Nearly a quarter of 2024 Tories are switching to Reform – politicalbetting.com
Speak to a lot of Tories, particularly the activists, and they will tell you this is the worst government in history, if they are right then surely it must worry them that the Tories are now firmly in third place in pretty much every poll.
20mph speed limits in most of London don't seem to have stopped accidents as much as in Wales.
"London road deaths 'crisis' as number of pedestrians killed in collisions soars 25 per cent 10 cyclists died in 2024, including rider hit by London bus who died a fortnight after suffering critical injuries"
You can see how this is going to go, can't you? The Wales stats will be proof that 20mph zones are good, the London stats will show that we need more of them or lower limits.
There are some pretty depressing stories in the stats, such as the poor kid who was killed by a bus while playing on the pavement.
I need some serious drilldown on that - that's a jump from 95 to 130 for 2023 to Interim Numbers 2024 - and numbers by per km by mode.
It may be an outlier but we need to know why. Ped deaths are +25%. Cyclist deaths are up from 7 to 10, which may not be statistically significant.
I'll keep my ears open. The last pre-Covid number I recall was ~111 in 2019.
"The replacement of our constitutional system of government with the whims of an unelected private citizen is a coup. The U.S. president has no authority to cut programs created and funded by Congress, and a private citizen tapped by a president has even less standing to try anything so radical."
It was always an impossible job - Kemi has both retain / regain former Tory now Reform voters while not scaring off centralist voters who utterly hate Farage and everything those right wing voters desire.
It’s an impossible task with an inevitable end result as I’ve stated for years - Brexit / Bozo destroyed the Tory party
"The replacement of our constitutional system of government with the whims of an unelected private citizen is a coup. The U.S. president has no authority to cut programs created and funded by Congress, and a private citizen tapped by a president has even less standing to try anything so radical."
Heather Cox Richardson email.
Some people act as though the President has no more business getting involved in politics than King Charles.
It was always an impossible job - Kemi has both retain / regain former Tory now Reform voters while not scaring off centralist voters who utterly hate Farage and everything those right wing voters desire.
It’s an impossible task with an inevitable end result as I’ve stated for years - Brexit / Bozo destroyed the Tory party
Jenrick shows the way I think this will go. They will want to have their Corbyn period before they come in from the cold. But unlike Labour, there’s an established well funded party already competing in the Corbyn space.
It was always an impossible job - Kemi has both retain / regain former Tory now Reform voters while not scaring off centralist voters who utterly hate Farage and everything those right wing voters desire.
It’s an impossible task with an inevitable end result as I’ve stated for years - Brexit / Bozo destroyed the Tory party
Pretty well all "mainstream" right of centre parties face the problem of trying to appeal to both the classes and the masses. The classes have moved left, the masses have moved right.
Let's suppose the Brexit vote had been lost 52%, to 48%. UKIP would have steadily cannibalised the Conservative vote, in the same way the SNP did with Labour.
The interesting bit is cut off the bottom of the Survey Results from yougov that have been posted above.
...thinking about your own constituency....which party would you vote for?
Labour 18% (-1%) Reform 18% (+1%) Con 16% (=) Would not vote 13% (+1%) Don't know 12% (=) LD 10% (=) Green 6% (-1%) Refused 3% (=) SNP 2% (=) Other party 2% (=) Plaid 1% (=)
At lot less volatile and closer. Anyone trying to unpick that and make a prediction, well good luck.
Lucy Letby: one thing that won't happen is a quick decision from Criminal Cases Review Commission.
It aims to complete 85% of cases in 12 months, but over 10%, about 120, have been with CCRC for over 2 years, some for much longer.
Letby case is very complex - could take years.
CCRC must separate significant new evidence, which could form the basis of a referral to Court of Appeal, from a new interpretation of existing evidence, which the Defence could have relied on at trial, but didn't.
It will also look to see if the jury may have been misled.
It was always an impossible job - Kemi has both retain / regain former Tory now Reform voters while not scaring off centralist voters who utterly hate Farage and everything those right wing voters desire.
It’s an impossible task with an inevitable end result as I’ve stated for years - Brexit / Bozo destroyed the Tory party
And there isn't the landowning, quasi-feudal bedrock on which it once stood, from which it can be rebuilt. Or not enough of it, anyway.
There's gonna be a hell of a lot of people relying on Trump being still alive to pardon them just before he leaves office (should there actually be a change of administration ever again in the US).
Yet on that same chart from the latest Yougov poll the Tories have made net gains from both Labour and the LDs even if a net loss to Reform.
Even more importantly the Tories under Kemi are now just 8% behind Labour with 18-24s, a huge turnaround from last year, with Reform 5th with the youngest voters behind the Greens and LDs. Kemi's Tories are now up 12% with 18-24s on Rishi's Tories and up a bit with under 40s too on where Rishi was.
Where the Tories are losing to Reform is mainly over 50s, with Reform now leading with 50-64s and the Tories just 2% ahead of Reform with over 65s with Labour 4th with pensioners. Kemi's Tories are down over 10% with over 65s on where Rishi's Tories were and down about 3% with 50-65s on where Rishi was.
Lucy Letby: one thing that won't happen is a quick decision from Criminal Cases Review Commission.
It aims to complete 85% of cases in 12 months, but over 10%, about 120, have been with CCRC for over 2 years, some for much longer.
Letby case is very complex - could take years.
CCRC must separate significant new evidence, which could form the basis of a referral to Court of Appeal, from a new interpretation of existing evidence, which the Defence could have relied on at trial, but didn't.
It will also look to see if the jury may have been misled.
Of course it will take years. Everything takes years, from adding a runway to extending a railway. It all adds to the impression that Britain is failing, and boosts NOTA aka Reform.
20mph speed limits in most of London don't seem to have stopped accidents as much as in Wales.
"London road deaths 'crisis' as number of pedestrians killed in collisions soars 25 per cent 10 cyclists died in 2024, including rider hit by London bus who died a fortnight after suffering critical injuries"
You can see how this is going to go, can't you? The Wales stats will be proof that 20mph zones are good, the London stats will show that we need more of them or lower limits.
There are some pretty depressing stories in the stats, such as the poor kid who was killed by a bus while playing on the pavement.
I need some serious drilldown on that - that's a jump from 95 to 130 for 2023 to Interim Numbers 2024 - and numbers by per km by mode.
It may be an outlier but we need to know why. Ped deaths are +25%. Cyclist deaths are up from 7 to 10, which may not be statistically significant.
I'll keep my ears open. The last pre-Covid number I recall was ~111 in 2019.
OK reading it in detail - the "Stats19" deaths, which are through the normal police reporting process (eg did not die beyond the max delay cutoff time in hospital), are 110. So that is 95->110 for Stats19 deaths, which is within historical annual fluctuatons, and down on 2019 if I recall it correctly.
The total numbers for 2024 are 130 vs 120 in 2023, which is a smaller fluctuation.
We still need the detail, however, and the per billion km numbers, which are the best comparator.
