You've almost got to admire the thought process behind seeing how spectacularly badly Labour's winter fuel payments policy has gone down with pensioners and then thinking "let's come up with something even more unpopular"
I don't see how this is going to work? How do you means test *the triple lock*? Is she suggesting that poorer pensioners get a rise of, say, 3.4% but richer ones get only 2.7%? That's going to get awfully complex very quickly, over trivially small amounts.
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
Good. It's unsustainable.
But means testing it makes no sense as an answer. You either have the triple lock or you don't. Personally I'd go for the quadruple lock. Pensions go up according to locks 1, 2 and 3 and pensionable age goes up according to lock 4 linked to life expectancy.
I see the Lib Dems have come out in favour of a customs union with the EU on the eve of Donald Trump declaring a trade war on them.
Bloody idiots.
It is very difficult to determine who is the most stupid party at Westminster now.
Anyone aligning with Trump is the stupid one. If the price of alignment is complete submission to his desires - and it is, because cross him or even out-perform the US in some trade sectors and he'll come after you - then it is unacceptably high. Previous loyalty doesn't count for anything at that point, nor treaties signed, and extortion and corruption is both expected and necessary in those circumstances.
Britain has no choice of neutrality if there is a trade war between Trump and the EU for the same reason. If we are not with him, totally, then he will regard us as against him.
Not to mention that it might not be just trade. I would take his threat to invade sovereign Danish territory seriously.
Britain's interests are aligned with the EU much more than with the US now. It is wise to co-operate where we can.
Fuck that, we go with The Donald
He’s an Anglo-Celt. He’s one of us. He’s of the blood
In the end this global war will come down to blood ties
ONWARDS TO KATTEGAT
*goes back to Vikings Valhalla*
He's German on his father's side.
Darling: "I'm as British as Queen Victoria!"
Blackadder: "So your father's German, you're half German, and you married a German!"
Queen Victoria's mother might have been German but her father wasn't:
This will be a fascinating byelection, with Reform and the Conservatives throwing absolutely everything at it.
And my gut is that Reform will win it: most Labour supporters will stay home (I'd reckon their vote total will drop to something like 7-8,000), while Reform will grab a few Labour and Conservative supporters, and get their 2024 voters out.
I don't agree. Runcorn itself is outer Liverpool which for the past fifteen years has been unusually loyal to Labour. I suspect enough of the vote will come out. And Helsby and Frodsham, which I know reasonably well, doesn't feel to me like natural Reform territory. Frodsham in particular is pretty comfortably off.
Reform's chance at Runcorn - which I put at about 50% as things stand - is simply this: few will turn out, and there are no reasons to turn out for Labour - they already have a million MPs and have just removed grandma's WFA and lost you your 16 hours a week job at Next, and no reasons to turn out for the Tories because they were and are useless beyond belief and a total irrelevance.
There is a reason to turn out for Reform - they are the only party that isn't tainted by government and won't make you install a heat pump that doesn't work and power your car by windmills.
I have family in the Cheshire section of the seat. I don't know for sure but my best guess is that votes for LD/Lab/DNV/Lab will become votes for Con/DNV/DNV/DNV. I'd be surprised if any vote Ref. Though guesswork and anecdata and its from an atypical part of the seat, so, treat with caution.
The Tories should sit this one out.
It will pit massive pressure on Labour if Reform win . If Reform lose it pus the Cons on the front foot.
If the Tories sit it out they are effectively ceding large chunks of the Labour-Tory marginal lands to their right wing rivals. Whilst perturbing those blue wall Lib Dems they want back. Seems unlikely.
Millions of Lib Dem and Labour voters will find that they have to vote Tory to stop Farage being Prime Minister. Polly Toynbee will endorse voting for them while wearing a clothes peg on your nose.
You keep writing this. I don't see it personally. I am not expecting a forgive and forget note from the electorate for the last 14 years and particularly last five years of Tory misconduct.
Yes Labour might get spanked and Reform are the beneficiaries, but your extrapolation for a parallel Tory revival seems unlikely. It could happen if both parties do as Suella has advocated, but Lib Dem, Green and Labour voters will be looking at reducing the size of your RefCon coalition.
You do need to remember that most voters vote primarily to pick a PM/government, so unless you're suggesting that LD and Labour voters in Con/Ref seats would see Badenoch and Farage as equally bad then the question will arise.
I think they might. I.might. I think you underestimate the hatred we "never kissed a Tory" crowd have for any form of right wing populism.
I can only speak for myself but I wouldn't hesitate to vote Conservative if that was the way to keep Reform out of government.
OTOH if they aren't clear that they won't go into government with them then there's no point and I will stick with LD or Labour (or maybe Green if they stop being so socialist by the next GE).
In my constituency of Brentwood and Ongar the Tories were first and Reform second at the GE, so already in a few seats like mine liberals like you need to vote Tory to keep Reform out
Why, what's the difference between them.
It's the awkward choice the Conservatives are yet to act on.
On one hand, the easy way to kick Labour out is to make it as easy as possible for Reform to break through in the Red Wall. It's really tempting to try to set up a nod'n'wink deal. I don't know if it works in five years, but it's a heck of a temptation.
On the other, boosting Reform costs the Conservatives. The more they flutter their eyelashes at Farage, the more the Conservatives lose votes on the right to Reform. And the more they lose wets to the Lib Dems. If you don't like RefUK, why vote Conservative if they are just going to roll out the blue carpet?
If you're a Conservative, are Reform your ally or your enemy? There's only really one answer to that, but it's not a pleasant one.
All the evidence of the last 9 years suggests that the Tories will go for the superficially attractive short term option rather than the correct one.
It's a false choice. Left leaning voters don't like or vote for the Tories in any significant numbers. They do the opposite. The Lib Dem element in the Tories is almost purely in the PCP and assorted party workers and hangers on. It's a fiction that there's a phalanx of stout lib dem leaning Tory voters who right wing policies might offend.
The Tories have stopped being Tory - that's the whole reason that Reform exist. And now apparently if they do go back to being Tories they are batting their eyelashes at Reform. The circular logic is baffling.
You are making the mistake of believing that most voters care primarily about ideology. They don't. Values, yes. Competence, even more so. Policies, only at the margins.
The idea that Kemi Badenoch is less 'Tory' than John Major or David Cameron - or William Hague or Theresa May for that matter - is true only in the sense she's lost sight of good government as the core objective of the Conservative Party. She certainly isn't more left wing than they.
I think one of us has misinterpreted Luckyguy's comment. I read it as that over the last 14 years the Tories stopped being Tory - certainly they lost sight of good governance over much of that period! - which brought Reform to prominence. And that maybe Badenoch will make them more Tory again.
I think he means they weren’t right wing enough.
Yes, that's what I assumed. Which is why I was baffled by David's last paragraph.
That is what I assumed Luckyguy meant. I certainly don't see people defecting from the Tories to Reform over a concern for effective policy. Granted, the Tories failed on a whole range of policies, particularly from 2016/17 on, but that was in no small part because they either adopted or aped UKIP/BxP/Reform policy. The Tories did stop being Tory but not because of a drift from core value for which Reform keeps the true flame burning but for precisely the opposite reason.
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
How the f do you "means test" the Triple Lock?
You can means test the state pension which is how Labour are going to play what she has said.
Just merge tax and NI. Pensioners earning just the state pension won’t be affected, as it is below the threshold. Higher earning pensioners will pay more on their income, above the threshold, just as people do who get their income from employment or self employment.
Make the state pension = the personal tax allowance.
That way bungs for pensioners are bungs for workers.
I see the Lib Dems have come out in favour of a customs union with the EU on the eve of Donald Trump declaring a trade war on them.
Bloody idiots.
It is very difficult to determine who is the most stupid party at Westminster now.
