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.
Because he has no evidence of owning a plan, or even an idea - see social care now shunted off to 2028 - and indeed the Times has just revealed he came into office and was horrified to discover “there was no plan”
In the absence of this we have had six months of dithering and grift and then a catastrophic budget. What makes you think it’s going to change?
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.
That should be the buzz word..
SERIOUS
I don't really buy into the hype you generate - I think you take it almost too far the other way - but I do think Starmer's one niche is that he's a serious politician doing serious things. And tackling serious problems.
That was something Streeting I think communicated very well. If - and it's a very large if - Starmer is successful his seriousness will be an asset. If he's not, it will be a large negative.
Personally I think it will be one of Streeting, Phillipson, Rayner, leading Labour into the next election. My money is personally on Streeting.
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.
I suppose the main issue is that he has done little to justify his majority. That's a result of a split opposition. He has no vision, no plan and cant take people with him as a result. He's the Chauncey Gardener of UK politics,
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.”
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
Muslims have no place in Britain is the message. It's neither true nor (for those saying it) uncomfortable. The opposite in fact on both counts.
Like, there was more to Johnson winning in 2019 than just "Corbyn is crap". I actually found the way Johnson won really interesting, as I think has been discussed before, Cummings and co studied the 2017 Labour manifesto in depth and took many of the policies. In my view, that was a stroke of genius.
Johnson was a terrible PM - but the way he won was worth studying. Same for Cameron. Same for Starmer.
Take the ideological blinkers off. Starmer just won one of the largest majorities ever. Very few people seem to be interested in the why.
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.
But surely it *was* announced that there would be cross-party talks a day or two ago. THis isn't the first post-thread since then to [edit] imply otherwise (but I may be misreading).
'“We will have cross-party talks next month,” Streeting said. “And I’m really encouraged by the fact that since the election, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Reform have all said that they want to work across-party on this, and those talks will begin next month.
“We will work on the setup of the commission. We will work throughout the commission, and I hope that when the commission reports ahead of the next general election, we can all agree on the direction on social care for the long term. In the meantime, this government is getting on with the job.”
The cross-party talks will be focused on getting buy-in for reform across parliament. Streeting said: “We want to make sure that from the outset of this commission that other political parties are bought into the commission and have a chance to feed into the commission’s terms of reference and have a say in how they want to engage with the commission during its working.”'
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.
Why does he want her to fk up the economy ?
You really don't have any coherent alternatives do you.
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.”
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.
A good ten percent of your posts here involve calling for a ban on this or that.
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.
But surely it *was* announced that there would be cross-party talks a day or two ago. THis isn't the first post since then to attack Labour for not going this route, for some reason.
'“We will have cross-party talks next month,” Streeting said. “And I’m really encouraged by the fact that since the election, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Reform have all said that they want to work across-party on this, and those talks will begin next month.
“We will work on the setup of the commission. We will work throughout the commission, and I hope that when the commission reports ahead of the next general election, we can all agree on the direction on social care for the long term. In the meantime, this government is getting on with the job.”
The cross-party talks will be focused on getting buy-in for reform across parliament. Streeting said: “We want to make sure that from the outset of this commission that other political parties are bought into the commission and have a chance to feed into the commission’s terms of reference and have a say in how they want to engage with the commission during its working.”'
What exactly is supposed to be wrong with this approach? It just sounds like grown-up, sensible politics to me.
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.
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.”
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.
Why does he want her to fk up the economy ?
You really don't have any coherent alternatives do you.
Same old Tories
Learnt nothing
I rather think it's Labour who lack the plan B. But then they dont have a Plan A either.
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.”
A child molester who abused two Asian girls was rightly given a longer sentence than if his victims had been white because Asian sex crime victims suffer more, a leading judge has ruled.
Mr Justice Walker said it was proper for paedophile Jamal Muhammed Raheem Ul Nasir to have been given a tougher than normal sentence because his victims were Asian.
The judge who jailed him, Sally Cahill QC, specifically said that the fact the victims were Asian had been factored in as an "aggravating feature" when passing sentence.
She stated that the victims and their families had suffered particular "shame" in their communities because of what had happened to them.
Additionally, there were cultural concerns that the girls' future prospects of being regarded as a "good catch" for arranged marriages might be damaged.
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.
Trouble is that some of us don't pay Mr Musk any money so whether we can see tweets discussed on here is a matter of luck given the changes.
And not all tweets are problematic in themselves.
Edit: maybe quote them?
BTW Horse - I hope you saw the discussion of hearing aids yesterday in view of your evident concerns for your father, in case it was of any interest.
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.
I suppose the main issue is that he has done little to justify his majority. That's a result of a split opposition. He has no vision, no plan and cant take people with him as a result. He's the Chauncey Gardener of UK politics,
Not really - if you add all the Reform votes to the Conservatives, and all the Lib Dem votes to Labour, you still get a "left-wing" majority of nearly 400 seats on a lead of 8 points.
And LD voters are far closer to Labour voters than Reform voters are to Conservatives. Indeed, on some topics the remaining Conservative vote ( BigG trad types) are closer to Labour than they are Reform.
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
Muslims have no place in Britain is the message. It's neither true nor (for those saying it) uncomfortable. The opposite in fact on both counts.
No he doesn’t. In the tweet we are discussing he says
“The foreign nationals responsible must be deported”
That’s as far as he gets to your absurd caricature. Maybe he has said more outrageous things elsewhere? If so, citation required
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
Muslims have no place in Britain is the message. It's neither true nor (for those saying it) uncomfortable. The opposite in fact on both counts.
I haven't seen Jenrick's latest remarks though I doubt that is what he actually said. But again all your are doing is ignoring the actual issue and instead insinuating motives for the opposition. That ain't good enough.
“Ms Siddiq declined to comment, but a source close to her said: 'Tulip's previous understanding of how she gained ownership of the property has changed.”
“Ms Siddiq declined to comment, but a source close to her said: 'Tulip's previous understanding of how she gained ownership of the property has changed.”
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.
The West cannot win if it does not want to win, but too many in the West are scared of what Russia losing looks like to want to win. I agree with you that victory against Russia in Ukraine makes the West safer in the future.