Sir Keir Starmer intends to 'push ahead' with deal to cede sovereignty to Chagos Islands and has offered significant concessions
Navin Ramgoolam, Mauritius's new prime minister, said his country has been offered 'complete sovereignty' of Diego Garcia, home to a critical US military base
He claimed that Starmer has effectively doubled the £9bn originally offered to Mauritius and weakened the British lease for Diego Garcia
He said the new deal will frontload instalments and link them to inflation. He also said that Mauritius will now have a right to veto extending the lease
He also revealed that Lord Hermer, the attorney-general, was involved in the latest round of face-to-face negotiations
Remember that terrible air crash where the pilot locked himself alone in the cockpit and intentionally crashed the plane whilst his copilot banged on the door begging him to stop?
It came to my mind watching some of the actions of the UK government recently.
Remember that terrible air crash where the pilot locked himself alone in the cockpit and intentionally crashed the plane whilst his copilot banged on the door begging him to stop?
It came to my mind watching some of the actions of the UK government recently.
Yes, Brexit fits that analogy perfectly, who can forget putting a border down the Irish Sea.
20mph speed limits in most of London don't seem to have stopped accidents as much as in Wales.
"London road deaths 'crisis' as number of pedestrians killed in collisions soars 25 per cent 10 cyclists died in 2024, including rider hit by London bus who died a fortnight after suffering critical injuries"
You can see how this is going to go, can't you? The Wales stats will be proof that 20mph zones are good, the London stats will show that we need more of them or lower limits.
There are some pretty depressing stories in the stats, such as the poor kid who was killed by a bus while playing on the pavement.
I need some serious drilldown on that - that's a jump from 95 to 130 for 2023 to Interim Numbers 2024 - and numbers by per km by mode.
It may be an outlier but we need to know why. Ped deaths are +25%. Cyclist deaths are up from 7 to 10, which may not be statistically significant.
I'll keep my ears open. The last pre-Covid number I recall was ~111 in 2019.
OK reading it in detail - the "Stats19" deaths, which are through the normal police reporting process (eg did not die beyond the max delay cutoff time in hospital), are 110. So that is 95->110 for Stats19 deaths, which is within historical annual fluctuatons, and down on 2019 if I recall it correctly.
The total numbers for 2024 are 130 vs 120 in 2023, which is a smaller fluctuation.
We still need the detail, however, and the per billion km numbers, which are the best comparator.
And just to point out that most of London's 20mph came in much earlier, so it's a bit silly to make the Wales comparison.
As the UK becomes a cycling country again the number of fatalities will soar, particularly while there are gaps in the urban networks.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
There was no argument for locking down healthy young people who were about as likely to be struck by lightning as they were to die from COVID.
There was some argument for measures for over-70s or those who were otherwise vulnerable.
Instead we got a wildly excessive terror campaign and an economically devastating furlough scheme that we're still paying for. At least Starmer wasn't in power then - it would have been even worse with him.
The majority of older people that caught Covid & had serious consequences caught it from younger (probably asymptomatic) people in their own household. In old people’s homes care staff or support workers would have brought it in.
How are you going to prevent schoolkids giving Covid to their parents, or their grandparent who lives in the same household in your non-lockdown world? You’re not, which means in turn that the inevitable outcome would have been the collapse of the NHS as it became overwhelmed with Covid cases & the Covid death rate would probably have doubled.
As it was things were touch and go - I’ve talked to respiratory consultants around where I live & they were absolutely flat out, with no spare capacity whatsoever having dredged up every bit of healthcare support available & running the people involved into the ground. Any further serious cases would have simply been sent to the Nightingale tent hospitals to die (which is what they were for of course).
Lockdowns were the least worst option available to the government at the time.
What evidence do you have that the death rate would have doubled? Or even increased? That's just unsupported, meaningless conjecture. Covid got into care homes and circulated amongst old people despite the fact that we had lockdowns, so they were largely futile.
Sweden didn't have lockdowns, but had a lower excess mortality rate than we did, relying on accurate, reliable, non-sensationalised information and the common sense of the Swedish people.
We (and other countries) trashed our civil liberties, traumatised a generation of children and ruined our economy for no demonstrable gain.
Sweden had restrictions tougher than ours at a few points; the main differences were mostly earlier on.[1] Sweden is a very different country, of course.
It also had excess mortality far higher than the more comparable neighbour countries, particularly earlier on, pre-vaccine, when Sweden's rules were most different.[2]
They made a choice, which was neither right nor wrong (it's all a balance of values) but it's daft to pretend that those choices didn't have immediate impacts on deaths, even if they may have had other/longer term benefits.
For example, for Sweden the index explicitly scores 'recommendations' as if they were legal restrictions AIUI.
In Germany it always scores the most restrictive rules anywhere in the country, even if they apply to only a few districts, for example. So if almost all the schools are open, but are closed in some districts it will score as if the schools are all closed.
I think the biggest difference was that Sweden didn't close kindergartens or primary schools at all. This is a pretty major difference, although in other respects Sweden had somewhat similar measures to other countries. You'd have to look in detail at the restrictions in place in different times and for how long to get an idea of the level of social distancing rules in different places. This is quite a difficult job, but I think the Covid stringency index is too flawed to be useful.
I do like a nice considered response (which this is )
Clearly, we disagree on the index - I do think it's useful or I wouldn't have referenced it, but I do agree that it doesn't capture everything and has some significant limitations. As it happens, I have close friends in Sweden (and lived there myself, for a time, before Covid) with whom I was in frequent contact so I had a fair handle, at the time, on the different levels of restriction. Early on, the legal position was very different here and there; later on, less so. There were a few periods where we could do things they could not (some of that was just due to peaks in infections happening at different points).
Anyway, I think the key point is that Sweden had more deaths than comparable neighbours. They also, I think, had some advantages (schools staying open was very sensible, particularly with hindsight). I'm not sure whether Sweden made the right choices or not; I think we made some errors, particularly after the first lockdown (which I still think was largely reasonable on the known facts at that time, which were few).
I'm not criticising Sweden, I just dislike the lazy notion (not yours) that still prevails that Sweden's approach had no downsides and that we could have done the same here without increasing our deaths.
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
Is Starmer in some bizarre race to become the most hated, ludicrous prime minister in history?!
It reminds me a lot of a contested will case I did, against an incredibly inept solicitor on the other side. Nothing he did made any sense, and it worried me, because I kept wondering if there was some brilliant strategy at play here, that I was too stupid to understand.
And, there was not. My opponent simply did not understand what he was doing.
Sir Keir Starmer intends to 'push ahead' with deal to cede sovereignty to Chagos Islands and has offered significant concessions
Navin Ramgoolam, Mauritius's new prime minister, said his country has been offered 'complete sovereignty' of Diego Garcia, home to a critical US military base
He claimed that Starmer has effectively doubled the £9bn originally offered to Mauritius and weakened the British lease for Diego Garcia
He said the new deal will frontload instalments and link them to inflation. He also said that Mauritius will now have a right to veto extending the lease
He also revealed that Lord Hermer, the attorney-general, was involved in the latest round of face-to-face negotiations
Starmer will offer to hand Diego Garcia to Mauritius for the full 24 hours until Trump rings him, shouts at him at 10000 decibels and threatens to tariff the hell out of the UK unless he reverses course and keeps it under full US control
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
There was no argument for locking down healthy young people who were about as likely to be struck by lightning as they were to die from COVID.
