"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
And often no-one wants to employ these people.
Any job advertised now will get dozens if not hundreds of applicants so why take a chance on the one that every other company has turned down for the past three years? They must have seen something wrong. Why take a chance on the now clean (or so he says) ex-druggie or alcoholic or schizophrenic?
How many MPs will pledge to offer a job to the long-term sick and unemployed? How many political parties?
There’s a quote I saw online somewhere that runs something like: “a hot labour market does more for disadvantaged populations than any other intervention”.
Deliberately running the economy under full employment, as central banks tend to do because they hate wage inflation more than any other kind, hurts people at the margins of society most.
Australia, unswerving ally, reduced instead to a forward operating garrison – in the words of the chair of US Congress’s house foreign affairs committee, nothing more than “a central base of operations from which to project power”.
..Turnbull, former Prime Minister of 🇦🇺: "We are spending a fortune vastly more than the partnership with France would have involved. We’re spending vastly more and we are very likely, I would say almost certainly, going to end up with no submarines at all"..
The USA is a raging wolf towards its allies, and a timid mouse towards its enemies.
Australia, unswerving ally, reduced instead to a forward operating garrison – in the words of the chair of US Congress’s house foreign affairs committee, nothing more than “a central base of operations from which to project power”.
..Turnbull, former Prime Minister of 🇦🇺: "We are spending a fortune vastly more than the partnership with France would have involved. We’re spending vastly more and we are very likely, I would say almost certainly, going to end up with no submarines at all"..
Though either way the Trump administration is more focused on containing China militarily than Russia and will be more pro AUUKUS than pro Nato
X has definitely tweaked the algo this week; I'm getting Ivermectin shills in my feed.
Not seen that for a couple of years.
I’m getting more porn bots liking my posts. Again not seen that for a couple of years.
I've been trying to look at the X posts cited this morning on PB. Can't get anything more than a 'something went wrong'. I don't have an account.
Been looking at some other X posts (on completely innocuous subjects to do with my research). Almost all now completely inaccessible either with an error message or demand to sign up to X. Only one account could be opened and it just showed random postings from 2 years ago. It's been heading this way for some time, but now seems to be suddenly even more useless for those who don't want to sign up and hand over their data.
X is no longer a valid medium for a public body or private corporation or business to use for its public messages unless it duplicates them on bluesky and FB.
Starmer says benefit system unfair and indefensible
Sir Keir Starmer has called the current benefits system unsustainable, indefensible and unfair, and said the government could not "shrug its shoulders and look away".
Addressing Labour MPs on Monday evening, the prime minister said the current welfare system was "the worst of all worlds", discouraging people from working while producing a "spiralling bill".
FPT
I think you'll find this will be as difficult as getting rid of Triple Lock. There is a whole host of charities (a tax law designation) that spend their monies (often government grants) on Judicial Reviews to challenge small aspects of legal interpretation of any new legislation. This chips away at the foundations of some quite realistic approaches which then creates anomalies. These anomalies then create more opportunities for a JR and so it goes on.
I haven't a clue what can or should be done about people exercising their legal rights apart from politicians drafting sound laws in the first place.
Defund the charities, it's really not that difficult.
Though the whole activist 'charity' sector - often funded by our taxes - is annoying, that is not the better answer.
The USA today reminds us daily that the rule of law actually matters. Government and parliament are in charge of law making. If government/any arm of the state does stuff that breaks its own laws they have even less excuse than the rest of us. They made it; and they have thousands of lawyers, paid for by us, to advise them.
They should use their powers of repeal, amending and revising properly so that the law properly reflects reality, and limits the infinity of government policy, and is not self contradictory.
The irritating pressure groups are doing a job. Let's hope they do it in USA as well.
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
And often no-one wants to employ these people.
Any job advertised now will get dozens if not hundreds of applicants so why take a chance on the one that every other company has turned down for the past three years? They must have seen something wrong. Why take a chance on the now clean (or so he says) ex-druggie or alcoholic or schizophrenic?
How many MPs will pledge to offer a job to the long-term sick and unemployed? How many political parties?
There’s a quote I saw online somewhere that runs something like: “a hot labour market does more for disadvantaged populations than any other intervention”.
Deliberately running the economy under full employment, as central banks tend to do because they hate wage inflation more than any other kind, hurts people at the margins of society most.
Ah ha! Found it. The original is much pithier than my version: “A hot labour market is better for your policy priorities than any of your policies.”
Australia, unswerving ally, reduced instead to a forward operating garrison – in the words of the chair of US Congress’s house foreign affairs committee, nothing more than “a central base of operations from which to project power”.
..Turnbull, former Prime Minister of 🇦🇺: "We are spending a fortune vastly more than the partnership with France would have involved. We’re spending vastly more and we are very likely, I would say almost certainly, going to end up with no submarines at all"..
We know how to build submarines. Why aren't we making them for them?
The original plan was that the Australians would buy 3x US Virginia starting in 2030 which is now probably not going to happen. Trump will trouser the $500m they've already paid and tell them to get fucked.
They were then supposed to get 5x SSN-A which is a joint UK - Aus design starting in 2040. They can't have them any sooner due to lack of industrial capacity in UK and Australia. Who knows if that will happen once the costs and schedule start their inevitable explosion.
Reading Trumpski's social posts overnight, he is freaking out
Over what in particular?
(Presumably not Moon's Cheltenham picks.)
The trouble Musk is in, and the problems tariffs are causing
He responded to the Canadians putting a 25% tariff on electricity supplies with this gem
"You're not allowed to do that"
Such a whiny baby
I loved @RochdalePioneers plea last night that Musky Baby did not have much to do with Tesla any more.
Only for me to point out the massive $56 billion pay package bung for Musk that Tesla's board are repeatedly trying to get through the courts. Schrödinger's Musk: involved but not involved.
You didn't read a word of what I said. I was talking operationally, not ownership.
Am I still triggering you?
Nah, I'm laughing at your shilling for Musk.
And you evidently did not read what I wrote, either. You are trying to deny and downplay the links between Musk and Tesla, because you like Tesla. I'm saying the $56 billion bung drives and environmentally-friendly coach and horses through your claims. Tesla's board is *not* independent of Musk, for it it was, there's no way they'd go to so much trouble to repeatedly get that deal through.
And if, as you claim, Musk is 'operationally' not involved, why do the board want him to get $56 billion?
Musk and Tesla are tied at the hip. If you shill for Tesla, you shill for Musk.
Mate, what you wrote *this morning* is what i should have read before I posted *yesterday*. Is that your point? Because your post this morning said I was wrong to deny Musk's financial links last night. But I didn't say anything about financial links last night. Which is why I reposted it.
I like Tesla. I can't stand Musk. I like Space X. I can't stand Musk. I like Starlink. I can't stand Musk. People like you think that your particular moral stancee should be applied universally. I disagree.
For what it's worth I would be happy for Tesla to fire Musk - and have made that point on my channel. He's no longer there, he isn't driving the business, and never mind helping to sell its products he's now doing the opposite.
So is Musk Tesla or not? Because whenever anyone says Tesla / SpaceX do radical things the response is always "its not Musk, its the engineers." Now that Musk has gone postal the response is "its not the engineers its all Musk".
What value does he have left to add? To either company? Tesla are already doing cars and energy and automation and robotics and selling conformity and credits. SpaceX already have reusable rockets and the mad-but-brilliant super heavy booster and vast contracts. What is left for him to bring to the table? Fire him.
Last night a couple of posters said they were disappointed to see I was being bullied. I was not. And Josiah isn't doing so now. He's *trying* to, but failing.
I see that Reform are the favourites with the bookmakers for the Runcorn by-election, at about 8/11. I wonder if Labour are value at better then evens?
I think other parties' chance is more or less zero.
Starmer says benefit system unfair and indefensible
Sir Keir Starmer has called the current benefits system unsustainable, indefensible and unfair, and said the government could not "shrug its shoulders and look away".
Addressing Labour MPs on Monday evening, the prime minister said the current welfare system was "the worst of all worlds", discouraging people from working while producing a "spiralling bill".
FPT
I think you'll find this will be as difficult as getting rid of Triple Lock. There is a whole host of charities (a tax law designation) that spend their monies (often government grants) on Judicial Reviews to challenge small aspects of legal interpretation of any new legislation. This chips away at the foundations of some quite realistic approaches which then creates anomalies. These anomalies then create more opportunities for a JR and so it goes on.
I haven't a clue what can or should be done about people exercising their legal rights apart from politicians drafting sound laws in the first place.
Defund the charities, it's really not that difficult.
Though the whole activist 'charity' sector - often funded by our taxes - is annoying, that is not the better answer.
The USA today reminds us daily that the rule of law actually matters. Government and parliament are in charge of law making. If government/any arm of the state does stuff that breaks its own laws they have even less excuse than the rest of us. They made it; and they have thousands of lawyers, paid for by us, to advise them.
They should use their powers of repeal, amending and revising properly so that the law properly reflects reality, and limits the infinity of government policy, and is not self contradictory.
The irritating pressure groups are doing a job. Let's hope they do it in USA as well.
The problem is courage. It is so very easy for the politicians to create unfunded rights. They sound good. Simple to create. Get applauded by all the Right People.
Then, with SEN (for example), they discover what the Labour Party discovered in 1945 with the NHS. That the demand for the service was vastly greater, once it was available to all, than anyone has thought possible.
The Labour Party, then, had leaders who had the courage to try and limit the growth *and* fund what they actually could. Pragmatic.
Politicians today generally lack the courage to actually legislate. The thing is, if they don’t, there are worse people waiting for their jobs…
Last night a couple of posters said they were disappointed to see I was being bullied. I was not. And Josiah isn't doing so now. He's *trying* to, but failing.
I’ve got to say I think you are strong enough to not take our comments that personally
Last night a couple of posters said they were disappointed to see I was being bullied. I was not. And Josiah isn't doing so now. He's *trying* to, but failing.
