“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
I myself took gross exception to “citizens of nowhere”, as it was uttered in the heat of an intense rise of xenophobia post-Brexit.
May’s intent was to criticise an ideology of rootless capitalism - “globalists” avant la letter - but she delivered it in an incredibly ham-fisted way.
There is a key difference between “citizens of nowhere” and “island of strangers”.
May sought to “other” and blame a sector of society.
Starmer’s speech only identifies the anxiety felt by existing resident in response to massive societal change.
Great thread about how a series of daft regulations are hampering housing development in London.
For example, a special (and unaccountable) quango set up post-Grenfell to review developments over 18 metres has essentially resulted in no developments over 18 metres being consented.
London (and Britain) can’t afford this nonsense. Will Sadiq Khan address any of this? Seems doubtful, given his default position of do-nothingism and virtue signalling.
Canary Wharf student rooms skyscraper gets go-ahead as City Hall overrules council
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
Is it ?
..“Nations depend on rules, fair rules. Sometimes they are written down, often they are not, but either way, they give shape to our values, guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to each other.
“In a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together...
I can understand people not liking it, but I'm not sure I'd interpret it like that.
Egyptian and Indian doctors on LBC have interpreted the speech that they are not welcome. In a hostile media of sound bites Starmer should have expected the backlash. They are off to Canada and the Middle East by the way.
Suggesting Starmer was worse than Powell, may be hyperbolic, but it resonates to an extent with Centrist Dads like me.
Reform 28% Labour 25% Conservative 20% Lib Dem 14% Green 8%
Which translates as 300 seats, 188, 44, 62.
Labour seem to be holding up, real gap between Reform and the Tories. As I've said before, the next election is existential for the Tories I think.
If you knock, say, 4% off the Greens, and give it to Labour (likely, IMHO if Reform are real contenders), then you get:
259, 244, 40, 62.
Time for a government of national unity
All the talents? Ref and Con.
No - It needs a coming together across the political divide
Realistically - maybe no
I can't see PM Farage inviting Labour, the Lib Dems or the Greens into the fold.
My conclusion is Jenrick's idea of Cons and Reform making a constituency by constituency pact makes most sense (for them). RefCon landslide and Labour on next to no seats.
In that case you would just get a LD and Green and Labour pact too.
It won't happen and anyway Mel Stride or James Cleverly are more likely to be next Tory leader than Jenrick, if Kemi was removed Tory MPs would try and crown one of the former two a la Howard 2003 or Sunak 2023 without a contest so Jenrick couldn't get to the membership
Wouldn't that just send all the remaining Tory right wingers over to Farage?
A centre right party would be nice, but with the Conservative Party having soiled itself, certainly since 2019, is it likely to gain any traction?
If you want a hard right party you are almost certainly already voting Reform or have joined Reform anyway
CPS aren’t charging Rupert Lowe which means he is going to sue the arse off Farage et al.
Not sure there’s enough popcorn in the world for this.
Rupert Lowe, the former Reform MP who was suspended by the party after allegations of threatening behaviour, will not be charged, says the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Malcolm McHaffie, head of its special crime division, says there is "insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction".
"Based on the careful consideration of this evidence, we have decided that our legal test for a criminal prosecution has not been met," he adds.
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
But as ever with Starmer it’s not necessarily the words, but the direct contradiction of them in tone, spirit and content to words previously uttered by him. I’ve said it before that all pols do it to a certain extent but I can’t think of many that have made it a defining characteristic the way SKS has. There are a few factors that have contributed to voters’ general cynicism but the impression of politicians being completely untethered from consistent principle is definitely one of them.
Could anyone name a solid Starmer ethical value that he has stuck to since he burst (sad trombone noise) upon the political scene?
Maybe not directly moral, but important in their delivery, pragmatism, work ethic, attention to detail.
CPS aren’t charging Rupert Lowe which means he is going to sue the arse off Farage et al.
Not sure there’s enough popcorn in the world for this.
Rupert Lowe, the former Reform MP who was suspended by the party after allegations of threatening behaviour, will not be charged, says the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Malcolm McHaffie, head of its special crime division, says there is "insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction".
