So was that it, few quid for a mine in Cornwall, some new houses in Oxfordshire and a massive lengthy court battle ahead for rehash of rehash of a rehash of another runway at Heathrow.
I wish this government - heck, any government - would start taking a JFDI attitude to infrastructure.
"We, as a nation, have decided that LHR runway 3 / EWR / Thames Crossing / whatever is a nationally critical project. Enough enquiries have been done, and enough talk; we want bids in by the end of next month, CPOs by the end of the month after, and construction to have started in six months. Make it so."
It would have people howling, but it would get things done. Sadly, it'd almost certainly also be illegal...
yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.
PB Right: the government should go for growth and deregulate.
Government: we should go for growth and deregulate.
PB Right: don’t believe them.
What is the point of this discourse? There is no analysis, no engagement, just blind opposition for the sake of it.
Because this Labour government is simultaneously lying, delusional, stupid, talentless, idiotic, self-destructive, and inept
I’ll believe this new “growth strategy” when a spade goes in the dirt at Heathrow. Not until
Are you suggesting that only an idiot would have voted for them?
Either that or someone so small minded and petty he voted for Labour solely to discomfort a woke retired accountant in Hampstead
Someone's been working in that excuse for months. Less convincing than Reeves.
I don’t actually mean this. It’s a joke. Discombobulating @kinabalu was about 5% of my motivation for voting Labour. The rest was a mix of 1. Voting for the actual PM in my constituency, how often do you get to vote directly for the PM? 2. Wondering what it would feel like to vote Labour for the first time * and 3. “Give Labour a chance”
*awful. It felt awful. Never again
Wick Man love Myanmar International Airways Voting Labour
Anything else you want to add to the felt awful, never again list?
"Try everything once, except folk dancing and incest."
No. Try everything TWICE. You maybe did it wrong the first time, so you have to make sure
Worked for me and heroin. First time I hated it, just puked a lot
Possibly the quote of the week, the year, the century and for eternity.
"The minute we start going down that track *of looking for evidence*, I think we start to lose our way"
Kemi Badenoch
You should never look *for* evidence
You should look *at* the evidence and determine if your hypothesis is true or not.
Otherwise you are at risk of confirmation bias
That's wrong. I spend a good chunk of my work time looking for and gathering evidence. When I have it, I then look at it, carefully.
If we can never look for (or generate?) evidence then you're shutting down much of science and we're limited to systematic reviews (although the search part of that could be said to be looking for evidence) and maybe reviews of existing registries of data etc, but certainly no new data collection.
On the Badenoch quote, I'd need to see the context to have a view on that. If she'd suggesting we just do what we 'know' to be right without being troubled by evidence, it's batty, but it might be something else.
tbf I think she is being (somewhat) misquoted - 'of looking for evidence' wasn't in her answer, but was part of the question. A generous interpretation would be she is trying to say it's wrong to ignore anecdotes and individual experience just because it doesn't really (yet) count as hard evidence. Less generous is she is saying 'ignore the evidence'
Context was her claim that 'lack of social integration' was a factor in the Southport murders.
Thanks. I'd be interested to see a link to the actual exchange - if it was an interview? - that led to this.
It is a favourite approach of people with strong ideology to reject looking for/at evidence on something they hold to be true. If she's making a bit claim about the reasons for the Southport murders then it certainly would be prudent and responsible to have some evidence to support that, rather than just shit stirring for votes.
She is basically saying she doesn't need any evidence...
Two things - the guy who introduces it kills it the "Tory Friendly" show, so he is not an unbiased source. She has extrapolated from her background to the killers and is relating her experience to his. If you were a 1st generation muslim growing up in the UK would you feel that your experiences give you an idea of what other 1st generation muslims experience? Thats what she is saying.
Its a bit clumsy, but frankly we have an information vacuum about this person and his family, so its inevitable that the vacuum gets filled.
How many years have we been talking about a third runway at Heathrow or expansion at Gatwick? 20 years? 30 years? And still not even close to any spades in the ground.
The second runway at Gatwick was a hot topic of conversation around those parts back in the 1980s.
Roskill published in 1971, having sat from 1968 (on third London airport for those too young to remember). Foulness, Wing, Willingale - happy memories of agitated demonstrations long ago.
So was that it, few quid for a mine in Cornwall, some new houses in Oxfordshire and a massive lengthy court battle ahead for rehash of rehash of a rehash of another runway at Heathrow.
I wish this government - heck, any government - would start taking a JFDI attitude to infrastructure.
"We, as a nation, have decided that LHR runway 3 / EWR / Thames Crossing / whatever is a nationally critical project. Enough enquiries have been done, and enough talk; we want bids in by the end of next month, CPOs by the end of the month after, and construction to have started in six months. Make it so."
It would have people howling, but it would get things done. Sadly, it'd almost certainly also be illegal...
The UK is also tied to legal climate change targets so previous attempts at green lighting it have immediately run into legal challenge based upon those grounds. I presume we will be on that merry-go-round again.
How many years have we been talking about a third runway at Heathrow or expansion at Gatwick? 20 years? 30 years? And still not even close to any spades in the ground.
The second runway at Gatwick was a hot topic of conversation around those parts back in the 1980s.
They were arguing about a 'third London airport' in the 1960s ...
Just build Boris Island. Seriously.
I had an idea of how to do it quicker - and make the site selection easier.
Instead of dredging an island - which limits it to a number of very shallow areas - use concrete gravity structures. Think Statfyord B.
Bit like table, with a flat top, legs and at the bottom a cellular structure for buoyancy. Since this is for shallow water, the legs will be a lot shorter than the oil platforms.
Build them in a dry dock - each one, 500 meters by 200, say. Float them out, sail them to their destination, sink in place.
I don't think I've ever seen that proposed before for such a massive area. For roads, yes. My initial thought would be problems with settlement and stability; but that's the case with dredging as well.
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
Presumably the Heathrow announcement will leave Green > Labour tactical voting in tatters up to Election 29?
2024 Greens were a mix of greeny greens, Corbynites, Palestinian supporters and anti both Tory and Labour. Probably only the greeny greens care enough about this.
Every Green party member I know will oppose this and hopefully we'll direct action it until it's too expensive to be worth it. You don't get fucking anywhere on issues like by voting.
I don't think it will swing too many Green to Lab tacticians. Keeping the tories and the Fukkers out will be more important.
So was that it, few quid for a mine in Cornwall, some new houses in Oxfordshire and a massive lengthy court battle ahead for rehash of rehash of a rehash of another runway at Heathrow.
I wish this government - heck, any government - would start taking a JFDI attitude to infrastructure.
"We, as a nation, have decided that LHR runway 3 / EWR / Thames Crossing / whatever is a nationally critical project. Enough enquiries have been done, and enough talk; we want bids in by the end of next month, CPOs by the end of the month after, and construction to have started in six months. Make it so."
It would have people howling, but it would get things done. Sadly, it'd almost certainly also be illegal...
I actually think the government would get kudos from many quarters in actually achieving something of note. The problem is you have to derogate from a lot of very accepted legal norms (including - perhaps most importantly - judicial review), and I see no great desire by Labour to change some of these fundamentals.
It was very telling that Reeves said that she was confident the Heathrow proposal would be in line with environmental etc commitments - that indicates they’re not reinventing the wheel with this stuff.
A lot of scepticism on here about Labour going for growth but I think they have realised:
1) They have run out of room to borrow more. Hunt and Reeves have already collectively pushed this to the limits of what could still plausibly be described as fiscally sound. Any further and you risk a debt crisis, or it becomes self-defeating as higher refinancing costs on the existing debt pile outweigh the additional spending from borrowing more.