For Pete's sake; I'm not bullying you. I'm not even trying to bully you. I'm disagreeing with your position, which I find to be rather odd.
Don't try to make yourself into a victim here. The victims are all the people in the USA and Ukraine being hurt by the antics of Trump, Vance, Musk and all their followers.
Starmer says benefit system unfair and indefensible
Sir Keir Starmer has called the current benefits system unsustainable, indefensible and unfair, and said the government could not "shrug its shoulders and look away".
Addressing Labour MPs on Monday evening, the prime minister said the current welfare system was "the worst of all worlds", discouraging people from working while producing a "spiralling bill".
He may be right but leftwing Labour MPs will rebel and he risks leaking some more leftwing voters to the Greens on a tough on welfare agenda
X has definitely tweaked the algo this week; I'm getting Ivermectin shills in my feed.
Not seen that for a couple of years.
Which of Trump's Cabinet is out selling Invermectin then? Somebody will be benefiting.
It shows the sheer randomness of the MAGA worldview. Why is hailing Invermection as a wonder drug now a core part of populist right-wing philosophy in the US and increasingly other parts of the world? Because at one point someone accidentally thought it was useful against COVID-19 and it got caught up in a culture war. It is the ultimate symbol of the fake news/social media bubble/populist confluence.
Starmer says benefit system unfair and indefensible
Sir Keir Starmer has called the current benefits system unsustainable, indefensible and unfair, and said the government could not "shrug its shoulders and look away".
Addressing Labour MPs on Monday evening, the prime minister said the current welfare system was "the worst of all worlds", discouraging people from working while producing a "spiralling bill".
FPT
I think you'll find this will be as difficult as getting rid of Triple Lock. There is a whole host of charities (a tax law designation) that spend their monies (often government grants) on Judicial Reviews to challenge small aspects of legal interpretation of any new legislation. This chips away at the foundations of some quite realistic approaches which then creates anomalies. These anomalies then create more opportunities for a JR and so it goes on.
I haven't a clue what can or should be done about people exercising their legal rights apart from politicians drafting sound laws in the first place.
Defund the charities, it's really not that difficult.
Though the whole activist 'charity' sector - often funded by our taxes - is annoying, that is not the better answer.
The USA today reminds us daily that the rule of law actually matters. Government and parliament are in charge of law making. If government/any arm of the state does stuff that breaks its own laws they have even less excuse than the rest of us. They made it; and they have thousands of lawyers, paid for by us, to advise them.
They should use their powers of repeal, amending and revising properly so that the law properly reflects reality, and limits the infinity of government policy, and is not self contradictory.
The irritating pressure groups are doing a job. Let's hope they do it in USA as well.
The problem is courage. It is so very easy for the politicians to create unfunded rights. They sound good. Simple to create. Get applauded by all the Right People.
Then, with SEN (for example), they discover what the Labour Party discovered in 1945 with the NHS. That the demand for the service was vastly greater, once it was available to all, than anyone has thought possible.
The Labour Party, then, had leaders who had the courage to try and limit the growth *and* fund what they actually could. Pragmatic.
Politicians today generally lack the courage to actually legislate. The thing is, if they don’t, there are worse people waiting for their jobs…
Both Truman and Attlee had the courage to make cuts to fund the Korean War. That made them unpopular, but history judges them well.
I see that Reform are the favourites with the bookmakers for the Runcorn by-election, at about 8/11. I wonder if Labour are value at better then evens?
I think other parties' chance is more or less zero.
Until last week I would have said Reform would walk it. Now? The drivers for why people want to vote Reform are there, but if the party are tearing themselves apart I can see voters - and especially irregular voters - staying at home.
On benefits, I really don't think that Labour is intending to take an axe to benefits for those who are severely disabled. The issue is at the margins, where we've seen a large increase in the number of people off work because they have mental health issues, especially among the young. Depending on the severity of those issues, it's at least arguable that it would be beneficial for people with issues such as anxiety or depression to be engaged in productive work wherever possible. As a leftie, it seems to me that it's become a bit too easy to get 'signed off' for long periods with stress, anxiety, or even 'neurodivergence'.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Australia, unswerving ally, reduced instead to a forward operating garrison – in the words of the chair of US Congress’s house foreign affairs committee, nothing more than “a central base of operations from which to project power”.
..Turnbull, former Prime Minister of 🇦🇺: "We are spending a fortune vastly more than the partnership with France would have involved. We’re spending vastly more and we are very likely, I would say almost certainly, going to end up with no submarines at all"..
Though either way the Trump administration is more focused on containing China militarily than Russia and will be more pro AUUKUS than pro Nato
It has just demonstrated in Europe that it's completely unreliable as an ally. It's now told Australia that in return for its $3bn upfront payment to the US, it will get nothing.
If you were the Australian government would you rely entirely on the US military for your defence ?
Reading Trumpski's social posts overnight, he is freaking out
Over what in particular?
(Presumably not Moon's Cheltenham picks.)
The trouble Musk is in, and the problems tariffs are causing
He responded to the Canadians putting a 25% tariff on electricity supplies with this gem
"You're not allowed to do that"
Such a whiny baby
I loved @RochdalePioneers plea last night that Musky Baby did not have much to do with Tesla any more.
Only for me to point out the massive $56 billion pay package bung for Musk that Tesla's board are repeatedly trying to get through the courts. Schrödinger's Musk: involved but not involved.
You didn't read a word of what I said. I was talking operationally, not ownership.
Am I still triggering you?
Nah, I'm laughing at your shilling for Musk.
And you evidently did not read what I wrote, either. You are trying to deny and downplay the links between Musk and Tesla, because you like Tesla. I'm saying the $56 billion bung drives and environmentally-friendly coach and horses through your claims. Tesla's board is *not* independent of Musk, for it it was, there's no way they'd go to so much trouble to repeatedly get that deal through.
And if, as you claim, Musk is 'operationally' not involved, why do the board want him to get $56 billion?
Musk and Tesla are tied at the hip. If you shill for Tesla, you shill for Musk.
Mate, what you wrote *this morning* is what i should have read before I posted *yesterday*. Is that your point? Because your post this morning said I was wrong to deny Musk's financial links last night. But I didn't say anything about financial links last night. Which is why I reposted it.
I like Tesla. I can't stand Musk. I like Space X. I can't stand Musk. I like Starlink. I can't stand Musk. People like you think that your particular moral stancee should be applied universally. I disagree.
For what it's worth I would be happy for Tesla to fire Musk - and have made that point on my channel. He's no longer there, he isn't driving the business, and never mind helping to sell its products he's now doing the opposite.
So is Musk Tesla or not? Because whenever anyone says Tesla / SpaceX do radical things the response is always "its not Musk, its the engineers." Now that Musk has gone postal the response is "its not the engineers its all Musk".
What value does he have left to add? To either company? Tesla are already doing cars and energy and automation and robotics and selling conformity and credits. SpaceX already have reusable rockets and the mad-but-brilliant super heavy booster and vast contracts. What is left for him to bring to the table? Fire him.
Let me explain my position:
I think Musk is doing *really* bad things. His money and influence helps him do these really bad things. Tesla is a massive source of his wealth and influence. Not the only source, but a highly important one. The Tesla board want him to get a $56 billion payday (apparently for little work...). His shareholding is also massive (in monetary terms). Musk could do immense damage with that money.
Hence, promoting Tesla is bad, because it increases Musk's capacity to do immense harm.
I see that Reform are the favourites with the bookmakers for the Runcorn by-election, at about 8/11. I wonder if Labour are value at better then evens?
I think other parties' chance is more or less zero.
Until last week I would have said Reform would walk it. Now? The drivers for why people want to vote Reform are there, but if the party are tearing themselves apart I can see voters - and especially irregular voters - staying at home.
The channel crossers have been going full throttle last week. That's generally fertile ground for the fukkers.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
When Ukraine says No, Rubio will do a volte-face on supplying arms to Russia.
X has definitely tweaked the algo this week; I'm getting Ivermectin shills in my feed.
Not seen that for a couple of years.
I’m getting more porn bots liking my posts. Again not seen that for a couple of years.
I've been trying to look at the X posts cited this morning on PB. Can't get anything more than a 'something went wrong'. I don't have an account.
Been looking at some other X posts (on completely innocuous subjects to do with my research). Almost all now completely inaccessible either with an error message or demand to sign up to X. Only one account could be opened and it just showed random postings from 2 years ago. It's been heading this way for some time, but now seems to be suddenly even more useless for those who don't want to sign up and hand over their data.
X is no longer a valid medium for a public body or private corporation or business to use for its public messages unless it duplicates them on bluesky and FB.
Also it deprioritises all posts which contain external links, which is a PITA for those disseminating such messages.
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
And often no-one wants to employ these people.
Any job advertised now will get dozens if not hundreds of applicants so why take a chance on the one that every other company has turned down for the past three years? They must have seen something wrong. Why take a chance on the now clean (or so he says) ex-druggie or alcoholic or schizophrenic?
How many MPs will pledge to offer a job to the long-term sick and unemployed? How many political parties?
And that’s with the current employment laws and the Government are about to create stricter employment laws which will make companies even fussier over who they will employ. I can easily see a lot of firms implementing rules that shift from give “a chance” employment to only employ if you are absolutely sure.
And most firms already don’t operate a “give a chance” policy
I have to admit that trying to get disabled people working is a brave policy when you are tightening employment law and companies aren’t exactly looking at recruiting more workers
Australia, unswerving ally, reduced instead to a forward operating garrison – in the words of the chair of US Congress’s house foreign affairs committee, nothing more than “a central base of operations from which to project power”.
..Turnbull, former Prime Minister of 🇦🇺: "We are spending a fortune vastly more than the partnership with France would have involved. We’re spending vastly more and we are very likely, I would say almost certainly, going to end up with no submarines at all"..
We know how to build submarines. Why aren't we making them for them?
