You wouldn't know it from the hilariously misleading headline, but the Mail on Sunday commissioned a Deltapoll which very inconveniently gives Labour a seven point lead:
Labour 30 Conservatives 23 Reform 22 LibDems 12 Greens 8 SNP 4
Probably an outlier, but the Tories really should be doing a lot better given how unpopular the government is.
What's mad about that poll is it still represents a significant swing to the right since the GE, but Labour would still probably get a majority on those numbers.
That's defining Reform as "right", whereas arguably they're something orthoganal to the left-right spectrum. They're a classic "I want stuff to change quickly" populst party. whereas the Tories are still predominantly an establishment party. If either of them succeeds in emvracing both currents, Labour will be in deep trouble, but it's not clear that they will.
Keep saying that if it makes you feel better.
Britain is shifting significantly to the Right.
Something your bunch of charlatans have managed in less than 6 months.
Perhaps. But I don't think the majority of Ref voters are mentally ticking the bix saying "Like the Conservatives, only more so." Though it's hard to know or characterise why any bloc of voters vote for any party. And if you follow the thesis that the reason is often because the voter is rejecting another party (Con because nit Lab, Lab because not Con, etc) then arguably Ref is primarily a "Not Lab" vote.
Reform is a none of the above protest vote.
You can argue that Green are the same on the left but they don't get the same amount of news / publicity so it's not exactly a fair comparison...
“Reform is a none of the above protest vote. You can argue that Green are the same on the left” I’m arguing a lot of the ref % is left votes for Brexit, left votes for Corbyn in his GE.
And along comes HY always bundling Con and ref together, and CR to proclaim the country is leaping to the right. They both post some funny clueless stuff don’t they 🙂
One we we must consider more regularly, not every result or opinion poll is switchers and move from here to there as the result is often drawn from here to there in graphics. large chunks of voters sit elections out, people who hadn’t voted for decades or even ever showed up to get Brexit over the line in 2016, and many of these have voted both Corbyn and Farage. None of the above/leftfield, the bottom line being, Con and Labour is not a natural home for them.
Would the correct term be “brass neck” if you are complaining about your designs being stolen whilst posing in front of a design you have copied from Michelangelo?
Did nobody think it might not be the best idea?
There's no problem copying Michelangelo, as he's out of copyright . You might argue chutzpah, but he might argue "inspired by" is OK. But *his* copiers could argue "we were inspired by Michelangelo too."
It's an interesting and complex question with lots of law around it.
But I think he is out of luck in the UK, as I think the making of a copy of a gravestone is covered by the "Artistic Works on Public Display" exemption in Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
62Representation of certain artistic works on public display. (1)This section applies to—
(a)buildings, and
(b)sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
(2)The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—
(a)making a graphic work representing it,
(b)making a photograph or film of it, or
(c)making a broadcast of a visual image of it.
(3)Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the communication to the public, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.
You wouldn't know it from the hilariously misleading headline, but the Mail on Sunday commissioned a Deltapoll which very inconveniently gives Labour a seven point lead:
Labour 30 Conservatives 23 Reform 22 LibDems 12 Greens 8 SNP 4
Probably an outlier, but the Tories really should be doing a lot better given how unpopular the government is.
What's mad about that poll is it still represents a significant swing to the right since the GE, but Labour would still probably get a majority on those numbers.
That's defining Reform as "right", whereas arguably they're something orthoganal to the left-right spectrum. They're a classic "I want stuff to change quickly" populst party. whereas the Tories are still predominantly an establishment party. If either of them succeeds in emvracing both currents, Labour will be in deep trouble, but it's not clear that they will.
Keep saying that if it makes you feel better.
Britain is shifting significantly to the Right.
Something your bunch of charlatans have managed in less than 6 months.
Perhaps. But I don't think the majority of Ref voters are mentally ticking the bix saying "Like the Conservatives, only more so." Though it's hard to know or characterise why any bloc of voters vote for any party. And if you follow the thesis that the reason is often because the voter is rejecting another party (Con because nit Lab, Lab because not Con, etc) then arguably Ref is primarily a "Not Lab" vote.
They're shifting to the right. They're not shifting *to the Conservatives*. Because the Tories spent too many recent years not just not being conservatives, but by being an incompetent shower of backstabbing bastards.
What drives CR mad is that the Tories are on the same failure shelf as Labour having had the same policies as Labour.
What you fail to recognise (possibly because it's too complex for your mind to process) is that I regularly criticise the Conservatives. Indeed, I've done so on this thread alone.
Yes, I am a classic Shire Tory, and quite right-wing, but I'm not blind to their failings.
No no, I am not blind - you are an open critic of them. But you *are* a Tory. You aren't so much mad at Labour for doing all the wrong things as you are mad at your own side for also doing all the wrong things.
HY espouses the party regardless of failure or error. Indeed there can be no error because they are righteous. You don't take that position - but Labour do drive you mad because you wonder how on earth you managed to get demolished by *that*. And its almost entirely self-inflicted. To go from a seismic 80 seat win, with Tories vanquishing Labour across the midlands and red wall to this? In a single term?
PB is going through a bad phase. Lots of (mostly social media fuelled) hysteria generating heat not light. It will pass.
Perhaps if the vociferous criticism was being laid on the hated Tories, rather than on a Government you support, you'd be enjoying it slightly more.
PB lefties had fourteen long years yearning for a return of a Labour government.
And now they've got one its a big disappointment.
Starmer has been shown to be all sleaze and no planning.
I'm surprised, PB lefties will be (sometimes secretly) aghast.
The narrative of opposition, particularly, but by no means exclusively, by the left, is that the Tories do what they do because they are evil, selfish, cruel and indifferent to the hardship they cause. Opposition is driven by moral outrage. Government, however, proves that there are no easy choices, no simple way to rectify that hardship and that the resources are simple not there, even with more taxation, to make things right. Hence the government's tough but correct decisions on both WFA and the WASPI women.
If you have persuaded yourself that the choices were driven by malice rather than desperation that is not easy to come to terms with. And there is a hell of a lot more of this to come.
Former Conservative special adviser Samuel Kasumu says that Robert Jenrick is now the most dangerous politician in the country and warns that his language about British Pakistanis and others will put lives at risk
You wouldn't know it from the hilariously misleading headline, but the Mail on Sunday commissioned a Deltapoll which very inconveniently gives Labour a seven point lead:
Labour 30 Conservatives 23 Reform 22 LibDems 12 Greens 8 SNP 4
Probably an outlier, but the Tories really should be doing a lot better given how unpopular the government is.
What's mad about that poll is it still represents a significant swing to the right since the GE, but Labour would still probably get a majority on those numbers.
That's defining Reform as "right", whereas arguably they're something orthoganal to the left-right spectrum. They're a classic "I want stuff to change quickly" populst party. whereas the Tories are still predominantly an establishment party. If either of them succeeds in emvracing both currents, Labour will be in deep trouble, but it's not clear that they will.
Keep saying that if it makes you feel better.
Britain is shifting significantly to the Right.
Something your bunch of charlatans have managed in less than 6 months.
Perhaps. But I don't think the majority of Ref voters are mentally ticking the bix saying "Like the Conservatives, only more so." Though it's hard to know or characterise why any bloc of voters vote for any party. And if you follow the thesis that the reason is often because the voter is rejecting another party (Con because nit Lab, Lab because not Con, etc) then arguably Ref is primarily a "Not Lab" vote.
Reform is a none of the above protest vote.
You can argue that Green are the same on the left but they don't get the same amount of news / publicity so it's not exactly a fair comparison...
“Reform is a none of the above protest vote. You can argue that Green are the same on the left” I’m arguing a lot of the ref % is left votes for Brexit, left votes for Corbyn in his GE.
And along comes HY always bundling Con and ref together, and CR to proclaim the country is leaping to the right. They both post some funny clueless stuff don’t they 🙂
More clued up than you'll ever be with the endless illiterate drivel you vomit up when your hand hits the keyboard.
You wouldn't know it from the hilariously misleading headline, but the Mail on Sunday commissioned a Deltapoll which very inconveniently gives Labour a seven point lead:
Labour 30 Conservatives 23 Reform 22 LibDems 12 Greens 8 SNP 4
Probably an outlier, but the Tories really should be doing a lot better given how unpopular the government is.
What's mad about that poll is it still represents a significant swing to the right since the GE, but Labour would still probably get a majority on those numbers.
That's defining Reform as "right", whereas arguably they're something orthoganal to the left-right spectrum. They're a classic "I want stuff to change quickly" populst party. whereas the Tories are still predominantly an establishment party. If either of them succeeds in emvracing both currents, Labour will be in deep trouble, but it's not clear that they will.
Keep saying that if it makes you feel better.
Britain is shifting significantly to the Right.
Something your bunch of charlatans have managed in less than 6 months.
Perhaps. But I don't think the majority of Ref voters are mentally ticking the bix saying "Like the Conservatives, only more so." Though it's hard to know or characterise why any bloc of voters vote for any party. And if you follow the thesis that the reason is often because the voter is rejecting another party (Con because nit Lab, Lab because not Con, etc) then arguably Ref is primarily a "Not Lab" vote.
They're shifting to the right. They're not shifting *to the Conservatives*. Because the Tories spent too many recent years not just not being conservatives, but by being an incompetent shower of backstabbing bastards.
What drives CR mad is that the Tories are on the same failure shelf as Labour having had the same policies as Labour.
What you fail to recognise (possibly because it's too complex for your mind to process) is that I regularly criticise the Conservatives. Indeed, I've done so on this thread alone.
Yes, I am a classic Shire Tory, and quite right-wing, but I'm not blind to their failings.
No no, I am not blind - you are an open critic of them. But you *are* a Tory. You aren't so much mad at Labour for doing all the wrong things as you are mad at your own side for also doing all the wrong things.