2) They have run out of room to tax meaningfully more, absent a more ambitious gross wealth tax than would probably take three years to implement.
3) They would genuinely like to improve public services. That either takes money or deep reform. The former is limited by points 1 and 2, the latter takes years to show benefits even if done well.
The only remaining variable they can pull is to improve growth. Even if it means deregulation and putting aside environmental concerns.
I appreciate they started off poorly (talking down the economy, tax rises on businesses) but it's too soon to write them off, I think.
I get the scepticism, There is alot of talk about it but nothing concrete so far.
However they can turn it around. I agree. They have the chance to and it does seem the top table in Labour does get it now. If they do start to get some growth I think they can easily convert the WNV/DK's back to Labour and win a second term.
Alot hinges on it and reforming the planning system.
I think that Keir also needs to personally concentrate on the domestic agenda, and put away his passport for a bit. That is what a Foreign Secretary is for.
Take some time to tour in places like Stoke, Middlesborough, Clacton, Merthyr, Glasgow and Leicester and talk to people on the ground. We all know that the Treasury is skint, but there are low cost changes that could make lives better.
One of the things that made Blair so impressive was his government always gave the impression of having their fingers on the pulse of the nation. It was perhaps an easier ask back then, the print media was stronger and largely supportive, the economy was in a much better state etc. But I do agree I think Starmer and Reeves need to do better on that front, try and connect more. At the moment a lot of what they say is rather esoteric to the man on the street. “Growth” as a concept is great but growth doesn’t really mean a tremendous amount to the average person.
Here I go again with this. No apologies since it's true. It was a blooper to proclaim growth as their "defining mission". The economy has been sluggish at best since the GFC and that was with QE and low interest rates propping it up. The drug has now been withdrawn, QE in reverse, rates back to the pre 08 norm. It's a tough ask to conjure good growth out of this scenario. And in any case growth over the shorter term (what they'll be judged on) is mainly dependent on global factors not what the government does or doesn't do.
So, tldr, they've chosen to be defined by something which (i) is likely to disappoint and (ii) they don't have much control over. But they don't listen to me, they've gone and said it now - "growth is our defining mission" - so they need two things. First and foremost, they need to get lucky on the global situation (since the biggest influence on our economy is the world economy). Second, they need to forget about the long term, solving our deep seated problems, all of that crap, in favour of some really effective short-termism, ie lots of initiatives paying quick dividends. Fingers crossed for both.
Interesting. When Liz Truss first arrived, there was actually some talk that with her 'Growth! Growth! Growth!' sloganizing she'd found a political elixir that could spell doom for Labour. I wonder if Labour were more mesmerized by all that they they'd care to admit.
So was that it, few quid for a mine in Cornwall, some new houses in Oxfordshire and a massive lengthy court battle ahead for rehash of rehash of a rehash of another runway at Heathrow.
I wish this government - heck, any government - would start taking a JFDI attitude to infrastructure.
"We, as a nation, have decided that LHR runway 3 / EWR / Thames Crossing / whatever is a nationally critical project. Enough enquiries have been done, and enough talk; we want bids in by the end of next month, CPOs by the end of the month after, and construction to have started in six months. Make it so."
It would have people howling, but it would get things done. Sadly, it'd almost certainly also be illegal...
Imagine how it feels when living in a country with a massive JFDI attitude to infrastructure.
You make a proposal, pass the legislation, and get spades in the ground shortly afterwards. Anyone in the way gets paid off to the extent that they won’t complain.
It’s way cheaper to pay people off at 150% or 200% as a first offer, than have the whole project dragged through courts for years.
A lot of scepticism on here about Labour going for growth but I think they have realised:
1) They have run out of room to borrow more. Hunt and Reeves have already collectively pushed this to the limits of what could still plausibly be described as fiscally sound. Any further and you risk a debt crisis, or it becomes self-defeating as higher refinancing costs on the existing debt pile outweigh the additional spending from borrowing more.
2) They have run out of room to tax meaningfully more, absent a more ambitious gross wealth tax than would probably take three years to implement.
3) They would genuinely like to improve public services. That either takes money or deep reform. The former is limited by points 1 and 2, the latter takes years to show benefits even if done well.
The only remaining variable they can pull is to improve growth. Even if it means deregulation and putting aside environmental concerns.
I appreciate they started off poorly (talking down the economy, tax rises on businesses) but it's too soon to write them off, I think.
I get the scepticism, There is alot of talk about it but nothing concrete so far.
However they can turn it around. I agree. They have the chance to and it does seem the top table in Labour does get it now. If they do start to get some growth I think they can easily convert the WNV/DK's back to Labour and win a second term.
Alot hinges on it and reforming the planning system.
I think that Keir also needs to personally concentrate on the domestic agenda, and put away his passport for a bit. That is what a Foreign Secretary is for.
Take some time to tour in places like Stoke, Middlesborough, Clacton, Merthyr, Glasgow and Leicester and talk to people on the ground. We all know that the Treasury is skint, but there are low cost changes that could make lives better.
One of the things that made Blair so impressive was his government always gave the impression of having their fingers on the pulse of the nation. It was perhaps an easier ask back then, the print media was stronger and largely supportive, the economy was in a much better state etc. But I do agree I think Starmer and Reeves need to do better on that front, try and connect more. At the moment a lot of what they say is rather esoteric to the man on the street. “Growth” as a concept is great but growth doesn’t really mean a tremendous amount to the average person.
Here I go again with this. No apologies since it's true. It was a blooper to proclaim growth as their "defining mission". The economy has been sluggish at best since the GFC and that was with QE and low interest rates propping it up. The drug has now been withdrawn, QE in reverse, rates back to the pre 08 norm. It's a tough ask to conjure good growth out of this scenario. And in any case growth over the shorter term (what they'll be judged on) is mainly dependent on global factors not what the government does or doesn't do.
So, tldr, they've chosen to be defined by something which (i) is likely to disappoint and (ii) they don't have much control over. But they don't listen to me, they've gone and said it now - "growth is our defining mission" - so they need two things. First and foremost, they need to get lucky on the global situation (since the biggest influence on our economy is the world economy). Second, they need to forget about the long term, solving our deep seated problems, all of that crap, in favour of some really effective short-termism, ie lots of initiatives paying quick dividends. Fingers crossed for both.
Interesting. When Liz Truss first arrived, there was actually some talk that with her 'Growth! Growth! Growth!' sloganizing she'd found a political elixir that could spell doom for Labour. I wonder if Labour were more mesmerized by all that they they'd care to admit.
You only have to look at Rachel Reeves' photoshoot in the corner of a communal shower to see who she idolises.
Good, I didn’t need any support when I got As in A Level Maths and Further Maths, and this was when A Levels were very difficult.
The youth of today are far too mollycoddled.
It is a programme designed to encourage pupils in state schools to study A Level Maths and also provides maths for life skills on statistics and finance etc. It is a travesty it is being cut back
It's fun seeing people put in question to deepseek that suggest it isn't exactly politically neutral. Criticising Xi Jinping is beyond it's current scope. So much for it being intelligent.
Do the ones run by the US tech firms exhibit "politically neutral" ideas if you ask them about extreme jihad? Does politically neutral even exist as a workable concept? It is unsurprising that a Chinese one has Chinese biases, and that may make it less useful for a small subset of topics for Western audiences but it doesn't change its level of intelligence.
So is Rachel from accounts actually going to green-light the new Heathrow runway, or is she going to green-light some planning process?
"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"
The government equivalent of me finding a £10 down the back of the sofa and spending it on a takeaway as a way to boost GDP.
"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"
Please tell me this is a joke. Please tell me the Chancellor of the UK Exchequer did not excitedly announce this?