"Based on the careful consideration of this evidence, we have decided that our legal test for a criminal prosecution has not been met," he adds.
Reform 28% Labour 25% Conservative 20% Lib Dem 14% Green 8%
Which translates as 300 seats, 188, 44, 62.
Labour seem to be holding up, real gap between Reform and the Tories. As I've said before, the next election is existential for the Tories I think.
If you knock, say, 4% off the Greens, and give it to Labour (likely, IMHO if Reform are real contenders), then you get:
259, 244, 40, 62.
Time for a government of national unity
All the talents? Ref and Con.
No - It needs a coming together across the political divide
Realistically - maybe no
I can't see PM Farage inviting Labour, the Lib Dems or the Greens into the fold.
My conclusion is Jenrick's idea of Cons and Reform making a constituency by constituency pact makes most sense (for them). RefCon landslide and Labour on next to no seats.
In that case you would just get a LD and Green and Labour pact too.
It won't happen and anyway Mel Stride or James Cleverly are more likely to be next Tory leader than Jenrick, if Kemi was removed Tory MPs would try and crown one of the former two a la Howard 2003 or Sunak 2023 without a contest so Jenrick couldn't get to the membership
Wouldn't that just send all the remaining Tory right wingers over to Farage?
A centre right party would be nice, but with the Conservative Party having soiled itself, certainly since 2019, is it likely to gain any traction?
If you want a hard right party you are almost certainly already voting Reform or have joined Reform anyway
The SNP appear to be getting slightly nervous about Reform & the Hamilton byelection: "Stop Farage, vote for a better future. This election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is an opportunity to stop Farage in Scotland. His Reform party is gaining support down south, but we can take the wind out of his sails with a victory here. The SNP is stepping in where Labour have let you down and, crucially, offering hope for a better future."
Pretty sure the SNP are v. grateful for Reform stirring the Unionist pot and will highlight their presence as much as possible. The SLab candidate is a Rangers fanboi (seats in the directors' box etc), the SCon is Orange Lodge and Reform is of course the Union Bears with a rosette. The Predator v Alien v some crap Dr Who monster from the 60s will be great craic.
Reform got only 7.8% in Hamilton and Clyde Valley at the UK GE last year, barely more than half what Reform got UK wide.
Great thread about how a series of daft regulations are hampering housing development in London.
For example, a special (and unaccountable) quango set up post-Grenfell to review developments over 18 metres has essentially resulted in no developments over 18 metres being consented.
London (and Britain) can’t afford this nonsense. Will Sadiq Khan address any of this? Seems doubtful, given his default position of do-nothingism and virtue signalling.
Canary Wharf student rooms skyscraper gets go-ahead as City Hall overrules council
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
I guess people read into these phrases whatever they want (and that is part of why the TLA is politically powerful).
To me island of strangers is a pretty accurate and bland description of modern (at least urban) life for most. Pockets of mono-cultural estates/areas within a multi-cultural city can exacerbate that feeling.
It's hostile. It's "othering". One would hope for something less racially incendiary from a Labour Prime Minister.
Who is he actually "othering" in the excerpt I quoted ?
Indeed I suspect a recent immigrant here from Afghanistan feels they live in an "Island of Strangers" far more than most of us ever will.
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
I guess people read into these phrases whatever they want (and that is part of why the TLA is politically powerful).
To me island of strangers is a pretty accurate and bland description of modern (at least urban) life for most. Pockets of mono-cultural estates/areas within a multi-cultural city can exacerbate that feeling.
It's hostile. It's "othering". One would hope for something less racially incendiary from a Labour Prime Minister.
Sorry but I still don't understand what you are getting at and I'm a centrist, pro-immigration* type.
* (below Boris wave levels and with housebuilding)
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
Is it ?
..“Nations depend on rules, fair rules. Sometimes they are written down, often they are not, but either way, they give shape to our values, guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to each other.
“In a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together...
I can understand people not liking it, but I'm not sure I'd interpret it like that.
Egyptian and Indian doctors on LBC have interpreted the speech that they are not welcome. In a hostile media of sound bites Starmer should have expected the backlash. They are off to Canada and the Middle East by the way.
Suggesting Starmer was worse than Powell, may be hyperbolic, but it resonates to an extent with Centrist Dads like me.
