEN and funding crises, fix the responsibility problem by them having none, really, isn't local government just a headache, we can just decree stuff and it will happen"
Everyone gets a supercouncil that'll be shit for anywhere not completely urban so Central Government don't have to deal with annoying local government who keep asking awkward questions of them and exposing their ignorance.
Did Labour not do ANY thinking in advance prior to the election? I didn't have high hopes of them, but they've consistently undershot the low expectations I did have.
300,000-350,000 for a council was a figure knocked around by the previous Government as well. Most London Boroughs operate at about 350,000.
For Surrey, as an example, the County and the eleven District/Borough Councils would be replaced by three unitaries basically covering west, central and east. The Conservative-controlled County wanted to take over everything and operate as a unitary like Cornwall. There was significant disagreement even among those Councillors who served on both the County and a District Council (twin hatters as they are known).
Were the Conservatives to lose control of the County in 2025, I suspect a deal will be done.
Our District Council has been gradually preparing for a shift to Unitary by working closer and closer with our direct neighbour (who has very similar circumstances and is a natural fit). Combined population of 310,000 or so. We now share officers and departments, whilst staying separate at other levels. All that must now be thrown away to come up with a knee jerk plan over the Christmas break to go in with other completely dissimilar councils. It'll end up much more expensive, considerably less efficient and effective, and with noticeably less accountability.
Good to see local government (potentially) being sorted out. It’s an abject mess in most places. Two-tier councils are pointless, and cities like Nottingham and Manchester have ludicrously tight boundaries that make no geographical sense and should have been expanded decades ago.
JFDI.
I believe the favoured solution here is a ‘Solent’ mayoralty covering Portsmouth, Southampton and the island. Presumably with a few adjacent bits of the mainland thrown in. Whether this is sorting out a mess, or creating one, is the question? Quite how a mayoralty covering two cities of obvious and known rivalry plus the island would work politically, or in terms of the personalities, isn’t clear. Yes, you can argue the whole area has, or should have, some economic synergies, but once you get beyond that, the politics and political issues for each of the cities, and for the island, are different.
Got to say something is missing in this story and I can’t work out who is to blame - it feels a bit too risky for Ukraine to be responsible
It came a day after the Ukrainians convicted him in absentia as being responsible for using banned chemical weapons in Ukraine. The missile development software guy also killed recently.
Does feel like these attacks have stepped up in frequency recently. A sigh of desperation from Ukraine? Attempting to concentrate minds among senior figures in the regime ahead of negotiations?
It isn’t the first time Ukraine or sympathetic forces inside Russia have carried out targeted assassinations. They’ll have been seeing Israel’s success vs Hezbollah too.
Labour is making systemic change. At least unlike the last lot, they are doing things.
We can say all day how bad they are but the Tories really were utterly pointless in the end.
Not just pointless but actually toxic. However bad Labour are or even become, the Tories were the worst government in modern history, and on some measures the worst since the Cabal.
The issue though is the MSM has basically written off any reference back / investigation / proper analysis of the 14 years of Tory Government and especially the toxic years since 2019 as old news and simply and ruthlessly attacked the NEW Government literally since Friday 5th July (I'll never forget a scowling Rigby outside No 10 that morning), and blamed labour for anything and everything that needs sorting literally from that date.
NO PM has ever had a more hostile and totally unfair reception in to No 10.
Their negativity lies slander and denial of the crisis he inherited like a self professing doom loop!
I used to watch a YouTube channel called 'BlackBeltBarrister' (*). As a non-lawyer, I felt he gave interesting and informed commentary on a few legal issues of interest. I enjoyed it.
Since the election though, he has become rabidly anti-government, with clickbait titles. The last few videos:
"Which of these is worse?" with pictures of Starmer and Lammy. "This could bring them down!" (TV licensing) "None of this adds up" (Reeves) "I was right" (Starmer) "This must be EMBARASSING" (Reeves) "How many will it takre" (Starmer) etc
I am not a Labour supporter, and have not been massively impressed with Starmer's first few months in power. But the BBB channel has become unwatchable due to an utter lack of balance and, sadly, insight. My opinion of him has changed from him being a thoughtful guy who makes insightful comments, to him being an utter nutcase. I wouldn't trust him with giving me an opinion on what to eat at McDonalds, let alone anything legal.
He gets hundreds of thousands of views, and seemingly more than he did before the election, which I think must be why he does it. I'm no longer a viewer of his, sadly.