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE
Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.
Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.
Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.
So was that it, few quid for a mine in Cornwall, some new houses in Oxfordshire and a massive lengthy court battle ahead for rehash of rehash of a rehash of another runway at Heathrow.
I wish this government - heck, any government - would start taking a JFDI attitude to infrastructure.
"We, as a nation, have decided that LHR runway 3 / EWR / Thames Crossing / whatever is a nationally critical project. Enough enquiries have been done, and enough talk; we want bids in by the end of next month, CPOs by the end of the month after, and construction to have started in six months. Make it so."
It would have people howling, but it would get things done. Sadly, it'd almost certainly also be illegal...
So is Rachel from accounts actually going to green-light the new Heathrow runway, or is she going to green-light some planning process?
"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"
The government equivalent of me finding a £10 down the back of the sofa and spending it on a takeaway as a way to boost GDP.
"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"
Please tell me this is a joke. Please tell me the Chancellor of the UK Exchequer did not excitedly announce this?
This isn't economics. This is cringeonomics
I am excitedly announcing today I am in a position to help the strive for growth, with a big boost to GDP...I am off down the shop to buy a packet of biscuits.
More seriously, I am currently in the process of exploring a new start-up opportunity. The government aren't exactly making it attractive to form it in the UK.
Union and AfD then would be comfortably over 50% but at the moment it still looks like the Union will only deal with the SPD and Greens not the AfD when forming a new government (plus the FDP but they look like they will fail to reach the threshold for seats this time)
The Economist has an article where it estimates likely seat counts and the viability of various coalitions off of the back of those numbers.
A lot of scepticism on here about Labour going for growth but I think they have realised:
1) They have run out of room to borrow more. Hunt and Reeves have already collectively pushed this to the limits of what could still plausibly be described as fiscally sound. Any further and you risk a debt crisis, or it becomes self-defeating as higher refinancing costs on the existing debt pile outweigh the additional spending from borrowing more.
2) They have run out of room to tax meaningfully more, absent a more ambitious gross wealth tax than would probably take three years to implement.
3) They would genuinely like to improve public services. That either takes money or deep reform. The former is limited by points 1 and 2, the latter takes years to show benefits even if done well.
The only remaining variable they can pull is to improve growth. Even if it means deregulation and putting aside environmental concerns.
I appreciate they started off poorly (talking down the economy, tax rises on businesses) but it's too soon to write them off, I think.
I get the scepticism, There is alot of talk about it but nothing concrete so far.
However they can turn it around. I agree. They have the chance to and it does seem the top table in Labour does get it now. If they do start to get some growth I think they can easily convert the WNV/DK's back to Labour and win a second term.
Alot hinges on it and reforming the planning system.
I think that Keir also needs to personally concentrate on the domestic agenda, and put away his passport for a bit. That is what a Foreign Secretary is for.
Take some time to tour in places like Stoke, Middlesborough, Clacton, Merthyr, Glasgow and Leicester and talk to people on the ground. We all know that the Treasury is skint, but there are low cost changes that could make lives better.
One of the things that made Blair so impressive was his government always gave the impression of having their fingers on the pulse of the nation. It was perhaps an easier ask back then, the print media was stronger and largely supportive, the economy was in a much better state etc. But I do agree I think Starmer and Reeves need to do better on that front, try and connect more. At the moment a lot of what they say is rather esoteric to the man on the street. “Growth” as a concept is great but growth doesn’t really mean a tremendous amount to the average person.
Here I go again with this. No apologies since it's true. It was a blooper to proclaim growth as their "defining mission". The economy has been sluggish at best since the GFC and that was with QE and low interest rates propping it up. The drug has now been withdrawn, QE in reverse, rates back to the pre 08 norm. It's a tough ask to conjure good growth out of this scenario. And in any case growth over the shorter term (what they'll be judged on) is mainly dependent on global factors not what the government does or doesn't do.
So, tldr, they've chosen to be defined by something which (i) is likely to disappoint and (ii) they don't have much control over. But they don't listen to me, they've gone and said it now - "growth is our defining mission" - so they need two things. First and foremost, they need to get lucky on the global situation (since the biggest influence on our economy is the world economy). Second, they need to forget about the long term, solving our deep seated problems, all of that crap, in favour of some really effective short-termism, ie lots of initiatives paying quick dividends. Fingers crossed for both.
Interesting. When Liz Truss first arrived, there was actually some talk that with her 'Growth! Growth! Growth!' sloganizing she'd found a political elixir that could spell doom for Labour. I wonder if Labour were more mesmerized by all that they they'd care to admit.
Possibly so. Hadn't though of that.
Or maybe it just fell into that (rather enormous) bucket of "what we need to say in order to take no chances whatsoever of failing to win this election". The ming vase thing. If so I rate it a bigger mistake than the more commented-upon one of ruling out any rises to income tax, corporation tax or VAT.
So was that it, few quid for a mine in Cornwall, some new houses in Oxfordshire and a massive lengthy court battle ahead for rehash of rehash of a rehash of another runway at Heathrow.
I wish this government - heck, any government - would start taking a JFDI attitude to infrastructure.
"We, as a nation, have decided that LHR runway 3 / EWR / Thames Crossing / whatever is a nationally critical project. Enough enquiries have been done, and enough talk; we want bids in by the end of next month, CPOs by the end of the month after, and construction to have started in six months. Make it so."
It would have people howling, but it would get things done. Sadly, it'd almost certainly also be illegal...
Primary legislation….
Would they go down that route and if they did would they get enough support from their own ranks. The Lib Dems and Greens would oppose. The Tories would probably oppose just for oppositions sake, just as Labour did with the Nutrient Neutrality proposal from the Sunak govt.
It's fun seeing people put in question to deepseek that suggest it isn't exactly politically neutral. Criticising Xi Jinping is beyond it's current scope. So much for it being intelligent.
Do the ones run by the US tech firms exhibit "politically neutral" ideas if you ask them about extreme jihad? Does politically neutral even exist as a workable concept? It is unsurprising that a Chinese one has Chinese biases, and that may make it less useful for a small subset of topics for Western audiences but it doesn't change its level of intelligence.
'A small subset of topics for western audiences.'
Only 'westerners' would be concerned with pro China bias? Have a look at what it says about the South China sea.
I remain opposed to a new runway at Heathrow airport because of the severe impact it will have on noise, air pollution and meeting our climate change targets.
So is Rachel from accounts actually going to green-light the new Heathrow runway, or is she going to green-light some planning process?
"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"
The government equivalent of me finding a £10 down the back of the sofa and spending it on a takeaway as a way to boost GDP.
"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"
Please tell me this is a joke. Please tell me the Chancellor of the UK Exchequer did not excitedly announce this?
This isn't economics. This is cringeonomics
I am excitedly announcing today I am in a position to help the strive for growth, with a big boost to GDP...I am off down the shop to buy a packet of biscuits.
More seriously, I am currently in the process of exploring a new start-up opportunity. The government aren't exactly making it attractive to form it in the UK.
Which is why the startups are all now heading for Austin and Dubai, places where a can-do attitude prevails.
So is Rachel from accounts actually going to green-light the new Heathrow runway, or is she going to green-light some planning process?
"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"
The government equivalent of me finding a £10 down the back of the sofa and spending it on a takeaway as a way to boost GDP.
"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"
Please tell me this is a joke. Please tell me the Chancellor of the UK Exchequer did not excitedly announce this?
This isn't economics. This is cringeonomics
I am excitedly announcing today I am in a position to help the strive for growth, with a big boost to GDP...I am off down the shop to buy a packet of biscuits.