There was some argument for measures for over-70s or those who were otherwise vulnerable.
Instead we got a wildly excessive terror campaign and an economically devastating furlough scheme that we're still paying for. At least Starmer wasn't in power then - it would have been even worse with him.
The majority of older people that caught Covid & had serious consequences caught it from younger (probably asymptomatic) people in their own household. In old people’s homes care staff or support workers would have brought it in.
How are you going to prevent schoolkids giving Covid to their parents, or their grandparent who lives in the same household in your non-lockdown world? You’re not, which means in turn that the inevitable outcome would have been the collapse of the NHS as it became overwhelmed with Covid cases & the Covid death rate would probably have doubled.
As it was things were touch and go - I’ve talked to respiratory consultants around where I live & they were absolutely flat out, with no spare capacity whatsoever having dredged up every bit of healthcare support available & running the people involved into the ground. Any further serious cases would have simply been sent to the Nightingale tent hospitals to die (which is what they were for of course).
Lockdowns were the least worst option available to the government at the time.
What evidence do you have that the death rate would have doubled? Or even increased? That's just unsupported, meaningless conjecture. Covid got into care homes and circulated amongst old people despite the fact that we had lockdowns, so they were largely futile.
Sweden didn't have lockdowns, but had a lower excess mortality rate than we did, relying on accurate, reliable, non-sensationalised information and the common sense of the Swedish people.
We (and other countries) trashed our civil liberties, traumatised a generation of children and ruined our economy for no demonstrable gain.
Sweden had restrictions tougher than ours at a few points; the main differences were mostly earlier on.[1] Sweden is a very different country, of course.
It also had excess mortality far higher than the more comparable neighbour countries, particularly earlier on, pre-vaccine, when Sweden's rules were most different.[2]
They made a choice, which was neither right nor wrong (it's all a balance of values) but it's daft to pretend that those choices didn't have immediate impacts on deaths, even if they may have had other/longer term benefits.
For example, for Sweden the index explicitly scores 'recommendations' as if they were legal restrictions AIUI.
In Germany it always scores the most restrictive rules anywhere in the country, even if they apply to only a few districts, for example. So if almost all the schools are open, but are closed in some districts it will score as if the schools are all closed.
I think the biggest difference was that Sweden didn't close kindergartens or primary schools at all. This is a pretty major difference, although in some other respects Sweden had somewhat similar measures to other countries, though sometimes made as 'recommendations' which were generally followed. You'd have to look in detail at the restrictions in place in different times and for how long to get an idea of the different levels of social distancing rules in different places. This is quite a difficult job, but I think the Covid stringency index is too flawed to be useful.
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
The government supporter's defence has always been, "it's the Tories deal, they negotiated it". I think we are so far past the shape of a deal negotiated before Cameron took over, that even James Cleverly would be on solid ground condemning it.
Sir Keir Starmer intends to 'push ahead' with deal to cede sovereignty to Chagos Islands and has offered significant concessions
Navin Ramgoolam, Mauritius's new prime minister, said his country has been offered 'complete sovereignty' of Diego Garcia, home to a critical US military base
He claimed that Starmer has effectively doubled the £9bn originally offered to Mauritius and weakened the British lease for Diego Garcia
He said the new deal will frontload instalments and link them to inflation. He also said that Mauritius will now have a right to veto extending the lease
He also revealed that Lord Hermer, the attorney-general, was involved in the latest round of face-to-face negotiations
Starmer will offer to hand Diego Garcia to Mauritius for the full 24 hours until Trump rings him, shouts at him at 10000 decibels and threatens to tariff the hell out of the UK unless he reserves course and keeps it under full US control
So the UK is reliant on Donald Trump to prevent our Labour government executing an act of hideous and horrendously expensive self-harm, which it is intent on doing for no reason at all
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
There was no argument for locking down healthy young people who were about as likely to be struck by lightning as they were to die from COVID.
There was some argument for measures for over-70s or those who were otherwise vulnerable.
Instead we got a wildly excessive terror campaign and an economically devastating furlough scheme that we're still paying for. At least Starmer wasn't in power then - it would have been even worse with him.
The majority of older people that caught Covid & had serious consequences caught it from younger (probably asymptomatic) people in their own household. In old people’s homes care staff or support workers would have brought it in.
How are you going to prevent schoolkids giving Covid to their parents, or their grandparent who lives in the same household in your non-lockdown world? You’re not, which means in turn that the inevitable outcome would have been the collapse of the NHS as it became overwhelmed with Covid cases & the Covid death rate would probably have doubled.
As it was things were touch and go - I’ve talked to respiratory consultants around where I live & they were absolutely flat out, with no spare capacity whatsoever having dredged up every bit of healthcare support available & running the people involved into the ground. Any further serious cases would have simply been sent to the Nightingale tent hospitals to die (which is what they were for of course).
Lockdowns were the least worst option available to the government at the time.
What evidence do you have that the death rate would have doubled? Or even increased? That's just unsupported, meaningless conjecture. Covid got into care homes and circulated amongst old people despite the fact that we had lockdowns, so they were largely futile.
Sweden didn't have lockdowns, but had a lower excess mortality rate than we did, relying on accurate, reliable, non-sensationalised information and the common sense of the Swedish people.
We (and other countries) trashed our civil liberties, traumatised a generation of children and ruined our economy for no demonstrable gain.
Sweden had restrictions tougher than ours at a few points; the main differences were mostly earlier on.[1] Sweden is a very different country, of course.
It also had excess mortality far higher than the more comparable neighbour countries, particularly earlier on, pre-vaccine, when Sweden's rules were most different.[2]
They made a choice, which was neither right nor wrong (it's all a balance of values) but it's daft to pretend that those choices didn't have immediate impacts on deaths, even if they may have had other/longer term benefits.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
There was no argument for locking down healthy young people who were about as likely to be struck by lightning as they were to die from COVID.
There was some argument for measures for over-70s or those who were otherwise vulnerable.
Instead we got a wildly excessive terror campaign and an economically devastating furlough scheme that we're still paying for. At least Starmer wasn't in power then - it would have been even worse with him.
The majority of older people that caught Covid & had serious consequences caught it from younger (probably asymptomatic) people in their own household. In old people’s homes care staff or support workers would have brought it in.
How are you going to prevent schoolkids giving Covid to their parents, or their grandparent who lives in the same household in your non-lockdown world? You’re not, which means in turn that the inevitable outcome would have been the collapse of the NHS as it became overwhelmed with Covid cases & the Covid death rate would probably have doubled.
As it was things were touch and go - I’ve talked to respiratory consultants around where I live & they were absolutely flat out, with no spare capacity whatsoever having dredged up every bit of healthcare support available & running the people involved into the ground. Any further serious cases would have simply been sent to the Nightingale tent hospitals to die (which is what they were for of course).