Anyone aligning with Trump is the stupid one. If the price of alignment is complete submission to his desires - and it is, because cross him or even out-perform the US in some trade sectors and he'll come after you - then it is unacceptably high. Previous loyalty doesn't count for anything at that point, nor treaties signed, and extortion and corruption is both expected and necessary in those circumstances.
Britain has no choice of neutrality if there is a trade war between Trump and the EU for the same reason. If we are not with him, totally, then he will regard us as against him.
Not to mention that it might not be just trade. I would take his threat to invade sovereign Danish territory seriously.
Britain's interests are aligned with the EU much more than with the US now. It is wise to co-operate where we can.
Fuck that, we go with The Donald
He’s an Anglo-Celt. He’s one of us. He’s of the blood
In the end this global war will come down to blood ties
ONWARDS TO KATTEGAT
*goes back to Vikings Valhalla*
He's German on his father's side.
Darling: "I'm as British as Queen Victoria!"
Blackadder: "So your father's German, you're half German, and you married a German!"
Queen Victoria's mother might have been German but her father wasn't:
You've almost got to admire the thought process behind seeing how spectacularly badly Labour's winter fuel payments policy has gone down with pensioners and then thinking "let's come up with something even more unpopular"
I don't see how this is going to work? How do you means test *the triple lock*? Is she suggesting that poorer pensioners get a rise of, say, 3.4% but richer ones get only 2.7%? That's going to get awfully complex very quickly, over trivially small amounts.
The state pension will surely be means tested within the next 30 years due to demographics, so I suspect she is getting ahead of the curve and suggesting means testing the whole state pension.
It won't be popular at all, and the first politicians to suggest it will get pilloried, but it will eventually end up as govt policy (probably just as I reach pensionable age).
This will be a fascinating byelection, with Reform and the Conservatives throwing absolutely everything at it.
And my gut is that Reform will win it: most Labour supporters will stay home (I'd reckon their vote total will drop to something like 7-8,000), while Reform will grab a few Labour and Conservative supporters, and get their 2024 voters out.
I don't agree. Runcorn itself is outer Liverpool which for the past fifteen years has been unusually loyal to Labour. I suspect enough of the vote will come out. And Helsby and Frodsham, which I know reasonably well, doesn't feel to me like natural Reform territory. Frodsham in particular is pretty comfortably off.
Reform's chance at Runcorn - which I put at about 50% as things stand - is simply this: few will turn out, and there are no reasons to turn out for Labour - they already have a million MPs and have just removed grandma's WFA and lost you your 16 hours a week job at Next, and no reasons to turn out for the Tories because they were and are useless beyond belief and a total irrelevance.
There is a reason to turn out for Reform - they are the only party that isn't tainted by government and won't make you install a heat pump that doesn't work and power your car by windmills.
I have family in the Cheshire section of the seat. I don't know for sure but my best guess is that votes for LD/Lab/DNV/Lab will become votes for Con/DNV/DNV/DNV. I'd be surprised if any vote Ref. Though guesswork and anecdata and its from an atypical part of the seat, so, treat with caution.
The Tories should sit this one out.
It will pit massive pressure on Labour if Reform win . If Reform lose it pus the Cons on the front foot.
If the Tories sit it out they are effectively ceding large chunks of the Labour-Tory marginal lands to their right wing rivals. Whilst perturbing those blue wall Lib Dems they want back. Seems unlikely.
Millions of Lib Dem and Labour voters will find that they have to vote Tory to stop Farage being Prime Minister. Polly Toynbee will endorse voting for them while wearing a clothes peg on your nose.
You keep writing this. I don't see it personally. I am not expecting a forgive and forget note from the electorate for the last 14 years and particularly last five years of Tory misconduct.
Yes Labour might get spanked and Reform are the beneficiaries, but your extrapolation for a parallel Tory revival seems unlikely. It could happen if both parties do as Suella has advocated, but Lib Dem, Green and Labour voters will be looking at reducing the size of your RefCon coalition.
You do need to remember that most voters vote primarily to pick a PM/government, so unless you're suggesting that LD and Labour voters in Con/Ref seats would see Badenoch and Farage as equally bad then the question will arise.
I think they might. I.might. I think you underestimate the hatred we "never kissed a Tory" crowd have for any form of right wing populism.
I can only speak for myself but I wouldn't hesitate to vote Conservative if that was the way to keep Reform out of government.
OTOH if they aren't clear that they won't go into government with them then there's no point and I will stick with LD or Labour (or maybe Green if they stop being so socialist by the next GE).
In my constituency of Brentwood and Ongar the Tories were first and Reform second at the GE, so already in a few seats like mine liberals like you need to vote Tory to keep Reform out
Why, what's the difference between them.
It's the awkward choice the Conservatives are yet to act on.
On one hand, the easy way to kick Labour out is to make it as easy as possible for Reform to break through in the Red Wall. It's really tempting to try to set up a nod'n'wink deal. I don't know if it works in five years, but it's a heck of a temptation.
On the other, boosting Reform costs the Conservatives. The more they flutter their eyelashes at Farage, the more the Conservatives lose votes on the right to Reform. And the more they lose wets to the Lib Dems. If you don't like RefUK, why vote Conservative if they are just going to roll out the blue carpet?
If you're a Conservative, are Reform your ally or your enemy? There's only really one answer to that, but it's not a pleasant one.
All the evidence of the last 9 years suggests that the Tories will go for the superficially attractive short term option rather than the correct one.
It's a false choice. Left leaning voters don't like or vote for the Tories in any significant numbers. They do the opposite. The Lib Dem element in the Tories is almost purely in the PCP and assorted party workers and hangers on. It's a fiction that there's a phalanx of stout lib dem leaning Tory voters who right wing policies might offend.
The Tories have stopped being Tory - that's the whole reason that Reform exist. And now apparently if they do go back to being Tories they are batting their eyelashes at Reform. The circular logic is baffling.
You are making the mistake of believing that most voters care primarily about ideology. They don't. Values, yes. Competence, even more so. Policies, only at the margins.
The idea that Kemi Badenoch is less 'Tory' than John Major or David Cameron - or William Hague or Theresa May for that matter - is true only in the sense she's lost sight of good government as the core objective of the Conservative Party. She certainly isn't more left wing than they.
I think one of us has misinterpreted Luckyguy's comment. I read it as that over the last 14 years the Tories stopped being Tory - certainly they lost sight of good governance over much of that period! - which brought Reform to prominence. And that maybe Badenoch will make them more Tory again.
I think he means they weren’t right wing enough.
Yes, that's what I assumed. Which is why I was baffled by David's last paragraph.
That is what I assumed Luckyguy meant. I certainly don't see people defecting from the Tories to Reform over a concern for effective policy. Granted, the Tories failed on a whole range of policies, particularly from 2016/17 on, but that was in no small part because they either adopted or aped UKIP/BxP/Reform policy. The Tories did stop being Tory but not because of a drift from core value for which Reform keeps the true flame burning but for precisely the opposite reason.
They adopted the policy of Leaving the EU - at gunpoint from the voters. apart from that (other than a brief interlude) it was all very Blairite consensus. Not to mention the disaster of lockdown - a policy that their leader didn't even believe in but imposed anyway.
There's plenty of scope to go back to being Tory without going anywhere near Farage.
Elon's latest Twitter spat is easily the funniest and most trivial of all but he's on a loser this time. It's distracted him from the state of UK politics for a few days though. Imagine arguing with a bunch of smelly basement dwelling game streamers all day.
Not a scenario that PBers have to work too hard at imagining,
If a male Chancellor had told similar LinkedIn fibs, gender wouldn't come into analysis of the jibe
Given Rachel Reeves uniquely for a Chancellor of the Exchequer is (a) a woman and (b) has directly relevant previous experience, "Rachel from Accounts" can't be anything other than misogynistic
If a male Chancellor had told similar LinkedIn fibs, gender wouldn't come into analysis of the jibe
Given Rachel Reeves uniquely for a Chancellor of the Exchequer is (a) a woman and (b) has directly relevant previous experience, "Rachel from Accounts" can't be anything other than misogynistic
Previous experience that she has, at the very least, embellished.