More seriously, I am currently in the process of exploring a new start-up opportunity. The government aren't exactly making it attractive to form it in the UK.
Any specific reasons you can share? Funding? Taxes?
Actually setting up a company is remarkable simple in the UK compared to elsewhere!
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE
Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.
Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.
Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.
Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this
So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me
Parties of the Left: 55% Parties of the Right: 45%
I doubt if this binary division really works any more. I don't think the case has been made out for Reform belonging to the Right, Centre Right, Radical Right or Extreme Right. It's general approach seems to me to start from a sort of 1950s social democracy (welfare state as genuine safety net, lots of free stuff, NATO) with a very traditional view about inward migration, which is neither left nor right but nationalist and anti globalist.
For many it comes down to "I don't support their views therefore they are far left/right*" *dependent on which side of the fence the person expressing it is
I think I have probably had a Reform MP for longer than anyone here: the Leeanderthal Man.
Some dog whistles coming from Lee Anderson are the likes of what the BNP were saying in their far right silo 15 years ago, and Nick Griffin was trying to get into mainstream discourse via his 'BNP in a lounge suit, looking respectable' tactic.
Here is a report of something put on Facebook by Lee Anderson in the winding up phased of the far riots last year (ie ~27 July), about an 'immigrant hotel'. It was actually expatriate NHS staff on holiday, and Anderson could have had one of his 5 office staff ring up and check - but he chose to shit-stir instead. It reveals his orientation.
This is not stuff we need to debate, it is stuff we need to address and deal with. Fortunately the authorities did after the riots, and will continue to do so with more senior organisers / animators due for prosecution this year.
How many years have we been talking about a third runway at Heathrow or expansion at Gatwick? 20 years? 30 years? And still not even close to any spades in the ground.
The second runway at Gatwick was a hot topic of conversation around those parts back in the 1980s.
They were arguing about a 'third London airport' in the 1960s ...
Just build Boris Island. Seriously.
I had an idea of how to do it quicker - and make the site selection easier.
Instead of dredging an island - which limits it to a number of very shallow areas - use concrete gravity structures. Think Statfyord B.
Bit like table, with a flat top, legs and at the bottom a cellular structure for buoyancy. Since this is for shallow water, the legs will be a lot shorter than the oil platforms.
Build them in a dry dock - each one, 500 meters by 200, say. Float them out, sail them to their destination, sink in place.
Unfortunately Boris had forgotten all about his island by the time he took absolute power. Maybe he was holding it in reserve for his second term. It may take half a century to deliver and the cost would dwarf every other project, but the release of the Heathrow site and all the peripheral developments, complete with ready-built infrastructure, would be the basis of a high-rise city for the 21st century. We left Hong Kong in better shape than London.
A lot of scepticism on here about Labour going for growth but I think they have realised:
1) They have run out of room to borrow more. Hunt and Reeves have already collectively pushed this to the limits of what could still plausibly be described as fiscally sound. Any further and you risk a debt crisis, or it becomes self-defeating as higher refinancing costs on the existing debt pile outweigh the additional spending from borrowing more.
2) They have run out of room to tax meaningfully more, absent a more ambitious gross wealth tax than would probably take three years to implement.
3) They would genuinely like to improve public services. That either takes money or deep reform. The former is limited by points 1 and 2, the latter takes years to show benefits even if done well.
The only remaining variable they can pull is to improve growth. Even if it means deregulation and putting aside environmental concerns.
I appreciate they started off poorly (talking down the economy, tax rises on businesses) but it's too soon to write them off, I think.
I get the scepticism, There is alot of talk about it but nothing concrete so far.
However they can turn it around. I agree. They have the chance to and it does seem the top table in Labour does get it now. If they do start to get some growth I think they can easily convert the WNV/DK's back to Labour and win a second term.
Alot hinges on it and reforming the planning system.
I think that Keir also needs to personally concentrate on the domestic agenda, and put away his passport for a bit. That is what a Foreign Secretary is for.
Take some time to tour in places like Stoke, Middlesborough, Clacton, Merthyr, Glasgow and Leicester and talk to people on the ground. We all know that the Treasury is skint, but there are low cost changes that could make lives better.
One of the things that made Blair so impressive was his government always gave the impression of having their fingers on the pulse of the nation. It was perhaps an easier ask back then, the print media was stronger and largely supportive, the economy was in a much better state etc. But I do agree I think Starmer and Reeves need to do better on that front, try and connect more. At the moment a lot of what they say is rather esoteric to the man on the street. “Growth” as a concept is great but growth doesn’t really mean a tremendous amount to the average person.
Here I go again with this. No apologies since it's true. It was a blooper to proclaim growth as their "defining mission". The economy has been sluggish at best since the GFC and that was with QE and low interest rates propping it up. The drug has now been withdrawn, QE in reverse, rates back to the pre 08 norm. It's a tough ask to conjure good growth out of this scenario. And in any case growth over the shorter term (what they'll be judged on) is mainly dependent on global factors not what the government does or doesn't do.
So, tldr, they've chosen to be defined by something which (i) is likely to disappoint and (ii) they don't have much control over. But they don't listen to me, they've gone and said it now - "growth is our defining mission" - so they need two things. First and foremost, they need to get lucky on the global situation (since the biggest influence on our economy is the world economy). Second, they need to forget about the long term, solving our deep seated problems, all of that crap, in favour of some really effective short-termism, ie lots of initiatives paying quick dividends. Fingers crossed for both.
Interesting. When Liz Truss first arrived, there was actually some talk that with her 'Growth! Growth! Growth!' sloganizing she'd found a political elixir that could spell doom for Labour. I wonder if Labour were more mesmerized by all that they they'd care to admit.
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
This is needlessly negative.
If this government succeeds in getting spades in the ground & infrastructure & housing built then they will have done a damn site better than the last government ever did.
How many years have we been talking about a third runway at Heathrow or expansion at Gatwick? 20 years? 30 years? And still not even close to any spades in the ground.
The second runway at Gatwick was a hot topic of conversation around those parts back in the 1980s.
They were arguing about a 'third London airport' in the 1960s ...
Just build Boris Island. Seriously.
I had an idea of how to do it quicker - and make the site selection easier.
Instead of dredging an island - which limits it to a number of very shallow areas - use concrete gravity structures. Think Statfyord B.
Bit like table, with a flat top, legs and at the bottom a cellular structure for buoyancy. Since this is for shallow water, the legs will be a lot shorter than the oil platforms.
Build them in a dry dock - each one, 500 meters by 200, say. Float them out, sail them to their destination, sink in place.
I don't think I've ever seen that proposed before for such a massive area. For roads, yes. My initial thought would be problems with settlement and stability; but that's the case with dredging as well.
The flat bottom provides a surprisingly low pressure per m2 and “bridges” minor variations in the sea bottom well. Statfyord B was well over a million tons when ballasted down. It’s not moved (much) or leaned. They will never be able to get rid of it - IIRC decommissioning will be removing the topsides and leaving the legs.
Obviously you select a site that has a naturally flat bottom.
The advantage is that you don’t need to disturb the existing sea floor, much.
The artificial island style of airport building takes years to finish settling.
I remain opposed to a new runway at Heathrow airport because of the severe impact it will have on noise, air pollution and meeting our climate change targets.
He's such a little man. Everything about him is disappointing
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE
Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.
Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.
Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.
Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this
So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me
I have no doubt their intentions are good and their delivery will be mired by legal campaigns like the one from the crank I posted a twitter thread about the other day who stymies any development with legal objections.
I just remembered a line from Yes Minister about the role of NATO: "Keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down". We've failed all three...
So was that it, few quid for a mine in Cornwall, some new houses in Oxfordshire and a massive lengthy court battle ahead for rehash of rehash of a rehash of another runway at Heathrow.