The original plan was that the Australians would buy 3x US Virginia starting in 2030 which is now probably not going to happen. Trump will trouser the $500m they've already paid and tell them to get fucked.
They were then supposed to get 5x SSN-A which is a joint UK - Aus design starting in 2040. They can't have them any sooner due to lack of industrial capacity in UK and Australia. Who knows if that will happen once the costs and schedule start their inevitable explosion.
The French really need their own word for schadenfreude.
Starmer says benefit system unfair and indefensible
Sir Keir Starmer has called the current benefits system unsustainable, indefensible and unfair, and said the government could not "shrug its shoulders and look away".
Addressing Labour MPs on Monday evening, the prime minister said the current welfare system was "the worst of all worlds", discouraging people from working while producing a "spiralling bill".
FPT
I think you'll find this will be as difficult as getting rid of Triple Lock. There is a whole host of charities (a tax law designation) that spend their monies (often government grants) on Judicial Reviews to challenge small aspects of legal interpretation of any new legislation. This chips away at the foundations of some quite realistic approaches which then creates anomalies. These anomalies then create more opportunities for a JR and so it goes on.
I haven't a clue what can or should be done about people exercising their legal rights apart from politicians drafting sound laws in the first place.
Defund the charities, it's really not that difficult.
Though the whole activist 'charity' sector - often funded by our taxes - is annoying, that is not the better answer.
The USA today reminds us daily that the rule of law actually matters. Government and parliament are in charge of law making. If government/any arm of the state does stuff that breaks its own laws they have even less excuse than the rest of us. They made it; and they have thousands of lawyers, paid for by us, to advise them.
They should use their powers of repeal, amending and revising properly so that the law properly reflects reality, and limits the infinity of government policy, and is not self contradictory.
The irritating pressure groups are doing a job. Let's hope they do it in USA as well.
The problem is courage. It is so very easy for the politicians to create unfunded rights. They sound good. Simple to create. Get applauded by all the Right People.
Then, with SEN (for example), they discover what the Labour Party discovered in 1945 with the NHS. That the demand for the service was vastly greater, once it was available to all, than anyone has thought possible.
The Labour Party, then, had leaders who had the courage to try and limit the growth *and* fund what they actually could. Pragmatic.
Politicians today generally lack the courage to actually legislate. The thing is, if they don’t, there are worse people waiting for their jobs…
Both Truman and Attlee had the courage to make cuts to fund the Korean War. That made them unpopular, but history judges them well.
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
And often no-one wants to employ these people.
Any job advertised now will get dozens if not hundreds of applicants so why take a chance on the one that every other company has turned down for the past three years? They must have seen something wrong. Why take a chance on the now clean (or so he says) ex-druggie or alcoholic or schizophrenic?
How many MPs will pledge to offer a job to the long-term sick and unemployed? How many political parties?
And that’s with the current employment laws and the Government are about to create stricter employment laws which will make companies even fussier over who they will employ. I can easily see a lot of firms implementing rules that shift from give “a chance” employment to only employ if you are absolutely sure.
And most firms already don’t operate a “give a chance” policy
I have to admit that trying to get disabled people working is a brave policy when you are tightening employment law and companies aren’t exactly looking at recruiting more workers
X has definitely tweaked the algo this week; I'm getting Ivermectin shills in my feed.
Not seen that for a couple of years.
I’m getting more porn bots liking my posts. Again not seen that for a couple of years.
I've been trying to look at the X posts cited this morning on PB. Can't get anything more than a 'something went wrong'. I don't have an account.
Been looking at some other X posts (on completely innocuous subjects to do with my research). Almost all now completely inaccessible either with an error message or demand to sign up to X. Only one account could be opened and it just showed random postings from 2 years ago. It's been heading this way for some time, but now seems to be suddenly even more useless for those who don't want to sign up and hand over their data.
X is no longer a valid medium for a public body or private corporation or business to use for its public messages unless it duplicates them on bluesky and FB.
Also it deprioritises all posts which contain external links, which is a PITA for those disseminating such messages.
Which is why I use Bluesky more than Xwit - because I want to see what I want and not what an algorithm designed to make someone else money wants me to see
Last night a couple of posters said they were disappointed to see I was being bullied. I was not. And Josiah isn't doing so now. He's *trying* to, but failing.
For Pete's sake; I'm not bullying you. I'm not even trying to bully you. I'm disagreeing with your position, which I find to be rather odd.
Don't try to make yourself into a victim here. The victims are all the people in the USA and Ukraine being hurt by the antics of Trump, Vance, Musk and all their followers.
Don't worry, I don't see myself as the victim.
Let's drop the invective and debate. You and I both agree that Musk is currently hardwired into Tesla's financials. That isn't up for debate. Can you even consider that operationally the guy has long-since left the building? His abandonment of Tesla whilst trashing its reputation has pissed a lot of us off - I genuinely want him out of Tesla and SpaceX and anything else we can oust him from.
Lets say that I shutter my YouTube channel. Does that help Ukraine? What about if I sell the car - does that help? The argument for years has been that "nobody wants EVs" and yet here we are two years running leading the sales charts globally. Ah but nobody wants Tesla now - well hang on look at December and February sales in the UK. There's definitely a slide in sales in some markets but not all which shows it isn't a universal revulsion which I uniquely and perversely am ignoring.
Second hand sales are really strong as well. A lot of cars on the market as lease deals have ended, and they're all selling - mate of mine had a choice of Model 3s to choose from but several sold as he was looking at them.
So lets say that you persuade me to go the hair shirt route and sell the car. How does that harm Musk or help Ukraine? Tesla already had the money. Whoever owns it next will likely keep paying for connectivity and supercharging and whatever bits of service come up - so that revenue goes to Tesla regardless.
As for "you're telling people to buy a new one" or whatever comes next, no I'm not. My recent video reviewed options for buying the new Model Y and explicitly told people not place an order.
And that is why you need to calm down. You're putting your words into my mouth and wondering why I am just batting you away. What I think and do isn't what you think I think and do.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Australia, unswerving ally, reduced instead to a forward operating garrison – in the words of the chair of US Congress’s house foreign affairs committee, nothing more than “a central base of operations from which to project power”.
..Turnbull, former Prime Minister of 🇦🇺: "We are spending a fortune vastly more than the partnership with France would have involved. We’re spending vastly more and we are very likely, I would say almost certainly, going to end up with no submarines at all"..
We know how to build submarines. Why aren't we making them for them?
The original plan was that the Australians would buy 3x US Virginia starting in 2030 which is now probably not going to happen. Trump will trouser the $500m they've already paid and tell them to get fucked.
They were then supposed to get 5x SSN-A which is a joint UK - Aus design starting in 2040. They can't have them any sooner due to lack of industrial capacity in UK and Australia. Who knows if that will happen once the costs and schedule start their inevitable explosion.
If we want our $500m back, take a leaf out the Iranian playbook - start taking Yank tourists off the streets of London and ransoming them....
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
And often no-one wants to employ these people.
Any job advertised now will get dozens if not hundreds of applicants so why take a chance on the one that every other company has turned down for the past three years? They must have seen something wrong. Why take a chance on the now clean (or so he says) ex-druggie or alcoholic or schizophrenic?
How many MPs will pledge to offer a job to the long-term sick and unemployed? How many political parties?
And that’s with the current employment laws and the Government are about to create stricter employment laws which will make companies even fussier over who they will employ. I can easily see a lot of firms implementing rules that shift from give “a chance” employment to only employ if you are absolutely sure.
And most firms already don’t operate a “give a chance” policy
I have to admit that trying to get disabled people working is a brave policy when you are tightening employment law and companies aren’t exactly looking at recruiting more workers
The Renters Reform Bill will do the same for those in search of a home. There have been some very poor (ie. poor managers) landlords who were able to use a s21 to get rid of tenants who turned out not to be the paragons of virtue they claimed to be. Now landlords will have to educate themselves on housing law (a big ask) or use professionals (question mark to be inserted) to manage their assets/pension fund.
I think Cheltenham will eventually provide a better investment for some landlords.
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
Last night a couple of posters said they were disappointed to see I was being bullied. I was not. And Josiah isn't doing so now. He's *trying* to, but failing.
For Pete's sake; I'm not bullying you. I'm not even trying to bully you. I'm disagreeing with your position, which I find to be rather odd.
Don't try to make yourself into a victim here. The victims are all the people in the USA and Ukraine being hurt by the antics of Trump, Vance, Musk and all their followers.
Don't worry, I don't see myself as the victim.
Let's drop the invective and debate. You and I both agree that Musk is currently hardwired into Tesla's financials. That isn't up for debate. Can you even consider that operationally the guy has long-since left the building? His abandonment of Tesla whilst trashing its reputation has pissed a lot of us off - I genuinely want him out of Tesla and SpaceX and anything else we can oust him from.
Lets say that I shutter my YouTube channel. Does that help Ukraine? What about if I sell the car - does that help? The argument for years has been that "nobody wants EVs" and yet here we are two years running leading the sales charts globally. Ah but nobody wants Tesla now - well hang on look at December and February sales in the UK. There's definitely a slide in sales in some markets but not all which shows it isn't a universal revulsion which I uniquely and perversely am ignoring.
Second hand sales are really strong as well. A lot of cars on the market as lease deals have ended, and they're all selling - mate of mine had a choice of Model 3s to choose from but several sold as he was looking at them.
So lets say that you persuade me to go the hair shirt route and sell the car. How does that harm Musk or help Ukraine? Tesla already had the money. Whoever owns it next will likely keep paying for connectivity and supercharging and whatever bits of service come up - so that revenue goes to Tesla regardless.
As for "you're telling people to buy a new one" or whatever comes next, no I'm not. My recent video reviewed options for buying the new Model Y and explicitly told people not place an order.
And that is why you need to calm down. You're putting your words into my mouth and wondering why I am just batting you away. What I think and do isn't what you think I think and do.