HY espouses the party regardless of failure or error. Indeed there can be no error because they are righteous. You don't take that position - but Labour do drive you mad because you wonder how on earth you managed to get demolished by *that*. And its almost entirely self-inflicted. To go from a seismic 80 seat win, with Tories vanquishing Labour across the midlands and red wall to this? In a single term?
Former Conservative special adviser Samuel Kasumu says that Robert Jenrick is now the most dangerous politician in the country and warns that his language about British Pakistanis and others will put lives at risk
Afternoon, PB'ers.
Jenrick has always been the opportunists opportunist. I'm not keen on Badenoch, but at least she's not as grimly amoral, as him.
We simply have to ban social media promoted posts and any feed that isn’t chronological. The idea of curated content was a noble one but has failed in practice.
How ?
You can't sensible do it - which is why I shifted to Bluesky where that is the way things work because of their long term federation plans...
On Bluesky, I ran my first account "find followers from Twiitter" update since a month ago this morning.
It found about a further ~400 of the ~4500 or so I have been following on Twitter, most of whom are new, but some of whom are established (it found Larry the Cat and Cyclefree for two). Most of my "followed" are UK-based, with a fair sprinkling of internationals.
I'm not monitoring or searching for followers, even though it has been my practice to block bots and prune dormant accounts from my twitter following, I don't want to risk picking up any on Bluesky - or do an account by account check on that many at this time.
(Twitter follower numbers are the archetypal meaningless statistic unless pruned, but the media in their thickitude have been using it for 13-14 years because it is easy and they are lazy).
So I'd say that Bluesky is continuing to tick ahead. It's up about 16-18% in the last month.
Former Conservative special adviser Samuel Kasumu says that Robert Jenrick is now the most dangerous politician in the country and warns that his language about British Pakistanis and others will put lives at risk
Afternoon, PB'ers.
Jenrick has always been the opportunists opportunist. I'm not keen on Badenoch, but at least she's not as grimly amoral, as him.
Jenrick is in a race to the bottom with Braverman to be the most despicable Tory of modern times.
Damn it, dismantling Christmas trees is depressing...
I quite enjoy it. Gives the house a feeling of minimality and spaciousness. Makes me think of the denoument of the Julia Donaldson book "a squash and a squeeze." Better than usual this year because for the first time in ten years or so we had a real tree, giving me the chance to wield a saw and vaguely imagine myself as some frontiersman with actual skills.
We lopped the leaves and big branches off and created a wooden sculpture that we're keeping.
PB is going through a bad phase. Lots of (mostly social media fuelled) hysteria generating heat not light. It will pass.
Perhaps if the vociferous criticism was being laid on the hated Tories, rather than on a Government you support, you'd be enjoying it slightly more.
PB lefties had fourteen long years yearning for a return of a Labour government.
And now they've got one its a big disappointment.
Starmer has been shown to be all sleaze and no planning.
I'm surprised, PB lefties will be (sometimes secretly) aghast.
The narrative of opposition, particularly, but by no means exclusively, by the left, is that the Tories do what they do because they are evil, selfish, cruel and indifferent to the hardship they cause. Opposition is driven by moral outrage. Government, however, proves that there are no easy choices, no simple way to rectify that hardship and that the resources are simple not there, even with more taxation, to make things right. Hence the government's tough but correct decisions on both WFA and the WASPI women.
If you have persuaded yourself that the choices were driven by malice rather than desperation that is not easy to come to terms with. And there is a hell of a lot more of this to come.
I'm not disappointed at all by Labour.
They have a long term plan. They are prepared to make unpopular decisions.
Former Conservative special adviser Samuel Kasumu says that Robert Jenrick is now the most dangerous politician in the country and warns that his language about British Pakistanis and others will put lives at risk
Afternoon, PB'ers.
Jenrick has always been the opportunists opportunist. I'm not keen on Badenoch, but at least she's not as grimly amoral, as him.
Jenrick is in a race to the bottom with Braverman to be the most despicable Tory of modern times.
Both would fit Reform like gloves
Kasumu seems to be saying Jenrick is too extreme for Farage's party.
Former Conservative special adviser Samuel Kasumu says that Robert Jenrick is now the most dangerous politician in the country and warns that his language about British Pakistanis and others will put lives at risk
Afternoon, PB'ers.
Jenrick has always been the opportunists opportunist. I'm not keen on Badenoch, but at least she's not as grimly amoral, as him.
Jenrick is in a race to the bottom with Braverman to be the most despicable Tory of modern times.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He's a better politician than both. Neither Starmer, who is a better manager nor Reeves who is a highly respected economist, ask Mark Carney, are natural politicians.
Darren Jones and Jonathan Reynolds are as good as Streeting in terms of communicating under pressure but possibly overall higher intellect.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He's a better politician than both. Neither Starmer, who is a better manager nor Reeves who is a highly respected economist, ask Mark Carney, are natural politicians.
Darren Jones and Jonathan Reynolds are as good as Streeting in terms of communicating under pressure but possibly overall higher intellect.
Former Conservative special adviser Samuel Kasumu says that Robert Jenrick is now the most dangerous politician in the country and warns that his language about British Pakistanis and others will put lives at risk
Afternoon, PB'ers.
Jenrick has always been the opportunists opportunist. I'm not keen on Badenoch, but at least she's not as grimly amoral, as him.
Jenrick is in a race to the bottom with Braverman to be the most despicable Tory of modern times.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He's a better politician than both. Neither Starmer, who is a better manager nor Reeves who is a highly respected economist, ask Mark Carney, are natural politicians.
Darren Jones and Jonathan Reynolds are as good as Streeting in terms of communicating under pressure but possibly overall higher intellect.
Also a politician that is stuck at health. Cooper's going to hang on, Streeting replacing Reeves would be ludicrous, so I presume he's out to get Lammy?
I think Streeting is really very good, but I don't warm to the man.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He was sent out recently among the media for the impossible job of justifying kicking social care out to a review reporting in 2028. No-one could do this well, and he duly didn't. This particular narrative reeks of cowardice and failure to plan. There is nothing good to be made of it; it is the exact opposite of why so many Tories (like me) voted Labour this time. Compared with this, WFA is trivial.
(I found it because I wondered what he thought of CS Lewis, @Cyclefree having quoted The Screwtape Letters; it's always interested me how so many Usonian Evangelicals, many of whom are in the Trumpist camp, adopted a High Anglican from the Church of England who went to confession as one of their theological heroes for most of the last century, and I wondered whether JD Vance had said anything.)
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He's a better politician than both. Neither Starmer, who is a better manager nor Reeves who is a highly respected economist, ask Mark Carney, are natural politicians.
Darren Jones and Jonathan Reynolds are as good as Streeting in terms of communicating under pressure but possibly overall higher intellect.
Also a politician that is stuck at health. Cooper's going to hang on, Streeting replacing Reeves would be ludicrous, so I presume he's out to get Lammy?
I think Streeting is really very good, but I don't warm to the man.
What are the chances of the PM of the UK and the FM of Scotland simultaneously being Selwyn historians? Remarkably I don't think it is much longer than 25/1.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He's a better politician than both. Neither Starmer, who is a better manager nor Reeves who is a highly respected economist, ask Mark Carney, are natural politicians.
Darren Jones and Jonathan Reynolds are as good as Streeting in terms of communicating under pressure but possibly overall higher intellect.
Also a politician that is stuck at health. Cooper's going to hang on, Streeting replacing Reeves would be ludicrous, so I presume he's out to get Lammy?
I think Streeting is really very good, but I don't warm to the man.
Not sure if Streeting will last at health given his opposition to assisted dying bill.
There's a real risk Jenrick goes the full Enoch and overshoots Farage; I must say, I find almost everything he says entirely cynical. Probably why he misjudges it.
I don't mind tough measures - and I am increasingly inclined to support disapplication of parts of the ECHR and totally reform the HRA - but boy oh boy he's got to use responsible language.
That becomes more important the tougher you are, not less.
Former Conservative special adviser Samuel Kasumu says that Robert Jenrick is now the most dangerous politician in the country and warns that his language about British Pakistanis and others will put lives at risk
Afternoon, PB'ers.
Jenrick has always been the opportunists opportunist. I'm not keen on Badenoch, but at least she's not as grimly amoral, as him.
Jenrick is in a race to the bottom with Braverman to be the most despicable Tory of modern times.
He says the foreign nationals must be deported. Many of the perps were British. Same "problem" in the US. ISIS terrorist slaughters people in New Orleans. But he's American and a vet...
Former Conservative special adviser Samuel Kasumu says that Robert Jenrick is now the most dangerous politician in the country and warns that his language about British Pakistanis and others will put lives at risk
Afternoon, PB'ers.
Jenrick has always been the opportunists opportunist. I'm not keen on Badenoch, but at least she's not as grimly amoral, as him.
Jenrick is in a race to the bottom with Braverman to be the most despicable Tory of modern times.
One of the other replies, which I think shows insight:
benprice55.bsky.social This sectarian realpolitik won’t stop being effective until our politicians find a way to make people feel better off again. Then the hard right virus goes back to being a seething background 1-2% rather than the dangerous 20%+ we see now. https://bsky.app/profile/benprice55.bsky.social/post/3leyp6zte5c23
Put it this way, I won’t be opening up a forum any time soon (not that there was a great danger of that). This is dreadful legislation.
OTOH why should so much of the internet be immune from the legal responsibilities placed on BBC, Times, Sun, publishers etc? And if that immunity is to be challenged how else can it be done except by regarding someone as a quasi publisher. This is a very new conundrum, and we are not at the right point yet.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He was sent out recently among the media for the impossible job of justifying kicking social care out to a review reporting in 2028. No-one could do this well, and he duly didn't. This particular narrative reeks of cowardice and failure to plan. There is nothing good to be made of it; it is the exact opposite of why so many Tories (like me) voted Labour this time. Compared with this, WFA is trivial.