Unfortunately, there is not much prospect of the West getting the political leadership that will push for victory. Forcing Russia into a ceasefire might be the best that can be achieved with the timid leadership in Washington, Berlin, London and Paris - although I still hope that Ukraine will prove me wrong and achieve victory regardless.
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.
What is happening is the global billionaire elite are understanding the advantages of angering and radicalising the population. It not only drives revenue and advertising on their media platforms but also deflects from them taking an ever increasing proportion of wealth and is a good way for them to strengthen their political control.
They can only radicalise a few % each year but over time, and they will sustain this, they are going to completely re-write the political and social geography of the west.
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.
I suppose the main issue is that he has done little to justify his majority. That's a result of a split opposition. He has no vision, no plan and cant take people with him as a result. He's the Chauncey Gardener of UK politics,
Not really - if you add all the Reform votes to the Conservatives, and all the Lib Dem votes to Labour, you still get a "left-wing" majority of nearly 400 seats on a lead of 8 points.
And LD voters are far closer to Labour voters than Reform voters are to Conservatives. Indeed, on some topics the remaining Conservative vote ( BigG trad types) are closer to Labour than they are Reform.
You get a majority for people who wanted a tired failing government out of office.
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.
But surely it *was* announced that there would be cross-party talks a day or two ago. THis isn't the first post since then to attack Labour for not going this route, for some reason.
'“We will have cross-party talks next month,” Streeting said. “And I’m really encouraged by the fact that since the election, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Reform have all said that they want to work across-party on this, and those talks will begin next month.
“We will work on the setup of the commission. We will work throughout the commission, and I hope that when the commission reports ahead of the next general election, we can all agree on the direction on social care for the long term. In the meantime, this government is getting on with the job.”
The cross-party talks will be focused on getting buy-in for reform across parliament. Streeting said: “We want to make sure that from the outset of this commission that other political parties are bought into the commission and have a chance to feed into the commission’s terms of reference and have a say in how they want to engage with the commission during its working.”'
What exactly is supposed to be wrong with this approach? It just sounds like grown-up, sensible politics to me.
If only we could do the same with the NHS itself.
As I mentioned the other day, and as happened in Scotland [mutatis mutandis] with several other matters, the danger is that the other parties agree the new changes and then suddenly run and hide when they are implemented, saying " a big boy [points at Labour] made me do it and run away". But it has to be tried.
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.
I suppose the main issue is that he has done little to justify his majority. That's a result of a split opposition. He has no vision, no plan and cant take people with him as a result. He's the Chauncey Gardener of UK politics,
Not really - if you add all the Reform votes to the Conservatives, and all the Lib Dem votes to Labour, you still get a "left-wing" majority of nearly 400 seats on a lead of 8 points.
And LD voters are far closer to Labour voters than Reform voters are to Conservatives. Indeed, on some topics the remaining Conservative vote ( BigG trad types) are closer to Labour than they are Reform.
Expect the masterstroke in 2028
When Starmer ans Streeting Co opt Davey and D Cooper in to delivering the integration of social care in to primary care with a loose electoral pact to deliver over the following 5 years
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.
Depends, if the main 3 split their votes near equally Farage under FPTP could come through the middle, especially with the hard Brexit vote united behind him while Remainers split between Labour, LDs and Greens and SNP and soft Leavers go Tory.
For example if Reform reached 28% they become largest party with 236 seats to 159 for Labour, 123 for the Tories and 70 for the LDs.
If Farage matches the 31% his Brexit Party got in the 2019 EU Parliament elections then Reform actually win an overall majority with 331 MPs to 99 for Labour, 83 for the Tories and 69 for the LDs https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_reform_20241231.html
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.
But surely it *was* announced that there would be cross-party talks a day or two ago. THis isn't the first post-thread since then to [edit] imply otherwise (but I may be misreading).
'“We will have cross-party talks next month,” Streeting said. “And I’m really encouraged by the fact that since the election, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Reform have all said that they want to work across-party on this, and those talks will begin next month.
“We will work on the setup of the commission. We will work throughout the commission, and I hope that when the commission reports ahead of the next general election, we can all agree on the direction on social care for the long term. In the meantime, this government is getting on with the job.”
The cross-party talks will be focused on getting buy-in for reform across parliament. Streeting said: “We want to make sure that from the outset of this commission that other political parties are bought into the commission and have a chance to feed into the commission’s terms of reference and have a say in how they want to engage with the commission during its working.”'
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.”
A child molester who abused two Asian girls was rightly given a longer sentence than if his victims had been white because Asian sex crime victims suffer more, a leading judge has ruled.
Mr Justice Walker said it was proper for paedophile Jamal Muhammed Raheem Ul Nasir to have been given a tougher than normal sentence because his victims were Asian.
The judge who jailed him, Sally Cahill QC, specifically said that the fact the victims were Asian had been factored in as an "aggravating feature" when passing sentence.
She stated that the victims and their families had suffered particular "shame" in their communities because of what had happened to them.
Additionally, there were cultural concerns that the girls' future prospects of being regarded as a "good catch" for arranged marriages might be damaged.
Oh god. I remember that case. Sweet Jesus Christ let’s just close down Britain
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.
Why does he want her to fk up the economy ?
You really don't have any coherent alternatives do you.
Same old Tories
Learnt nothing
I rather think it's Labour who lack the plan B. But then they dont have a Plan A either.
They have found out not being the Tories is just not enough.
It’s a hard lesson for what was the so called govt in waiting, when in opposition.
/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 look forward to reading her book for more clarity on such questions. But I think the point she's making is that almost no recommendations are acted upon - and most egregiously the ones which are made regularly.
You make a fair point, but if we are going to "be selective and think them through", governments should at the very least be doing so publicly, in a timely manner, and explaining why they aren't adopting a given recommendation.
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.
The West cannot win if it does not want to win, but too many in the West are scared of what Russia losing looks like to want to win. I agree with you that victory against Russia in Ukraine makes the West safer in the future.
Unfortunately, there is not much prospect of the West getting the political leadership that will push for victory. Forcing Russia into a ceasefire might be the best that can be achieved with the timid leadership in Washington, Berlin, London and Paris - although I still hope that Ukraine will prove me wrong and achieve victory regardless.
Hopefully Merz wins in February as he has been clear Berlin must send more military aid to Zelensky
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.