(Again; it's not the fact he's attacking Labour; it's the consistency of his attacks compared to attacks on the previous government, and the utter lack of any balance or insight.)
(*) Someone else mentioned this the other week...
Think you've hit the nail on the head.
Clickbait and monetary inducements for some to drive the "anti establishment" establishment backing of the right wing paymasters
In MSM the likes of Burley / Rigby / Mason / Zeffernan / Kuenssberg / Peston / Astana et al are effectively on the payroll earning telephone numbers and will basically do what they are told....
Shining lights of fairness but firmness imho are Derbyshire and Ridge atm....
It's not just the right; it happens on the left as well.
One of the problems with YouTube (and social media generally) is that people want to make a living off it. This means they chase views/clicks, and once they hit on a topic that gets them those clicks, they move onto that mire extremely. If BBB started doing balanced stuff that criticised the Conservatives or Reform as much as Labour, he might lose a lot of viewers (though it is always easier to criticise a government in power.)
There are lots of channels that start off as a general "this interests me channel," which then become more specialist as the owner sees what gets views and what does not. With politics, this seems to lead to people becoming more extreme.
Labour is making systemic change. At least unlike the last lot, they are doing things.
We can say all day how bad they are but the Tories really were utterly pointless in the end.
Not just pointless but actually toxic. However bad Labour are or even become, the Tories were the worst government in modern history, and on some measures the worst since the Cabal.
The issue though is the MSM has basically written off any reference back / investigation / proper analysis of the 14 years of Tory Government and especially the toxic years since 2019 as old news and simply and ruthlessly attacked the NEW Government literally since Friday 5th July (I'll never forget a scowling Rigby outside No 10 that morning), and blamed labour for anything and everything that needs sorting literally from that date.
NO PM has ever had a more hostile and totally unfair reception in to No 10.
Their negativity lies slander and denial of the crisis he inherited like a self professing doom loop!
I used to watch a YouTube channel called 'BlackBeltBarrister' (*). As a non-lawyer, I felt he gave interesting and informed commentary on a few legal issues of interest. I enjoyed it.
Since the election though, he has become rabidly anti-government, with clickbait titles. The last few videos:
"Which of these is worse?" with pictures of Starmer and Lammy. "This could bring them down!" (TV licensing) "None of this adds up" (Reeves) "I was right" (Starmer) "This must be EMBARASSING" (Reeves) "How many will it takre" (Starmer) etc
I am not a Labour supporter, and have not been massively impressed with Starmer's first few months in power. But the BBB channel has become unwatchable due to an utter lack of balance and, sadly, insight. My opinion of him has changed from him being a thoughtful guy who makes insightful comments, to him being an utter nutcase. I wouldn't trust him with giving me an opinion on what to eat at McDonalds, let alone anything legal.
He gets hundreds of thousands of views, and seemingly more than he did before the election, which I think must be why he does it. I'm no longer a viewer of his, sadly.
(Again; it's not the fact he's attacking Labour; it's the consistency of his attacks compared to attacks on the previous government, and the utter lack of any balance or insight.)
(*) Someone else mentioned this the other week...
Think you've hit the nail on the head.
Clickbait and monetary inducements for some to drive the "anti establishment" establishment backing of the right wing paymasters
In MSM the likes of Burley / Rigby / Mason / Zeffernan / Kuenssberg / Peston / Astana et al are effectively on the payroll earning telephone numbers and will basically do what they are told....
Shining lights of fairness but firmness imho are Derbyshire and Ridge atm....
What utter nonsense. You need one of these. Right wing paymasters
Meanwhile you have Charlotte Gill claiming the same about the left. Global, LBC and various talking heads involved.
This probably means the system is in balance when the demented left and the demented right see conspiracies everywhere when you merely have people offering differing views and challenging the status quo.
Labour is making systemic change. At least unlike the last lot, they are doing things.
We can say all day how bad they are but the Tories really were utterly pointless in the end.
Not just pointless but actually toxic. However bad Labour are or even become, the Tories were the worst government in modern history, and on some measures the worst since the Cabal.
The issue though is the MSM has basically written off any reference back / investigation / proper analysis of the 14 years of Tory Government and especially the toxic years since 2019 as old news and simply and ruthlessly attacked the NEW Government literally since Friday 5th July (I'll never forget a scowling Rigby outside No 10 that morning), and blamed labour for anything and everything that needs sorting literally from that date.