And this is why I am disappointed with Labour. They're not only making the wrong decisions - WFA, Waspi etc - they are utter cowards with it.
They have inherited a shitshow. They had a golden opportunity to be decisive - do the hard things now and blame the Tories. They completely fluffed it. Now, as and when they eventually get round to considering the hard things, all the blame will land on them.
They're idiots. "We can't afford it". No, we can't afford not to do it.
Put it this way, I won’t be opening up a forum any time soon (not that there was a great danger of that). This is dreadful legislation.
OTOH why should so much of the internet be immune from the legal responsibilities placed on BBC, Times, Sun, publishers etc? And if that immunity is to be challenged how else can it be done except by regarding someone as a quasi publisher. This is a very new conundrum, and we are not at the right point yet.
Because we used to claim to believe in free speech?
Former Conservative special adviser Samuel Kasumu says that Robert Jenrick is now the most dangerous politician in the country and warns that his language about British Pakistanis and others will put lives at risk
Afternoon, PB'ers.
Jenrick has always been the opportunists opportunist. I'm not keen on Badenoch, but at least she's not as grimly amoral, as him.
Jenrick is in a race to the bottom with Braverman to be the most despicable Tory of modern times.
Both would fit Reform like gloves
Jenrick is a Cambridge-educated lawyer. Braverman is also a Cambridge-educated lawyer. Coincidence?
Former Conservative special adviser Samuel Kasumu says that Robert Jenrick is now the most dangerous politician in the country and warns that his language about British Pakistanis and others will put lives at risk
Afternoon, PB'ers.
Jenrick has always been the opportunists opportunist. I'm not keen on Badenoch, but at least she's not as grimly amoral, as him.
Jenrick is in a race to the bottom with Braverman to be the most despicable Tory of modern times.
How interesting. The Jenrick tweet (or whatever it is) speaks of jailing 'officials'. How wonder how much this term extends to 'Conservative ministers from PM downwards from 2010-2024'.
Put it this way, I won’t be opening up a forum any time soon (not that there was a great danger of that). This is dreadful legislation.
OTOH why should so much of the internet be immune from the legal responsibilities placed on BBC, Times, Sun, publishers etc? And if that immunity is to be challenged how else can it be done except by regarding someone as a quasi publisher. This is a very new conundrum, and we are not at the right point yet.
I think there is something in the principle you describe, but the legislation appears to cover everything (especially if you’re a small forum with a big, or even disproportionate, reach like this one) and until these things are live no one can know quite how they will be operated. Waving an £18m penalty at the owner of a trout fishing forum, and holding them accountable for content “distributed” below the line, seems bonkers though.
There's a real risk Jenrick goes the full Enoch and overshoots Farage; I must say, I find almost everything he says entirely cynical. Probably why he misjudges it.
I don't mind tough measures - and I am increasingly inclined to support disapplication of parts of the ECHR and totally reform the HRA - but boy oh boy he's got to use responsible language.
That becomes more important the tougher you are, not less.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He's a better politician than both. Neither Starmer, who is a better manager nor Reeves who is a highly respected economist, ask Mark Carney, are natural politicians.
Darren Jones and Jonathan Reynolds are as good as Streeting in terms of communicating under pressure but possibly overall higher intellect.
Also a politician that is stuck at health. Cooper's going to hang on, Streeting replacing Reeves would be ludicrous, so I presume he's out to get Lammy?
I think Streeting is really very good, but I don't warm to the man.
What are the chances of the PM of the UK and the FM of Scotland simultaneously being Selwyn historians? Remarkably I don't think it is much longer than 25/1.
I think quite remote. You rarely bump into Selwyn people. Quiet folk I guess.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He was sent out recently among the media for the impossible job of justifying kicking social care out to a review reporting in 2028. No-one could do this well, and he duly didn't. This particular narrative reeks of cowardice and failure to plan. There is nothing good to be made of it; it is the exact opposite of why so many Tories (like me) voted Labour this time. Compared with this, WFA is trivial.
And this is why I am disappointed with Labour. They're not only making the wrong decisions - WFA, Waspi etc - they are utter cowards with it.
They have inherited a shitshow. They had a golden opportunity to be decisive - do the hard things now and blame the Tories. They completely fluffed it. Now, as and when they eventually get round to considering the hard things, all the blame will land on them.
They're idiots. "We can't afford it". No, we can't afford not to do it.
Do you really think WFP* and WASPI were the wrong decisions?
Far too much deflection going on. Blaming Musk simply won't do. Whatever his faults he has simply drawn attention to an issue that has been disgracefully under-reported, both in terms of the crimes but in particular the institutional failings which are inexplicable and have never been properly evaluated. If you doubt the failings of the mainstream media on this consider that a few weeks ago we had sentencing from Rotherham involving some truly unspeakable crimes against children that was totally ignored by the mainstream media other than GB News and their dogged reporter Charlie Peters. Please let that sink in, particularly if you are of the GBeebies school of thought. Sometimes the establishment should just hold it's hands up and say we've let you down. Instead the stubbornness and arrogance with which they continue to behave will be their undoing. I'm not entirely sure I like the alternative that's presented but it's where we are heading unless something changes.
Denis McShane (admittedly a former jailbird) said there was a reluctance to 'rock the multicultural community boat'. I'm not sure I buy that. Are our leaders really as ideologically obsessed as that? Because that is what it would have to be. After 9/11, 7/7 and much else? The more obvious explanation is party politics. Everyone knows that they 'weigh' the Labour votes in predominantly Muslim areas. This could have caused the party major unease. And what of the failures Tories? Here we might look to the much admired (if not for much longer) Chris Mullin. He tweets today that GB News and the Telegraph are jumping on the Musk bandwagon and politics is about to get nastier. Ultimately politics is a vocation for gentlemen. The last thing you want to do is draw attention to unseemly issues that might lower the tone. In such instances it means things must be avoided. Until they can't be. But blaming Musk in this instance is simply shooting the messenger.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He was sent out recently among the media for the impossible job of justifying kicking social care out to a review reporting in 2028. No-one could do this well, and he duly didn't. This particular narrative reeks of cowardice and failure to plan. There is nothing good to be made of it; it is the exact opposite of why so many Tories (like me) voted Labour this time. Compared with this, WFA is trivial.
And this is why I am disappointed with Labour. They're not only making the wrong decisions - WFA, Waspi etc - they are utter cowards with it.
They have inherited a shitshow. They had a golden opportunity to be decisive - do the hard things now and blame the Tories. They completely fluffed it. Now, as and when they eventually get round to considering the hard things, all the blame will land on them.
They're idiots. "We can't afford it". No, we can't afford not to do it.
The failure of our political class to come to terms with matters like care for the elderly is a disgrace. Dilnot should have been implemented more than a decade ago and we would have been substantially better off if it had been. I, and many others, were critical of the last government for this failure (with the exception of May's abortive attempt) but we now see this government doing the same. Its pathetic and short sighted.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He's a better politician than both. Neither Starmer, who is a better manager nor Reeves who is a highly respected economist, ask Mark Carney, are natural politicians.
Darren Jones and Jonathan Reynolds are as good as Streeting in terms of communicating under pressure but possibly overall higher intellect.
Also a politician that is stuck at health. Cooper's going to hang on, Streeting replacing Reeves would be ludicrous, so I presume he's out to get Lammy?
I think Streeting is really very good, but I don't warm to the man.
Reeves is an interesting one. I’ve got my eye on the possibility of a 2025 exit for her.
As always, “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here but it’s not impossible to visualise a scenario where the economy continues to flatline, inflation is stubborn, Trumps economic policies bite hard and the NI rise causes an uptick in unemployment. I think Reeves has created a hostage to fortune for saying she wouldn’t come back for more tax rises. Another unpopular budget could really spook Labour and might prompt a resignation or dismissal in an effort to relaunch the governments economic policy.
That being said, it is not great for a PM to lose their chancellor. But Starmer has a ruthless streak. I don’t put it past him to jettison cabinet members to try and save his premiership.
Put it this way, I won’t be opening up a forum any time soon (not that there was a great danger of that). This is dreadful legislation.
OTOH why should so much of the internet be immune from the legal responsibilities placed on BBC, Times, Sun, publishers etc? And if that immunity is to be challenged how else can it be done except by regarding someone as a quasi publisher. This is a very new conundrum, and we are not at the right point yet.
Because we used to claim to believe in free speech?
Not quite. Putting it briefly, traditional media and publishers are now and anciently subjects of the laws of defamation. Internet media and 'publishers', on the whole, are not.
Defamation fetters free speech and always has done.
There's a real risk Jenrick goes the full Enoch and overshoots Farage; I must say, I find almost everything he says entirely cynical. Probably why he misjudges it.
I don't mind tough measures - and I am increasingly inclined to support disapplication of parts of the ECHR and totally reform the HRA - but boy oh boy he's got to use responsible language.
That becomes more important the tougher you are, not less.
If you are going to be a shock merchant, you have to stay the right side of the line. Which is harder than it looks, because the competition is to always go one step more outrageous.
Very few have enough of that instinct to survive long. Kelvin McKenzie did at the Sun, but less so since. Nigel Farage does. Honest Bob... not really.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He was sent out recently among the media for the impossible job of justifying kicking social care out to a review reporting in 2028. No-one could do this well, and he duly didn't. This particular narrative reeks of cowardice and failure to plan. There is nothing good to be made of it; it is the exact opposite of why so many Tories (like me) voted Labour this time. Compared with this, WFA is trivial.
And this is why I am disappointed with Labour. They're not only making the wrong decisions - WFA, Waspi etc - they are utter cowards with it.
They have inherited a shitshow. They had a golden opportunity to be decisive - do the hard things now and blame the Tories. They completely fluffed it. Now, as and when they eventually get round to considering the hard things, all the blame will land on them.