I suppose the main issue is that he has done little to justify his majority. That's a result of a split opposition. He has no vision, no plan and cant take people with him as a result. He's the Chauncey Gardener of UK politics,
Not really - if you add all the Reform votes to the Conservatives, and all the Lib Dem votes to Labour, you still get a "left-wing" majority of nearly 400 seats on a lead of 8 points.
And LD voters are far closer to Labour voters than Reform voters are to Conservatives. Indeed, on some topics the remaining Conservative vote ( BigG trad types) are closer to Labour than they are Reform.
Expect the masterstroke in 2028
When Starmer ans Streeting Co opt Davey and D Cooper in to delivering the integration of social care in to primary care with a loose electoral pact to deliver over the following 5 years
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.
Why does he want her to fk up the economy ?
You really don't have any coherent alternatives do you.
Same old Tories
Learnt nothing
I rather think it's Labour who lack the plan B. But then they dont have a Plan A either.
They have found out not being the Tories is just not enough.
It’s a hard lesson for what was the so called govt in waiting, when in opposition.
Still it gives them the chance to close down the rest of manufacturing over the next 4 years.
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.
That should be the buzz word..
SERIOUS
I don't really buy into the hype you generate - I think you take it almost too far the other way - but I do think Starmer's one niche is that he's a serious politician doing serious things. And tackling serious problems.
That was something Streeting I think communicated very well. If - and it's a very large if - Starmer is successful his seriousness will be an asset. If he's not, it will be a large negative.
Personally I think it will be one of Streeting, Phillipson, Rayner, leading Labour into the next election. My money is personally on Streeting.
It will be a woman, I just cannot see labour making another middle aged white man leader.
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.
Not sure it would be practical on a site where debate on difficult issues is part of the point - but OpenAI have a free-to-use 'moderation' API that's very easy to use. It just gives you a basic response on if the content is flagged, and the scores for various categories which you can then use to decide on your local thresholds. I haven't read the Bill in detail - but some of the stuff I do have to deal with - just showing an attempt at compliance is half the battle if questions get asked.
If it'd be any help I could probably run quite a few recent posts through it and let the mod's have a look at what comes back?
@TSE@rcs1000 - let me know if it'd be of any interest.
/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 look forward to reading her book for more clarity on such questions. But I think the point she's making is that almost no recommendations are acted upon - and most egregiously the ones which are made regularly.
You make a fair point, but if we are going to "be selective and think them through", governments should at the very least be doing so publicly, in a timely manner, and explaining why they aren't adopting a given recommendation.
I have no problem with the long grass being cut from time to time to see what's still there.
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
Mendacity ? Duplicity ?
I don't care. I'd rather talk about what they should be doing, and aren't, rather than what they've correctly decided not to do.
“Ms Siddiq declined to comment, but a source close to her said: 'Tulip's previous understanding of how she gained ownership of the property has changed.”
She's a goner.
Hahahahaha
Yeah that’s not optimal
But shecorns was saying the other day it was a nothing story. So there’s nowt to see here surely ?
Trying to buy a PC monitor, budget about £300. This is near impossible with model numbers like 27GP850P-B-M27Q-XG27ACS. Is that the one with the USB-C port? HDMI 2.1? 0.5ms?
Even worse than wireless printers IMO. Even reddit can't help.
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.
He may end up being successful - which would be excellent - I voted for him.
The 'case' however needs to come from government and parliament. The stuff he does has to fit into a coherent narrative about who we are, where we are going and how we are going to get there.
Two test cases: How does the social care being kicked out to 2028 and after fit the 'NHS/social care are linked problems to which we have the solution' story?
Reeves imposed NI taxes after promising they would not rise. The tax rises were to fill a previously unknown 'black hole'. As they were unknown and necessary, why tell untruths about the NI promise you had made?
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.
Why does he want her to fk up the economy ?
You really don't have any coherent alternatives do you.
Same old Tories
Learnt nothing
I rather think it's Labour who lack the plan B. But then they dont have a Plan A either.
They have found out not being the Tories is just not enough.
It’s a hard lesson for what was the so called govt in waiting, when in opposition.
Still it gives them the chance to close down the rest of manufacturing over the next 4 years.
A small price to pay to get to net zero, I’m sure.
They’re certainly doing us no favours at the moment.
Trying to buy a PC monitor, budget about £300. This is near impossible with model numbers like 27GP850P-B-M27Q-XG27ACS. Is that the one with the USB-C port? HDMI 2.1? 0.5ms?
Even worse than wireless printers IMO. Even reddit can't help.
The manufacturer’s website surely has the specifications?
If Andy Burnham hates the policies of Labour so much, why doesn't he resign and stand for leader himself?
Of course, this is the same Andy "Weathervane" Burnham who was against, then for, then against Corbyn. He has literally no views at all that aren't what he woke up thinking.
A right winger in the Blair and Brown days, apparently he's now on the left.
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.
The West cannot win if it does not want to win, but too many in the West are scared of what Russia losing looks like to want to win. I agree with you that victory against Russia in Ukraine makes the West safer in the future.
Unfortunately, there is not much prospect of the West getting the political leadership that will push for victory. Forcing Russia into a ceasefire might be the best that can be achieved with the timid leadership in Washington, Berlin, London and Paris - although I still hope that Ukraine will prove me wrong and achieve victory regardless.
But what sort of ceasefire? That is the question. One where Russia remains sanctioned and heading towards the economic cliff or one where all the sanctions are removed and we basically go back to normal as if nothing happened with everyone recognising the new territories of Russia and rump Ukraine having no security guarantees going forward. The difference between the two positions is massive.
I see that Tulip Siddiq, Ed Davey, George Freeman and Steve Barclay are all MPs who use the postnomial FRSA ( Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts). In fact anyone can become an FRSA on payment of £75. What a bunch of chancers
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.
Why does he want her to fk up the economy ?
You really don't have any coherent alternatives do you.
Same old Tories
Learnt nothing
I rather think it's Labour who lack the plan B. But then they dont have a Plan A either.
Thats why then have commenced over 50 policy changes, real time announcements and initiates in past 6 months and far more to come in the next few weeks.
Small real funded improvements all formulating in to big plans.
You build brick by brick by brick a step at a time.
I think this is the most pertinent and best article Cyclefree has written.