Lockdowns were the least worst option available to the government at the time.
What evidence do you have that the death rate would have doubled? Or even increased? That's just unsupported, meaningless conjecture. Covid got into care homes and circulated amongst old people despite the fact that we had lockdowns, so they were largely futile.
Sweden didn't have lockdowns, but had a lower excess mortality rate than we did, relying on accurate, reliable, non-sensationalised information and the common sense of the Swedish people.
We (and other countries) trashed our civil liberties, traumatised a generation of children and ruined our economy for no demonstrable gain.
Sweden had restrictions tougher than ours at a few points; the main differences were mostly earlier on.[1] Sweden is a very different country, of course.
It also had excess mortality far higher than the more comparable neighbour countries, particularly earlier on, pre-vaccine, when Sweden's rules were most different.[2]
They made a choice, which was neither right nor wrong (it's all a balance of values) but it's daft to pretend that those choices didn't have immediate impacts on deaths, even if they may have had other/longer term benefits.
For example, for Sweden the index explicitly scores 'recommendations' as if they were legal restrictions AIUI.
In Germany it always scores the most restrictive rules anywhere in the country, even if they apply to only a few districts, for example. So if almost all the schools are open, but are closed in some districts it will score as if the schools are all closed.
I think the biggest difference was that Sweden didn't close kindergartens or primary schools at all. This is a pretty major difference, although in some other respects Sweden had somewhat similar measures to other countries, though sometimes made as 'recommendations' which were generally followed. You'd have to look in detail at the restrictions in place in different times and for how long to get an idea of the different levels of social distancing rules in different places. This is quite a difficult job, but I think the Covid stringency index is too flawed to be useful.
Already replied above*, quoting FTP
*or below, depending which way you look at things!
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
How can it be a good policy? I genuinely can't see how it could be.
Sir Keir Starmer intends to 'push ahead' with deal to cede sovereignty to Chagos Islands and has offered significant concessions
Navin Ramgoolam, Mauritius's new prime minister, said his country has been offered 'complete sovereignty' of Diego Garcia, home to a critical US military base
He claimed that Starmer has effectively doubled the £9bn originally offered to Mauritius and weakened the British lease for Diego Garcia
He said the new deal will frontload instalments and link them to inflation. He also said that Mauritius will now have a right to veto extending the lease
He also revealed that Lord Hermer, the attorney-general, was involved in the latest round of face-to-face negotiations
Starmer will offer to hand Diego Garcia to Mauritius for the full 24 hours until Trump rings him, shouts at him at 10000 decibels and threatens to tariff the hell out of the UK unless he reserves course and keeps it under full US control
So the UK is reliant on Donald Trump to prevent our Labour government executing an act of hideous and horrendously expensive self-harm, which it is intent on doing for no reason at all
The interesting bit is cut off the bottom of the Survey Results from yougov that have been posted above.
...thinking about your own constituency....which party would you vote for?
Labour 18% (-1%) Reform 18% (+1%) Con 16% (=) Would not vote 13% (+1%) Don't know 12% (=) LD 10% (=) Green 6% (-1%) Refused 3% (=) SNP 2% (=) Other party 2% (=) Plaid 1% (=)
At lot less volatile and closer. Anyone trying to unpick that and make a prediction, well good luck.
This is one of the most meaningless pieces of information I've ever seen if it's the aggregate of how people would vote in their constituency, because it only makes sense when you see the particular constituency each person lives in. Summing the results doesn't make sense.
Remember that terrible air crash where the pilot locked himself alone in the cockpit and intentionally crashed the plane whilst his copilot banged on the door begging him to stop?
It came to my mind watching some of the actions of the UK government recently.
Yes, Brexit fits that analogy perfectly, who can forget putting a border down the Irish Sea.
Surely we should channel Trump and rename that the Welsh sea? Or maybe the British Ocean.
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
It feels like one of those ludicrous football deals when Man United pay £70 million for an ancient Casemiro on £400k wages.
Sir Keir Starmer intends to 'push ahead' with deal to cede sovereignty to Chagos Islands and has offered significant concessions
Navin Ramgoolam, Mauritius's new prime minister, said his country has been offered 'complete sovereignty' of Diego Garcia, home to a critical US military base
He claimed that Starmer has effectively doubled the £9bn originally offered to Mauritius and weakened the British lease for Diego Garcia
He said the new deal will frontload instalments and link them to inflation. He also said that Mauritius will now have a right to veto extending the lease
He also revealed that Lord Hermer, the attorney-general, was involved in the latest round of face-to-face negotiations
Starmer will offer to hand Diego Garcia to Mauritius for the full 24 hours until Trump rings him, shouts at him at 10000 decibels and threatens to tariff the hell out of the UK unless he reserves course and keeps it under full US control
So the UK is reliant on Donald Trump to prevent our Labour government executing an act of hideous and horrendously expensive self-harm, which it is intent on doing for no reason at all
I'd laugh my socks off if we got clobbered with tariffs along with the ludicrous payments to boot.
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
The government supporter's defence has always been, "it's the Tories deal, they negotiated it". I think we are so far past the shape of a deal negotiated before Cameron took over, that even James Cleverly would be on solid ground condemning it.
Cleverly Sunak and Truss must never be forgiven for their part in kicking this off
Nonetheless Starmer and Labour have taken it to an insane new level of treachery
The whole world is looking at us, these days, with a kind of sad, bewildered pity
20mph speed limits in most of London don't seem to have stopped accidents as much as in Wales.
"London road deaths 'crisis' as number of pedestrians killed in collisions soars 25 per cent 10 cyclists died in 2024, including rider hit by London bus who died a fortnight after suffering critical injuries"
You can see how this is going to go, can't you? The Wales stats will be proof that 20mph zones are good, the London stats will show that we need more of them or lower limits.
There are some pretty depressing stories in the stats, such as the poor kid who was killed by a bus while playing on the pavement.
I need some serious drilldown on that - that's a jump from 95 to 130 for 2023 to Interim Numbers 2024 - and numbers by per km by mode.
It may be an outlier but we need to know why. Ped deaths are +25%. Cyclist deaths are up from 7 to 10, which may not be statistically significant.
I'll keep my ears open. The last pre-Covid number I recall was ~111 in 2019.
OK reading it in detail - the "Stats19" deaths, which are through the normal police reporting process (eg did not die beyond the max delay cutoff time in hospital), are 110. So that is 95->110 for Stats19 deaths, which is within historical annual fluctuatons, and down on 2019 if I recall it correctly.
The total numbers for 2024 are 130 vs 120 in 2023, which is a smaller fluctuation.
We still need the detail, however, and the per billion km numbers, which are the best comparator.
And just to point out that most of London's 20mph came in much earlier, so it's a bit silly to make the Wales comparison.
As the UK becomes a cycling country again the number of fatalities will soar, particularly while there are gaps in the urban networks.
Importantly this is wheeling and walking just as much as cycling.