I wish this government - heck, any government - would start taking a JFDI attitude to infrastructure.
"We, as a nation, have decided that LHR runway 3 / EWR / Thames Crossing / whatever is a nationally critical project. Enough enquiries have been done, and enough talk; we want bids in by the end of next month, CPOs by the end of the month after, and construction to have started in six months. Make it so."
It would have people howling, but it would get things done. Sadly, it'd almost certainly also be illegal...
The UK is also tied to legal climate change targets so previous attempts at green lighting it have immediately run into legal challenge based upon those grounds. I presume we will be on that merry-go-round again.
Which is why the “no, you only get one bite at the cherry of judicial review” changes are so important.
No more faffing about: if you have an actual real legal argument then bring it to court, get the decision made & that’s it. After that it’s done - you’ve had your shot & the project goes ahead (or not). You don’t get to shift to a different ground for judicial review & try again, halting the project for another 9 months.
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE
Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.
Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.
Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.
Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this
So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me
I have no doubt their intentions are good and their delivery will be mired by legal campaigns like the one from the crank I posted a twitter thread about the other day who stymies any development with legal objections.
But they have a big enough majority to smash through any objections. They've got 400 MPs FFS. We've also had endless inquiries and endless surveys and no more needs to be done, on that front
This is why it is such a good test of their real intent. There is nothing stopping them saying Action This Day - and seeing it done. They have the power to force this through. I'm not remotely optimistic but I am prepared to give them this one last chance
How many years have we been talking about a third runway at Heathrow or expansion at Gatwick? 20 years? 30 years? And still not even close to any spades in the ground.
The second runway at Gatwick was a hot topic of conversation around those parts back in the 1980s.
They were arguing about a 'third London airport' in the 1960s ...
Just build Boris Island. Seriously.
I had an idea of how to do it quicker - and make the site selection easier.
Instead of dredging an island - which limits it to a number of very shallow areas - use concrete gravity structures. Think Statfyord B.
Bit like table, with a flat top, legs and at the bottom a cellular structure for buoyancy. Since this is for shallow water, the legs will be a lot shorter than the oil platforms.
Build them in a dry dock - each one, 500 meters by 200, say. Float them out, sail them to their destination, sink in place.
Unfortunately Boris had forgotten all about his island by the time he took absolute power. Maybe he was holding it in reserve for his second term. It may take half a century to deliver and the cost would dwarf every other project, but the release of the Heathrow site and all the peripheral developments, complete with ready-built infrastructure, would be the basis of a high-rise city for the 21st century. We left Hong Kong in better shape than London.
It could pay for itself - the value of Heathrow as land (complete with transport and other infrastructure) is vast. Plus by removing the airport, you are “uncursing” vast swathes of existing property.
Parties of the Left: 55% Parties of the Right: 45%
I doubt if this binary division really works any more. I don't think the case has been made out for Reform belonging to the Right, Centre Right, Radical Right or Extreme Right. It's general approach seems to me to start from a sort of 1950s social democracy (welfare state as genuine safety net, lots of free stuff, NATO) with a very traditional view about inward migration, which is neither left nor right but nationalist and anti globalist.
For many it comes down to "I don't support their views therefore they are far left/right*" *dependent on which side of the fence the person expressing it is
I think I have probably had a Reform MP for longer than anyone here: the Leeanderthal Man.
Some dog whistles coming from Lee Anderson are the likes of what the BNP were saying in their far right silo 15 years ago, and Nick Griffin was trying to get into mainstream discourse via his 'BNP in a lounge suit, looking respectable' tactic.
Here is a report of something put on Facebook by Lee Anderson in the winding up phased of the far riots last year (ie ~27 July), about an 'immigrant hotel'. It was actually expatriate NHS staff on holiday, and Anderson could have had one of his 5 office staff ring up and check - but he chose to shit-stir instead. It reveals his orientation.
This is not stuff we need to debate, it is stuff we need to address and deal with. Fortunately the authorities did after the riots, and will continue to do so with more senior organisers / animators due for prosecution this year.
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE
Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.
Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.
Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.
Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this
So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me
I have no doubt their intentions are good and their delivery will be mired by legal campaigns like the one from the crank I posted a twitter thread about the other day who stymies any development with legal objections.
But they have a big enough majority to smash through any objections. They've got 400 MPs FFS. We've also had endless inquiries and endless surveys and no more needs to be done, on that front
This is why it is such a good test of their real intent. There is nothing stopping them saying Action This Day - and seeing it done. They have the power to force this through. I'm not remotely optimistic but I am prepared to give them this one last chance
"Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan"
A plan he repeatedly denied had anything to do with him or his policies during the actual campaign.
The Mayor of London, Labour's Sadiq Khan, has repeated his opposition to the expansion of Heathrow Airport.
Reacting to Rachel Reeves' speech, he tells our colleagues at BBC London that he will challenge the expansion however he can, even if it's through the courts.
Possibly the quote of the week, the year, the century and for eternity.
"The minute we start going down that track *of looking for evidence*, I think we start to lose our way"
Kemi Badenoch
You should never look *for* evidence
You should look *at* the evidence and determine if your hypothesis is true or not.
Otherwise you are at risk of confirmation bias
That's wrong. I spend a good chunk of my work time looking for and gathering evidence. When I have it, I then look at it, carefully.
If we can never look for (or generate?) evidence then you're shutting down much of science and we're limited to systematic reviews (although the search part of that could be said to be looking for evidence) and maybe reviews of existing registries of data etc, but certainly no new data collection.
On the Badenoch quote, I'd need to see the context to have a view on that. If she'd suggesting we just do what we 'know' to be right without being troubled by evidence, it's batty, but it might be something else.
tbf I think she is being (somewhat) misquoted - 'of looking for evidence' wasn't in her answer, but was part of the question. A generous interpretation would be she is trying to say it's wrong to ignore anecdotes and individual experience just because it doesn't really (yet) count as hard evidence. Less generous is she is saying 'ignore the evidence'
Context was her claim that 'lack of social integration' was a factor in the Southport murders.
Thanks. I'd be interested to see a link to the actual exchange - if it was an interview? - that led to this.
It is a favourite approach of people with strong ideology to reject looking for/at evidence on something they hold to be true. If she's making a bit claim about the reasons for the Southport murders then it certainly would be prudent and responsible to have some evidence to support that, rather than just shit stirring for votes.
She is basically saying she doesn't need any evidence...
Two things - the guy who introduces it kills it the "Tory Friendly" show, so he is not an unbiased source. She has extrapolated from her background to the killers and is relating her experience to his. If you were a 1st generation muslim growing up in the UK would you feel that your experiences give you an idea of what other 1st generation muslims experience? Thats what she is saying.
Its a bit clumsy, but frankly we have an information vacuum about this person and his family, so its inevitable that the vacuum gets filled.
You obviously didn't skip the first 40 seconds! - I was just providing the clip, I didn't listen to what the guy was saying...
Anyway, as I said above I think she is being a bit misquoted. I wouldn't make a big deal out of it, but I do think she fails to answer the question. Kuenssberg gives her a bunch of ways in which the killer *seemed* to be quite well 'integrated', and asked Badenoch for her reasons for thinking that the killer wasn't. She seemed to then say that it was wrong for people to ask for evidence.
Union and AfD then would be comfortably over 50% but at the moment it still looks like the Union will only deal with the SPD and Greens not the AfD when forming a new government (plus the FDP but they look like they will fail to reach the threshold for seats this time)
The Economist has an article where it estimates likely seat counts and the viability of various coalitions off of the back of those numbers.