They're idiots. "We can't afford it". No, we can't afford not to do it.
Do you really think WFP* and WASPI were the wrong decisions?
Absolutely. The former was low cost / high value. The latter was delivery against a long-standing justice campaign which Labour had committed to.
In other news, the merger of Vodafone Ltd ("Vodafone UK") and Hutchison 3G Ltd ("Three") was approved a few weeks ago.
This will be the largest change to the UK telecoms industry in two decades and the merger will start to take place this quarter, with changes likely to be felt starting at the middle of this year.
It's worth noting that this impacts more than just Three and Vodafone, it also impacts O2 customers as the new company signed a network sharing agreement/extension with them. So this deal impacts some 50 million+ customers. That is more than half of the market.
People haven't felt it yet - but this will be one of the largest industrial changes to take place during this government.
There's a real risk Jenrick goes the full Enoch and overshoots Farage; I must say, I find almost everything he says entirely cynical. Probably why he misjudges it.
I don't mind tough measures - and I am increasingly inclined to support disapplication of parts of the ECHR and totally reform the HRA - but boy oh boy he's got to use responsible language.
That becomes more important the tougher you are, not less.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He was sent out recently among the media for the impossible job of justifying kicking social care out to a review reporting in 2028. No-one could do this well, and he duly didn't. This particular narrative reeks of cowardice and failure to plan. There is nothing good to be made of it; it is the exact opposite of why so many Tories (like me) voted Labour this time. Compared with this, WFA is trivial.
And this is why I am disappointed with Labour. They're not only making the wrong decisions - WFA, Waspi etc - they are utter cowards with it.
They have inherited a shitshow. They had a golden opportunity to be decisive - do the hard things now and blame the Tories. They completely fluffed it. Now, as and when they eventually get round to considering the hard things, all the blame will land on them.
They're idiots. "We can't afford it". No, we can't afford not to do it.
Do you really think WFP* and WASPI were the wrong decisions?
Absolutely. The former was low cost / high value. The latter was delivery against a long-standing justice campaign which Labour had committed to.
But the underlying policy? I understand why the politics of both was a bit rubbish, but pensioners are not Labour's core vote.
Former Conservative special adviser Samuel Kasumu says that Robert Jenrick is now the most dangerous politician in the country and warns that his language about British Pakistanis and others will put lives at risk
Afternoon, PB'ers.
Jenrick has always been the opportunists opportunist. I'm not keen on Badenoch, but at least she's not as grimly amoral, as him.
Jenrick is in a race to the bottom with Braverman to be the most despicable Tory of modern times.
Both would fit Reform like gloves
Jenrick is a Cambridge-educated lawyer. Braverman is also a Cambridge-educated lawyer. Coincidence?
No coincidence. Just as Streeting and Forbes being Selwyn historians isn't either. Class always shows.
Former Conservative special adviser Samuel Kasumu says that Robert Jenrick is now the most dangerous politician in the country and warns that his language about British Pakistanis and others will put lives at risk
Afternoon, PB'ers.
Jenrick has always been the opportunists opportunist. I'm not keen on Badenoch, but at least she's not as grimly amoral, as him.
Jenrick is in a race to the bottom with Braverman to be the most despicable Tory of modern times.
Both would fit Reform like gloves
Jenrick is a Cambridge-educated lawyer. Braverman is also a Cambridge-educated lawyer. Coincidence?
As of course is our own @TSE as, with self-effacing modesty, he never fails to remind us.
/2 This also explains the apparently irrational, dishonest and inept decisions of both the Post Office Management and indeed the Ministers who were supposedly overlooking them. Their duty, as I think they saw it, was to protect the institution that they were being paid to look after. The consequences of an early admission of fault would have been awful for a body that was once again struggling to survive. The inevitable response was to prevaricate, lie, deceive and to put off the day when the thistle had to be grasped, even as it grew. This is, of course, reprehensible, but all too understandable when put in that context. I very much doubt we will see much of that context in the Inquiry report.
For these reasons I would be cautious about emphasising the importance of implementing the recommendations of all inquiries. Their viewpoints are distorted by both their reference and their context (a disaster). Whilst the points can and should be made and some things learned those in charge of the operation are not given the resources to implement them nor will there be much public good if their implementation simply means neglect somewhere else. I think, with some hesitation, that we should pause before we climb on yet another outrage bus and try to think through the implications.
The counter-counter argument to that is that some recommendations have been adopted - but only after decades of repetition, and refusal.
The so called "Martha's Rule" is perhaps an illustration of this. As Cyclefree notes in the header: the example of inquiries into healthcare where “almost every inquiry” makes “recommendations on the patient voice and blame culture. You see the same recommendations again and again.” . The right to an urgent second opinion then becomes law thanks to a high profile campaign, rather than enquiry, and almost straight away proves to save lives, at no great detriment to hospital efficiency.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He's a better politician than both. Neither Starmer, who is a better manager nor Reeves who is a highly respected economist, ask Mark Carney, are natural politicians.
Darren Jones and Jonathan Reynolds are as good as Streeting in terms of communicating under pressure but possibly overall higher intellect.
Also a politician that is stuck at health. Cooper's going to hang on, Streeting replacing Reeves would be ludicrous, so I presume he's out to get Lammy?
I think Streeting is really very good, but I don't warm to the man.
Reeves is an interesting one. I’ve got my eye on the possibility of a 2025 exit for her.
As always, “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here but it’s not impossible to visualise a scenario where the economy continues to flatline, inflation is stubborn, Trumps economic policies bite hard and the NI rise causes an uptick in unemployment. I think Reeves has created a hostage to fortune for saying she wouldn’t come back for more tax rises. Another unpopular budget could really spook Labour and might prompt a resignation or dismissal in an effort to relaunch the governments economic policy.
That being said, it is not great for a PM to lose their chancellor. But Starmer has a ruthless streak. I don’t put it past him to jettison cabinet members to try and save his premiership.
Starmer and Reeves will go together, and it might not be so long.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He's a better politician than both. Neither Starmer, who is a better manager nor Reeves who is a highly respected economist, ask Mark Carney, are natural politicians.
Darren Jones and Jonathan Reynolds are as good as Streeting in terms of communicating under pressure but possibly overall higher intellect.
Also a politician that is stuck at health. Cooper's going to hang on, Streeting replacing Reeves would be ludicrous, so I presume he's out to get Lammy?
I think Streeting is really very good, but I don't warm to the man.
Reeves is an interesting one. I’ve got my eye on the possibility of a 2025 exit for her.
As always, “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here but it’s not impossible to visualise a scenario where the economy continues to flatline, inflation is stubborn, Trumps economic policies bite hard and the NI rise causes an uptick in unemployment. I think Reeves has created a hostage to fortune for saying she wouldn’t come back for more tax rises. Another unpopular budget could really spook Labour and might prompt a resignation or dismissal in an effort to relaunch the governments economic policy.
That being said, it is not great for a PM to lose their chancellor. But Starmer has a ruthless streak. I don’t put it past him to jettison cabinet members to try and save his premiership.
It will all go downhill very fast if Reeves isn't chancellor. No doubt there'd be some effort to use Brown from the Lords - but as Brown is a complete chump that's not going to work.
I think a year from now is enough time to see if the changes to planning are starting to show an effect.
Optimism writ large.
6 months have gone and nothing much has happened except housebuilding slacking off. It will take at least another 6 months for any changes to get on the statute books and for builders to understand them.
One year gone maybe at best 200k houses built ( same as the last lot ) so house building has to jump to 325k units per annum in the next 4 years to hit its target. We haven;t done that for decades and the capacity to make that jump doesnt exist.
(I found it because I wondered what he thought of CS Lewis, @Cyclefree having quoted The Screwtape Letters; it's always interested me how so many Usonian Evangelicals, many of whom are in the Trumpist camp, adopted a High Anglican from the Church of England who went to confession as one of their theological heroes for most of the last century, and I wondered whether JD Vance had said anything.)
Vance is in for a disappointment. You can find in RCism anything you want because Christianity, and a fortiori Roman Catholicism simply claims to be the ecclesiastical arm of the human race. No more but no less. It is part of its charm.
Just over two weeks until the inauguration and the Ukrainians have today started an attempt to advance further into Kursk. In the last few weeks they've defended well, inflicting heavy casualties on North Korean and Russian assaults. They've also made a number of ranged attacks on command posts, and have claimed the entire destruction of the 810th Marine brigade.
Russians are complaining that their drones are made ineffective by electronic warfare countermeasures. Fingers crossed this offensive will be a success and we will be one step closer to the Russians accepting that they cannot win the war.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He was sent out recently among the media for the impossible job of justifying kicking social care out to a review reporting in 2028. No-one could do this well, and he duly didn't. This particular narrative reeks of cowardice and failure to plan. There is nothing good to be made of it; it is the exact opposite of why so many Tories (like me) voted Labour this time. Compared with this, WFA is trivial.
And this is why I am disappointed with Labour. They're not only making the wrong decisions - WFA, Waspi etc - they are utter cowards with it.
They have inherited a shitshow. They had a golden opportunity to be decisive - do the hard things now and blame the Tories. They completely fluffed it. Now, as and when they eventually get round to considering the hard things, all the blame will land on them.
They're idiots. "We can't afford it". No, we can't afford not to do it.
The failure of our political class to come to terms with matters like care for the elderly is a disgrace. Dilnot should have been implemented more than a decade ago and we would have been substantially better off if it had been. I, and many others, were critical of the last government for this failure (with the exception of May's abortive attempt) but we now see this government doing the same. Its pathetic and short sighted.
I think reform of social care has to be cross party. If it isn't the party doing it will get a pasting because it will be expensive and unpopular.