NO PM has ever had a more hostile and totally unfair reception in to No 10.
Their negativity lies slander and denial of the crisis he inherited like a self professing doom loop!
I used to watch a YouTube channel called 'BlackBeltBarrister' (*). As a non-lawyer, I felt he gave interesting and informed commentary on a few legal issues of interest. I enjoyed it.
Since the election though, he has become rabidly anti-government, with clickbait titles. The last few videos:
"Which of these is worse?" with pictures of Starmer and Lammy. "This could bring them down!" (TV licensing) "None of this adds up" (Reeves) "I was right" (Starmer) "This must be EMBARASSING" (Reeves) "How many will it takre" (Starmer) etc
I am not a Labour supporter, and have not been massively impressed with Starmer's first few months in power. But the BBB channel has become unwatchable due to an utter lack of balance and, sadly, insight. My opinion of him has changed from him being a thoughtful guy who makes insightful comments, to him being an utter nutcase. I wouldn't trust him with giving me an opinion on what to eat at McDonalds, let alone anything legal.
He gets hundreds of thousands of views, and seemingly more than he did before the election, which I think must be why he does it. I'm no longer a viewer of his, sadly.
(Again; it's not the fact he's attacking Labour; it's the consistency of his attacks compared to attacks on the previous government, and the utter lack of any balance or insight.)
(*) Someone else mentioned this the other week...
I used to watch his Youtube channel quite regularly. It was good and informative. However this is merely how Youtube now operates. Sensationalist headlines to drive clicks.
I used to follow a couple of finance channels. They used to be fine then it would be "TESLA stock to go to Zero - Act Now" and you would click on the link and it would be nothing of the sort.
I suspect it says more about the audience for this than the content makers.
Good to see local government (potentially) being sorted out. It’s an abject mess in most places. Two-tier councils are pointless, and cities like Nottingham and Manchester have ludicrously tight boundaries that make no geographical sense and should have been expanded decades ago.
JFDI.
I believe the favoured solution here is a ‘Solent’ mayoralty covering Portsmouth, Southampton and the island. Presumably with a few adjacent bits of the mainland thrown in. Whether this is sorting out a mess, or creating one, is the question? Quite how a mayoralty covering two cities of obvious and known rivalry plus the island would work politically, or in terms of the personalities, isn’t clear. Yes, you can argue the whole area has, or should have, some economic synergies, but once you get beyond that, the politics and political issues for each of the cities, and for the island, are different.
I would have thought the Isle of Wight as a unitary with a mayor of its own would make sense given its geography, although 20 years of hard labour in the education system has warned me that government policy has nothing to do with common sense and frequently only a passing acquaintance with reality.
The government wants mayoral areas to have populations of at least 500,000, as per the white paper.
That this mostly involves tacking countryside onto large labour-voting cities isn’t, I am sure, part of the consideration…
Although from a Westminster perspective this is being badged as ‘devolution’, it’s going to feel like centralisation to a lot of us on the receiving end. Parishes only get a passing mention in the paper (apparently the relationship with them is going to be “rewired”, whatever that might mean) but the idea that a mayor sitting in Southampton and maybe a local councillor with the chance to ask the mayor a question every month, elected from quite a large slice of the island, represents real local democracy, is a stretch.
City-plus-hinterland is a reasonable model for local services, Italian provinces seem to work that way as do some Northen metropolitan areas. And could be of benefit, eg enough usage of public transport in the central area to make it viable running into more rural areas.
Italian provinces have councils below, as does London. The issue is whether unitary can work over a large, disparate area, especially when the power is going to be put in one person’s hands, with an appointed, not elected, team of ‘commissioners’
There needs to be term limits on Mayor's too. Peter Soulsby in Leicester is on his 4th term, and increasingly autocratic, hence the reaction against Labour in the 2023 city Council elections and 2024 General Election.
It's not good government to have a single individual in power for too long.
The civil servant has a point, surely? What exactly is it that the government is trying to do but has been blocked by the Civil Service?
Read the memoirs of politicians of various stripes. An idea, a policy. Why does it not happen? Why cannot a Minister “cloaked in immense power” get something done?
During COVID, at an entrance inside No. 10 Downing Street, there was a keypad lock. Since it was for security it wasn’t disabled. Even getting a gel dispenser fitted next to it took months. Despite the highest in the land (politicians and civil servants) wanting it.