I seem to remember in Parkinson's Law, the book, he showed very effectively how executive groups are always expanded over time as to become useless so a subset then has to be convened to do the actual work, thus the King's advisors became a body, then the King's Council, then the Privy Council, then the close counsellors then the Cabal, then the Cabinet etc etc to the Kitchen Cabinet, then to No. 10 etc etc.
The same rule must be true for mechanisms for inquiry, vide the Post Office Inquiry or Blair's three Foot and Mouth Inquiries which were designed only to prove it didn't come from the government labs, chaired by a director of the government labs.
It would be like asking Gordon to chair an inquiry into what happened to the Government Gold reserves, or Sir Keir himself to chair an inquiry into East European Entryism before 1989.
Good morning one and all. Although, weather-wise, it isn't, and doesn't seem to be elsewhere!
I rarely agree with Mr Cumbria5, although I always read his (?her) comments with interest. However I agree with him on this, (although I have a caveat about what responsibility a 27 year junior barrister would have had over anything in 1989!) it is high time that the simple act of setting up an Inquiry was not treated as 'job done'; if significant action is deemed to be merited, then that action should be taken.
Edit; for sense.
It was a multiply used joke in Yes Minister that the inquiries were a way of kicking the can down the road. Because the conclusions are written in polite legalese, this just makes it easier.
The problem is that there is enormous resistance to change in the permanent apparatus of government. Politicians change, yet the policies often stay the same.
We have seen, with Hillsborough, the Blood Scandal, the Post Office (to name but a few) as vast effort expended to prevent more than a token legal comeback.
In the NHS, after decades of scandals, we now have a register. So that managers who are fired for gross misconduct in one part of the NHS are not rehired in another.
The police have promised to deal with the issue of officers resigning from one force - shutting down investigations - then joining another. Maybe next decade.
People talk of political accountability. It is clear that some regard political accountability as Pontius Pilot’s washbasin. Once the ritual has been performed (minister changed), all others are absolved.
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
Mendacity ? Duplicity ?
I don't care. I'd rather talk about what they should be doing, and aren't, rather than what they've correctly decided not to do.
Oh piss off Mr B. For 2 years you ramped a competent government coming in to power. The grown ups will be back in charge you told me. You ignored all the signs to the contrary. I was wrong too I expected continuity Sunak not this total shitshow. I repeatedly warned you that Labour having no scrutiny during the election campaign would result in a collapse of support when in government.
And when I warned you back in July that they had no plan, no common sense and all their" policies" were just slogans you told me I was wrong and that time and the budget would put it all right, It hasnt and things will keep going bad until Starmer reshuffles or resigns to give Labour a chance.
I assume from the current low point Labour should see a recovery of sorts but this lot are so incompetent and have so many of the wrong policies anything could happen.
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'.
It’s more than misguided, it’s bordering on criminal intent to rewrite true history.
The likes of Jenrick and PBers like LuckyGuy and others turning these victims into a political football, is a great betrayal of them.
Police would pick up ladies from where they were being raped, abused and exploited, move them somewhere safer, a week later they were back at the place.
institutionalised cover ups, cowardice, multi racial wokism the reason the culture was that charges hardly ever made, and the gangs not gone after? Or an element of fact that grooming and coercion was not properly understood by society at large?
On topic, another inquiry needed? In my opinion yes, and Badenoch and Farage are right that it’s needs to be a broad one. Why? Because has anything actually changed? Is grooming and control and coercion actually understood as hideous crime now and successfully prosecuted today? It’s not just the predatory gangs, they just small part of wider picture of relationships of grooming and control and coercion to abuse, and awful rates of bringing charges and getting convictions right now, letting victims down, right across the board of all of it.
So the saddest part of the Shadow Justice Secretaries gibberish, for opportunist political point scoring, he makes out the problem was all specific, historical and in the past, not an awful problem alive today to be dealt with by multi party consensus, to change societies understanding and culture.
Trying to buy a PC monitor, budget about £300. This is near impossible with model numbers like 27GP850P-B-M27Q-XG27ACS. Is that the one with the USB-C port? HDMI 2.1? 0.5ms?
Even worse than wireless printers IMO. Even reddit can't help.
What do you want?
screen resolution FHD, QHD or 4k screen size 24 or 27" purpose - gaming, serious gaming, office work or both...
and what are you planning to connect it to as a Mac requires something different to Windows...
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.
I suppose the main issue is that he has done little to justify his majority. That's a result of a split opposition. He has no vision, no plan and cant take people with him as a result. He's the Chauncey Gardener of UK politics,
Not really - if you add all the Reform votes to the Conservatives, and all the Lib Dem votes to Labour, you still get a "left-wing" majority of nearly 400 seats on a lead of 8 points.
And LD voters are far closer to Labour voters than Reform voters are to Conservatives. Indeed, on some topics the remaining Conservative vote ( BigG trad types) are closer to Labour than they are Reform.
I am not close to Labour under any circumstances
I could be to the Lib Dems but I do not agree on their EU policy
Simply I remain a conservative and will vote conservative, unless I can tactically vote out a Labour candidate
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
Mendacity ? Duplicity ?
I don't care. I'd rather talk about what they should be doing, and aren't, rather than what they've correctly decided not to do.
Oh piss off Mr B. For 2 years you ramped a competent government coming in to power. The grown ups will be back in charge you told me. You ignored all the signs to the contrary. I was wrong too I expected continuity Sunak not this total shitshow. I repeatedly warned you that Labour having no scrutiny during the election campaign would result in a collapse of support when in government.
And when I warned you back in July that they had no plan, no common sense and all their" policies" were just slogans you told me I was wrong and that time and the budget would put it all right, It hasnt and things will keep going bad until Starmer reshuffles or resigns to give Labour a chance.
I assume from the current low point Labour should see a recovery of sorts but this lot are so incompetent and have so many of the wrong policies anything could happen.
Meanwhile the country has another 5 wasted years.
Piss off yourself, Mr.A. I didn't even vote for them.
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.
Musk is making politics nicer? How? Is calling for Tommy Robinson to be released making politics nicer? Is predicting imminent civil war in the country making politics nicer?
The Reform Party needs a new leader. Farage doesn’t have what it takes.
Looks like Tommy has cost Nige a lot of money.