We can address a lot of that in the interim by sorting out blocked Rights of Way, and things like pavement parking.
But I'm equally concerned about rural areas. I can see a way to 80-90% of English urban streets and roads having 20mph limits in 10-15 years, made irresistible by weight of evidence.
I can't see a similar route for making rural roads safer in a similar timeframe without a lot of political commitment, which this Govt may not have. National speed limit to 50mph is a baby step, but the need is re-creation of LHAs from the ground up, with effective responsibility for treating all modes equally.
Obviously if we get a current Tory party or RefUK (or the fvcking Ashfield Independents) having influence we are going back to the stone age.
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
Why is Reeves allowing him to spend £ billions (nine was it?) on this when she is in real danger of breaking her fiscal rules?
Sir Keir Starmer intends to 'push ahead' with deal to cede sovereignty to Chagos Islands and has offered significant concessions
Navin Ramgoolam, Mauritius's new prime minister, said his country has been offered 'complete sovereignty' of Diego Garcia, home to a critical US military base
He claimed that Starmer has effectively doubled the £9bn originally offered to Mauritius and weakened the British lease for Diego Garcia
He said the new deal will frontload instalments and link them to inflation. He also said that Mauritius will now have a right to veto extending the lease
He also revealed that Lord Hermer, the attorney-general, was involved in the latest round of face-to-face negotiations
Starmer will offer to hand Diego Garcia to Mauritius for the full 24 hours until Trump rings him, shouts at him at 10000 decibels and threatens to tariff the hell out of the UK unless he reserves course and keeps it under full US control
So the UK is reliant on Donald Trump to prevent our Labour government executing an act of hideous and horrendously expensive self-harm, which it is intent on doing for no reason at all
Surely the answer is for Trump to put on hold invading Canada and Greenland and instead invade the Chagos Islands and declare them a US state.
Will save us £9b which Ed Miliband can use to make big holes to fill with Carbon.
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
How can it be a good policy? I genuinely can't see how it could be.
It reminds me of the incident in Rory Stewart’s memoirs - where officials went to any lengths to prevent him *stopping money* being sent to an “aid organisation” that was actually Islamist Fruit&Nutters.
Someone here tried to sell the idea that it must have been some brilliant covert op that Rory was stupidly hindering.
Alternatively, it was the Process State in read-only mode.
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
Why is Reeves allowing him to spend £ billions (nine was it?) on this when she is in real danger of breaking her fiscal rules?
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
How can it be a good policy? I genuinely can't see how it could be.
Neither can I. Which is why, if it is, I'd expect the Labour party and their supporters to be shouting from the rooftops about why it's a good policy, and what we're missing.
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
Why is Reeves allowing him to spend £ billions (nine was it?) on this when she is in real danger of breaking her fiscal rules?
It's £9 billion over 99 years.
So still £90m a year - what do we get for that and how much of the money we are currently spending on Chago will we save/ is offset?
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
Why is Reeves allowing him to spend £ billions (nine was it?) on this when she is in real danger of breaking her fiscal rules?
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
There was no argument for locking down healthy young people who were about as likely to be struck by lightning as they were to die from COVID.
There was some argument for measures for over-70s or those who were otherwise vulnerable.
Instead we got a wildly excessive terror campaign and an economically devastating furlough scheme that we're still paying for. At least Starmer wasn't in power then - it would have been even worse with him.
The majority of older people that caught Covid & had serious consequences caught it from younger (probably asymptomatic) people in their own household. In old people’s homes care staff or support workers would have brought it in.
How are you going to prevent schoolkids giving Covid to their parents, or their grandparent who lives in the same household in your non-lockdown world? You’re not, which means in turn that the inevitable outcome would have been the collapse of the NHS as it became overwhelmed with Covid cases & the Covid death rate would probably have doubled.
As it was things were touch and go - I’ve talked to respiratory consultants around where I live & they were absolutely flat out, with no spare capacity whatsoever having dredged up every bit of healthcare support available & running the people involved into the ground. Any further serious cases would have simply been sent to the Nightingale tent hospitals to die (which is what they were for of course).
Lockdowns were the least worst option available to the government at the time.
What evidence do you have that the death rate would have doubled? Or even increased? That's just unsupported, meaningless conjecture. Covid got into care homes and circulated amongst old people despite the fact that we had lockdowns, so they were largely futile.
Sweden didn't have lockdowns, but had a lower excess mortality rate than we did, relying on accurate, reliable, non-sensationalised information and the common sense of the Swedish people.
We (and other countries) trashed our civil liberties, traumatised a generation of children and ruined our economy for no demonstrable gain.
Sweden had restrictions tougher than ours at a few points; the main differences were mostly earlier on.[1] Sweden is a very different country, of course.
It also had excess mortality far higher than the more comparable neighbour countries, particularly earlier on, pre-vaccine, when Sweden's rules were most different.[2]
They made a choice, which was neither right nor wrong (it's all a balance of values) but it's daft to pretend that those choices didn't have immediate impacts on deaths, even if they may have had other/longer term benefits.
Sweden is a very different country? I don't agree. The UK and Sweden are similar in many ways.
Population density (order of magnitude difference) although London and Stockholm are not dissimilar. Climate. Transport infrastructure - e.g. airports/hubs. Trust in government.
Anyway, if Sweden and the UK are similar then presumably UK is similar to Norway? Or Denmark? Look at their Covid deaths (for avoidance of doubt, I also think that's a flawed comparison).
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
Why is Reeves allowing him to spend £ billions (nine was it?) on this when she is in real danger of breaking her fiscal rules?
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
Why is Reeves allowing him to spend £ billions (nine was it?) on this when she is in real danger of breaking her fiscal rules?
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
How can it be a good policy? I genuinely can't see how it could be.
Neither can I. Which is why, if it is, I'd expect the Labour party and their supporters to be shouting from the rooftops about why it's a good policy, and what we're missing.
I don't see it as a good policy; it's Sir Keir putting too much weight on the UK being perceived to be a "good international citizen", at a time when we need a greater weight on realpolitik.
On the merits, I think it would be better to keep the Chagos in order to avoid provoking the lunatic Chump unnecessarily in the short term, but also because I don't think that part of the world has yet got to the stage where they will protect the important marine reserve - so we need to keep that for perhaps another century.
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
How can it be a good policy? I genuinely can't see how it could be.
Neither can I. Which is why, if it is, I'd expect the Labour party and their supporters to be shouting from the rooftops about why it's a good policy, and what we're missing.
I don't see it as a good policy; it's Sir Keir putting too much weight on the UK being perceived to be a "good international citizen", at a time when we need a greater weight on realpolitik.
On the merits, I think it would be better to keep the Chagos in order to avoid provoking the lunatic Chump unnecessarily in the short term, but also because I don't think that part of the world has yet got to the stage where they will protect the important marine reserve - so we need to keep that for perhaps another century.
My advice is
Pay the Chagos Islanders nothing
Give them their independence. Have a ceremony with a flag then go away.
"The replacement of our constitutional system of government with the whims of an unelected private citizen is a coup. The U.S. president has no authority to cut programs created and funded by Congress, and a private citizen tapped by a president has even less standing to try anything so radical."