Or are we not allowed to criticise her at all because she's the first female chancellor?
By the following July, when the report was still not published after months of the CCRC quibbling over edits in an apparent attempt to try to water it down, consultant Chris Webb sent a furious resignation letter, blasting the organisation for its approach to the review.
He is understood to have told Kneller that he had serious concerns about their response to the review and that it had failed to keep promises to Malkinson about sharing its contents. He felt that continuing to delay its publication put the commission and the chair’s reputation at risk and was frustrated that his advice had been ignored...
You've almost got to admire the thought process behind seeing how spectacularly badly Labour's winter fuel payments policy has gone down with pensioners and then thinking "let's come up with something even more unpopular"
I don't see how this is going to work? How do you means test *the triple lock*? Is she suggesting that poorer pensioners get a rise of, say, 3.4% but richer ones get only 2.7%? That's going to get awfully complex very quickly, over trivially small amounts.
The state pension will surely be means tested within the next 30 years due to demographics, so I suspect she is getting ahead of the curve and suggesting means testing the whole state pension.
It won't be popular at all, and the first politicians to suggest it will get pilloried, but it will eventually end up as govt policy (probably just as I reach pensionable age).
I think you are right and that is what she meant but it is not clear.
I suppose you could have a basic universal state pension that rises only with inflation and then a second pension that is means tested and rises by the triple lock but it is all messy although maybe there is something could be done with pension credit???
So what I've learned from the last few comments is that people who are never ever going to vote Tory hate what Badenoch is reported to have said.
If it's the pensions thing, I hate it too and I'm on the right. I'd support abolishing the triple lock. But means testing an increase is stupid. But I've only seen what I've read here. Maybe in detail it makes sense.
If a male Chancellor had told similar LinkedIn fibs, gender wouldn't come into analysis of the jibe
Given Rachel Reeves uniquely for a Chancellor of the Exchequer is (a) a woman and (b) has directly relevant previous experience, "Rachel from Accounts" can't be anything other than misogynistic
Previous experience that she has, at the very least, embellished.
Or are we not allowed to criticise her at all because she's the first female chancellor?
Of course you can criticise. "Incompetent Chancellor" would be a non misogynistic criticism. People made the same remark for example about Kwasi Kwarteng. But they would never have dismissed him as Kwasi from Accounts.
If a male Chancellor had told similar LinkedIn fibs, gender wouldn't come into analysis of the jibe
Given Rachel Reeves uniquely for a Chancellor of the Exchequer is (a) a woman and (b) has directly relevant previous experience, "Rachel from Accounts" can't be anything other than misogynistic
I can't quite work out if this comment is meant to be a joke or not.
I assume its either ironically saying being a woman with actual relevant experience prevents usual critical attacks like silly nicknames, or sincerely saying that any critical nickname is misogynistic, or it's meant to be saying that she can be subject to attacks, but this specific one is unacceptable, not any nickname being unacceptable.
So what I've learned from the last few comments is that people who are never ever going to vote Tory hate what Badenoch is reported to have said.
If it's the pensions thing, I hate it too and I'm on the right. I'd support abolishing the triple lock. But means testing an increase is stupid. But I've only seen what I've read here. Maybe in detail it makes sense.
And given that the source for it is Adam Bienkov, I wouldn't put much money on it being a fair representation of what was said.
"Mr. Zuckerberg blamed his former chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, for Facebook’s culture"
What a slimeball. It's like when PMs pretend they have no control over things their Chancellor proposes - even if they are not hovering over their shoulder the whole time, it stretches credulity to breaking point to take it that far.
If a male Chancellor had told similar LinkedIn fibs, gender wouldn't come into analysis of the jibe
Given Rachel Reeves uniquely for a Chancellor of the Exchequer is (a) a woman and (b) has directly relevant previous experience, "Rachel from Accounts" can't be anything other than misogynistic
Previous experience that she has, at the very least, embellished.
Or are we not allowed to criticise her at all because she's the first female chancellor?
Of course you can criticise. "Incompetent Chancellor" would be a non misogynistic criticism. People made the same remark for example about Kwasi Kwarteng. But they would never have dismissed him as Kwasi from Accounts.
Had he been proven to have, at the very least, embellished his CV?
If a male Chancellor had told similar LinkedIn fibs, gender wouldn't come into analysis of the jibe
Given Rachel Reeves uniquely for a Chancellor of the Exchequer is (a) a woman and (b) has directly relevant previous experience, "Rachel from Accounts" can't be anything other than misogynistic
Previous experience that she has, at the very least, embellished.
Or are we not allowed to criticise her at all because she's the first female chancellor?
Of course you can criticise. "Incompetent Chancellor" would be a non misogynistic criticism. People made the same remark for example about Kwasi Kwarteng. But they would never have dismissed him as Kwasi from Accounts.
"Rachel from Accounts" is, I think, meant to imply that her experience of economics is, er, a bit tangential for a CoE.
If a male Chancellor had told similar LinkedIn fibs, gender wouldn't come into analysis of the jibe
Given Rachel Reeves uniquely for a Chancellor of the Exchequer is (a) a woman and (b) has directly relevant previous experience, "Rachel from Accounts" can't be anything other than misogynistic
Previous experience that she has, at the very least, embellished.
Or are we not allowed to criticise her at all because she's the first female chancellor?
Of course you can criticise. "Incompetent Chancellor" would be a non misogynistic criticism. People made the same remark for example about Kwasi Kwarteng. But they would never have dismissed him as Kwasi from Accounts.
Wasn’t he an investment banker? Rachel from accounts is mocking the fluffing of her CV. It’s not misogynistic.
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
Good. It's unsustainable.
I agree.
Daring of a Tory leader to piss off the core grey vote though.
A courageous decision as they say in Yes Minister.
The Tories need to rebuild themselves as the party of hardworking 30-60 year olds who want to get on in life, don't interact with the state very often but want to receive good service when they do. I don't know how many votes there are in that but it's surely more than they'll get in 2029 if the let Reform eat all of their lunches.
Sounds like there should be plenty of votes in that, but then the LDs think there's a lot of votes being in the balance between the Tories and Labour but the evidence says there isn't, so I'm skeptical.
People want handouts, interference from government in everything (or at least the things they like/dislike), and they want their homes to be expensive and none to be built, but also lots of cheap homes for their children.
If a male Chancellor had told similar LinkedIn fibs, gender wouldn't come into analysis of the jibe
Given Rachel Reeves uniquely for a Chancellor of the Exchequer is (a) a woman and (b) has directly relevant previous experience, "Rachel from Accounts" can't be anything other than misogynistic
I can't quite work out if this comment is meant to be a joke or not.
I assume its either ironically saying being a woman with actual relevant experience prevents usual critical attacks like silly nicknames, or sincerely saying that any critical nickname is misogynistic, or it's meant to be saying that she can be subject to attacks, but this specific one is unacceptable, not any nickname being unacceptable.
It is a challenge to those people who use the term. What is it about Rachel Reeves as a woman that makes them think "Rachel from Accounts - clever!" ?
So what I've learned from the last few comments is that people who are never ever going to vote Tory hate what Badenoch is reported to have said.
If it's the pensions thing, I hate it too and I'm on the right. I'd support abolishing the triple lock. But means testing an increase is stupid. But I've only seen what I've read here. Maybe in detail it makes sense.
And given that the source for it is Adam Bienkov, I wouldn't put much money on it being a fair representation of what was said.
The video clip of her saying it on Dale's show is on the skeet linked.