Far too much deflection going on. Blaming Musk simply won't do. Whatever his faults he has simply drawn attention to an issue that has been disgracefully under-reported, both in terms of the crimes but in particular the institutional failings which are inexplicable and have never been properly evaluated. If you doubt the failings of the mainstream media on this consider that a few weeks ago we had sentencing from Rotherham involving some truly unspeakable crimes against children that was totally ignored by the mainstream media other than GB News and their dogged reporter Charlie Peters. Please let that sink in, particularly if you are of the GBeebies school of thought. Sometimes the establishment should just hold it's hands up and say we've let you down. Instead the stubbornness and arrogance with which they continue to behave will be their undoing. I'm not entirely sure I like the alternative that's presented but it's where we are heading unless something changes.
Denis McShane (admittedly a former jailbird) said there was a reluctance to 'rock the multicultural community boat'. I'm not sure I buy that. Are our leaders really as ideologically obsessed as that? Because that is what it would have to be. After 9/11, 7/7 and much else? The more obvious explanation is party politics. Everyone knows that they 'weigh' the Labour votes in predominantly Muslim areas. This could have caused the party major unease. And what of the failures Tories? Here we might look to the much admired (if not for much longer) Chris Mullin. He tweets today that GB News and the Telegraph are jumping on the Musk bandwagon and politics is about to get nastier. Ultimately politics is a vocation for gentlemen. The last thing you want to do is draw attention to unseemly issues that might lower the tone. In such instances it means things must be avoided. Until they can't be. But blaming Musk in this instance is simply shooting the messenger.
There is nothing new about the left attacking the right. They think it is their right to do it and to do it with impunity. Musk is actually making politics nicer. People who asked such wonders as how many children Boris had, or wondered who would F*** Ann Widdicombe or tried to justify the last budget really deserve all they will get, especially the loathsome Ian Hislop who must be waiting for a special circle in hell.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He was sent out recently among the media for the impossible job of justifying kicking social care out to a review reporting in 2028. No-one could do this well, and he duly didn't. This particular narrative reeks of cowardice and failure to plan. There is nothing good to be made of it; it is the exact opposite of why so many Tories (like me) voted Labour this time. Compared with this, WFA is trivial.
And this is why I am disappointed with Labour. They're not only making the wrong decisions - WFA, Waspi etc - they are utter cowards with it.
They have inherited a shitshow. They had a golden opportunity to be decisive - do the hard things now and blame the Tories. They completely fluffed it. Now, as and when they eventually get round to considering the hard things, all the blame will land on them.
They're idiots. "We can't afford it". No, we can't afford not to do it.
Do you really think WFP* and WASPI were the wrong decisions?
We can say with absolute certainty that no future government will reverse either the WFP or WASPI decision. The fact Labour has actually made the decisions doesn't scream cowardice to me
There's a real risk Jenrick goes the full Enoch and overshoots Farage; I must say, I find almost everything he says entirely cynical. Probably why he misjudges it.
I don't mind tough measures - and I am increasingly inclined to support disapplication of parts of the ECHR and totally reform the HRA - but boy oh boy he's got to use responsible language.
That becomes more important the tougher you are, not less.
I don't know you and I've never even met you, but I get the impression that you mean what you say and believe it to be true and right.
I do not get this impression from Jenrick.
Done people will claim it doesn't make much difference, but I think it makes all the difference.
/2 This also explains the apparently irrational, dishonest and inept decisions of both the Post Office Management and indeed the Ministers who were supposedly overlooking them. Their duty, as I think they saw it, was to protect the institution that they were being paid to look after. The consequences of an early admission of fault would have been awful for a body that was once again struggling to survive. The inevitable response was to prevaricate, lie, deceive and to put off the day when the thistle had to be grasped, even as it grew. This is, of course, reprehensible, but all too understandable when put in that context. I very much doubt we will see much of that context in the Inquiry report.
For these reasons I would be cautious about emphasising the importance of implementing the recommendations of all inquiries. Their viewpoints are distorted by both their reference and their context (a disaster). Whilst the points can and should be made and some things learned those in charge of the operation are not given the resources to implement them nor will there be much public good if their implementation simply means neglect somewhere else. I think, with some hesitation, that we should pause before we climb on yet another outrage bus and try to think through the implications.
The counter-counter argument to that is that some recommendations have been adopted - but only after decades of repetition, and refusal.
The so called "Martha's Rule" is perhaps an illustration of this. As Cyclefree notes in the header: the example of inquiries into healthcare where “almost every inquiry” makes “recommendations on the patient voice and blame culture. You see the same recommendations again and again.” . The right to an urgent second opinion then becomes law thanks to a high profile campaign, rather than enquiry, and almost straight away proves to save lives, at no great detriment to hospital efficiency.
I am not saying that we do not implement any of any Inquiry Recommendations. I am saying that we need to be selective and think them through first. My concern with the "scorecard" approach which seems to be being argued for with the HoL report that @Cyclefree adverts to is that there would be pressure to act without doing either of these things. This would not be a step forward.
(I found it because I wondered what he thought of CS Lewis, @Cyclefree having quoted The Screwtape Letters; it's always interested me how so many Usonian Evangelicals, many of whom are in the Trumpist camp, adopted a High Anglican from the Church of England who went to confession as one of their theological heroes for most of the last century, and I wondered whether JD Vance had said anything.)
Vance is in for a disappointment. You can find in RCism anything you want because Christianity, and a fortiori Roman Catholicism simply claims to be the ecclesiastical arm of the human race. No more but no less. It is part of its charm.
Maybe, maybe not but his faith seems genuine and that is a thought provoking and intellectual article. Can you imagine Trump or Palin or even George W Bush or Biden writing it? I think not. Encouraging signs from the Vice President elect
PB is going through a bad phase. Lots of (mostly social media fuelled) hysteria generating heat not light. It will pass.
Perhaps if the vociferous criticism was being laid on the hated Tories, rather than on a Government you support, you'd be enjoying it slightly more.
PB lefties had fourteen long years yearning for a return of a Labour government.
And now they've got one its a big disappointment.
Starmer has been shown to be all sleaze and no planning.
I'm surprised, PB lefties will be (sometimes secretly) aghast.
The narrative of opposition, particularly, but by no means exclusively, by the left, is that the Tories do what they do because they are evil, selfish, cruel and indifferent to the hardship they cause. Opposition is driven by moral outrage. Government, however, proves that there are no easy choices, no simple way to rectify that hardship and that the resources are simple not there, even with more taxation, to make things right. Hence the government's tough but correct decisions on both WFA and the WASPI women.
If you have persuaded yourself that the choices were driven by malice rather than desperation that is not easy to come to terms with. And there is a hell of a lot more of this to come.
That's true, to some extent.
But a regular theme of PB discussion, on both sides of the aisle, is just how bad governments are at governing, irrespective of their political bent. Problems which are conceptually simple - for example, a planning system which makes development of any kind an arduous and costly slog - are just parked, for decades.
There's a difference between hard choices which are resource constrained, and those which really aren't.
Far too much deflection going on. Blaming Musk simply won't do. Whatever his faults he has simply drawn attention to an issue that has been disgracefully under-reported, both in terms of the crimes but in particular the institutional failings which are inexplicable and have never been properly evaluated. If you doubt the failings of the mainstream media on this consider that a few weeks ago we had sentencing from Rotherham involving some truly unspeakable crimes against children that was totally ignored by the mainstream media other than GB News and their dogged reporter Charlie Peters. Please let that sink in, particularly if you are of the GBeebies school of thought. Sometimes the establishment should just hold it's hands up and say we've let you down. Instead the stubbornness and arrogance with which they continue to behave will be their undoing. I'm not entirely sure I like the alternative that's presented but it's where we are heading unless something changes.
Denis McShane (admittedly a former jailbird) said there was a reluctance to 'rock the multicultural community boat'. I'm not sure I buy that. Are our leaders really as ideologically obsessed as that? Because that is what it would have to be. After 9/11, 7/7 and much else? The more obvious explanation is party politics. Everyone knows that they 'weigh' the Labour votes in predominantly Muslim areas. This could have caused the party major unease. And what of the failures Tories? Here we might look to the much admired (if not for much longer) Chris Mullin. He tweets today that GB News and the Telegraph are jumping on the Musk bandwagon and politics is about to get nastier. Ultimately politics is a vocation for gentlemen. The last thing you want to do is draw attention to unseemly issues that might lower the tone. In such instances it means things must be avoided. Until they can't be. But blaming Musk in this instance is simply shooting the messenger.
There is nothing new about the left attacking the right. They think it is their right to do it and to do it with impunity. Musk is actually making politics nicer. People who asked such wonders as how many children Boris had, or wondered who would F*** Ann Widdicombe or tried to justify the last budget really deserve all they will get, especially the loathsome Ian Hislop who must be waiting for a special circle in hell.
Indeed. It really is as simple as that. And for all the hyperventilation about Jenrick he is saying the basic if uncomfortable truth
He’s ALSO a conniving rat of a politician who is shamelessly exploiting a national scandal and hoping to position himself to take over from Kemi in a year when the country has swung hard right and the Tories will need to unite with Reform
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He's a better politician than both. Neither Starmer, who is a better manager nor Reeves who is a highly respected economist, ask Mark Carney, are natural politicians.
Darren Jones and Jonathan Reynolds are as good as Streeting in terms of communicating under pressure but possibly overall higher intellect.
Also a politician that is stuck at health. Cooper's going to hang on, Streeting replacing Reeves would be ludicrous, so I presume he's out to get Lammy?
I think Streeting is really very good, but I don't warm to the man.
Reeves is an interesting one. I’ve got my eye on the possibility of a 2025 exit for her.
As always, “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here but it’s not impossible to visualise a scenario where the economy continues to flatline, inflation is stubborn, Trumps economic policies bite hard and the NI rise causes an uptick in unemployment. I think Reeves has created a hostage to fortune for saying she wouldn’t come back for more tax rises. Another unpopular budget could really spook Labour and might prompt a resignation or dismissal in an effort to relaunch the governments economic policy.