This could be the end of the Musk/Trump bromance as well (not that it was ever going to last)
Trump sees Farage as an ally. If not a friend (if he has friends)
Alternatively it could be Musk doing one line too many and he’ll change his mind in 2 hours
These alliances between populists (of all sorts) are inevitably fragile. Their bases are not the same. Moreover the big concerns that they have are very much not the same.
I suspect we'll see far bigger alliances falter in similar grounds in the next couple of years. China will fall out of love with Russia, and perhaps badly so.
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.
I suppose the main issue is that he has done little to justify his majority. That's a result of a split opposition. He has no vision, no plan and cant take people with him as a result. He's the Chauncey Gardener of UK politics,
Not really - if you add all the Reform votes to the Conservatives, and all the Lib Dem votes to Labour, you still get a "left-wing" majority of nearly 400 seats on a lead of 8 points.
And LD voters are far closer to Labour voters than Reform voters are to Conservatives. Indeed, on some topics the remaining Conservative vote ( BigG trad types) are closer to Labour than they are Reform.
Expect the masterstroke in 2028
When Starmer ans Streeting Co opt Davey and D Cooper in to delivering the integration of social care in to primary care with a loose electoral pact to deliver over the following 5 years
The recommendations on social care are not due out before 2028 and any idea they will be agreed between parties before GE 2029 to relieve Streeting of having to make a decision is nonsense
I see that Tulip Siddiq, Ed Davey, George Freeman and Steve Barclay are all MPs who use the postnomial FRSA ( Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts). In fact anyone can become an FRSA on payment of £75. What a bunch of chancers
Trying to buy a PC monitor, budget about £300. This is near impossible with model numbers like 27GP850P-B-M27Q-XG27ACS. Is that the one with the USB-C port? HDMI 2.1? 0.5ms?
Even worse than wireless printers IMO. Even reddit can't help.
What do you want?
screen resolution FHD, QHD or 4k screen size 24 or 27" purpose - gaming, serious gaming, office work or both...
and what are you planning to connect it to as a Mac requires something different to Windows...
USB-C for MacBook Air, QHD, 27", mainly office work, photo editing and bit of gaming. Gigabyte M27Q is the closest I've got to so far.
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.
Why does he want her to fk up the economy ?
You really don't have any coherent alternatives do you.
Same old Tories
Learnt nothing
I rather think it's Labour who lack the plan B. But then they dont have a Plan A either.
Thats why then have commenced over 50 policy changes, real time announcements and initiates in past 6 months and far more to come in the next few weeks.
Small real funded improvements all formulating in to big plans.
You build brick by brick by brick a step at a time.
Yes, saving the country one frozen pensioner at a time.
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.
I suppose the main issue is that he has done little to justify his majority. That's a result of a split opposition. He has no vision, no plan and cant take people with him as a result. He's the Chauncey Gardener of UK politics,
Not really - if you add all the Reform votes to the Conservatives, and all the Lib Dem votes to Labour, you still get a "left-wing" majority of nearly 400 seats on a lead of 8 points.
And LD voters are far closer to Labour voters than Reform voters are to Conservatives. Indeed, on some topics the remaining Conservative vote ( BigG trad types) are closer to Labour than they are Reform.
I am not close to Labour under any circumstances
I could be to the Lib Dems but I do not agree on their EU policy
Simply I remain a conservative and will vote conservative, unless I can tactically vote out a Labour candidate
Would you vote Farage or Tommy Ten Names to get rid of the Commies?
Hi Cyclefree - a very interesting header and like others I look forward to reading your book - it was Aberfan which led to my working career.
The Aberfan disaster of October 1966 led to the 1969 Mines & Quarries (Tips) Act which made further provision in relation to tips associated with mines and quarries mainly to prevent disused tips constituting a danger to members of the public .This was followed by the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Regulations, 1971, setting out the rules to be followed. Until the introduction of the Tips Act 1969, there were no laws and regulations governing mine and quarry tips and spoil tips.
Nottinghamshire Land Reclamation Team, Planning & Economic Department was established in 1970/71 - with 2/3 engineers and associated surveyors, drawing back-up staff. The engineers were mainly qualified certificated ex mining surveyors. The Authority had to inspect the closed spoil heaps and were allowed using government grants to restore them usually at first to a green afteruse.
The number of tips inspected in Nottinghamshire today is currently around 80; approximately 50% are within the Authority’s own estate. The remaining tips are owned by private or other public sector landowners. The majority were restored by the Land Reclamation Team. As well as the Spoil Heaps came Landfill Sites,disused former railway lines,2 MOD sites and then the former colliery sites. I enjoyed my work.
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.
Why does he want her to fk up the economy ?
You really don't have any coherent alternatives do you.
Same old Tories
Learnt nothing
I rather think it's Labour who lack the plan B. But then they dont have a Plan A either.
Thats why then have commenced over 50 policy changes, real time announcements and initiates in past 6 months and far more to come in the next few weeks.
Small real funded improvements all formulating in to big plans.
You build brick by brick by brick a step at a time.
Yes, saving the country one frozen pensioner at a time.
Quite right too. I'm spending mine on a drinks package to keep me warm on my Norwegian Fjord cruise.
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.
Why does he want her to fk up the economy ?
You really don't have any coherent alternatives do you.
Same old Tories
Learnt nothing
I rather think it's Labour who lack the plan B. But then they dont have a Plan A either.
Thats why then have commenced over 50 policy changes, real time announcements and initiates in past 6 months and far more to come in the next few weeks.
Small real funded improvements all formulating in to big plans.
You build brick by brick by brick a step at a time.
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.
I suppose the main issue is that he has done little to justify his majority. That's a result of a split opposition. He has no vision, no plan and cant take people with him as a result. He's the Chauncey Gardener of UK politics,
He got the most votes in a majority of seats. That how he has justified his majority. That's all you need to do. That's all he has to do next time.
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.
Why does he want her to fk up the economy ?
You really don't have any coherent alternatives do you.
Same old Tories
Learnt nothing
I rather think it's Labour who lack the plan B. But then they dont have a Plan A either.
Thats why then have commenced over 50 policy changes, real time announcements and initiates in past 6 months and far more to come in the next few weeks.
Small real funded improvements all formulating in to big plans.
You build brick by brick by brick a step at a time.
Yes, saving the country one frozen pensioner at a time.