Heather Cox Richardson email.
Some people act as though the President has no more business getting involved in politics than King Charles.
The President does not control the purse. The President can not create or destroy government departments. Those are privileges that belong to Congress.
An example of the sort of problem that may need to be managed once the new laws come in:
Parenting site Mumsnet says it has stopped users from sharing pictures after it was targeted with images of child sexual abuse.
Company founder Justine Roberts told the BBC the "horrific incident" had been reported to police after the images were posted on the platform over several hours late on Sunday.
It has now suspended the facility to post pictures on the site as a temporary measure and is planning to introduce artificial intelligence (AI) filters to flag "illegal" and "disturbing" images before they appear.
Some Mumsnet users have raised concerns about the length of time the images were visible and the site's use of volunteer moderators during overnight hours in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93qw3lw4kvo
"The replacement of our constitutional system of government with the whims of an unelected private citizen is a coup. The U.S. president has no authority to cut programs created and funded by Congress, and a private citizen tapped by a president has even less standing to try anything so radical."
Heather Cox Richardson email.
Some people act as though the President has no more business getting involved in politics than King Charles.
The difference is Trump is not above the Law, like the King is.
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
How can it be a good policy? I genuinely can't see how it could be.
Neither can I. Which is why, if it is, I'd expect the Labour party and their supporters to be shouting from the rooftops about why it's a good policy, and what we're missing.
I don't see it as a good policy; it's Sir Keir putting too much weight on the UK being perceived to be a "good international citizen", at a time when we need a greater weight on realpolitik.
On the merits, I think it would be better to keep the Chagos in order to avoid provoking the lunatic Chump unnecessarily in the short term, but also because I don't think that part of the world has yet got to the stage where they will protect the important marine reserve - so we need to keep that for perhaps another century.
My advice is
Pay the Chagos Islanders nothing
Give them their independence. Have a ceremony with a flag then go away.
Sir Keir Starmer intends to 'push ahead' with deal to cede sovereignty to Chagos Islands and has offered significant concessions
Navin Ramgoolam, Mauritius's new prime minister, said his country has been offered 'complete sovereignty' of Diego Garcia, home to a critical US military base
He claimed that Starmer has effectively doubled the £9bn originally offered to Mauritius and weakened the British lease for Diego Garcia
He said the new deal will frontload instalments and link them to inflation. He also said that Mauritius will now have a right to veto extending the lease
He also revealed that Lord Hermer, the attorney-general, was involved in the latest round of face-to-face negotiations
If he has £9bn to spare, please send it to whomever is making the drones the Ukranians are using to go 1,000km into Russia in the last few days.
Jesus wept.
Where exactly are we supposed to be getting this £9billion from?
To pay for a transfer of sovereignty that the Chagossians themselves don’t even want & pisses off our most important military allay at a time when we can least afford to do so.
Starmer has lawyer brain: the pronouncements of a court with no power staffed by judges with no interest are more important than actual on the ground realpolitik.
He's been voice coached to say "I surrender", using different words
"Where else but in a leisure centre can we draw together the troubled strands of our society? Where else will you find young and old, of every class and race, playing with each other on the gymnasium floor?"
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
How can it be a good policy? I genuinely can't see how it could be.
Neither can I. Which is why, if it is, I'd expect the Labour party and their supporters to be shouting from the rooftops about why it's a good policy, and what we're missing.
I don't see it as a good policy; it's Sir Keir putting too much weight on the UK being perceived to be a "good international citizen", at a time when we need a greater weight on realpolitik.
On the merits, I think it would be better to keep the Chagos in order to avoid provoking the lunatic Chump unnecessarily in the short term, but also because I don't think that part of the world has yet got to the stage where they will protect the important marine reserve - so we need to keep that for perhaps another century.
My advice is
Pay the Chagos Islanders nothing
Give them their independence. Have a ceremony with a flag then go away.
Stop worrying about them
Sell the Chagos Islands to Dodgy Donald for $1 million $100 billion!
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
How can it be a good policy? I genuinely can't see how it could be.
Neither can I. Which is why, if it is, I'd expect the Labour party and their supporters to be shouting from the rooftops about why it's a good policy, and what we're missing.
I don't see it as a good policy; it's Sir Keir putting too much weight on the UK being perceived to be a "good international citizen", at a time when we need a greater weight on realpolitik.
On the merits, I think it would be better to keep the Chagos in order to avoid provoking the lunatic Chump unnecessarily in the short term, but also because I don't think that part of the world has yet got to the stage where they will protect the important marine reserve - so we need to keep that for perhaps another century.
My advice is
Pay the Chagos Islanders nothing
Give them their independence. Have a ceremony with a flag then go away.
Stop worrying about them
The obvious (hah!) answer is that since the court judgement relies on the fact that the Chagos Islands were under Mauritian control when Mauritius was a French colony we should return them to the French.
I’m sure that solution will satisfy everyone & have no downsides whatsoever.
An example of the sort of problem that may need to be managed once the new laws come in:
Parenting site Mumsnet says it has stopped users from sharing pictures after it was targeted with images of child sexual abuse.
Company founder Justine Roberts told the BBC the "horrific incident" had been reported to police after the images were posted on the platform over several hours late on Sunday.
It has now suspended the facility to post pictures on the site as a temporary measure and is planning to introduce artificial intelligence (AI) filters to flag "illegal" and "disturbing" images before they appear.
Some Mumsnet users have raised concerns about the length of time the images were visible and the site's use of volunteer moderators during overnight hours in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93qw3lw4kvo
Putting in place these filters is something every UK platform is going to have to do under the Online Safety Act assuming it comes into force next month.
Arguably a good thing - I’m surprised a site the size of Mumsnet hadn’t done so already - the services to scan your uploads are available from the large cloud providers.
(There’s lots about the OSA that I really don’t like, but basic filtering like this ought to be the expectation for any platform where you can upload images without human review.)
In the latest Chagos deal we have no automatic right to renew the lease on the base. They’ve given that away too
The contrast between Starmer (Chagos) and Trump (Greenland, Panama, etc.) is really quite surreal.
I can only assume that Sir Keir is indulging his lefty-lawyer shtick with this "deal" in the certain knowledge that the Donald will strike it down with one imperious sweep of his (small) hand.
In the latest Chagos deal we have no automatic right to renew the lease on the base. They’ve given that away too
The contrast between Starmer (Chagos) and Trump (Greenland, Panama, etc.) is really quite surreal.
I can only assume that Sir Keir is indulging his lefty-lawyer shtick with this "deal" in the certain knowledge that the Donald will strike it down with one imperious sweep of his (small) hand.
That sounds a wizard wheeze, until Trump doesn't strike it down...
In the latest Chagos deal we have no automatic right to renew the lease on the base. They’ve given that away too
The contrast between Starmer (Chagos) and Trump (Greenland, Panama, etc.) is really quite surreal.