Elon's latest Twitter spat is easily the funniest and most trivial of all but he's on a loser this time. It's distracted him from the state of UK politics for a few days though. Imagine arguing with a bunch of smelly basement dwelling game streamers all day.
Don't mess with nerds.
He probably legitimately is a nerd, albeit his wealth and power is so extreme it eclipses that, he didn't need to get himself into such a silly situation.
So what I've learned from the last few comments is that people who are never ever going to vote Tory hate what Badenoch is reported to have said.
If it's the pensions thing, I hate it too and I'm on the right. I'd support abolishing the triple lock. But means testing an increase is stupid. But I've only seen what I've read here. Maybe in detail it makes sense.
And given that the source for it is Adam Bienkov, I wouldn't put much money on it being a fair representation of what was said.
The video clip of her saying it on Dale's show is on the skeet linked.
So what I've learned from the last few comments is that people who are never ever going to vote Tory hate what Badenoch is reported to have said.
If it's the pensions thing, I hate it too and I'm on the right. I'd support abolishing the triple lock. But means testing an increase is stupid. But I've only seen what I've read here. Maybe in detail it makes sense.
The triple lock is designed to take poorer pensions out of poverty. If you are concerned about well-off pensioners also benefiting, then I would suggest lowering the threshold for the 40% income tax band for pensioners.
You've almost got to admire the thought process behind seeing how spectacularly badly Labour's winter fuel payments policy has gone down with pensioners and then thinking "let's come up with something even more unpopular"
I don't see how this is going to work? How do you means test *the triple lock*? Is she suggesting that poorer pensioners get a rise of, say, 3.4% but richer ones get only 2.7%? That's going to get awfully complex very quickly, over trivially small amounts.
The state pension will surely be means tested within the next 30 years due to demographics, so I suspect she is getting ahead of the curve and suggesting means testing the whole state pension.
It won't be popular at all, and the first politicians to suggest it will get pilloried, but it will eventually end up as govt policy (probably just as I reach pensionable age).
I thought that might be what she meant too, and for most of her answer it did sound like that was her intent - but then she specifically said means-testing the triple lock. Which I suspect means she doesn't know what she's talking about.
FWIW, I don't think the pension will be means-tested as such: it's too iconic. But they might well do the same thing by the back door by changing tax bands to claw back what they give.
Looks to be pitching himself as a centre right on economics but social liberal Macronite/Cleggite Liberal safe pair of hands on the economy to win back swing voters from the Conservatives while also pushing climate change action and housing affordability.
He will have a shot but Freeland probably narrow favourite
So what I've learned from the last few comments is that people who are never ever going to vote Tory hate what Badenoch is reported to have said.
If it's the pensions thing, I hate it too and I'm on the right. I'd support abolishing the triple lock. But means testing an increase is stupid. But I've only seen what I've read here. Maybe in detail it makes sense.
And given that the source for it is Adam Bienkov, I wouldn't put much money on it being a fair representation of what was said.
The video clip of her saying it on Dale's show is on the skeet linked.
"Mr. Zuckerberg blamed his former chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, for Facebook’s culture"
What a slimeball. It's like when PMs pretend they have no control over things their Chancellor proposes - even if they are not hovering over their shoulder the whole time, it stretches credulity to breaking point to take it that far.
"Mr. Zuckerberg blamed his former chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, for Facebook’s culture"
What a slimeball. It's like when PMs pretend they have no control over things their Chancellor proposes - even if they are not hovering over their shoulder the whole time, it stretches credulity to breaking point to take it that far.
Although it was true from about 2003-07.
For internal political reasons, which was still the PMs choice. He had options, albeit ones he would have considered more unpalatable, if he had disagreements he considered significant.
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
Leaders are supposed to be able to take their followers with them to some degree even if they change position. That's one reason Trump is a leader, horrible though he is.
Incidentally it's not true about Oasis and Debt. Parliament has discussed Debt far more times.
Yes, it's actually a good speech. I think she needs to stay on this message about being honest and confronting the issues that the nation faces head on with proper solutions rather than get dragged into every small argument going around. Her point about Oasis is a good one, how many times has the government made an official comment about trivialities, not just Oasis tickets but all of that kind of nonsense.
I think the headline points are OK.
The Tories need to get back into a position where they can fight Reform on the grown ups / fantasists axis. To do that is actually more important than where exactly they end up on the centre / new right axis. If they end up quite a hard line party, but with thought through policies that address the consequences of their choices - for instance properly acknowledging and dealing that a drive for low net migration comes with a whole other set of consequences than those we see with high net migration - they can make Reform sound hollow.
If Kemi can pick her fights wisely, she can make headway with the thinking she has shown today.
If a male Chancellor had told similar LinkedIn fibs, gender wouldn't come into analysis of the jibe
Given Rachel Reeves uniquely for a Chancellor of the Exchequer is (a) a woman and (b) has directly relevant previous experience, "Rachel from Accounts" can't be anything other than misogynistic
Previous experience that she has, at the very least, embellished.
Or are we not allowed to criticise her at all because she's the first female chancellor?
The problem that I had (or have) with the story about the Chancellor’s CV is… it isn’t a CV. It’s a LinkedIn profile. Everybody - including the press - has gone on about how Reeves lied on her CV. As I understand it, she didn’t. Nobody saw her CV. They saw her LinkedIn profile and whilst I appreciate that social media and networking is a big part of the jobs market these days, (traditional) CVs are still required.
Now, I’m on LinkedIn. I don’t use it. Life is too short to spend time updating one’s profiles on LinkedIn, Facebook, and LookAtHowGoodIAm.com. I don’t want to spend time liking a post from somebody I connected with once at a conference.
I do know, however, that my LinkedIn profile is full of errors because there isn’t always an exact business or organisation listed on LinkedIn to match with. For years on Facebook I, with many others, was a student at “University, Saint Andrews, South Carolina” because there wasn’t a University of St Andrews listed. I studied International Relations & Modern History but neither Facebook or LinkedIn recognised it. It had to be Political Science or Politics and Government.
It’s fine to criticise her but can we not get our knickers in a twist over a LinkedIn profile.
If a male Chancellor had told similar LinkedIn fibs, gender wouldn't come into analysis of the jibe
Given Rachel Reeves uniquely for a Chancellor of the Exchequer is (a) a woman and (b) has directly relevant previous experience, "Rachel from Accounts" can't be anything other than misogynistic
Previous experience that she has, at the very least, embellished.
Or are we not allowed to criticise her at all because she's the first female chancellor?
The problem that I had (or have) with the story about the Chancellor’s CV is… it isn’t a CV. It’s a LinkedIn profile. Everybody - including the press - has gone on about how Reeves lied on her CV. As I understand it, she didn’t. Nobody saw her CV. They saw her LinkedIn profile and whilst I appreciate that social media and networking is a big part of the jobs market these days, (traditional) CVs are still required.
Now, I’m on LinkedIn. I don’t use it. Life is too short to spend time updating one’s profiles on LinkedIn, Facebook, and LookAtHowGoodIAm.com. I don’t want to spend time liking a post from somebody I connected with once at a conference.
I do know, however, that my LinkedIn profile is full of errors because there isn’t always an exact business or organisation listed on LinkedIn to match with. For years on Facebook I, with many others, was a student at “University, Saint Andrews, South Carolina” because there wasn’t a University of St Andrews listed. I studied International Relations & Modern History but neither Facebook or LinkedIn recognised it. It had to be Political Science or Politics and Government.
It’s fine to criticise her but can we not get our knickers in a twist over a LinkedIn profile.
Yes and to be fair, profiles of her early in her political career didn't misrepresent this too much. This one says: "Four years later, she went to work for HBOS's retail division in West Yorkshire, and was there when the financial crash came in autumn 2008."