That YouGov poll is the first poll in which even Union + SPD wouldn't get a majority (depending on whether the Left actually get in). Merz's tactics might cripple his chances of forming an effective government, but I always said the guy is an idiot.
So is Rachel from accounts actually going to green-light the new Heathrow runway, or is she going to green-light some planning process?
"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"
The government equivalent of me finding a £10 down the back of the sofa and spending it on a takeaway as a way to boost GDP.
You just sound churlish. There was lots of stuff in her speech, Heathrow being the centrepiece plus various other initiatives.
Many Labour voters in London are too. It's an odd fight to pick which she may well lose. She should have concentrated on Gatwick expansion which costs a fraction of Heathrow3 and delivers similar benefits. It is also a hub. There are 220 overseas destinations from Gatwick as well as Aberdeen, Edinburgh etc.
And flights to Gatwick don’t fly over Barnes…
In the meantime there are several other runway projects which are ready to roll - for example increased use of Runway Two at Gatwick, which is consultation and regulation, plus Luton, are in process.
plus Bristol, plus London City, plus Manston (Kent), plus Southampton, plus Stansted, are approved. Plus Birmingham and Manchester being built aiui.
RR needs to get her butt in gear and just move on these.
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE
Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.
Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.
Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.
Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this
So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me
I have no doubt their intentions are good and their delivery will be mired by legal campaigns like the one from the crank I posted a twitter thread about the other day who stymies any development with legal objections.
But they have a big enough majority to smash through any objections. They've got 400 MPs FFS. We've also had endless inquiries and endless surveys and no more needs to be done, on that front
This is why it is such a good test of their real intent. There is nothing stopping them saying Action This Day - and seeing it done. They have the power to force this through. I'm not remotely optimistic but I am prepared to give them this one last chance
"Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan"
A plan he repeatedly denied had anything to do with him or his policies during the actual campaign.
As i said, that's not the point
The fact is he had two or three years to prepare, and boy did he and they prepare. So it shows it can be done, in a democracy. Labour had fourteen years to be introspective, then get over it, then have some ideas, then turn these ideas into policy, then map out a grid for how these policies would be enacted in the first six months of government, thereby energising the country and providing hope for all
Instead, their plan seems to have been - "moan a lot about the Tories and make sure we all get some free shit". Literally, that was their entire plan for government. That was their big idea, after fourteen fucking years of opposition
The Mayor of London, Labour's Sadiq Khan, has repeated his opposition to the expansion of Heathrow Airport.
Reacting to Rachel Reeves' speech, he tells our colleagues at BBC London that he will challenge the expansion however he can, even if it's through the courts.
Again, this is a true test for Labour, now. This is how they will be judged, they have chosen this battleground, and it lies just off the M25, quite near Isleworth
They have the power in parliament, which is sovereign, to brush Khan aside. We keep being told Sky Toolmakersson is "ruthless". Is he?
I just remembered a line from Yes Minister about the role of NATO: "Keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down". We've failed all three...
Not sure I agree.
The Americans are still in NATO, the Russians never took West Berlin that I remember and the Germans are doing an excellent job of keeping themselves down at the moment with one incompetent, failing coalition after another.
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE
Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.
Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.
Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.
Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this
So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me
Small boats is another metric to evaluate them on.
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE
Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.
Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.
Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.
Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this
So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me
I have no doubt their intentions are good and their delivery will be mired by legal campaigns like the one from the crank I posted a twitter thread about the other day who stymies any development with legal objections.
But they have a big enough majority to smash through any objections. They've got 400 MPs FFS. We've also had endless inquiries and endless surveys and no more needs to be done, on that front
This is why it is such a good test of their real intent. There is nothing stopping them saying Action This Day - and seeing it done. They have the power to force this through. I'm not remotely optimistic but I am prepared to give them this one last chance
"Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan"
A plan he repeatedly denied had anything to do with him or his policies during the actual campaign.
As i said, that's not the point
The fact is he had two or three years to prepare, and boy did he and they prepare. So it shows it can be done, in a democracy. Labour had fourteen years to be introspective, then get over it, then have some ideas, then turn these ideas into policy, then map out a grid for how these policies would be enacted in the first six months of government, thereby energising the country and providing hope for all
Instead, their plan seems to have been - "moan a lot about the Tories and make sure we all get some free shit". Literally, that was their entire plan for government. That was their big idea, after fourteen fucking years of opposition
I think many of them genuinely thought that the ills of Britain were caused by the fact that the government were Tories, and all they had to do was not be Tories.
Heathrow should have had 3 or 4 runways about 60 years ago, so people today can't really complain about it. They shouldn't have put it off for so long.
Heathrow should have had 3 or 4 runways about 60 years ago, so people today can't really complain about it. They shouldn't have put it off for so long.
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE
Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.
Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.
Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.
Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this
So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me
I have no doubt their intentions are good and their delivery will be mired by legal campaigns like the one from the crank I posted a twitter thread about the other day who stymies any development with legal objections.
But they have a big enough majority to smash through any objections. They've got 400 MPs FFS. We've also had endless inquiries and endless surveys and no more needs to be done, on that front
This is why it is such a good test of their real intent. There is nothing stopping them saying Action This Day - and seeing it done. They have the power to force this through. I'm not remotely optimistic but I am prepared to give them this one last chance
"Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan"
A plan he repeatedly denied had anything to do with him or his policies during the actual campaign.
As i said, that's not the point
The fact is he had two or three years to prepare, and boy did he and they prepare. So it shows it can be done, in a democracy. Labour had fourteen years to be introspective, then get over it, then have some ideas, then turn these ideas into policy, then map out a grid for how these policies would be enacted in the first six months of government, thereby energising the country and providing hope for all
Instead, their plan seems to have been - "moan a lot about the Tories and make sure we all get some free shit". Literally, that was their entire plan for government. That was their big idea, after fourteen fucking years of opposition
I think many of them genuinely thought that the ills of Britain were caused by the fact that the government were Tories, and all they had to do was not be Tories.
Which suggests, inter alia, that they are really fucking stupid
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE
Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.
Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.
Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.
Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this
So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me
I have no doubt their intentions are good and their delivery will be mired by legal campaigns like the one from the crank I posted a twitter thread about the other day who stymies any development with legal objections.
But they have a big enough majority to smash through any objections. They've got 400 MPs FFS. We've also had endless inquiries and endless surveys and no more needs to be done, on that front
This is why it is such a good test of their real intent. There is nothing stopping them saying Action This Day - and seeing it done. They have the power to force this through. I'm not remotely optimistic but I am prepared to give them this one last chance
"Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan"
A plan he repeatedly denied had anything to do with him or his policies during the actual campaign.
His "plan" is simply to dominate the news and titillate himself.
The Mayor of London, Labour's Sadiq Khan, has repeated his opposition to the expansion of Heathrow Airport.
Reacting to Rachel Reeves' speech, he tells our colleagues at BBC London that he will challenge the expansion however he can, even if it's through the courts.
Heathrow should have had 3 or 4 runways about 60 years ago, so people today can't really complain about it. They shouldn't have put it off for so long.
I’m sorry but I find it very hard to believe that the Chinese would take intellectual property from the west and copy it and turn it out cheap. A very unfair accusation.
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE
Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.
Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.
Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.
Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this
So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me
I have no doubt their intentions are good and their delivery will be mired by legal campaigns like the one from the crank I posted a twitter thread about the other day who stymies any development with legal objections.
But they have a big enough majority to smash through any objections. They've got 400 MPs FFS. We've also had endless inquiries and endless surveys and no more needs to be done, on that front
This is why it is such a good test of their real intent. There is nothing stopping them saying Action This Day - and seeing it done. They have the power to force this through. I'm not remotely optimistic but I am prepared to give them this one last chance
"Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan"
A plan he repeatedly denied had anything to do with him or his policies during the actual campaign.