I can only assume that Sir Keir is indulging his lefty-lawyer shtick with this "deal" in the certain knowledge that the Donald will strike it down with one imperious sweep of his (small) hand.
I reckon Starmer is genuinely stupid, panicking in office, and is clinging onto this as being some kind of legacy (as he no longer expects anything else). Meanwhile he is surrounded by sharper, nastier people with eyes on a payday
Does the USA have explicit power to strike the deal down. I mean we might make it, then 2 weeks later (He's a very busy man) Rubio plonks the deal down on Trump's desk.
"The replacement of our constitutional system of government with the whims of an unelected private citizen is a coup. The U.S. president has no authority to cut programs created and funded by Congress, and a private citizen tapped by a president has even less standing to try anything so radical."
Heather Cox Richardson email.
Some people act as though the President has no more business getting involved in politics than King Charles.
The President does not control the purse. The President can not create or destroy government departments. Those are privileges that belong to Congress.
Having a separation of powers is a terrible way to run a government. Our system is much better, or was before we tried to imitate the Americans.
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
How can it be a good policy? I genuinely can't see how it could be.
Neither can I. Which is why, if it is, I'd expect the Labour party and their supporters to be shouting from the rooftops about why it's a good policy, and what we're missing.
I don't see it as a good policy; it's Sir Keir putting too much weight on the UK being perceived to be a "good international citizen", at a time when we need a greater weight on realpolitik.
On the merits, I think it would be better to keep the Chagos in order to avoid provoking the lunatic Chump unnecessarily in the short term, but also because I don't think that part of the world has yet got to the stage where they will protect the important marine reserve - so we need to keep that for perhaps another century.
My advice is
Pay the Chagos Islanders nothing
Give them their independence. Have a ceremony with a flag then go away.
Stop worrying about them
We aren’t paying the Chagos Islanders.
We are giving the money to Mauritius. They will, of course, give all the money to the Chagos Islanders, along with all the money from the fishing rights.
In the latest Chagos deal we have no automatic right to renew the lease on the base. They’ve given that away too
The contrast between Starmer (Chagos) and Trump (Greenland, Panama, etc.) is really quite surreal.
I can only assume that Sir Keir is indulging his lefty-lawyer shtick with this "deal" in the certain knowledge that the Donald will strike it down with one imperious sweep of his (small) hand.
"Since I have been manager of this centre, I am very proud to say there have only been twenty-three deaths. And not one of them was a staff member!"
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
How can it be a good policy? I genuinely can't see how it could be.
Neither can I. Which is why, if it is, I'd expect the Labour party and their supporters to be shouting from the rooftops about why it's a good policy, and what we're missing.
I don't see it as a good policy; it's Sir Keir putting too much weight on the UK being perceived to be a "good international citizen", at a time when we need a greater weight on realpolitik.
On the merits, I think it would be better to keep the Chagos in order to avoid provoking the lunatic Chump unnecessarily in the short term, but also because I don't think that part of the world has yet got to the stage where they will protect the important marine reserve - so we need to keep that for perhaps another century.
For comedy value, make the marine preserve a UN designated preserve in perpetuity. Before handing it over.
I have never been a Starmer fanboi (more an enemy of the hard and hardish right) but any interjection by Jenrick makes me warm to Starmer all the more.
I'd rather take my chances with Team Farage than Team Jenrick.
"The replacement of our constitutional system of government with the whims of an unelected private citizen is a coup. The U.S. president has no authority to cut programs created and funded by Congress, and a private citizen tapped by a president has even less standing to try anything so radical."
Heather Cox Richardson email.
Some people act as though the President has no more business getting involved in politics than King Charles.
The President does not control the purse. The President can not create or destroy government departments. Those are privileges that belong to Congress.
Having a separation of powers is a terrible way to run a government. Our system is much better, or was before we tried to imitate the Americans.
Whether or not it is a good system, it is THE system. Americans love to bang on about the Constitution and how great their system of government is, but right now it seem the President is above the law, he has usurped the powers of Congress, and the Constitution is of no more worth than an old till receipt from Poundland.
I have never been a Starmer fanboi (more an enemy of the hard and hardish right) but any interjection by Jenrick makes me warm to Starmer all the more.
I have never been a Starmer fanboi (more an enemy of the hard and hardish right) but any interjection by Jenrick makes me warm to Starmer all the more.
I don’t think you’re the target demographic here
Yes, I suspect you are right. Centrist Dad from near Newent isn't the pitch point.
It was always an impossible job - Kemi has both retain / regain former Tory now Reform voters while not scaring off centralist voters who utterly hate Farage and everything those right wing voters desire.
It’s an impossible task with an inevitable end result as I’ve stated for years - Brexit / Bozo destroyed the Tory party
Jenrick shows the way I think this will go. They will want to have their Corbyn period before they come in from the cold. But unlike Labour, there’s an established well funded party already competing in the Corbyn space.
What makes you think embracing the centrist consensus equals 'coming in from the cold' in 2025, much less in 2029?
We are now offering Mauritius TWICE their GDP - to take sovereign British territory
This whole story seems so ludicrous that there *must* be something else going on. But even if there is, the messaging of it has been uniquely terrible.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
How can it be a good policy? I genuinely can't see how it could be.
Neither can I. Which is why, if it is, I'd expect the Labour party and their supporters to be shouting from the rooftops about why it's a good policy, and what we're missing.
I don't see it as a good policy; it's Sir Keir putting too much weight on the UK being perceived to be a "good international citizen", at a time when we need a greater weight on realpolitik.
On the merits, I think it would be better to keep the Chagos in order to avoid provoking the lunatic Chump unnecessarily in the short term, but also because I don't think that part of the world has yet got to the stage where they will protect the important marine reserve - so we need to keep that for perhaps another century.
For comedy value, make the marine preserve a UN designated preserve in perpetuity. Before handing it over.
Comments
It may be an outlier but we need to know why. Ped deaths are +25%. Cyclist deaths are up from 7 to 10, which may not be statistically significant.
I'll keep my ears open. The last pre-Covid number I recall was ~111 in 2019.
Heather Cox Richardson email.
It’s an impossible task with an inevitable end result as I’ve stated for years - Brexit / Bozo destroyed the Tory party
Let's suppose the Brexit vote had been lost 52%, to 48%. UKIP would have steadily cannibalised the Conservative vote, in the same way the SNP did with Labour.
...thinking about your own constituency....which party would you vote for?
Labour 18% (-1%)
Reform 18% (+1%)
Con 16% (=)
Would not vote 13% (+1%)
Don't know 12% (=)
LD 10% (=)
Green 6% (-1%)
Refused 3% (=)
SNP 2% (=)
Other party 2% (=)
Plaid 1% (=)
At lot less volatile and closer. Anyone trying to unpick that and make a prediction, well good luck.
It aims to complete 85% of cases in 12 months, but over 10%, about 120, have been with CCRC for over 2 years, some for much longer.
Letby case is very complex - could take years.
CCRC must separate significant new evidence, which could form the basis of a referral to Court of Appeal, from a new interpretation of existing evidence, which the Defence could have relied on at trial, but didn't.