That being said, it is not great for a PM to lose their chancellor. But Starmer has a ruthless streak. I don’t put it past him to jettison cabinet members to try and save his premiership.
Starmer does have a ruthless streak but if he does pull a Harold Wilson then there is no point in sacking Reeves first.
And replacing Reeves with Streeting gives more ammunition to those who say Starmer has a misogynist streak. And Lammy, for all the opprobrium he generates on here, does seem to be getting on with the job, including securing photo-ops with foreign leaders for Starmer while still in opposition.
One other point to bear in mind is the Health job is valued more highly on the Labour benches.
If Elon Musk isn't just raising these issues to attack Labour, then why in the entire period of Tory Government did he never raise anything like this before.
The grooming gangs story didn't come out last week.
Anyone saying otherwise is either radicalised, blind or just don't care as secretly they enjoy Labour being attacked (as somebody said here literally a few days ago).
The reality is, attacking Labour just makes people turn off. Propose some alternative plans otherwise people will simply say "you had fourteen years".
Reform to their credit have the most reasonable case to make but I just disagree with every single solution they propose. Kemi Badenoch is just jumping on bandwagons and it really shows.
If I were to bet something, her ratings will be extremely poor by this time next year.
Far too much deflection going on. Blaming Musk simply won't do. Whatever his faults he has simply drawn attention to an issue that has been disgracefully under-reported, both in terms of the crimes but in particular the institutional failings which are inexplicable and have never been properly evaluated. If you doubt the failings of the mainstream media on this consider that a few weeks ago we had sentencing from Rotherham involving some truly unspeakable crimes against children that was totally ignored by the mainstream media other than GB News and their dogged reporter Charlie Peters. Please let that sink in, particularly if you are of the GBeebies school of thought. Sometimes the establishment should just hold it's hands up and say we've let you down. Instead the stubbornness and arrogance with which they continue to behave will be their undoing. I'm not entirely sure I like the alternative that's presented but it's where we are heading unless something changes.
Denis McShane (admittedly a former jailbird) said there was a reluctance to 'rock the multicultural community boat'. I'm not sure I buy that. Are our leaders really as ideologically obsessed as that? Because that is what it would have to be. After 9/11, 7/7 and much else? The more obvious explanation is party politics. Everyone knows that they 'weigh' the Labour votes in predominantly Muslim areas. This could have caused the party major unease. And what of the failures Tories? Here we might look to the much admired (if not for much longer) Chris Mullin. He tweets today that GB News and the Telegraph are jumping on the Musk bandwagon and politics is about to get nastier. Ultimately politics is a vocation for gentlemen. The last thing you want to do is draw attention to unseemly issues that might lower the tone. In such instances it means things must be avoided. Until they can't be. But blaming Musk in this instance is simply shooting the messenger.
There is nothing new about the left attacking the right. They think it is their right to do it and to do it with impunity. Musk is actually making politics nicer. People who asked such wonders as how many children Boris had, or wondered who would F*** Ann Widdicombe or tried to justify the last budget really deserve all they will get, especially the loathsome Ian Hislop who must be waiting for a special circle in hell.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He was sent out recently among the media for the impossible job of justifying kicking social care out to a review reporting in 2028. No-one could do this well, and he duly didn't. This particular narrative reeks of cowardice and failure to plan. There is nothing good to be made of it; it is the exact opposite of why so many Tories (like me) voted Labour this time. Compared with this, WFA is trivial.
And this is why I am disappointed with Labour. They're not only making the wrong decisions - WFA, Waspi etc - they are utter cowards with it.
They have inherited a shitshow. They had a golden opportunity to be decisive - do the hard things now and blame the Tories. They completely fluffed it. Now, as and when they eventually get round to considering the hard things, all the blame will land on them.
They're idiots. "We can't afford it". No, we can't afford not to do it.
Do you really think WFP* and WASPI were the wrong decisions?
We can say with absolute certainty that no future government will reverse either the WFP or WASPI decision. The fact Labour has actually made the decisions doesn't scream cowardice to me
If Elon Musk isn't just raising these issues to attack Labour, then why in the entire period of Tory Government did he never raise anything like this before.
The grooming gangs story didn't come out last week.
Anyone saying otherwise is either radicalised, blind or just don't care as secretly they enjoy Labour being attacked (as somebody said here literally a few days ago).
The reality is, attacking Labour just makes people turn off. Propose some alternative plans otherwise people will simply say "you had fourteen years".
Reform to their credit have the most reasonable case to make but I just disagree with every single solution they propose. Kemi Badenoch is just jumping on bandwagons and it really shows.
If I were to bet something, her ratings will be extremely poor by this time next year.
I'd guess that people like Farage have suggested to Musk that disruption would be welcome.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He's a better politician than both. Neither Starmer, who is a better manager nor Reeves who is a highly respected economist, ask Mark Carney, are natural politicians.
Darren Jones and Jonathan Reynolds are as good as Streeting in terms of communicating under pressure but possibly overall higher intellect.
Also a politician that is stuck at health. Cooper's going to hang on, Streeting replacing Reeves would be ludicrous, so I presume he's out to get Lammy?
I think Streeting is really very good, but I don't warm to the man.
Reeves is an interesting one. I’ve got my eye on the possibility of a 2025 exit for her.
As always, “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here but it’s not impossible to visualise a scenario where the economy continues to flatline, inflation is stubborn, Trumps economic policies bite hard and the NI rise causes an uptick in unemployment. I think Reeves has created a hostage to fortune for saying she wouldn’t come back for more tax rises. Another unpopular budget could really spook Labour and might prompt a resignation or dismissal in an effort to relaunch the governments economic policy.
That being said, it is not great for a PM to lose their chancellor. But Starmer has a ruthless streak. I don’t put it past him to jettison cabinet members to try and save his premiership.
Starmer does have a ruthless streak but if he does pull a Harold Wilson then there is no point in sacking Reeves first.
And replacing Reeves with Streeting gives more ammunition to those who say Starmer has a misogynist streak. And Lammy, for all the opprobrium he generates on here, does seem to be getting on with the job, including securing photo-ops with foreign leaders for Starmer while still in opposition.
One other point to bear in mind is the Health job is valued more highly on the Labour benches.
You wouldn't know it from the hilariously misleading headline, but the Mail on Sunday commissioned a Deltapoll which very inconveniently gives Labour a seven point lead:
Labour 30 Conservatives 23 Reform 22 LibDems 12 Greens 8 SNP 4
Probably an outlier, but the Tories really should be doing a lot better given how unpopular the government is.
What's mad about that poll is it still represents a significant swing to the right since the GE, but Labour would still probably get a majority on those numbers.
That's defining Reform as "right", whereas arguably they're something orthoganal to the left-right spectrum. They're a classic "I want stuff to change quickly" populst party. whereas the Tories are still predominantly an establishment party. If either of them succeeds in emvracing both currents, Labour will be in deep trouble, but it's not clear that they will.
Keep saying that if it makes you feel better.
Britain is shifting significantly to the Right.
Something your bunch of charlatans have managed in less than 6 months.
Perhaps. But I don't think the majority of Ref voters are mentally ticking the bix saying "Like the Conservatives, only more so." Though it's hard to know or characterise why any bloc of voters vote for any party. And if you follow the thesis that the reason is often because the voter is rejecting another party (Con because nit Lab, Lab because not Con, etc) then arguably Ref is primarily a "Not Lab" vote.
Reform is a none of the above protest vote.
You can argue that Green are the same on the left but they don't get the same amount of news / publicity so it's not exactly a fair comparison...
“Reform is a none of the above protest vote. You can argue that Green are the same on the left” I’m arguing a lot of the ref % is left votes for Brexit, left votes for Corbyn in his GE.
And along comes HY always bundling Con and ref together, and CR to proclaim the country is leaping to the right. They both post some funny clueless stuff don’t they 🙂
More clued up than you'll ever be with the endless illiterate drivel you vomit up when your hand hits the keyboard.
There is more than enough psephological evidence, none of the above/leftfield voters don’t see their natural home in Labour or the Conservatives, when those parties have sensible centrist policies and leadership.
Farmers wouldn’t even let Farage speak at the big rally, becuase of his brexit association. They let Davey speak.
Majority of electorate have come to loathe Brexit, and that block of votes will get bigger over the coming years with “this is no better as promised, let’s do something different.”
This block of votes associate existence of Brexit with Farage and the Conservatives, and they actively vote as a block to hurt Farage and the Conservatives as much as possible.
So there’s two solid psephological reasons Farage has little chance of being PM - FPTP, and fact he is not fresh change, but is face of the failed big change from a decade ago.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He's a better politician than both. Neither Starmer, who is a better manager nor Reeves who is a highly respected economist, ask Mark Carney, are natural politicians.
Darren Jones and Jonathan Reynolds are as good as Streeting in terms of communicating under pressure but possibly overall higher intellect.
Also a politician that is stuck at health. Cooper's going to hang on, Streeting replacing Reeves would be ludicrous, so I presume he's out to get Lammy?
I think Streeting is really very good, but I don't warm to the man.
Reeves is an interesting one. I’ve got my eye on the possibility of a 2025 exit for her.
As always, “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here but it’s not impossible to visualise a scenario where the economy continues to flatline, inflation is stubborn, Trumps economic policies bite hard and the NI rise causes an uptick in unemployment. I think Reeves has created a hostage to fortune for saying she wouldn’t come back for more tax rises. Another unpopular budget could really spook Labour and might prompt a resignation or dismissal in an effort to relaunch the governments economic policy.
That being said, it is not great for a PM to lose their chancellor. But Starmer has a ruthless streak. I don’t put it past him to jettison cabinet members to try and save his premiership.