Quite right too. I'm spending mine on a drinks package to keep me warm on my Norwegian Fjord cruise.
Trying to buy a PC monitor, budget about £300. This is near impossible with model numbers like 27GP850P-B-M27Q-XG27ACS. Is that the one with the USB-C port? HDMI 2.1? 0.5ms?
Even worse than wireless printers IMO. Even reddit can't help.
What do you want?
screen resolution FHD, QHD or 4k screen size 24 or 27" purpose - gaming, serious gaming, office work or both...
and what are you planning to connect it to as a Mac requires something different to Windows...
USB-C for MacBook Air, QHD, 27", mainly office work, photo editing and bit of gaming. Gigabyte M27Q is the closest I've got to so far.
I would suggest you find somewhere to look at that screen before taking that approach. I intentionally went for 4k screens because on a Mac QHD doesn't look right while 4k (running at the same resolution) looks great thanks to the font smoothing that's built into MacOS.
For reference the screens I use are Dell U2720Q - but the replacement version of that is £500 each and the P2723QE doesn't work on MacOS so don't go there..
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.
I suppose the main issue is that he has done little to justify his majority. That's a result of a split opposition. He has no vision, no plan and cant take people with him as a result. He's the Chauncey Gardener of UK politics,
Not really - if you add all the Reform votes to the Conservatives, and all the Lib Dem votes to Labour, you still get a "left-wing" majority of nearly 400 seats on a lead of 8 points.
And LD voters are far closer to Labour voters than Reform voters are to Conservatives. Indeed, on some topics the remaining Conservative vote ( BigG trad types) are closer to Labour than they are Reform.
I am not close to Labour under any circumstances
I could be to the Lib Dems but I do not agree on their EU policy
Simply I remain a conservative and will vote conservative, unless I can tactically vote out a Labour candidate
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.
I suppose the main issue is that he has done little to justify his majority. That's a result of a split opposition. He has no vision, no plan and cant take people with him as a result. He's the Chauncey Gardener of UK politics,
Not really - if you add all the Reform votes to the Conservatives, and all the Lib Dem votes to Labour, you still get a "left-wing" majority of nearly 400 seats on a lead of 8 points.
And LD voters are far closer to Labour voters than Reform voters are to Conservatives. Indeed, on some topics the remaining Conservative vote ( BigG trad types) are closer to Labour than they are Reform.
I am not close to Labour under any circumstances
I could be to the Lib Dems but I do not agree on their EU policy
Simply I remain a conservative and will vote conservative, unless I can tactically vote out a Labour candidate
Half of Farron's voters are Tories so the premise is untrue.
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.
I suppose the main issue is that he has done little to justify his majority. That's a result of a split opposition. He has no vision, no plan and cant take people with him as a result. He's the Chauncey Gardener of UK politics,
He got the most votes in a majority of seats. That how he has justified his majority. That's all you need to do. That's all he has to do next time.
Except he wont and in all likelihood wont be the party leader.
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.
Why does he want her to fk up the economy ?
You really don't have any coherent alternatives do you.
Same old Tories
Learnt nothing
I rather think it's Labour who lack the plan B. But then they dont have a Plan A either.
Thats why then have commenced over 50 policy changes, real time announcements and initiates in past 6 months and far more to come in the next few weeks.
Small real funded improvements all formulating in to big plans.
You build brick by brick by brick a step at a time.
Yes, saving the country one frozen pensioner at a time.
Quite right too. I'm spending mine on a drinks package to keep me warm on my Norwegian Fjord cruise.
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.
The West cannot win if it does not want to win, but too many in the West are scared of what Russia losing looks like to want to win. I agree with you that victory against Russia in Ukraine makes the West safer in the future.
Unfortunately, there is not much prospect of the West getting the political leadership that will push for victory. Forcing Russia into a ceasefire might be the best that can be achieved with the timid leadership in Washington, Berlin, London and Paris - although I still hope that Ukraine will prove me wrong and achieve victory regardless.
But what sort of ceasefire? That is the question. One where Russia remains sanctioned and heading towards the economic cliff or one where all the sanctions are removed and we basically go back to normal as if nothing happened with everyone recognising the new territories of Russia and rump Ukraine having no security guarantees going forward. The difference between the two positions is massive.
As Adam Smith pointed out there is a lot of ruin in a nation but Russia has been on a very negative path for the best part of 3 years now. My own belief, supported by the falls in the Ruble, the collapse of the housing market, the insane level of interest rates and the damage being inflicted deep in Russia by Ukraine, is that Putin has only months left and it is not clear what will happen after that other than it will be chaotic and dangerous.
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.
Depends, if the main 3 split their votes near equally Farage under FPTP could come through the middle, especially with the hard Brexit vote united behind him while Remainers split between Labour, LDs and Greens and SNP and soft Leavers go Tory.
For example if Reform reached 28% they become largest party with 236 seats to 159 for Labour, 123 for the Tories and 70 for the LDs.
If Farage matches the 31% his Brexit Party got in the 2019 EU Parliament elections then Reform actually win an overall majority with 331 MPs to 99 for Labour, 83 for the Tories and 69 for the LDs https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_reform_20241231.html
Electoral Calculus is not gospel. It would depend exactly where Reform got that 28% or 31%.
The Reform Party needs a new leader. Farage doesn’t have what it takes.
Looks like Tommy has cost Nige a lot of money.
This could be the end of the Musk/Trump bromance as well (not that it was ever going to last)
Trump sees Farage as an ally. If not a friend (if he has friends)
Alternatively it could be Musk doing one line too many and he’ll change his mind in 2 hours
These alliances between populists (of all sorts) are inevitably fragile. Their bases are not the same. Moreover the big concerns that they have are very much not the same.
I suspect we'll see far bigger alliances falter in similar grounds in the next couple of years. China will fall out of love with Russia, and perhaps badly so.