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
It is unsustainable and Kemi is right and I applaud her for this intervention
You do not appear to have listened to, our understood, what she was actually saying and it was refreshing
'National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir says his Otzma Yehudit party will leave the coalition if the government approves the hostage-ceasefire deal with Hamas that was announced yesterday by mediators.
In a press conference, Ben Gvir says the deal, which includes the release of hundreds of Palestinian security prisoners from Israel, will enable the rehabilitation of terror groups in Gaza and bring back the threat to residents in border areas.'
Sorry to return to David Lynch. But this flashed back to mind. An old BBC Scotland "April Fools" about Lynch considering moving Twin Peaks to Loch Lomond.
"Mr. Zuckerberg blamed his former chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, for Facebook’s culture"
What a slimeball. It's like when PMs pretend they have no control over things their Chancellor proposes - even if they are not hovering over their shoulder the whole time, it stretches credulity to breaking point to take it that far.
In the case of Chancellors and PMs, a PM can legitimately say they don’t control their chancellor.
IIRC a lot of commentators couldn’t figure out the Obsorne/Cameron thing - because they were so used to the Chancellor being a semi-antagonist to the PM. See Brown vs Blair.
In the case of Suckerberg, he has always been a scumbag. And could have binned the COO at any time.
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
It is unsustainable and Kemi is right and I applaud her for this intervention
You do not appear to have listened to, our understood, what she was actually saying and it was refreshing
The LDs back keeping the triple lock as well as the WFA, Reform also back keeping the WFA, pensioners on average and above average earnings are now the Tory core vote. They cannot risk leaking them to the LDs or Reform or the Tory party will basically go extinct under FPTP
If a male Chancellor had told similar LinkedIn fibs, gender wouldn't come into analysis of the jibe
Given Rachel Reeves uniquely for a Chancellor of the Exchequer is (a) a woman and (b) has directly relevant previous experience, "Rachel from Accounts" can't be anything other than misogynistic
Previous experience that she has, at the very least, embellished.
Or are we not allowed to criticise her at all because she's the first female chancellor?
The problem that I had (or have) with the story about the Chancellor’s CV is… it isn’t a CV. It’s a LinkedIn profile. Everybody - including the press - has gone on about how Reeves lied on her CV. As I understand it, she didn’t. Nobody saw her CV. They saw her LinkedIn profile and whilst I appreciate that social media and networking is a big part of the jobs market these days, (traditional) CVs are still required.
Now, I’m on LinkedIn. I don’t use it. Life is too short to spend time updating one’s profiles on LinkedIn, Facebook, and LookAtHowGoodIAm.com. I don’t want to spend time liking a post from somebody I connected with once at a conference.
I do know, however, that my LinkedIn profile is full of errors because there isn’t always an exact business or organisation listed on LinkedIn to match with. For years on Facebook I, with many others, was a student at “University, Saint Andrews, South Carolina” because there wasn’t a University of St Andrews listed. I studied International Relations & Modern History but neither Facebook or LinkedIn recognised it. It had to be Political Science or Politics and Government.
It’s fine to criticise her but can we not get our knickers in a twist over a LinkedIn profile.
I associate LinkedIn with "Create an account to see more!". That's as much as I encounter it.
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
It is unsustainable and Kemi is right and I applaud her for this intervention
You do not appear to have listened to, our understood, what she was actually saying and it was refreshing
The LDs back keeping the triple lock as well as the WFA, Reform also back keeping the WFA, pensioners on average and above average earnings are now the Tory core vote. They cannot risk leaking them to the LDs or Reform or the Tory party will basically go extinct under FPTP
Depends how many votes they win back. There's plenty to be got.
Looks like a big win for him given he's spent years not complying with court orders and pretending to have nothing, yet now he still gets to keep pretty much all of it it seems.
I suspect how and why the Tories let themselves be identified as the Party of the Old will be the subject of a huge academic tome. Strange Death of Tory England or some such.
If a male Chancellor had told similar LinkedIn fibs, gender wouldn't come into analysis of the jibe
Given Rachel Reeves uniquely for a Chancellor of the Exchequer is (a) a woman and (b) has directly relevant previous experience, "Rachel from Accounts" can't be anything other than misogynistic
Previous experience that she has, at the very least, embellished.
Or are we not allowed to criticise her at all because she's the first female chancellor?
The problem that I had (or have) with the story about the Chancellor’s CV is… it isn’t a CV. It’s a LinkedIn profile. Everybody - including the press - has gone on about how Reeves lied on her CV. As I understand it, she didn’t. Nobody saw her CV. They saw her LinkedIn profile and whilst I appreciate that social media and networking is a big part of the jobs market these days, (traditional) CVs are still required.
Now, I’m on LinkedIn. I don’t use it. Life is too short to spend time updating one’s profiles on LinkedIn, Facebook, and LookAtHowGoodIAm.com. I don’t want to spend time liking a post from somebody I connected with once at a conference.
I do know, however, that my LinkedIn profile is full of errors because there isn’t always an exact business or organisation listed on LinkedIn to match with. For years on Facebook I, with many others, was a student at “University, Saint Andrews, South Carolina” because there wasn’t a University of St Andrews listed. I studied International Relations & Modern History but neither Facebook or LinkedIn recognised it. It had to be Political Science or Politics and Government.
It’s fine to criticise her but can we not get our knickers in a twist over a LinkedIn profile.
I associate LinkedIn with "Create an account to see more!". That's as much as I encounter it.
See also 'InstaGram'.
In the spirit of transparency, I do have an Instagram account.
'National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir says his Otzma Yehudit party will leave the coalition if the government approves the hostage-ceasefire deal with Hamas that was announced yesterday by mediators.
In a press conference, Ben Gvir says the deal, which includes the release of hundreds of Palestinian security prisoners from Israel, will enable the rehabilitation of terror groups in Gaza and bring back the threat to residents in border areas.'
"Mr. Zuckerberg blamed his former chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, for Facebook’s culture"
What a slimeball. It's like when PMs pretend they have no control over things their Chancellor proposes - even if they are not hovering over their shoulder the whole time, it stretches credulity to breaking point to take it that far.
In the case of Chancellors and PMs, a PM can legitimately say they don’t control their chancellor.
IIRC a lot of commentators couldn’t figure out the Obsorne/Cameron thing - because they were so used to the Chancellor being a semi-antagonist to the PM. See Brown vs Blair.
In the case of Suckerberg, he has always been a scumbag. And could have binned the COO at any time.
It used to be assumed that Sheryl Sandberg would ultimately pursue a political career. Maybe she'll eventually reemerge as the anti-MAGA leader.
I'm hoping that cinemas will show David Lynch's films again because I've never seen any of them on the big screen. I only became a fan relatively recently.
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
It is unsustainable and Kemi is right and I applaud her for this intervention
You do not appear to have listened to, our understood, what she was actually saying and it was refreshing
The LDs back keeping the triple lock as well as the WFA, Reform also back keeping the WFA, pensioners on average and above average earnings are now the Tory core vote. They cannot risk leaking them to the LDs or Reform or the Tory party will basically go extinct under FPTP
You haven’t listened to a word she has said, but actually you are the perfect example of everything she was criticising and more importantly Kemi is the first conservative leader to pledge to help the young for a very long time
That starts by allocating tax payers money fairly and not handing wealthy pensioners the triple lock or indeed the WFP
Times are going to change and if you do not like the direction she outlined today, there is always Reform
"Mr. Zuckerberg blamed his former chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, for Facebook’s culture"
What a slimeball. It's like when PMs pretend they have no control over things their Chancellor proposes - even if they are not hovering over their shoulder the whole time, it stretches credulity to breaking point to take it that far.
In the case of Chancellors and PMs, a PM can legitimately say they don’t control their chancellor.
IIRC a lot of commentators couldn’t figure out the Obsorne/Cameron thing - because they were so used to the Chancellor being a semi-antagonist to the PM. See Brown vs Blair.