In principle yes. Starmer world get rid of Reeves if he thought that would serve him. But as of today I don't see how it does serve him. Reeves is doing what Starmer wants her to do.
SA are clearly going to win this match by an innings and some but I do wonder if they might be regretting forcing the follow on? Tired bowlers can make it much harder the second time around and more wear on the pitch can help too.
The more people tell me the country has swung hard right the less I believe them.
I really think the level to which day after day, week after week, literally since day one, people here tell us how bad Labour is, really makes me think that no, they aren't that bad. The Tories are in total denial as to why they lost and seemingly don't care enough to change again.
Labour may be terrible - but they are still ahead in the polls. And I don't see anything the Tories have to change that. I can't even see a recession helping them much.
Reform is much harder to counter. But ultimately Labour can only deal with that through delivery, not shouting louder. Starmer seems to understand that and whilst being a truly terrible communicator, if you read the insights, he does truly understand how dangerous immigration is for his party, unlike any other leader Labour has had in recent memory. He knows he will be out on his ear if he doesn't get control over it.
I will be watching the polls when immigration inevitably declines next year, thanks to Sunak's policies ironically.
If Elon Musk isn't just raising these issues to attack Labour, then why in the entire period of Tory Government did he never raise anything like this before.
The grooming gangs story didn't come out last week.
Anyone saying otherwise is either radicalised, blind or just don't care as secretly they enjoy Labour being attacked (as somebody said here literally a few days ago).
The reality is, attacking Labour just makes people turn off. Propose some alternative plans otherwise people will simply say "you had fourteen years".
Reform to their credit have the most reasonable case to make but I just disagree with every single solution they propose. Kemi Badenoch is just jumping on bandwagons and it really shows.
If I were to bet something, her ratings will be extremely poor by this time next year.
The next few weeks will show The Government in Full Act and Fix mode.
That will begin to look very appealing to the 80% who want serious politics, serious politicians and serious solutions to everyday problems affecting 98% of the population who aren't millionaires or billionaires.
Just over two weeks until the inauguration and the Ukrainians have today started an attempt to advance further into Kursk. In the last few weeks they've defended well, inflicting heavy casualties on North Korean and Russian assaults. They've also made a number of ranged attacks on command posts, and have claimed the entire destruction of the 810th Marine brigade.
Russians are complaining that their drones are made ineffective by electronic warfare countermeasures. Fingers crossed this offensive will be a success and we will be one step closer to the Russians accepting that they cannot win the war.
Is that really good enough though? The sort of war Russia has waged ought to be clearly defeated. If the west isn't capable of doing that against a declining power the message for the future isn't good.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He's a better politician than both. Neither Starmer, who is a better manager nor Reeves who is a highly respected economist, ask Mark Carney, are natural politicians.
Darren Jones and Jonathan Reynolds are as good as Streeting in terms of communicating under pressure but possibly overall higher intellect.
Also a politician that is stuck at health. Cooper's going to hang on, Streeting replacing Reeves would be ludicrous, so I presume he's out to get Lammy?
I think Streeting is really very good, but I don't warm to the man.
Reeves is an interesting one. I’ve got my eye on the possibility of a 2025 exit for her.
As always, “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here but it’s not impossible to visualise a scenario where the economy continues to flatline, inflation is stubborn, Trumps economic policies bite hard and the NI rise causes an uptick in unemployment. I think Reeves has created a hostage to fortune for saying she wouldn’t come back for more tax rises. Another unpopular budget could really spook Labour and might prompt a resignation or dismissal in an effort to relaunch the governments economic policy.
That being said, it is not great for a PM to lose their chancellor. But Starmer has a ruthless streak. I don’t put it past him to jettison cabinet members to try and save his premiership.
In principle yes. Starmer world get rid of Reeves if he thought that would serve him. But as of today I don't see how it does serve him. Reeves is doing what Starmer wants her to do.
If Elon Musk isn't just raising these issues to attack Labour, then why in the entire period of Tory Government did he never raise anything like this before.
The grooming gangs story didn't come out last week.
Anyone saying otherwise is either radicalised, blind or just don't care as secretly they enjoy Labour being attacked (as somebody said here literally a few days ago).
The reality is, attacking Labour just makes people turn off. Propose some alternative plans otherwise people will simply say "you had fourteen years".
Reform to their credit have the most reasonable case to make but I just disagree with every single solution they propose. Kemi Badenoch is just jumping on bandwagons and it really shows.
If I were to bet something, her ratings will be extremely poor by this time next year.
This has been explained to you. The gangs story emerged because of one paragraph of one judicial sentencing remarks (in Oxford) going viral due to its being so indescribably awful
This virality got the attention of many, and many then had to explain the entire “grooming gangs” scandal from alpha to omega. The utter gobsmacking scale of it and stunning horror of it, and the abject banana republic failure of the UK state to deal with it properly - over decades - got major social media figures (especially Americans, not all) wading in
Britain is now an object of initial contempt and loathing. It’s really not good. See here
“This sort of thing is bound to be very anecdotal; but my very apolitical friends in Canada are asking me to explain what is wrong with the UK, having read about the grooming gangs, and I can't really begin to explain.”
What I find most trying, is that people are not prepared to look at the case for why Starmer might end up being successful (I put this at 50/50), instead they just bleat "he is crap".
He reformed the Labour party in five years, no other leader has ever done that and been as successful as him. I wish people would question why, as opposed to just shouting.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He's a better politician than both. Neither Starmer, who is a better manager nor Reeves who is a highly respected economist, ask Mark Carney, are natural politicians.
Darren Jones and Jonathan Reynolds are as good as Streeting in terms of communicating under pressure but possibly overall higher intellect.
Also a politician that is stuck at health. Cooper's going to hang on, Streeting replacing Reeves would be ludicrous, so I presume he's out to get Lammy?
I think Streeting is really very good, but I don't warm to the man.
Reeves is an interesting one. I’ve got my eye on the possibility of a 2025 exit for her.
As always, “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here but it’s not impossible to visualise a scenario where the economy continues to flatline, inflation is stubborn, Trumps economic policies bite hard and the NI rise causes an uptick in unemployment. I think Reeves has created a hostage to fortune for saying she wouldn’t come back for more tax rises. Another unpopular budget could really spook Labour and might prompt a resignation or dismissal in an effort to relaunch the governments economic policy.
That being said, it is not great for a PM to lose their chancellor. But Starmer has a ruthless streak. I don’t put it past him to jettison cabinet members to try and save his premiership.
Starmer does have a ruthless streak but if he does pull a Harold Wilson then there is no point in sacking Reeves first.
And replacing Reeves with Streeting gives more ammunition to those who say Starmer has a misogynist streak. And Lammy, for all the opprobrium he generates on here, does seem to be getting on with the job, including securing photo-ops with foreign leaders for Starmer while still in opposition.
One other point to bear in mind is the Health job is valued more highly on the Labour benches.
Streeting and Lammy would be no where Chancellor.
Her biggest worry would be in Darren Jones or Jonathan Reynolds are supremely talented individuals deserving of a full Ninesterial role.
Is it possible to ban Tweets? As I have said, I won't be posting them anymore as they are just misinformation and radicalisation these days. I would ban any social media links in fact, not exclusively a Twitter problem.
Wes Streeting is a far better teller of the government's story than Starmer or Reeves.
He was sent out recently among the media for the impossible job of justifying kicking social care out to a review reporting in 2028. No-one could do this well, and he duly didn't. This particular narrative reeks of cowardice and failure to plan. There is nothing good to be made of it; it is the exact opposite of why so many Tories (like me) voted Labour this time. Compared with this, WFA is trivial.
And this is why I am disappointed with Labour. They're not only making the wrong decisions - WFA, Waspi etc - they are utter cowards with it.
They have inherited a shitshow. They had a golden opportunity to be decisive - do the hard things now and blame the Tories. They completely fluffed it. Now, as and when they eventually get round to considering the hard things, all the blame will land on them.
They're idiots. "We can't afford it". No, we can't afford not to do it.
The failure of our political class to come to terms with matters like care for the elderly is a disgrace. Dilnot should have been implemented more than a decade ago and we would have been substantially better off if it had been. I, and many others, were critical of the last government for this failure (with the exception of May's abortive attempt) but we now see this government doing the same. Its pathetic and short sighted.
I think reform of social care has to be cross party. If it isn't the party doing it will get a pasting because it will be expensive and unpopular.
Completely agree. But I am not sure I can see it happening.
What I find most trying, is that people are not prepared to look at the case for why Starmer might end up being successful (I put this at 50/50), instead they just bleat "he is crap".
He reformed the Labour party in five years, no other leader has ever done that and been as successful as him. I wish people would question why, as opposed to just shouting.
Comments
And along comes HY always bundling Con and ref together, and CR to proclaim the country is leaping to the right. They both post some funny clueless stuff don’t they 🙂
One we we must consider more regularly, not every result or opinion poll is switchers and move from here to there as the result is often drawn from here to there in graphics. large chunks of voters sit elections out, people who hadn’t voted for decades or even ever showed up to get Brexit over the line in 2016, and many of these have voted both Corbyn and Farage. None of the above/leftfield, the bottom line being, Con and Labour is not a natural home for them.
What did you do on your Sunday off?
Measured snow.
It's an interesting and complex question with lots of law around it.
But I think he is out of luck in the UK, as I think the making of a copy of a gravestone is covered by the "Artistic Works on Public Display" exemption in Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
62Representation of certain artistic works on public display.
(1)This section applies to—
(a)buildings, and
(b)sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
(2)The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—
(a)making a graphic work representing it,
(b)making a photograph or film of it, or
(c)making a broadcast of a visual image of it.