Must finish the header on The Blob.
If civil servants wanted it, who delayed it? This sounds like Dominic Cummings complaining that civil servants insisted on following the law.
The civil servants in the Cabinet Office wanted it. But, IIRC, it was a combination of “who authorised and pays?”, “listed building?” Etc etc.
Comments
There's an urgent need for local government reform, but this is totally Baldric cunning plan-level.
Less and less accountability, "ooh, we like metropolitan mayors, have those everywhere, that will solve everything, shut up about SEN and funding crises, fix the responsibility problem by them having none, really, isn't local government just a headache, we can just decree stuff and it will happen"
Everyone gets a supercouncil that'll be shit for anywhere not completely urban so Central Government don't have to deal with annoying local government who keep asking awkward questions of them and exposing their ignorance.
Did Labour not do ANY thinking in advance prior to the election? I didn't have high hopes of them, but they've consistently undershot the low expectations I did have.
Putin gets a call awakening from his slumber with the news...
Doesn't need a rocket scuentist (excuse the pun) to work out what happens next...
Only bad bad bad!
Breaking News Exclusive: Keir Starmer to visit Britain tomorrow.
Businesses are cutting jobs at the fastest pace in nearly four years as Labour’s ‘downbeat rhetoric and policies’ take their toll.
The closely-watched purchasing managers’ index (PMI) report showed the steepest decline in private sector workforce numbers since January 2021 when Britain was still in the grip of Covid lockdowns.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/job-cuts-surge-as-labour-gloom-hits-confidence-and-fuels-recession-fears/ar-AA1vYGbK?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=9d7bae528a1a4fbeb684d67c66b4d95b&ei=27
Clickbait and monetary inducements for some to drive the "anti establishment" establishment backing of the right wing paymasters
In MSM the likes of Burley / Rigby / Mason / Zeffernan / Kuenssberg / Peston / Astana et al are effectively on the payroll earning telephone numbers and will basically do what they are told....
Shining lights of fairness but firmness imho are Derbyshire and Ridge atm....
Ok, it is a bit early.
MUSK!
Trump!
A new Dark Age !
Nobody to my knowledge has accused Starmer of being a paid stooge for a hostile foreign power on the basis of forged documents.
Does feel like these attacks have stepped up in frequency recently. A sigh of desperation from Ukraine? Attempting to concentrate minds among senior figures in the regime ahead of negotiations?
For Surrey, as an example, the County and the eleven District/Borough Councils would be replaced by three unitaries basically covering west, central and east. The Conservative-controlled County wanted to take over everything and operate as a unitary like Cornwall. There was significant disagreement even among those Councillors who served on both the County and a District Council (twin hatters as they are known).
Were the Conservatives to lose control of the County in 2025, I suspect a deal will be done.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/christmas-market-cologne-evacuated-unattended-221307470.html
"A Christmas market in the German city of Cologne was evacuated for a second consecutive day on Sunday due to an unattended suitcase that was later found to contain sand."
It does need to be done with some thought as to potential adverse consequences
We now share officers and departments, whilst staying separate at other levels.
All that must now be thrown away to come up with a knee jerk plan over the Christmas break to go in with other completely dissimilar councils. It'll end up much more expensive, considerably less efficient and effective, and with noticeably less accountability.
Genius. Never saw that coming.
NEW THREAD
One of the problems with YouTube (and social media generally) is that people want to make a living off it. This means they chase views/clicks, and once they hit on a topic that gets them those clicks, they move onto that mire extremely. If BBB started doing balanced stuff that criticised the Conservatives or Reform as much as Labour, he might lose a lot of viewers (though it is always easier to criticise a government in power.)
There are lots of channels that start off as a general "this interests me channel," which then become more specialist as the owner sees what gets views and what does not. With politics, this seems to lead to people becoming more extreme.
What utter nonsense. You need one of these. Right wing paymasters
Meanwhile you have Charlotte Gill claiming the same about the left. Global, LBC and various talking heads involved.
This probably means the system is in balance when the demented left and the demented right see conspiracies everywhere when you merely have people offering differing views and challenging the status quo.
I used to follow a couple of finance channels. They used to be fine then it would be "TESLA stock to go to Zero - Act Now" and you would click on the link and it would be nothing of the sort.
I suspect it says more about the audience for this than the content makers.
It's not good government to have a single individual in power for too long.
The Process State eats itself.