It will also look to see if the jury may have been misled.
https://x.com/DannyShawNews/status/1886792001611276435
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93qwr7gn69o
Even more importantly the Tories under Kemi are now just 8% behind Labour with 18-24s, a huge turnaround from last year, with Reform 5th with the youngest voters behind the Greens and LDs. Kemi's Tories are now up 12% with 18-24s on Rishi's Tories and up a bit with under 40s too on where Rishi was.
Where the Tories are losing to Reform is mainly over 50s, with Reform now leading with 50-64s and the Tories just 2% ahead of Reform with over 65s with Labour 4th with pensioners. Kemi's Tories are down over 10% with over 65s on where Rishi's Tories were and down about 3% with 50-65s on where Rishi was.
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/VotingIntention_MRP_250203_w.pdf
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election
The total numbers for 2024 are 130 vs 120 in 2023, which is a smaller fluctuation.
We still need the detail, however, and the per billion km numbers, which are the best comparator.
Chagos latest - The Times
Exclusive from @georgegrylls
Sir Keir Starmer intends to 'push ahead' with deal to cede sovereignty to Chagos Islands and has offered significant concessions
Navin Ramgoolam, Mauritius's new prime minister, said his country has been offered 'complete sovereignty' of Diego Garcia, home to a critical US military base
He claimed that Starmer has effectively doubled the £9bn originally offered to Mauritius and weakened the British lease for Diego Garcia
He said the new deal will frontload instalments and link them to inflation. He also said that Mauritius will now have a right to veto extending the lease
He also revealed that Lord Hermer, the attorney-general, was involved in the latest round of face-to-face negotiations
Remember that terrible air crash where the pilot locked himself alone in the cockpit and intentionally crashed the plane whilst his copilot banged on the door begging him to stop?
It came to my mind watching some of the actions of the UK government recently.
Beattie was previously fired from the WH after CNN revealed he spoke at a conference that included white nationalists.
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1886785957866664205
As the UK becomes a cycling country again the number of fatalities will soar, particularly while there are gaps in the urban networks.
Heinlein?
Hanlon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
I vote, tentatively, for number 3.
Clearly, we disagree on the index - I do think it's useful or I wouldn't have referenced it, but I do agree that it doesn't capture everything and has some significant limitations. As it happens, I have close friends in Sweden (and lived there myself, for a time, before Covid) with whom I was in frequent contact so I had a fair handle, at the time, on the different levels of restriction. Early on, the legal position was very different here and there; later on, less so. There were a few periods where we could do things they could not (some of that was just due to peaks in infections happening at different points).
Anyway, I think the key point is that Sweden had more deaths than comparable neighbours. They also, I think, had some advantages (schools staying open was very sensible, particularly with hindsight). I'm not sure whether Sweden made the right choices or not; I think we made some errors, particularly after the first lockdown (which I still think was largely reasonable on the known facts at that time, which were few).
I'm not criticising Sweden, I just dislike the lazy notion (not yours) that still prevails that Sweden's approach had no downsides and that we could have done the same here without increasing our deaths.
So we're left with two choices. It's either a ludicrous policy that'll cost us billions for f-all reason, or it's a good policy that's been sold in such a way as to make it seem hideous.
And, there was not. My opponent simply did not understand what he was doing.
For example, for Sweden the index explicitly scores 'recommendations' as if they were legal restrictions AIUI.
In Germany it always scores the most restrictive rules anywhere in the country, even if they apply to only a few districts, for example. So if almost all the schools are open, but are closed in some districts it will score as if the schools are all closed.
I think the biggest difference was that Sweden didn't close kindergartens or primary schools at all. This is a pretty major difference, although in some other respects Sweden had somewhat similar measures to other countries, though sometimes made as 'recommendations' which were generally followed. You'd have to look in detail at the restrictions in place in different times and for how long to get an idea of the different levels of social distancing rules in different places. This is quite a difficult job, but I think the Covid stringency index is too flawed to be useful.
*or below, depending which way you look at things!
Nonetheless Starmer and Labour have taken it to an insane new level of treachery
The whole world is looking at us, these days, with a kind of sad, bewildered pity
We can address a lot of that in the interim by sorting out blocked Rights of Way, and things like pavement parking.
But I'm equally concerned about rural areas. I can see a way to 80-90% of English urban streets and roads having 20mph limits in 10-15 years, made irresistible by weight of evidence.
I can't see a similar route for making rural roads safer in a similar timeframe without a lot of political commitment, which this Govt may not have. National speed limit to 50mph is a baby step, but the need is re-creation of LHAs from the ground up, with effective responsibility for treating all modes equally.
Obviously if we get a current Tory party or RefUK (or the fvcking Ashfield Independents) having influence we are going back to the stone age.
Will save us £9b which Ed Miliband can use to make big holes to fill with Carbon.
Someone here tried to sell the idea that it must have been some brilliant covert op that Rory was stupidly hindering.
Alternatively, it was the Process State in read-only mode.
Anyway, if Sweden and the UK are similar then presumably UK is similar to Norway? Or Denmark? Look at their Covid deaths (for avoidance of doubt, I also think that's a flawed comparison).
add the two together and you've got a plot for Leon's next book.
On the merits, I think it would be better to keep the Chagos in order to avoid provoking the lunatic Chump unnecessarily in the short term, but also because I don't think that part of the world has yet got to the stage where they will protect the important marine reserve - so we need to keep that for perhaps another century.
Parenting site Mumsnet says it has stopped users from sharing pictures after it was targeted with images of child sexual abuse.
Company founder Justine Roberts told the BBC the "horrific incident" had been reported to police after the images were posted on the platform over several hours late on Sunday.
It has now suspended the facility to post pictures on the site as a temporary measure and is planning to introduce artificial intelligence (AI) filters to flag "illegal" and "disturbing" images before they appear.
Some Mumsnet users have raised concerns about the length of time the images were visible and the site's use of volunteer moderators during overnight hours in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93qw3lw4kvo
‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer’ Reboot Starring Sarah Michelle Gellar Nears Hulu Pilot Order With Chloé Zhao Directing
https://deadline.com/2025/02/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-reboot-sarah-michelle-gellar-hulu-pilot-chloe-zhao-1236273767/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJcIiVReXnc
Q: "I imagine gun violence of this kind is rare where you are?"
A: "Not really, sorry to say".
I’m sure that solution will satisfy everyone & have no downsides whatsoever.
Arguably a good thing - I’m surprised a site the size of Mumsnet hadn’t done so already - the services to scan your uploads are available from the large cloud providers.
(There’s lots about the OSA that I really don’t like, but basic filtering like this ought to be the expectation for any platform where you can upload images without human review.)
I can only assume that Sir Keir is indulging his lefty-lawyer shtick with this "deal" in the certain knowledge that the Donald will strike it down with one imperious sweep of his (small) hand.
"Starmer's done what ?"
We are giving the money to Mauritius. They will, of course, give all the money to the Chagos Islanders, along with all the money from the fishing rights.
I'd rather take my chances with Team Farage than Team Jenrick.