(3)Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the communication to the public, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62
HY espouses the party regardless of failure or error. Indeed there can be no error because they are righteous. You don't take that position - but Labour do drive you mad because you wonder how on earth you managed to get demolished by *that*. And its almost entirely self-inflicted. To go from a seismic 80 seat win, with Tories vanquishing Labour across the midlands and red wall to this? In a single term?
If you have persuaded yourself that the choices were driven by malice rather than desperation that is not easy to come to terms with. And there is a hell of a lot more of this to come.
Former Conservative special adviser Samuel Kasumu says that Robert Jenrick is now the most dangerous politician in the country and warns that his language about British Pakistanis and others will put lives at risk
Jenrick has always been the opportunists opportunist. I'm not keen on Badenoch, but at least she's not as grimly amoral, as him.
Both would fit Reform like gloves
They have a long term plan. They are prepared to make unpopular decisions.
They inherited an utter shitshow.
Judge them in 4 years not 6 months
Darren Jones and Jonathan Reynolds are as good as Streeting in terms of communicating under pressure but possibly overall higher intellect.
@spinninghugo.bsky.social
Follow
Bloody hell. This person was nearly the leader of the Tories.
https://bsky.app/profile/spinninghugo.bsky.social/post/3leymw2rglc2t
I think Streeting is really very good, but I don't warm to the man.
@TheScreamingEagles snd @rcs1000 if you really are the only moderators then I really feel for you.
Put it this way, I won’t be opening up a forum any time soon (not that there was a great danger of that). This is dreadful legislation.
An essay by JD Vance on why he converted to Roman Catholicism:
https://thelampmagazine.com/blog/how-i-joined-the-resistance
(I found it because I wondered what he thought of CS Lewis, @Cyclefree having quoted The Screwtape Letters; it's always interested me how so many Usonian Evangelicals, many of whom are in the Trumpist camp, adopted a High Anglican from the Church of England who went to confession as one of their theological heroes for most of the last century, and I wondered whether JD Vance had said anything.)
I don't mind tough measures - and I am increasingly inclined to support disapplication of parts of the ECHR and totally reform the HRA - but boy oh boy he's got to use responsible language.
That becomes more important the tougher you are, not less.
benprice55.bsky.social
This sectarian realpolitik won’t stop being effective until our politicians find a way to make people feel better off again. Then the hard right virus goes back to being a seething background 1-2% rather than the dangerous 20%+ we see now.
https://bsky.app/profile/benprice55.bsky.social/post/3leyp6zte5c23
They have inherited a shitshow. They had a golden opportunity to be decisive - do the hard things now and blame the Tories. They completely fluffed it. Now, as and when they eventually get round to considering the hard things, all the blame will land on them.
They're idiots. "We can't afford it". No, we can't afford not to do it.
Jenrick is a low rent Wazzock with an IQ of 12.
Denis McShane (admittedly a former jailbird) said there was a reluctance to 'rock the multicultural community boat'. I'm not sure I buy that. Are our leaders really as ideologically obsessed as that? Because that is what it would have to be. After 9/11, 7/7 and much else? The more obvious explanation is party politics. Everyone knows that they 'weigh' the Labour votes in predominantly Muslim areas. This could have caused the party major unease. And what of the failures Tories? Here we might look to the much admired (if not for much longer) Chris Mullin. He tweets today that GB News and the Telegraph are jumping on the Musk bandwagon and politics is about to get nastier. Ultimately politics is a vocation for gentlemen. The last thing you want to do is draw attention to unseemly issues that might lower the tone. In such instances it means things must be avoided. Until they can't be. But blaming Musk in this instance is simply shooting the messenger.
As always, “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here but it’s not impossible to visualise a scenario where the economy continues to flatline, inflation is stubborn, Trumps economic policies bite hard and the NI rise causes an uptick in unemployment. I think Reeves has created a hostage to fortune for saying she wouldn’t come back for more tax rises. Another unpopular budget could really spook Labour and might prompt a resignation or dismissal in an effort to relaunch the governments economic policy.
That being said, it is not great for a PM to lose their chancellor. But Starmer has a ruthless streak. I don’t put it past him to jettison cabinet members to try and save his premiership.
Defamation fetters free speech and always has done.
Very few have enough of that instinct to survive long. Kelvin McKenzie did at the Sun, but less so since. Nigel Farage does. Honest Bob... not really.
This will be the largest change to the UK telecoms industry in two decades and the merger will start to take place this quarter, with changes likely to be felt starting at the middle of this year.
It's worth noting that this impacts more than just Three and Vodafone, it also impacts O2 customers as the new company signed a network sharing agreement/extension with them. So this deal impacts some 50 million+ customers. That is more than half of the market.
People haven't felt it yet - but this will be one of the largest industrial changes to take place during this government.
We often discuss subpolling in the Newent area and compare it to the provision of weekend buses in similar areas, seeking a correlation
WE ARE GEEKS AND WE ARE PROUD OF IT
@SandyRentool going out to measure his snow is maybe the best single thing he’s ever done
Back off
The so called "Martha's Rule" is perhaps an illustration of this.
As Cyclefree notes in the header: the example of inquiries into healthcare where “almost every inquiry” makes “recommendations on the patient voice and blame culture. You see the same recommendations again and again.” .
The right to an urgent second opinion then becomes law thanks to a high profile campaign, rather than enquiry, and almost straight away proves to save lives, at no great detriment to hospital efficiency.
The city would probably be cheaper.
6 months have gone and nothing much has happened except housebuilding slacking off. It will take at least another 6 months for any changes to get on the statute books and for builders to understand them.
One year gone maybe at best 200k houses built ( same as the last lot ) so house building has to jump to 325k units per annum in the next 4 years to hit its target. We haven;t done that for decades and the capacity to make that jump doesnt exist.
Russians are complaining that their drones are made ineffective by electronic warfare countermeasures. Fingers crossed this offensive will be a success and we will be one step closer to the Russians accepting that they cannot win the war.
The winter. Skipping the winter
I do not get this impression from Jenrick.
Done people will claim it doesn't make much difference, but I think it makes all the difference.
(I think that Starmer will stick around for a long while, but just hypothetically)
I presume not Cooper or Lammy?
But a regular theme of PB discussion, on both sides of the aisle, is just how bad governments are at governing, irrespective of their political bent.
Problems which are conceptually simple - for example, a planning system which makes development of any kind an arduous and costly slog - are just parked, for decades.
There's a difference between hard choices which are resource constrained, and those which really aren't.
He’s ALSO a conniving rat of a politician who is shamelessly exploiting a national scandal and hoping to position himself to take over from Kemi in a year when the country has swung hard right and the Tories will need to unite with Reform
And replacing Reeves with Streeting gives more ammunition to those who say Starmer has a misogynist streak. And Lammy, for all the opprobrium he generates on here, does seem to be getting on with the job, including securing photo-ops with foreign leaders for Starmer while still in opposition.
One other point to bear in mind is the Health job is valued more highly on the Labour benches.
The grooming gangs story didn't come out last week.
Anyone saying otherwise is either radicalised, blind or just don't care as secretly they enjoy Labour being attacked (as somebody said here literally a few days ago).
The reality is, attacking Labour just makes people turn off. Propose some alternative plans otherwise people will simply say "you had fourteen years".
Reform to their credit have the most reasonable case to make but I just disagree with every single solution they propose. Kemi Badenoch is just jumping on bandwagons and it really shows.
If I were to bet something, her ratings will be extremely poor by this time next year.
Farmers wouldn’t even let Farage speak at the big rally, becuase of his brexit association. They let Davey speak.
Majority of electorate have come to loathe Brexit, and that block of votes will get bigger over the coming years with “this is no better as promised, let’s do something different.”
This block of votes associate existence of Brexit with Farage and the Conservatives, and they actively vote as a block to hurt Farage and the Conservatives as much as possible.
Block 1 Lab 33.7% - 412 seats; LibDem 12.2% - 72 seats; Green 6.7% - 4 seats.
Block 2 Conservatives 23.7% - 121 seats.
Block 3 Reform 14.3% - 5 seats.
So there’s two solid psephological reasons Farage has little chance of being PM - FPTP, and fact he is not fresh change, but is face of the failed big change from a decade ago.
I really think the level to which day after day, week after week, literally since day one, people here tell us how bad Labour is, really makes me think that no, they aren't that bad. The Tories are in total denial as to why they lost and seemingly don't care enough to change again.
Labour may be terrible - but they are still ahead in the polls. And I don't see anything the Tories have to change that. I can't even see a recession helping them much.
Reform is much harder to counter. But ultimately Labour can only deal with that through delivery, not shouting louder. Starmer seems to understand that and whilst being a truly terrible communicator, if you read the insights, he does truly understand how dangerous immigration is for his party, unlike any other leader Labour has had in recent memory. He knows he will be out on his ear if he doesn't get control over it.
I will be watching the polls when immigration inevitably declines next year, thanks to Sunak's policies ironically.
That will begin to look very appealing to the 80% who want serious politics, serious politicians and serious solutions to everyday problems affecting 98% of the population who aren't millionaires or billionaires.
That should be the buzz word..
SERIOUS
This virality got the attention of many, and many then had to explain the entire “grooming gangs” scandal from alpha to omega. The utter gobsmacking scale of it and stunning horror of it, and the abject banana republic failure of the UK state to deal with it properly - over decades - got major social media figures (especially Americans, not all) wading in
Britain is now an object of initial contempt and loathing. It’s really not good. See here
“This sort of thing is bound to be very anecdotal; but my very apolitical friends in Canada are asking me to explain what is wrong with the UK, having read about the grooming gangs, and I can't really begin to explain.”
https://x.com/yuanyi_z/status/1875617876436250737?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
He reformed the Labour party in five years, no other leader has ever done that and been as successful as him. I wish people would question why, as opposed to just shouting.
Her biggest worry would be in Darren Jones or Jonathan Reynolds are supremely talented individuals deserving of a full Ninesterial role.