Indeed. See also the H1B visa fall-out in the USA, within the Trumpite right. Tho that seems to have calmed down
Right wing populists also tend to have big egos - maybe all populists do - and therefore find it hard to team up. Too many lead singers in one band
I've seen some video recently of Musk and Trump together, and you can see on Trump's face the slgiht feeling of "how long do I have to put up with this weirdo"
Musk is socially awkward, volatile and needy. He's a fantastic leader of engineering projects that require drive, genius, ambition, and absolute loyalty to his vision. As a political player his personality is surely worse than Starmer's
An excellent article @Cyclefree. As you may remember @Cyclefree (as we discussed it offline sometime ago) I am supporting the campaigners in one of the less well known scandals. Finally after 12 years we got an NAO and PAC enquiry (yep it took 12 years from being bounced from pillar to post, with no Ombudsman willing to take responsibility, for an investigation). It was damning and the Government finally agreed they were at fault. We are now at the let's ignore that admission and any responsibility stage. MPs have raised it in Parliament and ministers have promised meetings, but guess what, months after the promised meetings none have been forthcoming.
About 20% of the people impacted have died since the scandal arose, including several from the organising committee, sadly one just a few days ago. I'm literally seeing the people I am trying to help drop dead in front of my eyes.
I would like to provide more details, but it would out me I'm afraid.
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.
There are a great many Labour backbenchers (and junior ministers) feeling they deserve promotion. This might become an issue for Starmer's successor, depending when he retires.
I see that Tulip Siddiq, Ed Davey, George Freeman and Steve Barclay are all MPs who use the postnomial FRSA ( Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts). In fact anyone can become an FRSA on payment of £75. What a bunch of chancers
Wikipedia says not anyone can become an FRSA. I quote:
Fellowship is granted to applicants "who are aligned with the RSA's vision and share in our values."[18] Some prospective fellows are approached by the RSA and invited to join in recognition of their work; some are nominated or "fast-tracked" by existing fellows and RSA staff,[19][20][21] or by partner organisations such as the Churchill Fellowship;[22][23] others make their own applications with accompanied references, which are reviewed by a formal admissions panel consisting of RSA trustees and fellowship councillors.[24][25]
Comments
In the absence of this we have had six months of dithering and grift and then a catastrophic budget. What makes you think it’s going to change?
That was something Streeting I think communicated very well. If - and it's a very large if - Starmer is successful his seriousness will be an asset. If he's not, it will be a large negative.
Personally I think it will be one of Streeting, Phillipson, Rayner, leading Labour into the next election. My money is personally on Streeting.
Is that the best you can do.
(some may think your Bot has beaten you... Bravo AI)
Johnson was a terrible PM - but the way he won was worth studying. Same for Cameron. Same for Starmer.
Take the ideological blinkers off. Starmer just won one of the largest majorities ever. Very few people seem to be interested in the why.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jan/03/uk-adult-social-care-cross-party-talks-casey-commission
'“We will have cross-party talks next month,” Streeting said. “And I’m really encouraged by the fact that since the election, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Reform have all said that they want to work across-party on this, and those talks will begin next month.
“We will work on the setup of the commission. We will work throughout the commission, and I hope that when the commission reports ahead of the next general election, we can all agree on the direction on social care for the long term. In the meantime, this government is getting on with the job.”
The cross-party talks will be focused on getting buy-in for reform across parliament. Streeting said: “We want to make sure that from the outset of this commission that other political parties are bought into the commission and have a chance to feed into the commission’s terms of reference and have a say in how they want to engage with the commission during its working.”'
Same old Tories
Learnt nothing
No thanks.
If only we could do the same with the NHS itself.
He spouted a load of jumbled up crap too
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11871975/Child-molester-given-longer-sentence-as-victims-are-Asian.html
A child molester who abused two Asian girls was rightly given a longer sentence than if his victims had been white because Asian sex crime victims suffer more, a leading judge has ruled.
Mr Justice Walker said it was proper for paedophile Jamal Muhammed Raheem Ul Nasir to have been given a tougher than normal sentence because his victims were Asian.
The judge who jailed him, Sally Cahill QC, specifically said that the fact the victims were Asian had been factored in as an "aggravating feature" when passing sentence.
She stated that the victims and their families had suffered particular "shame" in their communities because of what had happened to them.
Additionally, there were cultural concerns that the girls' future prospects of being regarded as a "good catch" for arranged marriages might be damaged.
And not all tweets are problematic in themselves.
Edit: maybe quote them?
BTW Horse - I hope you saw the discussion of hearing aids yesterday in view of your evident concerns for your father, in case it was of any interest.
And LD voters are far closer to Labour voters than Reform voters are to Conservatives. Indeed, on some topics the remaining Conservative vote ( BigG trad types) are closer to Labour than they are Reform.
“The foreign nationals responsible must be deported”
That’s as far as he gets to your absurd caricature. Maybe he has said more outrageous things elsewhere? If so, citation required
She's a goner.
Yeah that’s not optimal
Expected the sleaze, expected the failure to plan, expected the cowardice, expected the inability to chose the right battles.
Unfortunately, there is not much prospect of the West getting the political leadership that will push for victory. Forcing Russia into a ceasefire might be the best that can be achieved with the timid leadership in Washington, Berlin, London and Paris - although I still hope that Ukraine will prove me wrong and achieve victory regardless.
They can only radicalise a few % each year but over time, and they will sustain this, they are going to completely re-write the political and social geography of the west.
Sadly it's been replaced by another.
When Starmer ans Streeting Co opt Davey and D Cooper in to delivering the integration of social care in to primary care with a loose electoral pact to deliver over the following 5 years
For example if Reform reached 28% they become largest party with 236 seats to 159 for Labour, 123 for the Tories and 70 for the LDs.
If Farage matches the 31% his Brexit Party got in the 2019 EU Parliament elections then Reform actually win an overall majority with 331 MPs to 99 for Labour, 83 for the Tories and 69 for the LDs
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_reform_20241231.html
It’s a hard lesson for what was the so called govt in waiting, when in opposition.
But I think the point she's making is that almost no recommendations are acted upon - and most egregiously the ones which are made regularly.
You make a fair point, but if we are going to "be selective and think them through", governments should at the very least be doing so publicly, in a timely manner, and explaining why they aren't adopting a given recommendation.
If it'd be any help I could probably run quite a few recent posts through it and let the mod's have a look at what comes back?
@TSE @rcs1000 - let me know if it'd be of any interest.
The Reform Party needs a new leader. Farage doesn’t have what it takes.
I'd rather talk about what they should be doing, and aren't, rather than what they've correctly decided not to do.
A Jet2 flight from Newcastle to Fuertaventura is diverting to Manchester. Currently doing loops over the Pennines.