His "plan" is simply to dominate the news and titillate himself.
It really really isn't the case. This is a retarded take, even by your standards
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE
Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.
Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.
Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.
Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this
So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me
Small boats is another metric to evaluate them on.
I'll be evaluating them on living standards of the bottom quartile.
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE
Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.
Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.
Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.
Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this
So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me
I have no doubt their intentions are good and their delivery will be mired by legal campaigns like the one from the crank I posted a twitter thread about the other day who stymies any development with legal objections.
But they have a big enough majority to smash through any objections. They've got 400 MPs FFS. We've also had endless inquiries and endless surveys and no more needs to be done, on that front
This is why it is such a good test of their real intent. There is nothing stopping them saying Action This Day - and seeing it done. They have the power to force this through. I'm not remotely optimistic but I am prepared to give them this one last chance
"Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan"
A plan he repeatedly denied had anything to do with him or his policies during the actual campaign.
His "plan" is simply to dominate the news and titillate himself.
It really really isn't the case. This is a retarded take, even by your standards
There’s still a suggestion/rumour that the whole thing is being run by some hedge fund that was shorting Nvidia, and there’s nothing actually behind it that’s original work rather than copying the Western efforts.
With all this Heathrow stuff going on, from the perspective of the grim north - where for most people air travel is about cheap flights from Liverpool etc - it still sounds very southern. I am wondering where is the plan for trains from Liverpool to Hull, buses that aren't pre war, dualling the A1 from London -Edinburgh (guess which bit is missing), and even west coast side Liverpool/Manchester) to Edinburgh.
I just remembered a line from Yes Minister about the role of NATO: "Keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down". We've failed all three...
Not sure I agree.
The Americans are still in NATO, the Russians never took West Berlin that I remember and the Germans are doing an excellent job of keeping themselves down at the moment with one incompetent, failing coalition after another.
I wouldn't get too pleased about Germans having one incompetent, failing coalition after another.
We know what happened last time that was the case in Germany.
A bit rich from an industry which trains its AI on everyone else's work.
And in any event, Deepseek posted their workings, and quibbling about the cost - especially given the level of their own expenditure - is just silly. It's fairly evident that the Chinese came up with some very significant efficiencies.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
"As of October 24, 2023, there are 10 transgender women housed in BOP female facilities"
Good. Then it shouldn't be a problem to safely accommodate them in the male prison estate.
Any idea how many are in State Prisons (which is 88% of the US prison population)?
I can understand concerns about them being in womens prisons but of course it is a problem to keep them safe in male prisons, especially ones as lawless as the US system.
"Of the 10 transgender women at Chino who spoke to NBC News during a weekend visit last year, nine said they’d been sexually assaulted behind bars."
In a society as litigious as the US it amazes me that the awful violence in the prison system is allowed to continue. I would have thought prisoners would have a strong case against the prison authorities in terms of a failure of their duty of care. Perhaps there is some kind of law preventing this from happening - which would be pretty shameful but not unsurprising.
Prisons are places where rights are removed by definition. The US is very efficient to this, to the point of providing enforced labour (ie defacto slavery). IIUC some of the people battling the fires in LA were enforced prisoners.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
"As of October 24, 2023, there are 10 transgender women housed in BOP female facilities"
Good. Then it shouldn't be a problem to safely accommodate them in the male prison estate.
Any idea how many are in State Prisons (which is 88% of the US prison population)?
I can understand concerns about them being in womens prisons but of course it is a problem to keep them safe in male prisons, especially ones as lawless as the US system.
"Of the 10 transgender women at Chino who spoke to NBC News during a weekend visit last year, nine said they’d been sexually assaulted behind bars."
In a society as litigious as the US it amazes me that the awful violence in the prison system is allowed to continue. I would have thought prisoners would have a strong case against the prison authorities in terms of a failure of their duty of care. Perhaps there is some kind of law preventing this from happening - which would be pretty shameful but not unsurprising.
Prisons are places where rights are removed by definition. The US is very efficient to this, to the point of providing enforced labour (ie defacto slavery). IIUC some of the people battling the fires in LA were enforced prisoners.
The firefighting ones do volunteer for that programme (although given how terrible US prisons are, you are clearly strongly motivated to switch to firefighting training prison) and they do get paid + other benefits.
With all this Heathrow stuff going on, from the perspective of the grim north - where for most people air travel is about cheap flights from Liverpool etc - it still sounds very southern. I am wondering where is the plan for trains from Liverpool to Hull, buses that aren't pre war, dualling the A1 from London -Edinburgh (guess which bit is missing), and even west coast side Liverpool/Manchester) to Edinburgh.
When the Heathrow 3rd runways opens there will be five flights from Liverpool to London before 9am, and vice-versa.
Yes there is a missed opprtunity to run E-W rail in the North, from Liverpool to Hull.
There’s still a suggestion/rumour that the whole thing is being run by some hedge fund that was shorting Nvidia, and there’s nothing actually behind it that’s original work rather than copying the Western efforts.
I am still reading through their papers, but they definitely have some original ideas (or at least ones that haven't been published previously). But I am not buying this well it was a weekend project from a few guys at the hedge fund. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a big effort from 100 / 1000s of Chinese best and brightest under the order of Winnie the Pooh to lots of tech companies to produce LLMs that are up there with the West (another Chinese company has just released another open source model today) and with access to the non-nuked GPU cards.
The open sourcing I can see as a form of economic warfare or very least shots across the bows.
There is also an open source text to video and text to music models that are up there will Western SOTA ones.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 24m £22.6bn extra for the NHS & they still try to insist they're short of funds & we all ought to cough up even more. When will a politician be brave enough to say "No. We're done."
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE
Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.
Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.
Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.
Comparing Trump and Starmer like this seems a little disingenuous when Starmer had mere hours between being elected and becoming Prime Minister, whereas the US system has a 2-month transitional period!
Meanwhile, Trump’s hitting the ground running has produced complete chaos in federal services with unclear rules and badly worded directives. There have also been vast numbers of legal challenges, unsurprising given how much Trump has sought to trample over laws. If all you care about is headlines and owning the libs, he’s done well, but in terms of actual good governance, it’s been a disaster.
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE
Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.
Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.
Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.
Comparing Trump and Starmer like this seems a little disingenuous when Starmer had mere hours between being elected and becoming Prime Minister, whereas the US system has a 2-month transitional period!
Meanwhile, Trump’s hitting the ground running has produced complete chaos in federal services with unclear rules and badly worded directives. There have also been vast numbers of legal challenges, unsurprising given how much Trump has sought to trample over laws. If all you care about is headlines and owning the libs, he’s done well, but in terms of actual good governance, it’s been a disaster.
With all this Heathrow stuff going on, from the perspective of the grim north - where for most people air travel is about cheap flights from Liverpool etc - it still sounds very southern. I am wondering where is the plan for trains from Liverpool to Hull, buses that aren't pre war, dualling the A1 from London -Edinburgh (guess which bit is missing), and even west coast side Liverpool/Manchester) to Edinburgh.
When the Heathrow 3rd runways opens there will be five flights from Liverpool to London before 9am, and vice-versa.
Yes there is a missed opprtunity to run E-W rail in the North, from Liverpool to Hull.
The fact there would be that kind of demand, for a train journey of only 2 hours, demonstrates just how much we needed HS2 to open up some capacity (not speed FFS).
3rd runway at Heathrow to enable people to fly to Liverpool? Not a serious country.
Badenoch absolutely dreadful at PMQs. Starmer actually (unusually) answered her first question, so she asked it twice more. Time for Honest Bob?
Davy was effective.