In the case of Suckerberg, he has always been a scumbag. And could have binned the COO at any time.
They may not dominate them for reasons of political convenience (which is their own choice) but they're not autonomous. PMs are not 'surprised' for example by things included in budgets, as sometimes gets trailed in the media afterwards, I don't buy that for a second - even if you were unable to control your Chancellor you wouldn't permit them that latitude, and if you were for some reason then you'd not have the stones to then 'leak' afterwards that you didn't know about it as you'd merely be a figurehead, so it's not plausible.
I can buy many chancellors and PMs have antagonistic relationships, be rivals even, making it harder to wrangle them, but that's not the same thing as gets presented sometimes as though there's no means of knowledge or influence.
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
I'm hoping that cinemas will show David Lynch's films again because I've never seen any of them on the big screen. I only became a fan relatively recently.
I don't really know how to process this. Celebrity deaths don't really impact on me, although they do inspire a brief moment of sadness. Sometimes they do pop above my emotional horizon (Leonard Nimoy and the other Star Trek cast for example) but not often and not for long. The only one who ever really impacted was Robin Williams, who was doubly tragic, both in himself and the manner of his death. Surprisingly it appears David Lynch occupies a similar space in my heart, which I wasn't expecting. He was such a nice man.
And there is now no one left who understands "Inland Empire".
Somebody once told me that Lynch films aren't meant to make sense, they are meant to inspire emotions in a given sequence, like a piano score. Once you know that makes things much easier.
That's probably why I like them so much. I prefer atmosphere to story when I'm watching a film or TV series.
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
No trailing full-stop. Are you.... turning Leon.
Sooner or later, everyone turns into Leon.
Be warned.
I know. I know.
As I poured myself a fourth treble gin this evening I found myself idling flicking through a catalog of Penarth Airbnbs unsure whether I was planning escape because of the looming AI overlord takeover or because aliens already move among us fiddling with flasks of deadly virus.
Allison Pearson @AllisonPearson · 4h Labour better make the most of the next four years. They won’t exist after 2029.
Neither will the Telegraph the way it’s going.
It will, the Telegraph is morphing into the Reform Party broadsheet of choice, the Times the Tory/LD house journal now and the Guardian still the Labour broadsheet
I'm hoping that cinemas will show David Lynch's films again because I've never seen any of them on the big screen. I only became a fan relatively recently.
They are very different experiences on a big screen. He very clearly loved "cinema". Even if he might end up being best remembered as the vanguard of the US film-makers who made TV Shows.
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
It is unsustainable and Kemi is right and I applaud her for this intervention
You do not appear to have listened to, our understood, what she was actually saying and it was refreshing
The LDs back keeping the triple lock as well as the WFA, Reform also back keeping the WFA, pensioners on average and above average earnings are now the Tory core vote. They cannot risk leaking them to the LDs or Reform or the Tory party will basically go extinct under FPTP
You haven’t listened to a word she has said, but actually you are the perfect example of everything she was criticising and more importantly Kemi is the first conservative leader to pledge to help the young for a very long time
That starts by allocating tax payers money fairly and not handing wealthy pensioners the triple lock or indeed the WFP
Times are going to change and if you do not like the direction she outlined today, there is always Reform
All fine and dandy and very noble but brutal political reality is not even Cameron won most under 30s so the idea Kemi is going to sweep to victory by dumping her pensioner core vote in the hope of getting them to fund the young more is just a route to Tory oblivion
'National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir says his Otzma Yehudit party will leave the coalition if the government approves the hostage-ceasefire deal with Hamas that was announced yesterday by mediators.
In a press conference, Ben Gvir says the deal, which includes the release of hundreds of Palestinian security prisoners from Israel, will enable the rehabilitation of terror groups in Gaza and bring back the threat to residents in border areas.'
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
It is unsustainable and Kemi is right and I applaud her for this intervention
You do not appear to have listened to, our understood, what she was actually saying and it was refreshing
The LDs back keeping the triple lock as well as the WFA, Reform also back keeping the WFA, pensioners on average and above average earnings are now the Tory core vote. They cannot risk leaking them to the LDs or Reform or the Tory party will basically go extinct under FPTP
Pensioners (like the rest of the population), are just going to have to get used to the fact that they have no right to a free lunch.
I suspect how and why the Tories let themselves be identified as the Party of the Old will be the subject of a huge academic tome. Strange Death of Tory England or some such.
Better to be the Party of the Old than the Party of Nobody
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
It is unsustainable and Kemi is right and I applaud her for this intervention
You do not appear to have listened to, our understood, what she was actually saying and it was refreshing
The LDs back keeping the triple lock as well as the WFA, Reform also back keeping the WFA, pensioners on average and above average earnings are now the Tory core vote. They cannot risk leaking them to the LDs or Reform or the Tory party will basically go extinct under FPTP
You haven’t listened to a word she has said, but actually you are the perfect example of everything she was criticising and more importantly Kemi is the first conservative leader to pledge to help the young for a very long time
That starts by allocating tax payers money fairly and not handing wealthy pensioners the triple lock or indeed the WFP
Times are going to change and if you do not like the direction she outlined today, there is always Reform
All fine and dandy and very noble but brutal political reality is not even Cameron won most under 30s so the idea Kemi is going to sweep to victory by dumping her pensioner core vote in the hope of getting them to fund the young more is just a route to Tory oblivion
If the Conservatives are only interested in protecting pensioners’ privileges, then oblivion is what they deserve.
Incidentally it's not true about Oasis and Debt. Parliament has discussed Debt far more times.
Yes, it's actually a good speech. I think she needs to stay on this message about being honest and confronting the issues that the nation faces head on with proper solutions rather than get dragged into every small argument going around. Her point about Oasis is a good one, how many times has the government made an official comment about trivialities, not just Oasis tickets but all of that kind of nonsense.
Yes, I thought it mostly good, particularly her saying that the Tories had no proper plan for Brexit, nor Net Zero, nor cutting immigration and ran up far too much debt.
The road to recovery starts by accepting that a lot of mistakes were made by the government that she was a front bencher for, and most of her shadow cabinet were also members of.
Is the Tory party ready for that sort of honesty though?
Or, more relevantly at the moment, is the current government, since it seems to have been elected without any coherent program or plans at all?
Government by soundbite and tweet, and politics run by "professionals" as a constant election campaign all but prevents coherent policy and seriously addressing the country's problems.
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
It is unsustainable and Kemi is right and I applaud her for this intervention
You do not appear to have listened to, our understood, what she was actually saying and it was refreshing
The LDs back keeping the triple lock as well as the WFA, Reform also back keeping the WFA, pensioners on average and above average earnings are now the Tory core vote. They cannot risk leaking them to the LDs or Reform or the Tory party will basically go extinct under FPTP
You haven’t listened to a word she has said, but actually you are the perfect example of everything she was criticising and more importantly Kemi is the first conservative leader to pledge to help the young for a very long time
That starts by allocating tax payers money fairly and not handing wealthy pensioners the triple lock or indeed the WFP
Times are going to change and if you do not like the direction she outlined today, there is always Reform
All fine and dandy and very noble but brutal political reality is not even Cameron won most under 30s so the idea Kemi is going to sweep to victory by dumping her pensioner core vote in the hope of getting them to fund the young more is just a route to Tory oblivion
If the Conservatives are only interested in protecting pensioners’ privileges, then oblivion is what they deserve.
They aren't but any business which trashes its core consumer will swiftly go out of business.
Do you really think under 40s are going to vote Tory because they scrap the triple lock? No as most of them still oppose Brexit for starters unlike most pensioners.