Even worse than wireless printers IMO. Even reddit can't help.
The 'case' however needs to come from government and parliament. The stuff he does has to fit into a coherent narrative about who we are, where we are going and how we are going to get there.
Two test cases: How does the social care being kicked out to 2028 and after fit the 'NHS/social care are linked problems to which we have the solution' story?
Reeves imposed NI taxes after promising they would not rise. The tax rises were to fill a previously unknown 'black hole'. As they were unknown and necessary, why tell untruths about the NI promise you had made?
They’re certainly doing us no favours at the moment.
Of course, this is the same Andy "Weathervane" Burnham who was against, then for, then against Corbyn. He has literally no views at all that aren't what he woke up thinking.
A right winger in the Blair and Brown days, apparently he's now on the left.
The hype for this man, utterly escapes me.
Small real funded improvements all formulating in to big plans.
You build brick by brick by brick a step at a time.
The problem is that there is enormous resistance to change in the permanent apparatus of government. Politicians change, yet the policies often stay the same.
We have seen, with Hillsborough, the Blood Scandal, the Post Office (to name but a few) as vast effort expended to prevent more than a token legal comeback.
In the NHS, after decades of scandals, we now have a register. So that managers who are fired for gross misconduct in one part of the NHS are not rehired in another.
The police have promised to deal with the issue of officers resigning from one force - shutting down investigations - then joining another. Maybe next decade.
People talk of political accountability. It is clear that some regard political accountability as Pontius Pilot’s washbasin. Once the ritual has been performed (minister changed), all others are absolved.
Trump sees Farage as an ally. If not a friend (if he has friends)
Alternatively it could be Musk doing one line too many and he’ll change his mind in 2 hours
And when I warned you back in July that they had no plan, no common sense and all their" policies" were just slogans you told me I was wrong and that time and the budget would put it all right, It hasnt and things will keep going bad until Starmer reshuffles or resigns to give Labour a chance.
I assume from the current low point Labour should see a recovery of sorts but this lot are so incompetent and have so many of the wrong policies anything could happen.
Meanwhile the country has another 5 wasted years.
The likes of Jenrick and PBers like LuckyGuy and others turning these victims into a political football, is a great betrayal of them.
Police would pick up ladies from where they were being raped, abused and exploited, move them somewhere safer, a week later they were back at the place.
institutionalised cover ups, cowardice, multi racial wokism the reason the culture was that charges hardly ever made, and the gangs not gone after? Or an element of fact that grooming and coercion was not properly understood by society at large?
On topic, another inquiry needed? In my opinion yes, and Badenoch and Farage are right that it’s needs to be a broad one. Why? Because has anything actually changed? Is grooming and control and coercion actually understood as hideous crime now and successfully prosecuted today? It’s not just the predatory gangs, they just small part of wider picture of relationships of grooming and control and coercion to abuse, and awful rates of bringing charges and getting convictions right now, letting victims down, right across the board of all of it.
So the saddest part of the Shadow Justice Secretaries gibberish, for opportunist political point scoring, he makes out the problem was all specific, historical and in the past, not an awful problem alive today to be dealt with by multi party consensus, to change societies understanding and culture.
screen resolution FHD, QHD or 4k
screen size 24 or 27"
purpose - gaming, serious gaming, office work or both...
and what are you planning to connect it to as a Mac requires something different to Windows...
I could be to the Lib Dems but I do not agree on their EU policy
Simply I remain a conservative and will vote conservative, unless I can tactically vote out a Labour candidate
I didn't even vote for them.
I suspect we'll see far bigger alliances falter in similar grounds in the next couple of years. China will fall out of love with Russia, and perhaps badly so.
I can see a couple of hindrances before that can occur.
The former's impact on Labour's electoral chances I think is limited, the latter I am not sure was worth burning the political capital on.
But you can't say Labour takes the easy way out of anything. Stupid way out, quite possibly.
The Aberfan disaster of October 1966 led to the 1969
Mines & Quarries (Tips) Act which made further provision
in relation to tips associated with mines and quarries
mainly to prevent disused tips constituting a danger to
members of the public .This was followed by the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Regulations, 1971, setting out the rules to be followed.
Until the introduction of the Tips Act 1969, there were no
laws and regulations governing mine and quarry tips and
spoil tips.
Nottinghamshire Land Reclamation Team, Planning &
Economic Department was established in 1970/71 - with 2/3 engineers and associated surveyors, drawing back-up staff. The
engineers were mainly qualified certificated ex mining
surveyors. The Authority had to inspect the closed spoil heaps and were allowed using government grants to restore them usually at first to a green afteruse.
The number of tips inspected in Nottinghamshire today is currently around 80; approximately 50% are within the Authority’s own estate. The remaining tips are owned by private or other public sector landowners. The majority were restored by the Land Reclamation Team.
As well as the Spoil Heaps came Landfill Sites,disused former railway lines,2 MOD sites and then the former colliery sites.
I enjoyed my work.
With regard to Aberfan the attached is good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgIN8-oI6bE
Don't be put off by the title.
For reference the screens I use are Dell U2720Q - but the replacement version of that is £500 each and the P2723QE doesn't work on MacOS so don't go there..
Right wing populists also tend to have big egos - maybe all populists do - and therefore find it hard to team up. Too many lead singers in one band
I've seen some video recently of Musk and Trump together, and you can see on Trump's face the slgiht feeling of "how long do I have to put up with this weirdo"
Musk is socially awkward, volatile and needy. He's a fantastic leader of engineering projects that require drive, genius, ambition, and absolute loyalty to his vision. As a political player his personality is surely worse than Starmer's
About 20% of the people impacted have died since the scandal arose, including several from the organising committee, sadly one just a few days ago. I'm literally seeing the people I am trying to help drop dead in front of my eyes.
I would like to provide more details, but it would out me I'm afraid.
Fellowship is granted to applicants "who are aligned with the RSA's vision and share in our values."[18] Some prospective fellows are approached by the RSA and invited to join in recognition of their work; some are nominated or "fast-tracked" by existing fellows and RSA staff,[19][20][21] or by partner organisations such as the Churchill Fellowship;[22][23] others make their own applications with accompanied references, which are reviewed by a formal admissions panel consisting of RSA trustees and fellowship councillors.[24][25]