I thought she did rather well?
I thought Starmer won with the line "We know she's not a lawyer, she's clearly not a leader, but if she keeps on like this, she is going to be the next lettuce."
Plus it wasn’t a good look for Badenoch when the Speaker had to tell her off,
Comments
"We, as a nation, have decided that LHR runway 3 / EWR / Thames Crossing / whatever is a nationally critical project. Enough enquiries have been done, and enough talk; we want bids in by the end of next month, CPOs by the end of the month after, and construction to have started in six months. Make it so."
It would have people howling, but it would get things done. Sadly, it'd almost certainly also be illegal...
If you were a 1st generation muslim growing up in the UK would you feel that your experiences give you an idea of what other 1st generation muslims experience? Thats what she is saying.
Its a bit clumsy, but frankly we have an information vacuum about this person and his family, so its inevitable that the vacuum gets filled.
https://x.com/NeilDotObrien/status/1884513584023032097
Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs
THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE
I don't think it will swing too many Green to Lab tacticians. Keeping the tories and the Fukkers out will be more important.
It was very telling that Reeves said that she was confident the Heathrow proposal would be in line with environmental etc commitments - that indicates they’re not reinventing the wheel with this stuff.
You make a proposal, pass the legislation, and get spades in the ground shortly afterwards. Anyone in the way gets paid off to the extent that they won’t complain.
It’s way cheaper to pay people off at 150% or 200% as a first offer, than have the whole project dragged through courts for years.
The youth of today are far too mollycoddled.
I wonder if Trump supporters will end up like this. Keep an eye on the price of eggs.
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1884561966154305646?t=uK5YM2RT6nliRR1yGYlVuQ&s=19
Please tell me this is a joke. Please tell me the Chancellor of the UK Exchequer did not excitedly announce this?
This isn't economics. This is cringeonomics
Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.
Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.
More seriously, I am currently in the process of exploring a new start-up opportunity. The government aren't exactly making it attractive to form it in the UK.
Or maybe it just fell into that (rather enormous) bucket of "what we need to say in order to take no chances whatsoever of failing to win this election". The ming vase thing. If so I rate it a bigger mistake than the more commented-upon one of ruling out any rises to income tax, corporation tax or VAT.
So they need their own side to get it through.
Only 'westerners' would be concerned with pro China bias? Have a look at what it says about the South China sea.
I remain opposed to a new runway at Heathrow airport because of the severe impact it will have on noise, air pollution and meeting our climate change targets.
Actually setting up a company is remarkable simple in the UK compared to elsewhere!
So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me
Some dog whistles coming from Lee Anderson are the likes of what the BNP were saying in their far right silo 15 years ago, and Nick Griffin was trying to get into mainstream discourse via his 'BNP in a lounge suit, looking respectable' tactic.
Here is a report of something put on Facebook by Lee Anderson in the winding up phased of the far riots last year (ie ~27 July), about an 'immigrant hotel'. It was actually expatriate NHS staff on holiday, and Anderson could have had one of his 5 office staff ring up and check - but he chose to shit-stir instead. It reveals his orientation.
This is not stuff we need to debate, it is stuff we need to address and deal with. Fortunately the authorities did after the riots, and will continue to do so with more senior organisers / animators due for prosecution this year.
If this government succeeds in getting spades in the ground & infrastructure & housing built then they will have done a damn site better than the last government ever did.
Lets judge them on outcomes, not words.
Obviously you select a site that has a naturally flat bottom.
The advantage is that you don’t need to disturb the existing sea floor, much.
The artificial island style of airport building takes years to finish settling.
Roman Abramovich could owe UK £1bn over tax dodge that helped bankroll Chelsea FC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrnqvqek4ro
No more faffing about: if you have an actual real legal argument then bring it to court, get the decision made & that’s it. After that it’s done - you’ve had your shot & the project goes ahead (or not). You don’t get to shift to a different ground for judicial review & try again, halting the project for another 9 months.
This is why it is such a good test of their real intent. There is nothing stopping them saying Action This Day - and seeing it done. They have the power to force this through. I'm not remotely optimistic but I am prepared to give them this one last chance
"far riots" to "far right riots".
A plan he repeatedly denied had anything to do with him or his policies during the actual campaign.
The Mayor of London, Labour's Sadiq Khan, has repeated his opposition to the expansion of Heathrow Airport.
Reacting to Rachel Reeves' speech, he tells our colleagues at BBC London that he will challenge the expansion however he can, even if it's through the courts.
Anyway, as I said above I think she is being a bit misquoted. I wouldn't make a big deal out of it, but I do think she fails to answer the question. Kuenssberg gives her a bunch of ways in which the killer *seemed* to be quite well 'integrated', and asked Badenoch for her reasons for thinking that the killer wasn't. She seemed to then say that it was wrong for people to ask for evidence. That YouGov poll is the first poll in which even Union + SPD wouldn't get a majority (depending on whether the Left actually get in). Merz's tactics might cripple his chances of forming an effective government, but I always said the guy is an idiot.
plus Bristol, plus London City, plus Manston (Kent), plus Southampton, plus Stansted, are approved. Plus Birmingham and Manchester being built aiui.
RR needs to get her butt in gear and just move on these.
The fact is he had two or three years to prepare, and boy did he and they prepare. So it shows it can be done, in a democracy. Labour had fourteen years to be introspective, then get over it, then have some ideas, then turn these ideas into policy, then map out a grid for how these policies would be enacted in the first six months of government, thereby energising the country and providing hope for all
Instead, their plan seems to have been - "moan a lot about the Tories and make sure we all get some free shit". Literally, that was their entire plan for government. That was their big idea, after fourteen fucking years of opposition
They have the power in parliament, which is sovereign, to brush Khan aside. We keep being told Sky Toolmakersson is "ruthless". Is he?
The Americans are still in NATO, the Russians never took West Berlin that I remember and the Germans are doing an excellent job of keeping themselves down at the moment with one incompetent, failing coalition after another.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vm1m8wpr9o
And it definitely didn't cost $5m to train.
If it was only 0.043% that wouldn't even make the hassle worth the while.
It had infinite runways….
Now I have become the sort of person that buys artisanal handwoven throws
It’s from Kachin. $105
We know what happened last time that was the case in Germany.
And in any event, Deepseek posted their workings, and quibbling about the cost - especially given the level of their own expenditure - is just silly. It's fairly evident that the Chinese came up with some very significant efficiencies.
Yes there is a missed opprtunity to run E-W rail in the North, from Liverpool to Hull.
The open sourcing I can see as a form of economic warfare or very least shots across the bows.
There is also an open source text to video and text to music models that are up there will Western SOTA ones.
@andrew_lilico
·
24m
£22.6bn extra for the NHS & they still try to insist they're short of funds & we all ought to cough up even more. When will a politician be brave enough to say "No. We're done."
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/1884570740785029468
Davy was effective.
Hess and Rosenberg were both into organic, biodynamic farming
https://wordonthegrapevine.co.uk/biodynamics-ecofascism-populism-nazis/
I thought she did rather well?
Starmer is useless at PMQs both as LOTO and PM, but he betters Badenoch (she seems poorly prepared) in a way he seldom did with Sunak.
Meanwhile, Trump’s hitting the ground running has produced complete chaos in federal services with unclear rules and badly worded directives. There have also been vast numbers of legal challenges, unsurprising given how much Trump has sought to trample over laws. If all you care about is headlines and owning the libs, he’s done well, but in terms of actual good governance, it’s been a disaster.
3rd runway at Heathrow to enable people to fly to Liverpool? Not a serious country.
Plus it wasn’t a good look for Badenoch when the Speaker had to tell her off,