Building new affordable homes might win a few more under 40s to the Tories once they get some assets behind them, scrapping Triple Lock won't but could lead Tory pensioners to the LDs and Reform
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
It is unsustainable and Kemi is right and I applaud her for this intervention
You do not appear to have listened to, our understood, what she was actually saying and it was refreshing
The LDs back keeping the triple lock as well as the WFA, Reform also back keeping the WFA, pensioners on average and above average earnings are now the Tory core vote. They cannot risk leaking them to the LDs or Reform or the Tory party will basically go extinct under FPTP
You haven’t listened to a word she has said, but actually you are the perfect example of everything she was criticising and more importantly Kemi is the first conservative leader to pledge to help the young for a very long time
That starts by allocating tax payers money fairly and not handing wealthy pensioners the triple lock or indeed the WFP
Times are going to change and if you do not like the direction she outlined today, there is always Reform
All fine and dandy and very noble but brutal political reality is not even Cameron won most under 30s so the idea Kemi is going to sweep to victory by dumping her pensioner core vote in the hope of getting them to fund the young more is just a route to Tory oblivion
You can either ignore change and fail, accept change but achieve little, or lead change and persuade minds to win
The conservatives will not win the next election with your tired old no change agenda
'The Scottish Conservative group leader on Glasgow City Council has defected to Reform UK.
Thomas Kerr, who represents the Shettleston ward, was first elected as a 20-year-old in 2017 and became Tory group leader in 2019.
He was the party's candidate at the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election in October 2023, but finished a distant third.
Kerr said he had been "annoyed and angry" with the Conservatives for several months, accusing the party of failing to champion working-class communities like those in Shettleston.
He said the Tories focused too much on criticism of the SNP and "lacked a positive vision of centre-right conservatism".
The councillor also suggested Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay was not in control of the "broken" party.'
I suspect how and why the Tories let themselves be identified as the Party of the Old will be the subject of a huge academic tome. Strange Death of Tory England or some such.
Better to be the Party of the Old than the Party of Nobody
I do not want the party to be for the old, but to be fair to everyone including workers who pay more tax then pensioners, and young people who just want to buy a house
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
It is unsustainable and Kemi is right and I applaud her for this intervention
You do not appear to have listened to, our understood, what she was actually saying and it was refreshing
The LDs back keeping the triple lock as well as the WFA, Reform also back keeping the WFA, pensioners on average and above average earnings are now the Tory core vote. They cannot risk leaking them to the LDs or Reform or the Tory party will basically go extinct under FPTP
You haven’t listened to a word she has said, but actually you are the perfect example of everything she was criticising and more importantly Kemi is the first conservative leader to pledge to help the young for a very long time
That starts by allocating tax payers money fairly and not handing wealthy pensioners the triple lock or indeed the WFP
Times are going to change and if you do not like the direction she outlined today, there is always Reform
All fine and dandy and very noble but brutal political reality is not even Cameron won most under 30s so the idea Kemi is going to sweep to victory by dumping her pensioner core vote in the hope of getting them to fund the young more is just a route to Tory oblivion
If the Conservatives are only interested in protecting pensioners’ privileges, then oblivion is what they deserve.
They aren't but any business which trashes its core consumer will swiftly go out of business.
Do you really think under 40s are going to vote Tory because they scrap the triple lock? No as most of them still oppose Brexit for starters unlike most pensioners.
Building new affordable homes might win a few more under 40s to the Tories once they get some assets behind them, scrapping Triple Lock won't but could lead Tory pensioners to the LDs and Reform
What does it say about core Conservative voters, if they think that everyone but them should make sacrifices?
A party whose only interest is in enriching its legacy voters, at the expense of the rest of the rest of the nation, is a party that will vanish within a generation, and a party that deserves to vanish in a generation.
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
It is unsustainable and Kemi is right and I applaud her for this intervention
You do not appear to have listened to, our understood, what she was actually saying and it was refreshing
The LDs back keeping the triple lock as well as the WFA, Reform also back keeping the WFA, pensioners on average and above average earnings are now the Tory core vote. They cannot risk leaking them to the LDs or Reform or the Tory party will basically go extinct under FPTP
You haven’t listened to a word she has said, but actually you are the perfect example of everything she was criticising and more importantly Kemi is the first conservative leader to pledge to help the young for a very long time
That starts by allocating tax payers money fairly and not handing wealthy pensioners the triple lock or indeed the WFP
Times are going to change and if you do not like the direction she outlined today, there is always Reform
All fine and dandy and very noble but brutal political reality is not even Cameron won most under 30s so the idea Kemi is going to sweep to victory by dumping her pensioner core vote in the hope of getting them to fund the young more is just a route to Tory oblivion
If the Conservatives are only interested in protecting pensioners’ privileges, then oblivion is what they deserve.
They aren't but any business which trashes its core consumer will swiftly go out of business.
Do you really think under 40s are going to vote Tory because they scrap the triple lock? No as most of them still oppose Brexit for starters unlike most pensioners.
Building new affordable homes might win a few more under 40s to the Tories once they get some assets behind them, scrapping Triple Lock won't but could lead Tory pensioners to the LDs and Reform
I would really put the cat amongst the pigeons and commit to joining the single market
Calling @HYUFD Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
If there is one thing that could see Kemi toppled as leader it is that, pensioners are the Tory core vote and the Tories cannot afford to lose them to Reform or the LDs or they are dead as a party. So if over 65 voters pick this up and turn from the Tories it could be fatal for her
It is unsustainable and Kemi is right and I applaud her for this intervention
You do not appear to have listened to, our understood, what she was actually saying and it was refreshing
The LDs back keeping the triple lock as well as the WFA, Reform also back keeping the WFA, pensioners on average and above average earnings are now the Tory core vote. They cannot risk leaking them to the LDs or Reform or the Tory party will basically go extinct under FPTP
You haven’t listened to a word she has said, but actually you are the perfect example of everything she was criticising and more importantly Kemi is the first conservative leader to pledge to help the young for a very long time
That starts by allocating tax payers money fairly and not handing wealthy pensioners the triple lock or indeed the WFP
Times are going to change and if you do not like the direction she outlined today, there is always Reform
All fine and dandy and very noble but brutal political reality is not even Cameron won most under 30s so the idea Kemi is going to sweep to victory by dumping her pensioner core vote in the hope of getting them to fund the young more is just a route to Tory oblivion
If the Conservatives are only interested in protecting pensioners’ privileges, then oblivion is what they deserve.
They aren't but any business which trashes its core consumer will swiftly go out of business.
Do you really think under 40s are going to vote Tory because they scrap the triple lock? No as most of them still oppose Brexit for starters unlike most pensioners.
Building new affordable homes might win a few more under 40s to the Tories once they get some assets behind them, scrapping Triple Lock won't but could lead Tory pensioners to the LDs and Reform
What does it say about core Conservative voters, if they think that everyone but them should make sacrifices?
A party whose only interest is in enriching its legacy voters, at the expense of the rest of the rest of the nation, is a party that will vanish within a generation, and a party that deserves to vanish in a generation.
It says more about @HYUFD then Kemi Badenoch and other conservatives that want to see a completely new offer to the electorate in 2029
'The Scottish Conservative group leader on Glasgow City Council has defected to Reform UK.
Thomas Kerr, who represents the Shettleston ward, was first elected as a 20-year-old in 2017 and became Tory group leader in 2019.
He was the party's candidate at the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election in October 2023, but finished a distant third.
Kerr said he had been "annoyed and angry" with the Conservatives for several months, accusing the party of failing to champion working-class communities like those in Shettleston.
He said the Tories focused too much on criticism of the SNP and "lacked a positive vision of centre-right conservatism".
The councillor also suggested Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay was not in control of the "broken" party.'
'The Scottish Conservative group leader on Glasgow City Council has defected to Reform UK.
Thomas Kerr, who represents the Shettleston ward, was first elected as a 20-year-old in 2017 and became Tory group leader in 2019.
He was the party's candidate at the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election in October 2023, but finished a distant third.