I am not putting words into your mouth; afaiaa I have not mentioned what is on your channel. You go on about it, not me.
An important place where we differ is the relevance of the fact Musk has (or not...) operationally left the building. Even if he is doing zero work there, he still gets money and influence from Tesla. The 'operational' bit is an utter red-herring.
I don't care if you shut your channel or not. I don't care if you sell your car or not. That's up to you. But by promoting Tesla, you *are* furthering Musk's interessts.
I am also perfectly calm, if a little perplexed about your inability to see the links between the bad Musk is doing and Tesla.
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
I notice you quite often repost a fair number of vile comments from musky/Philp/Reformy types. Is this an attempt to spread poison without putting your name to it?
Having missed most of the British winter (and the racing), I'm probably at a disadvantage but my day one selections as follows:
Supreme Novices Hurdle: ROMEO COOLIO (each way) Arkle Novices Chase: L'EAU DU SUD Mares Hurdle: LOSSIEMOUTH Champion Hurdle: STATE MAN (each way)
Thoughts? Mullins had a 1/8 shot turned over at Plumpton yesterday but then he had four at Naas on Sunday so I don't know. There are fools, damn fools and people who bet odds on in novice chases, I was once told, so I can't have MAJBOROUGH at 1/2.
The ground will be quick enough despite the watering and they'll go a decent gallop in the Supreme so I'm happy to oppose KOPEK DES BORDES at 4/5 and ROMEO COOLIO has Grade 1 winning form on good ground.
The Mares looks a penalty kick for LOSSIEMOUTH who many think should be in the Champion. I think two and a half is her trip now and you won't get rich at 4/6 but put one up against her on form...
As for the Champion, I don't know - BRIGHTERDAYSAHEAD was superb at Christmas but can she repeat this on quicker ground? I can't believe last year's winner is 12/1 - take out the Christmas defeat and his form is pretty strong - yes, CONSTITUTION HILL saw him off easily two years ago but as a wise man once said, that was than and this is now. I'm not sure he's the machine he was but he may still be good enough and if STATE MAN follows him home and you're on each way you'll still be ahead at the price.
I'd advise a point each way on both ROMEO COOLIO and STATE MAN, two point win on L'EAU DU SUD and three point win LOSSIEMOUTH.
(A point is whatever your stake is - whether it be £10, £1000 or higher).
I too though STATE MAN temptingly long in the betting, but decided there’s two others I can see just running away from him he is not fast enough to beat, so what the chances of both having a bad day in hurdle race their season has prepared for?
ROMEO COOLIO and L'EAU DU SUD are excellent tips.
I’m sure the long plan was to put LOSSIEMOUTH up against Constitutional Hill at this event, and they changed their mind late, I think based on fact Hill beat her a few months ago - not by much imo for it to be as you say, that was than and this is now - but the last race she fell, so the call was Hill would beat her, and owners and trainers want wins don’t they, a different priority for them than public and media who relish match ups. And this led to a social media pile on last Sunday that almost rivals the PB pile on of ‘top Musk shrill’ Rochdale Pioneers.
Starmer says benefit system unfair and indefensible
Sir Keir Starmer has called the current benefits system unsustainable, indefensible and unfair, and said the government could not "shrug its shoulders and look away".
Addressing Labour MPs on Monday evening, the prime minister said the current welfare system was "the worst of all worlds", discouraging people from working while producing a "spiralling bill".
FPT
I think you'll find this will be as difficult as getting rid of Triple Lock. There is a whole host of charities (a tax law designation) that spend their monies (often government grants) on Judicial Reviews to challenge small aspects of legal interpretation of any new legislation. This chips away at the foundations of some quite realistic approaches which then creates anomalies. These anomalies then create more opportunities for a JR and so it goes on.
I haven't a clue what can or should be done about people exercising their legal rights apart from politicians drafting sound laws in the first place.
Defund the charities, it's really not that difficult.
Though the whole activist 'charity' sector - often funded by our taxes - is annoying, that is not the better answer.
The USA today reminds us daily that the rule of law actually matters. Government and parliament are in charge of law making. If government/any arm of the state does stuff that breaks its own laws they have even less excuse than the rest of us. They made it; and they have thousands of lawyers, paid for by us, to advise them.
They should use their powers of repeal, amending and revising properly so that the law properly reflects reality, and limits the infinity of government policy, and is not self contradictory.
The irritating pressure groups are doing a job. Let's hope they do it in USA as well.
The problem is courage. It is so very easy for the politicians to create unfunded rights. They sound good. Simple to create. Get applauded by all the Right People.
Then, with SEN (for example), they discover what the Labour Party discovered in 1945 with the NHS. That the demand for the service was vastly greater, once it was available to all, than anyone has thought possible.
The Labour Party, then, had leaders who had the courage to try and limit the growth *and* fund what they actually could. Pragmatic.
Politicians today generally lack the courage to actually legislate. The thing is, if they don’t, there are worse people waiting for their jobs…
Both Truman and Attlee had the courage to make cuts to fund the Korean War. That made them unpopular, but history judges them well.
Starmer says benefit system unfair and indefensible
Sir Keir Starmer has called the current benefits system unsustainable, indefensible and unfair, and said the government could not "shrug its shoulders and look away".
Addressing Labour MPs on Monday evening, the prime minister said the current welfare system was "the worst of all worlds", discouraging people from working while producing a "spiralling bill".
FPT
I think you'll find this will be as difficult as getting rid of Triple Lock. There is a whole host of charities (a tax law designation) that spend their monies (often government grants) on Judicial Reviews to challenge small aspects of legal interpretation of any new legislation. This chips away at the foundations of some quite realistic approaches which then creates anomalies. These anomalies then create more opportunities for a JR and so it goes on.
I haven't a clue what can or should be done about people exercising their legal rights apart from politicians drafting sound laws in the first place.
Defund the charities, it's really not that difficult.
Though the whole activist 'charity' sector - often funded by our taxes - is annoying, that is not the better answer.
The USA today reminds us daily that the rule of law actually matters. Government and parliament are in charge of law making. If government/any arm of the state does stuff that breaks its own laws they have even less excuse than the rest of us. They made it; and they have thousands of lawyers, paid for by us, to advise them.
They should use their powers of repeal, amending and revising properly so that the law properly reflects reality, and limits the infinity of government policy, and is not self contradictory.
The irritating pressure groups are doing a job. Let's hope they do it in USA as well.
The problem is courage. It is so very easy for the politicians to create unfunded rights. They sound good. Simple to create. Get applauded by all the Right People.
Then, with SEN (for example), they discover what the Labour Party discovered in 1945 with the NHS. That the demand for the service was vastly greater, once it was available to all, than anyone has thought possible.
The Labour Party, then, had leaders who had the courage to try and limit the growth *and* fund what they actually could. Pragmatic.
Politicians today generally lack the courage to actually legislate. The thing is, if they don’t, there are worse people waiting for their jobs…
Yes. And it is competence as well as courage. Overseeing what the law shall be in the UK, in every minute detail, is what government and parliament does. It is immensely boring and time consuming, and the more they want to cover, the worse it gets. But that is how they have chosen to arrange it. No-one should blame the courts for telling government their own laws, and organisations that want to maintain the rule of law in their own interest. That is what we all want.
Reading Trumpski's social posts overnight, he is freaking out
Over what in particular?
(Presumably not Moon's Cheltenham picks.)
The trouble Musk is in, and the problems tariffs are causing
He responded to the Canadians putting a 25% tariff on electricity supplies with this gem
"You're not allowed to do that"
Such a whiny baby
I loved @RochdalePioneers plea last night that Musky Baby did not have much to do with Tesla any more.
Only for me to point out the massive $56 billion pay package bung for Musk that Tesla's board are repeatedly trying to get through the courts. Schrödinger's Musk: involved but not involved.
You didn't read a word of what I said. I was talking operationally, not ownership.
Am I still triggering you?
Nah, I'm laughing at your shilling for Musk.
And you evidently did not read what I wrote, either. You are trying to deny and downplay the links between Musk and Tesla, because you like Tesla. I'm saying the $56 billion bung drives and environmentally-friendly coach and horses through your claims. Tesla's board is *not* independent of Musk, for it it was, there's no way they'd go to so much trouble to repeatedly get that deal through.
And if, as you claim, Musk is 'operationally' not involved, why do the board want him to get $56 billion?
Musk and Tesla are tied at the hip. If you shill for Tesla, you shill for Musk.
Mate, what you wrote *this morning* is what i should have read before I posted *yesterday*. Is that your point? Because your post this morning said I was wrong to deny Musk's financial links last night. But I didn't say anything about financial links last night. Which is why I reposted it.
I like Tesla. I can't stand Musk. I like Space X. I can't stand Musk. I like Starlink. I can't stand Musk. People like you think that your particular moral stancee should be applied universally. I disagree.
For what it's worth I would be happy for Tesla to fire Musk - and have made that point on my channel. He's no longer there, he isn't driving the business, and never mind helping to sell its products he's now doing the opposite.
So is Musk Tesla or not? Because whenever anyone says Tesla / SpaceX do radical things the response is always "its not Musk, its the engineers." Now that Musk has gone postal the response is "its not the engineers its all Musk".
What value does he have left to add? To either company? Tesla are already doing cars and energy and automation and robotics and selling conformity and credits. SpaceX already have reusable rockets and the mad-but-brilliant super heavy booster and vast contracts. What is left for him to bring to the table? Fire him.
Let me explain my position:
I think Musk is doing *really* bad things. His money and influence helps him do these really bad things. Tesla is a massive source of his wealth and influence. Not the only source, but a highly important one. The Tesla board want him to get a $56 billion payday (apparently for little work...). His shareholding is also massive (in monetary terms). Musk could do immense damage with that money.
Hence, promoting Tesla is bad, because it increases Musk's capacity to do immense harm.
Which bits do you disagree with?