Kerr said he had been "annoyed and angry" with the Conservatives for several months, accusing the party of failing to champion working-class communities like those in Shettleston.
He said the Tories focused too much on criticism of the SNP and "lacked a positive vision of centre-right conservatism".
The councillor also suggested Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay was not in control of the "broken" party.'
More detail about how Google is getting steadily worse. Basically they worked out that if the search was bad you would stay on for longer and see more ads, so they made it worse deliberately. Those wacky 2020s, eh?
Comments
Personally I'd go for the quadruple lock. Pensions go up according to locks 1, 2 and 3 and pensionable age goes up according to lock 4 linked to life expectancy.
That way bungs for pensioners are bungs for workers.
It won't be popular at all, and the first politicians to suggest it will get pilloried, but it will eventually end up as govt policy (probably just as I reach pensionable age).
There's plenty of scope to go back to being Tory without going anywhere near Farage.
Or are we not allowed to criticise her at all because she's the first female chancellor?
CEO of watchdog accused of attempt to ‘sanitise’ review of Andrew Malkinson case
Exclusive: sources claim CCRC head, Karen Kneller, fought suggestion problems behind handling of case were systemic
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jan/16/ceo-of-watchdog-accused-of-attempti-to-sanitise-review-into-handling-of-andrew-malkinson-case
...The CCRC spent more than £14,000 to bring in a leading crisis communications consultant in November 2023 to handle fallout from the review.
By the following July, when the report was still not published after months of the CCRC quibbling over edits in an apparent attempt to try to water it down, consultant Chris Webb sent a furious resignation letter, blasting the organisation for its approach to the review.
He is understood to have told Kneller that he had serious concerns about their response to the review and that it had failed to keep promises to Malkinson about sharing its contents. He felt that continuing to delay its publication put the commission and the chair’s reputation at risk and was frustrated that his advice had been ignored...
https://x.com/markjcarney/status/1879995720046109161
I suppose you could have a basic universal state pension that rises only with inflation and then a second pension that is means tested and rises by the triple lock but it is all messy although maybe there is something could be done with pension credit???
But I've only seen what I've read here. Maybe in detail it makes sense.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/16/poland-hails-breakthrough-with-ukraine-over-second-world-war-volhynia-atrocity
I assume its either ironically saying being a woman with actual relevant experience prevents usual critical attacks like silly nicknames, or sincerely saying that any critical nickname is misogynistic, or it's meant to be saying that she can be subject to attacks, but this specific one is unacceptable, not any nickname being unacceptable.
"Mr. Zuckerberg blamed his former chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, for Facebook’s culture"
People want handouts, interference from government in everything (or at least the things they like/dislike), and they want their homes to be expensive and none to be built, but also lots of cheap homes for their children.
https://bsky.app/profile/adambienkov.bsky.social/post/3lfv7i73eq227
He probably legitimately is a nerd, albeit his wealth and power is so extreme it eclipses that, he didn't need to get himself into such a silly situation.
FWIW, I don't think the pension will be means-tested as such: it's too iconic. But they might well do the same thing by the back door by changing tax bands to claw back what they give.
He will have a shot but Freeland probably narrow favourite
https://bsky.app/profile/iaindale.bsky.social/post/3lfv6vugo622t
The Tories need to get back into a position where they can fight Reform on the grown ups / fantasists axis. To do that is actually more important than where exactly they end up on the centre / new right axis. If they end up quite a hard line party, but with thought through policies that address the consequences of their choices - for instance properly acknowledging and dealing that a drive for low net migration comes with a whole other set of consequences than those we see with high net migration - they can make Reform sound hollow.
If Kemi can pick her fights wisely, she can make headway with the thinking she has shown today.
Now, I’m on LinkedIn. I don’t use it. Life is too short to spend time updating one’s profiles on LinkedIn, Facebook, and LookAtHowGoodIAm.com. I don’t want to spend time liking a post from somebody I connected with once at a conference.
I do know, however, that my LinkedIn profile is full of errors because there isn’t always an exact business or organisation listed on LinkedIn to match with. For years on Facebook I, with many others, was a student at “University, Saint Andrews, South Carolina” because there wasn’t a University of St Andrews listed. I studied International Relations & Modern History but neither Facebook or LinkedIn recognised it. It had to be Political Science or Politics and Government.
It’s fine to criticise her but can we not get our knickers in a twist over a LinkedIn profile.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/16/politics/rudy-giuliani-georgia-election-workers-defamation-settlement/index.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/rachel-reeves-can-she-save-the-labour-party-2367802.html
You do not appear to have listened to, our understood, what she was actually saying and it was refreshing
'National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir says his Otzma Yehudit party will leave the coalition if the government approves the hostage-ceasefire deal with Hamas that was announced yesterday by mediators.
In a press conference, Ben Gvir says the deal, which includes the release of hundreds of Palestinian security prisoners from Israel, will enable the rehabilitation of terror groups in Gaza and bring back the threat to residents in border areas.'
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/ben-gvir-says-his-otzma-yehudit-party-will-quit-government-if-it-approves-hostage-ceasefire-deal/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJi-yn-2V6E
Featuring Robbie Coltrane, Ricki Fulton and Bill Forsyth.
It is IHT on their farms she said she would stop, not pensions
IIRC a lot of commentators couldn’t figure out the Obsorne/Cameron thing - because they were so used to the Chancellor being a semi-antagonist to the PM. See Brown vs Blair.
In the case of Suckerberg, he has always been a scumbag. And could have binned the COO at any time.
See also 'InstaGram'.
Allison Pearson
@AllisonPearson
·
4h
Labour better make the most of the next four years. They won’t exist after 2029.
Defaming people works.
Strange Death of Tory England or some such.
I don’t share anything on it. I’m just nosy.
I'm afraid I can't keep up these days.
That starts by allocating tax payers money fairly and not handing wealthy pensioners the triple lock or indeed the WFP
Times are going to change and if you do not like the direction she outlined today, there is always Reform
I can buy many chancellors and PMs have antagonistic relationships, be rivals even, making it harder to wrangle them, but that's not the same thing as gets presented sometimes as though there's no means of knowledge or influence.
Be warned.
As I poured myself a fourth treble gin this evening I found myself idling flicking through a catalog of Penarth Airbnbs unsure whether I was planning escape because of the looming AI overlord takeover or because aliens already move among us fiddling with flasks of deadly virus.
Government by soundbite and tweet, and politics run by "professionals" as a constant election campaign all but prevents coherent policy and seriously addressing the country's problems.
Do you really think under 40s are going to vote Tory because they scrap the triple lock? No as most of them still oppose Brexit for starters unlike most pensioners.
Building new affordable homes might win a few more under 40s to the Tories once they get some assets behind them, scrapping Triple Lock won't but could lead Tory pensioners to the LDs and Reform
The conservatives will not win the next election with your tired old no change agenda
Kemi gets that, you dont
Thomas Kerr, who represents the Shettleston ward, was first elected as a 20-year-old in 2017 and became Tory group leader in 2019.
He was the party's candidate at the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election in October 2023, but finished a distant third.
Kerr said he had been "annoyed and angry" with the Conservatives for several months, accusing the party of failing to champion working-class communities like those in Shettleston.
He said the Tories focused too much on criticism of the SNP and "lacked a positive vision of centre-right conservatism".
The councillor also suggested Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay was not in control of the "broken" party.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy48p5132qno
A party whose only interest is in enriching its legacy voters, at the expense of the rest of the rest of the nation, is a party that will vanish within a generation, and a party that deserves to vanish in a generation.
I predict many, many Americans will yearn nostalgically for his presidency by the end of the next four years of madness.
Reform is there for @HYUFD if he doesn't like it
There’s always a tweet.
https://bsky.app/profile/tricialockwood.bsky.social/post/3lfvddt2awk2z