I think Musk is doing *really* bad things Agreed His money and influence helps him do these really bad things. Partially. His ownership of Twitter is key. There are plenty of other pro-Trump industrialists who tried to hover around the pile of MAGA shit. Having money isn't enough - its being able to manipulate minds that Trump wants Tesla is a massive source of his wealth and influence. Not the only source, but a highly important one. Agreed The Tesla board want him to get a $56 billion payday (apparently for little work...). Agreed. But I'm not a shareholder His shareholding is also massive (in monetary terms). Agreed - though this rises and falls dramatically as the share price pogos up and down. Lots of people are cheering the current slide, but its slid before far worse than this. Musk could do immense damage with that money. What do you mean *could* - surely the argument is that he IS doing immense damage. Lets be clear though - he can do nothing without the direct backing of Trump. Where he goes to far Trump stops him as we've recently seen. Musk has no power to do anything - its all power granted by Trump
Hence, promoting Tesla is bad, because it increases Musk's capacity to do immense harm.
Does it? I'm "promoting Tesla" and the share price is collapsing, thuis decreasing Musk's capacity to do immense harm. I'm not doing a very good job, am I?
Lets assume the sell-off continues for a while - and why not as the Trump economy destroys the market price of half of Wall Street. Lets further assume that Musk ends up at a fraction of his previous paper worth. Does that stop him? He owns Twitter and is empowered by Trump. Are you suggesting that he's only there because his net worth is above a line and if he drops below he will be out?
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
I notice you quite often repost a fair number of vile comments from musky/Philp/Reformy types. Is this an attempt to spread poison without putting your name to it?
He's the Shadow Home Secretary. I wasn't aware he was a Musky type.
On benefits, I really don't think that Labour is intending to take an axe to benefits for those who are severely disabled. The issue is at the margins, where we've seen a large increase in the number of people off work because they have mental health issues, especially among the young. Depending on the severity of those issues, it's at least arguable that it would be beneficial for people with issues such as anxiety or depression to be engaged in productive work wherever possible. As a leftie, it seems to me that it's become a bit too easy to get 'signed off' for long periods with stress, anxiety, or even 'neurodivergence'.
It is not good for the people with anxiety, depression or stress, it is not good for taxpayers and it is not good for employers. So we should change course for sure.
The forecast is we spend an extra £20bn per year by the end of the parliament on disability benefits. We would be better off allocating £5bn of that to improved mental health services and a couple of billion on schemes to encourage employers to bring them back into the workforce.
Australia, unswerving ally, reduced instead to a forward operating garrison – in the words of the chair of US Congress’s house foreign affairs committee, nothing more than “a central base of operations from which to project power”.
..Turnbull, former Prime Minister of 🇦🇺: "We are spending a fortune vastly more than the partnership with France would have involved. We’re spending vastly more and we are very likely, I would say almost certainly, going to end up with no submarines at all"..
We know how to build submarines. Why aren't we making them for them?
The original plan was that the Australians would buy 3x US Virginia starting in 2030 which is now probably not going to happen. Trump will trouser the $500m they've already paid and tell them to get fucked.
They were then supposed to get 5x SSN-A which is a joint UK - Aus design starting in 2040. They can't have them any sooner due to lack of industrial capacity in UK and Australia. Who knows if that will happen once the costs and schedule start their inevitable explosion.
The French really need their own word for schadenfreude.
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
I notice you quite often repost a fair number of vile comments from musky/Philp/Reformy types. Is this an attempt to spread poison without putting your name to it?
He's the Shadow Home Secretary. I wasn't aware he was a Musky type.
Australia, unswerving ally, reduced instead to a forward operating garrison – in the words of the chair of US Congress’s house foreign affairs committee, nothing more than “a central base of operations from which to project power”.
..Turnbull, former Prime Minister of 🇦🇺: "We are spending a fortune vastly more than the partnership with France would have involved. We’re spending vastly more and we are very likely, I would say almost certainly, going to end up with no submarines at all"..
We know how to build submarines. Why aren't we making them for them?
The original plan was that the Australians would buy 3x US Virginia starting in 2030 which is now probably not going to happen. Trump will trouser the $500m they've already paid and tell them to get fucked.
They were then supposed to get 5x SSN-A which is a joint UK - Aus design starting in 2040. They can't have them any sooner due to lack of industrial capacity in UK and Australia. Who knows if that will happen once the costs and schedule start their inevitable explosion.
The French really need their own word for schadenfreude.
I've been on one of these horsy things. Didn't like it much. No steering wheel and the brakes were distinctly dodgy. Not sure this is enough expertise to start risking my money on them.
And an even more dangerous sport than F1 for the pilots.
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
Given that a disproportionately large number of low-paying jobs in London are done by foreigners, isn't it inevitable that a disproportionately large number of them will be in social housing?
"The Fez" ? Seriously, a Fez is a hat, the Cheltenham Festival is the second most important race meeting of the year - after Royal Ascot of course.
I’ve built up a war chest for the Fez, by not buying any new pairs of boots for over 6 months now! Massive self control.
I’m taking a few days off from sheep and lambs. Though probably can’t get out of doing some Thursday.
A friend said, why don’t you (meaning me) organise special events where visitors can visit to see lambs gambolling about in spring sunshine - it would cheer people’s mood up. If I could find the time to put bunting up, and banners up saying welcome to the sight seeing wonders of lambing, please wipe your hands and feet on the way out - then maybe. Or maybe not, some people don’t live in the real world of UK Food Security.
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
First thing is to make it impossible to get more from benefits than you would from employment and that includes the free housing / council tax. That would focus a few minds. A big scam with chancers everywhere just coining it in as it is much better paid than working. Make payments only to those who raelly need it.
Farage seems to be lying through his teeth about Rupert Lowe. He says that Lowe was informed on "the 29th of February" of a parliamentary investigation into allegations of bullying:
But there was no 29th of February this year and there's no parliamentary investigation listed on their website. Four others are open, but not one into Lowe:
Having missed most of the British winter (and the racing), I'm probably at a disadvantage but my day one selections as follows:
Supreme Novices Hurdle: ROMEO COOLIO (each way) Arkle Novices Chase: L'EAU DU SUD Mares Hurdle: LOSSIEMOUTH Champion Hurdle: STATE MAN (each way)
Thoughts? Mullins had a 1/8 shot turned over at Plumpton yesterday but then he had four at Naas on Sunday so I don't know. There are fools, damn fools and people who bet odds on in novice chases, I was once told, so I can't have MAJBOROUGH at 1/2.
The ground will be quick enough despite the watering and they'll go a decent gallop in the Supreme so I'm happy to oppose KOPEK DES BORDES at 4/5 and ROMEO COOLIO has Grade 1 winning form on good ground.
The Mares looks a penalty kick for LOSSIEMOUTH who many think should be in the Champion. I think two and a half is her trip now and you won't get rich at 4/6 but put one up against her on form...
As for the Champion, I don't know - BRIGHTERDAYSAHEAD was superb at Christmas but can she repeat this on quicker ground? I can't believe last year's winner is 12/1 - take out the Christmas defeat and his form is pretty strong - yes, CONSTITUTION HILL saw him off easily two years ago but as a wise man once said, that was than and this is now. I'm not sure he's the machine he was but he may still be good enough and if STATE MAN follows him home and you're on each way you'll still be ahead at the price.
I'd advise a point each way on both ROMEO COOLIO and STATE MAN, two point win on L'EAU DU SUD and three point win LOSSIEMOUTH.
(A point is whatever your stake is - whether it be £10, £1000 or higher).
I too though STATE MAN temptingly long in the betting, but decided there’s two others I can see just running away from him he is not fast enough to beat, so what the chances of both having a bad day in hurdle race their season has prepared for?
ROMEO COOLIO and L'EAU DU SUD are excellent tips.
I’m sure the long plan was to put LOSSIEMOUTH up against Constitutional Hill at this event, and they changed their mind late, I think based on fact Hill beat her a few months ago - not by much imo for it to be as you say, that was than and this is now - but the last race she fell, so the call was Hill would beat her, and owners and trainers want wins don’t they, a different priority for them than public and media who relish match ups. And this led to a social media pile on last Sunday that almost rivals the PB pile on of ‘top Musk shrill’ Rochdale Pioneers.
Just joking with that last sentence. 🤭
If you have seven runners, you only need one of the two fancied horses to have a "bad day" and I reckon STATE MAN can follow the other one home and at 12s (now 11s) is still going to get you a decent return.
I just think LOSSIEMOUTH wants two and a half these days - she beat Stayers' Hurdle favourite TEAHUPOO in the Hatton's Grace back in December and that suggested to me she now wants the extra distance. I reckon she could win the Stayers herself as it's such a weak division.
I think ROMEO COOLIO is an each way bet to nothing at 8s - KOPEK DES BORDES may be that good but I'm not convinced and certainly not at 4/5 or 8/11.
Interesting review of Runcorn by-election, predicting: Lab 33%, Ref 30%, Con 20% (languishing according to review, despite up 4% on GE), Grn 8%, LD 5%.
At 16/1 Cons perhaps most tempting odds with a low turnout, but I doubt I will succumb, as just can't see it. Anti-Reform probably push Labour over the line.
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
First thing is to make it impossible to get more from benefits than you would from employment and that includes the free housing / council tax. That would focus a few minds. A big scam with chancers everywhere just coining it in as it is much better paid than working. Make payments only to those who raelly need it.
I've been on one of these horsy things. Didn't like it much. No steering wheel and the brakes were distinctly dodgy. Not sure this is enough expertise to start risking my money on them.
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
Given that a disproportionately large number of low-paying jobs in London are done by foreigners, isn't it inevitable that a disproportionately large number of them will be in social housing?
There is a question as to how they are getting into social housing given how hard/ impossible many people who feel they should qualify find getting it
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
First thing is to make it impossible to get more from benefits than you would from employment and that includes the free housing / council tax. That would focus a few minds. A big scam with chancers everywhere just coining it in as it is much better paid than working. Make payments only to those who raelly need it.
Ousted Reform MP Rupert Lowe could join breakaway rightwing party Ben Habib, an ex-Reform deputy leader who was also forced out by Nigel Farage, makes offer to Great Yarmouth MP https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/11/ousted-reform-mp-rupert-lowe-breakaway-rightwing-party ...Lowe, the Great Yarmouth MP, was citied as a potential replacement for Farage as leader of Reform by the billionaire Elon Musk, who had voiced support for Reform but later posted that Farage “doesn’t have what it takes” – linked to the leader’s refusal to back the case of the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.
The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that sources close to Musk said the billionaire owner of Tesla may be persuaded to fund a splinter party on the right with a hardline stance on mass deportations, which Lowe has promoted.
Lowe’s seven-strong team at Westminster and Great Yarmouth on Tuesday put out a statement in their own names backing him, adding that processes designed to protect staff had been “weaponised” in a “malicious fashion”.
“Not just tarnishing Rupert’s name unfairly, but also our office and subsequently us. Nobody from Reform has ever raised these concerns, or any about Rupert, with any of us before this ‘investigation’. If they were so concerned about Rupert’s behaviour why were we not warned?” the statement said.
In a YouTube interview with the rightwing commentator Dan Wootton, Lowe left open the possibility of him joining the Conservatives or Ukip but said he had not taken any decisions about his future...
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
Given that a disproportionately large number of low-paying jobs in London are done by foreigners, isn't it inevitable that a disproportionately large number of them will be in social housing?
What I think annoys people - nationality aside - is the bimodality. You can live in central London if you're rich, or if you're poor (or lucky) and qualify for subsidy. If you're in the middle, you're simply unable.
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
First thing is to make it impossible to get more from benefits than you would from employment and that includes the free housing / council tax. That would focus a few minds. A big scam with chancers everywhere just coining it in as it is much better paid than working. Make payments only to those who raelly need it.
Good idea, lets means test the state pension.
Or only as much as you have paid in
No Malc made the great point that we should only make payment to those who really need it.
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
First thing is to make it impossible to get more from benefits than you would from employment and that includes the free housing / council tax. That would focus a few minds. A big scam with chancers everywhere just coining it in as it is much better paid than working. Make payments only to those who raelly need it.
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
Given that a disproportionately large number of low-paying jobs in London are done by foreigners, isn't it inevitable that a disproportionately large number of them will be in social housing?
What I think annoys people - nationality aside - is the bimodality. You can live in central London if you're rich, or if you're poor (or lucky) and qualify for subsidy. If you're in the middle, you're simply unable.
To live in central London you are either poor, bought before 2000 or are obscenely rich.
Even rich people I know who bought before 2000 look at current prices and go you what?
Ousted Reform MP Rupert Lowe could join breakaway rightwing party Ben Habib, an ex-Reform deputy leader who was also forced out by Nigel Farage, makes offer to Great Yarmouth MP https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/11/ousted-reform-mp-rupert-lowe-breakaway-rightwing-party ...Lowe, the Great Yarmouth MP, was citied as a potential replacement for Farage as leader of Reform by the billionaire Elon Musk, who had voiced support for Reform but later posted that Farage “doesn’t have what it takes” – linked to the leader’s refusal to back the case of the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.
The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that sources close to Musk said the billionaire owner of Tesla may be persuaded to fund a splinter party on the right with a hardline stance on mass deportations, which Lowe has promoted.
Lowe’s seven-strong team at Westminster and Great Yarmouth on Tuesday put out a statement in their own names backing him, adding that processes designed to protect staff had been “weaponised” in a “malicious fashion”.
“Not just tarnishing Rupert’s name unfairly, but also our office and subsequently us. Nobody from Reform has ever raised these concerns, or any about Rupert, with any of us before this ‘investigation’. If they were so concerned about Rupert’s behaviour why were we not warned?” the statement said.
In a YouTube interview with the rightwing commentator Dan Wootton, Lowe left open the possibility of him joining the Conservatives or Ukip but said he had not taken any decisions about his future...
Why am I having flashbacks to the halcyon days where the trot left was splintered into a variety of no-hope protest parties?
Perhaps they should go work with Fox on whatever his party is called? Or rejoin UKIP? Or what about Kilroy-Silk and reform Veritas? The SDP?
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
Starmer's rhetoric 'And if you want to work, the government should support you, not stop you' is about to meet the reality of his, the chancellors and deputy PMs actions.
If he thinks there is a huge groundswell of businesses desperate to take on these people and pay their ever increasing wages, with ever increasing protections, he is utterly deluded.
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
Given that a disproportionately large number of low-paying jobs in London are done by foreigners, isn't it inevitable that a disproportionately large number of them will be in social housing?
London also has high levels of unemployment.
So the taxpayer is subsidising locals to do nothing and subsidising immigrants to do low skilled work.
Note that many of the locals being subsidised to do nothing are themselves from previous immigrant communities.
In time many of the immigrants now being subsidised to do low skilled work will morph into locals subsidised to do nothing while the next group of immigrants will be subsidised to do low skilled work.
In our view, the market is discounting the last leg of a rolling recession, which will give the Trump Administration and the Powell Fed many more degrees of freedom than investors expect, setting up the US economy for a deflationary boom in the second half of this year! https://x.com/CathieDWood/status/1899180530404413859
"A deflationary boom..." So we're forecasting a return to the 1880s.
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
First thing is to make it impossible to get more from benefits than you would from employment and that includes the free housing / council tax. That would focus a few minds. A big scam with chancers everywhere just coining it in as it is much better paid than working. Make payments only to those who raelly need it.
Good idea, lets means test the state pension.
The pension is not a benefit.
In which case no-one will mind if they don't have it.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
On benefits, I really don't think that Labour is intending to take an axe to benefits for those who are severely disabled. The issue is at the margins, where we've seen a large increase in the number of people off work because they have mental health issues, especially among the young. Depending on the severity of those issues, it's at least arguable that it would be beneficial for people with issues such as anxiety or depression to be engaged in productive work wherever possible. As a leftie, it seems to me that it's become a bit too easy to get 'signed off' for long periods with stress, anxiety, or even 'neurodivergence'.
You're right, but we've been saying this for at least two years on the right and been shouted down time and again as being callous or uncaring for disabled people or that "mental health disability is as important as physical disability" despite the evidence showing that millions of people were self diagnosing and being coached by charity workers to pass the PIP assessment after which they could sit bone idle and never worry about having to work again.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
A lot of people on disability will be able to do some work - the issue is that the work available isn’t suitable for them due to a combination of the requirements of the employer and their disabilities.
Without addressing that type of issue (which wil cost money) you won’t solve any problem with disability.
For more severely disabled people the minimum wage is going to impose productivity requirements that a lot of people can’t meet.
On the last point - please can you explain some more? My fault, I'm being very sleepy- headed!
If it costs your company £25,000 pa (random number) to employ someone then they will want to ensure they are getting a multiple of that value.
If someone is unable to provide that value because they are severely disabled or for other reasons then private sector employers won’t want to hire them
On benefits, I really don't think that Labour is intending to take an axe to benefits for those who are severely disabled. The issue is at the margins, where we've seen a large increase in the number of people off work because they have mental health issues, especially among the young. Depending on the severity of those issues, it's at least arguable that it would be beneficial for people with issues such as anxiety or depression to be engaged in productive work wherever possible. As a leftie, it seems to me that it's become a bit too easy to get 'signed off' for long periods with stress, anxiety, or even 'neurodivergence'.
You're right, but we've been saying this for at least two years on the right and been shouted down time and again as being callous or uncaring for disabled people or that "mental health disability is as important as physical disability" despite the evidence showing that millions of people were self diagnosing and being coached by charity workers to pass the PIP assessment after which they could sit bone idle and never worry about having to work again.
If only they hadn't gutted mental health services and created multi year backlogs to get treatment......
On benefits, I really don't think that Labour is intending to take an axe to benefits for those who are severely disabled. The issue is at the margins, where we've seen a large increase in the number of people off work because they have mental health issues, especially among the young. Depending on the severity of those issues, it's at least arguable that it would be beneficial for people with issues such as anxiety or depression to be engaged in productive work wherever possible. As a leftie, it seems to me that it's become a bit too easy to get 'signed off' for long periods with stress, anxiety, or even 'neurodivergence'.
You're right, but we've been saying this for at least two years on the right and been shouted down time and again as being callous or uncaring for disabled people or that "mental health disability is as important as physical disability" despite the evidence showing that millions of people were self diagnosing and being coached by charity workers to pass the PIP assessment after which they could sit bone idle and never worry about having to work again.
There's a lot of talk about NHS waiting lists keeping people off work - and it's probably true - but it's rarely remembered that PIP assessments were done over the phone during covid. It could hardly have been otherwise, but it's another enormous multi-year hangover from the pandemic.
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
Given that a disproportionately large number of low-paying jobs in London are done by foreigners, isn't it inevitable that a disproportionately large number of them will be in social housing?
What I think annoys people - nationality aside - is the bimodality. You can live in central London if you're rich, or if you're poor (or lucky) and qualify for subsidy. If you're in the middle, you're simply unable.
To live in central London you are either poor, bought before 2000 or are obscenely rich.
Even rich people I know who bought before 2000 look at current prices and go you what?
Central London sure but zone 2 outwards is full of normal people. Yes, house prices are a stretch but not completely unaffordable, especially as London salaries are higher.
Australia, unswerving ally, reduced instead to a forward operating garrison – in the words of the chair of US Congress’s house foreign affairs committee, nothing more than “a central base of operations from which to project power”.
..Turnbull, former Prime Minister of 🇦🇺: "We are spending a fortune vastly more than the partnership with France would have involved. We’re spending vastly more and we are very likely, I would say almost certainly, going to end up with no submarines at all"..
We know how to build submarines. Why aren't we making them for them?
The original plan was that the Australians would buy 3x US Virginia starting in 2030 which is now probably not going to happen. Trump will trouser the $500m they've already paid and tell them to get fucked.
They were then supposed to get 5x SSN-A which is a joint UK - Aus design starting in 2040. They can't have them any sooner due to lack of industrial capacity in UK and Australia. Who knows if that will happen once the costs and schedule start their inevitable explosion.
All the spiders in the vast Australian desert will be speaking Chinese by then. 🤭
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
Given that a disproportionately large number of low-paying jobs in London are done by foreigners, isn't it inevitable that a disproportionately large number of them will be in social housing?
What I think annoys people - nationality aside - is the bimodality. You can live in central London if you're rich, or if you're poor (or lucky) and qualify for subsidy. If you're in the middle, you're simply unable.
To live in central London you are either poor, bought before 2000 or are obscenely rich.
Even rich people I know who bought before 2000 look at current prices and go you what?
Central London sure but zone 2 outwards is full of normal people. Yes, house prices are a stretch but not completely unaffordable, especially as London salaries are higher.
You can buy a beautiful victorian 4+-bedroom town house overlooking the Newcastle town moor, seconds from a Zone A Metro Station, for less than £700k.
I've been on one of these horsy things. Didn't like it much. No steering wheel and the brakes were distinctly dodgy. Not sure this is enough expertise to start risking my money on them.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
It's crayon politics, proposing unworkable solutions to people who genuinely don't know or care how things work.
Farage is trying to be a moderate populist in not backing this specific one. He knows that if he wants to see an explosion in Reform MPs at the next election he needs to show the "send them home" voter enough leg so that they know he is on board without so much thigh that he scares off more moderate voters.
But let's be honest here, in neo-populist parties you need a figurehead. Farage may have an ego the size of a moon but at least he has the cut through to voters. Who the hell is Rupert Lowe? Ben Habib? Does anyone care what they think, never mind be led by them?
Reform and with it the alt-right will live or die with Nigel Farage. They have no other route to power, and the sooner that non-entities like Lowe understand this the better for their kind of politics.
For those of us who are horrified by their kind of politics? Go knock yourselves out boys.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
Voluntary repatriation is controversial, but it happens. German federal scheme:
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
First thing is to make it impossible to get more from benefits than you would from employment and that includes the free housing / council tax. That would focus a few minds. A big scam with chancers everywhere just coining it in as it is much better paid than working. Make payments only to those who raelly need it.
Good idea, lets means test the state pension.
The pension is not a benefit.
It is classified as one for spending purposes. Indeed it's the most expensive one
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
...
Hence Rochdale's comment about the old time Trot left splinter groups. The policy differences aren't really the point.
Thanks Moon Rabbit for the header, interesting to see how they end up.
Hard to see beyond many of the favourites today.
Elsewhere, I like Broadway Boy in 2.40, but he is drifting quite a bit this morning. Quantock Hills in 4.40 can give a good run and worth EW bet at 18s. Tripoli Flyer another EW in 1.20 at 25/1. Keep coming back to State Man at 11/1, tempted.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
MY understanding of the current situation is it's a crime with a custodial sentence of longer than 12 months which leads to deportation. Philp seems to be suggesting ANY criminal offence will trigger deportation so fare evasion for example.
On benefits, I really don't think that Labour is intending to take an axe to benefits for those who are severely disabled. The issue is at the margins, where we've seen a large increase in the number of people off work because they have mental health issues, especially among the young. Depending on the severity of those issues, it's at least arguable that it would be beneficial for people with issues such as anxiety or depression to be engaged in productive work wherever possible. As a leftie, it seems to me that it's become a bit too easy to get 'signed off' for long periods with stress, anxiety, or even 'neurodivergence'.
You're right, but we've been saying this for at least two years on the right and been shouted down time and again as being callous or uncaring for disabled people or that "mental health disability is as important as physical disability" despite the evidence showing that millions of people were self diagnosing and being coached by charity workers to pass the PIP assessment after which they could sit bone idle and never worry about having to work again.
This "young people with mental health issues" meme is just wrong. The increase since 2019 has been consistent across age groups, and the caseload is still highly correlated with age and dominated by older people. Mental health as the reason for PIP onflows has increased from 30% to 40% - significant, but nowhere near high enough to explain the increase overall.
A big reason is simply the state pension age increasing, so more people are on working age benefits. Another is the general long term trend in poor health.
Interesting review of Runcorn by-election, predicting: Lab 33%, Ref 30%, Con 20% (languishing according to review, despite up 4% on GE), Grn 8%, LD 5%.
At 16/1 Cons perhaps most tempting odds with a low turnout, but I doubt I will succumb, as just can't see it. Anti-Reform probably push Labour over the line.
It will be an interesting test. I think Labour will win, the Tories can't possibly, and Reform can only win if Labour stay at home, and enough Tories and others don't vote Labour to keep Reform out and because Starmer is PM at a critical time.
A Reform win would be a disaster in all sorts of ways. They seem to be doing their best to lose;perhaps it's not enough?
All this may need revising after the Spring statement from the CoE, and if Trump goes and declares war on some harmless peace loving country like Iceland.
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
Philp repeats Goodwin's error (or should we call it a trick) of taking data on where someone was born and presuming that someone not born in the UK is "foreign". Someone might have been born in another country to British parents who were living abroad for a period. Boris Johnson was born in the US: is he foreign? When you look at the statistics, there are quite a lot of people in the UK who were born in Germany. Some are German nationals who moved to the UK, but lots are British nationals with a parent in the armed forces who was stationed in Germany.
Next, Philp and Goodwin presume that you cannot change your nationality. If you immigrate to the UK, integrate into UK society, speak perfect English, renounce any other citizenship you have, Philp and Goodwin would still say you are "foreign". That is not how most British people think. Prince Philip, for example, most people would say he was British, even though he was born in Greece and of Danish heritage.
Philp adds a claim that these people "have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]". This is also wrong. It's hard to avoid VAT. Nearly everyone is paying VAT, whatever your income. You are not kicked out of social housing because you get a job, so you may have previously had little income, but be paying more now. Or you might have had a job in the past, become unemployed and then received social housing. It is very hard to determine how much tax these people will have paid and it will vary enormously, but most of them will have paid some tax.
Comments
Deliberately running the economy under full employment, as central banks tend to do because they hate wage inflation more than any other kind, hurts people at the margins of society most.
X is no longer a valid medium for a public body or private corporation or business to use for its public messages unless it duplicates them on bluesky and FB.
The USA today reminds us daily that the rule of law actually matters. Government and parliament are in charge of law making. If government/any arm of the state does stuff that breaks its own laws they have even less excuse than the rest of us. They made it; and they have thousands of lawyers, paid for by us, to advise them.
They should use their powers of repeal, amending and revising properly so that the law properly reflects reality, and limits the infinity of government policy, and is not self contradictory.
The irritating pressure groups are doing a job. Let's hope they do it in USA as well.
They were then supposed to get 5x SSN-A which is a joint UK - Aus design starting in 2040. They can't have them any sooner due to lack of industrial capacity in UK and Australia. Who knows if that will happen once the costs and schedule start their inevitable explosion.
I like Tesla. I can't stand Musk. I like Space X. I can't stand Musk. I like Starlink. I can't stand Musk. People like you think that your particular moral stancee should be applied universally. I disagree.
For what it's worth I would be happy for Tesla to fire Musk - and have made that point on my channel. He's no longer there, he isn't driving the business, and never mind helping to sell its products he's now doing the opposite.
So is Musk Tesla or not? Because whenever anyone says Tesla / SpaceX do radical things the response is always "its not Musk, its the engineers." Now that Musk has gone postal the response is "its not the engineers its all Musk".
What value does he have left to add? To either company? Tesla are already doing cars and energy and automation and robotics and selling conformity and credits. SpaceX already have reusable rockets and the mad-but-brilliant super heavy booster and vast contracts. What is left for him to bring to the table? Fire him.
I think other parties' chance is more or less zero.
Then, with SEN (for example), they discover what the Labour Party discovered in 1945 with the NHS. That the demand for the service was vastly greater, once it was available to all, than anyone has thought possible.
The Labour Party, then, had leaders who had the courage to try and limit the growth *and* fund what they actually could. Pragmatic.
Politicians today generally lack the courage to actually legislate. The thing is, if they don’t, there are worse people waiting for their jobs…
Don't try to make yourself into a victim here. The victims are all the people in the USA and Ukraine being hurt by the antics of Trump, Vance, Musk and all their followers.
🛌📺🍹🍕🍪 🍫🎰🍹 🎰🍹🎰🍹🎰
https://x.com/yougov/status/1899394708725448788
Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (9-10 Mar)
Lab: 24% (-2 from 2-3 Mar)
Ref: 23% (-2)
Con: 22% (+1)
Lib Dem: 15% (+1)
Green: 9% (=)
SNP: 3% (=)
It's now told Australia that in return for its $3bn upfront payment to the US, it will get nothing.
If you were the Australian government would you rely entirely on the US military for your defence ?
I think Musk is doing *really* bad things.
His money and influence helps him do these really bad things.
Tesla is a massive source of his wealth and influence. Not the only source, but a highly important one.
The Tesla board want him to get a $56 billion payday (apparently for little work...).
His shareholding is also massive (in monetary terms).
Musk could do immense damage with that money.
Hence, promoting Tesla is bad, because it increases Musk's capacity to do immense harm.
Which bits do you disagree with?
Let's drop the invective and debate. You and I both agree that Musk is currently hardwired into Tesla's financials. That isn't up for debate. Can you even consider that operationally the guy has long-since left the building? His abandonment of Tesla whilst trashing its reputation has pissed a lot of us off - I genuinely want him out of Tesla and SpaceX and anything else we can oust him from.
Lets say that I shutter my YouTube channel. Does that help Ukraine? What about if I sell the car - does that help? The argument for years has been that "nobody wants EVs" and yet here we are two years running leading the sales charts globally. Ah but nobody wants Tesla now - well hang on look at December and February sales in the UK. There's definitely a slide in sales in some markets but not all which shows it isn't a universal revulsion which I uniquely and perversely am ignoring.
Second hand sales are really strong as well. A lot of cars on the market as lease deals have ended, and they're all selling - mate of mine had a choice of Model 3s to choose from but several sold as he was looking at them.
So lets say that you persuade me to go the hair shirt route and sell the car. How does that harm Musk or help Ukraine? Tesla already had the money. Whoever owns it next will likely keep paying for connectivity and supercharging and whatever bits of service come up - so that revenue goes to Tesla regardless.
As for "you're telling people to buy a new one" or whatever comes next, no I'm not. My recent video reviewed options for buying the new Model Y and explicitly told people not place an order.
And that is why you need to calm down. You're putting your words into my mouth and wondering why I am just batting you away. What I think and do isn't what you think I think and do.
While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
I think Cheltenham will eventually provide a better investment for some landlords.
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
https://bsky.app/profile/youranoncentral.bsky.social/post/3lckgvnxyoc2y
An important place where we differ is the relevance of the fact Musk has (or not...) operationally left the building. Even if he is doing zero work there, he still gets money and influence from Tesla. The 'operational' bit is an utter red-herring.
I don't care if you shut your channel or not. I don't care if you sell your car or not. That's up to you. But by promoting Tesla, you *are* furthering Musk's interessts.
I am also perfectly calm, if a little perplexed about your inability to see the links between the bad Musk is doing and Tesla.
ROMEO COOLIO and L'EAU DU SUD are excellent tips.
I’m sure the long plan was to put LOSSIEMOUTH up against Constitutional Hill at this event, and they changed their mind late, I think based on fact Hill beat her a few months ago - not by much imo for it to be as you say, that was than and this is now - but the last race she fell, so the call was Hill would beat her, and owners and trainers want wins don’t they, a different priority for them than public and media who relish match ups. And this led to a social media pile on last Sunday that almost rivals the PB pile on of ‘top Musk shrill’ Rochdale Pioneers.
Just joking with that last sentence. 🤭
His money and influence helps him do these really bad things. Partially. His ownership of Twitter is key. There are plenty of other pro-Trump industrialists who tried to hover around the pile of MAGA shit. Having money isn't enough - its being able to manipulate minds that Trump wants
Tesla is a massive source of his wealth and influence. Not the only source, but a highly important one. Agreed
The Tesla board want him to get a $56 billion payday (apparently for little work...). Agreed. But I'm not a shareholder
His shareholding is also massive (in monetary terms). Agreed - though this rises and falls dramatically as the share price pogos up and down. Lots of people are cheering the current slide, but its slid before far worse than this.
Musk could do immense damage with that money. What do you mean *could* - surely the argument is that he IS doing immense damage. Lets be clear though - he can do nothing without the direct backing of Trump. Where he goes to far Trump stops him as we've recently seen. Musk has no power to do anything - its all power granted by Trump
Hence, promoting Tesla is bad, because it increases Musk's capacity to do immense harm.
Does it? I'm "promoting Tesla" and the share price is collapsing, thuis decreasing Musk's capacity to do immense harm. I'm not doing a very good job, am I?
Lets assume the sell-off continues for a while - and why not as the Trump economy destroys the market price of half of Wall Street. Lets further assume that Musk ends up at a fraction of his previous paper worth. Does that stop him? He owns Twitter and is empowered by Trump. Are you suggesting that he's only there because his net worth is above a line and if he drops below he will be out?
The forecast is we spend an extra £20bn per year by the end of the parliament on disability benefits. We would be better off allocating £5bn of that to improved mental health services and a couple of billion on schemes to encourage employers to bring them back into the workforce.
I’m taking a few days off from sheep and lambs. Though probably can’t get out of doing some Thursday.
A friend said, why don’t you (meaning me) organise special events where visitors can visit to see lambs gambolling about in spring sunshine - it would cheer people’s mood up. If I could find the time to put bunting up, and banners up saying welcome to the sight seeing wonders of lambing, please wipe your hands and feet on the way out - then maybe. Or maybe not, some people don’t live in the real world of UK Food Security.
That would focus a few minds. A big scam with chancers everywhere just coining it in as it is much better paid than working. Make payments only to those who raelly need it.
https://x.com/basil_tgmd/status/1899392458779251040
But there was no 29th of February this year and there's no parliamentary investigation listed on their website. Four others are open, but not one into Lowe:
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/complaints-and-investigations/allegations-currently-under-investigation-by-the-commissioner/
I just think LOSSIEMOUTH wants two and a half these days - she beat Stayers' Hurdle favourite TEAHUPOO in the Hatton's Grace back in December and that suggested to me she now wants the extra distance. I reckon she could win the Stayers herself as it's such a weak division.
I think ROMEO COOLIO is an each way bet to nothing at 8s - KOPEK DES BORDES may be that good but I'm not convinced and certainly not at 4/5 or 8/11.
Lab 33%, Ref 30%, Con 20% (languishing according to review, despite up 4% on GE), Grn 8%, LD 5%.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2025/03/a-reform-labour-showdown-looms-in-the-runcorn-by-election
At 16/1 Cons perhaps most tempting odds with a low turnout, but I doubt I will succumb, as just can't see it. Anti-Reform probably push Labour over the line.
Ben Habib, an ex-Reform deputy leader who was also forced out by Nigel Farage, makes offer to Great Yarmouth MP
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/11/ousted-reform-mp-rupert-lowe-breakaway-rightwing-party
...Lowe, the Great Yarmouth MP, was citied as a potential replacement for Farage as leader of Reform by the billionaire Elon Musk, who had voiced support for Reform but later posted that Farage “doesn’t have what it takes” – linked to the leader’s refusal to back the case of the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.
The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that sources close to Musk said the billionaire owner of Tesla may be persuaded to fund a splinter party on the right with a hardline stance on mass deportations, which Lowe has promoted.
Lowe’s seven-strong team at Westminster and Great Yarmouth on Tuesday put out a statement in their own names backing him, adding that processes designed to protect staff had been “weaponised” in a “malicious fashion”.
“Not just tarnishing Rupert’s name unfairly, but also our office and subsequently us. Nobody from Reform has ever raised these concerns, or any about Rupert, with any of us before this ‘investigation’. If they were so concerned about Rupert’s behaviour why were we not warned?” the statement said.
In a YouTube interview with the rightwing commentator Dan Wootton, Lowe left open the possibility of him joining the Conservatives or Ukip but said he had not taken any decisions about his future...
Given their desire for a landmark building the design could be a lot worse
Even rich people I know who bought before 2000 look at current prices and go you what?
Perhaps they should go work with Fox on whatever his party is called? Or rejoin UKIP? Or what about Kilroy-Silk and reform Veritas? The SDP?
lol
If he thinks there is a huge groundswell of businesses desperate to take on these people and pay their ever increasing wages, with ever increasing protections, he is utterly deluded.
So the taxpayer is subsidising locals to do nothing and subsidising immigrants to do low skilled work.
Note that many of the locals being subsidised to do nothing are themselves from previous immigrant communities.
In time many of the immigrants now being subsidised to do low skilled work will morph into locals subsidised to do nothing while the next group of immigrants will be subsidised to do low skilled work.
Head for the hills.
In our view, the market is discounting the last leg of a rolling recession, which will give the Trump Administration and the Powell Fed many more degrees of freedom than investors expect, setting up the US economy for a deflationary boom in the second half of this year!
https://x.com/CathieDWood/status/1899180530404413859
"A deflationary boom..."
So we're forecasting a return to the 1880s.
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
If someone is unable to provide that value because they are severely disabled or for other reasons then private sector employers won’t want to hire them
Farage is trying to be a moderate populist in not backing this specific one. He knows that if he wants to see an explosion in Reform MPs at the next election he needs to show the "send them home" voter enough leg so that they know he is on board without so much thigh that he scares off more moderate voters.
But let's be honest here, in neo-populist parties you need a figurehead. Farage may have an ego the size of a moon but at least he has the cut through to voters. Who the hell is Rupert Lowe? Ben Habib? Does anyone care what they think, never mind be led by them?
Reform and with it the alt-right will live or die with Nigel Farage. They have no other route to power, and the sooner that non-entities like Lowe understand this the better for their kind of politics.
For those of us who are horrified by their kind of politics? Go knock yourselves out boys.
https://www.euronews.com/2018/11/27/germany-offers-year-of-rent-to-asylum-seekers-who-return-home
The policy differences aren't really the point.
Hard to see beyond many of the favourites today.
Elsewhere, I like Broadway Boy in 2.40, but he is drifting quite a bit this morning. Quantock Hills in 4.40 can give a good run and worth EW bet at 18s. Tripoli Flyer another EW in 1.20 at 25/1. Keep coming back to State Man at 11/1, tempted.
A big reason is simply the state pension age increasing, so more people are on working age benefits. Another is the general long term trend in poor health.
A Reform win would be a disaster in all sorts of ways. They seem to be doing their best to lose;perhaps it's not enough?
All this may need revising after the Spring statement from the CoE, and if Trump goes and declares war on some harmless peace loving country like Iceland.
Next, Philp and Goodwin presume that you cannot change your nationality. If you immigrate to the UK, integrate into UK society, speak perfect English, renounce any other citizenship you have, Philp and Goodwin would still say you are "foreign". That is not how most British people think. Prince Philip, for example, most people would say he was British, even though he was born in Greece and of Danish heritage.
Philp adds a claim that these people "have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]". This is also wrong. It's hard to avoid VAT. Nearly everyone is paying VAT, whatever your income. You are not kicked out of social housing because you get a job, so you may have previously had little income, but be paying more now. Or you might have had a job in the past, become unemployed and then received social housing. It is very hard to determine how much tax these people will have paid and it will vary enormously, but most of them will have paid some tax.