Why does it resonate? Can you articulate your specific objection?
Great thread about how a series of daft regulations are hampering housing development in London.
For example, a special (and unaccountable) quango set up post-Grenfell to review developments over 18 metres has essentially resulted in no developments over 18 metres being consented.
London (and Britain) can’t afford this nonsense. Will Sadiq Khan address any of this? Seems doubtful, given his default position of do-nothingism and virtue signalling.
Canary Wharf student rooms skyscraper gets go-ahead as City Hall overrules council
The SNP appear to be getting slightly nervous about Reform & the Hamilton byelection: "Stop Farage, vote for a better future. This election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is an opportunity to stop Farage in Scotland. His Reform party is gaining support down south, but we can take the wind out of his sails with a victory here. The SNP is stepping in where Labour have let you down and, crucially, offering hope for a better future."
Pretty sure the SNP are v. grateful for Reform stirring the Unionist pot and will highlight their presence as much as possible. The SLab candidate is a Rangers fanboi (seats in the directors' box etc), the SCon is Orange Lodge and Reform is of course the Union Bears with a rosette. The Predator v Alien v some crap Dr Who monster from the 60s will be great craic.
Reform got only 7.8% in Hamilton and Clyde Valley at the UK GE last year, barely more than half what Reform got UK wide.
If (when) Reform make gains in Scotland it will be at the expense of unionists who realise that both Labour and the Tories are useless and powerless, particularly in Scotland. Nationalists will grit their teeth, swallow hard and continue to vote SNP.
Great thread about how a series of daft regulations are hampering housing development in London.
For example, a special (and unaccountable) quango set up post-Grenfell to review developments over 18 metres has essentially resulted in no developments over 18 metres being consented.
London (and Britain) can’t afford this nonsense. Will Sadiq Khan address any of this? Seems doubtful, given his default position of do-nothingism and virtue signalling.
Canary Wharf student rooms skyscraper gets go-ahead as City Hall overrules council
As an aside, it’s absurd this 46-storey tower was ever delayed. It’s in the Canary Wharf cluster so can’t possibly be objected to on massing grounds.
If we are lucky we will complete the build just as the policy aimed at reducing student numbers starts to kick in.
It will be alright if everything is alright. BUT just imagine the handwringing if 100 students, who will inevitably be described as the very brightest in the land, even if they only attend a jumped up poly, are burnt to death.
"Reform UK ‘would trigger immediate and violent sterling crisis’ Nigel Farage’s tax-cutting plans risk blowing an £80bn hole in public finances if he wins power, economists warn"
This is like people threatening to emigrate if their favoured party loses the election.
They are workers who have chosen to travel abroad, either for the experience or better pay and opportunities, perhaps a mix of both. Given we pay significantly less for their roles than other Anglosphere countries it would be far more surprising if a decent percentage of them weren't considering other countries for work as well.
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
Is it ?
..“Nations depend on rules, fair rules. Sometimes they are written down, often they are not, but either way, they give shape to our values, guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to each other.
“In a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together...
I can understand people not liking it, but I'm not sure I'd interpret it like that.
Egyptian and Indian doctors on LBC have interpreted the speech that they are not welcome. In a hostile media of sound bites Starmer should have expected the backlash. They are off to Canada and the Middle East by the way.
Suggesting Starmer was worse than Powell, may be hyperbolic, but it resonates to an extent with Centrist Dads like me.
Why does it resonate? Can you articulate your specific objection?
This speech from Starmer is an unpleasant reaction to Reform. I believe Starmer is dog whistling to racists.
The SNP appear to be getting slightly nervous about Reform & the Hamilton byelection: "Stop Farage, vote for a better future. This election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is an opportunity to stop Farage in Scotland. His Reform party is gaining support down south, but we can take the wind out of his sails with a victory here. The SNP is stepping in where Labour have let you down and, crucially, offering hope for a better future."
Pretty sure the SNP are v. grateful for Reform stirring the Unionist pot and will highlight their presence as much as possible. The SLab candidate is a Rangers fanboi (seats in the directors' box etc), the SCon is Orange Lodge and Reform is of course the Union Bears with a rosette. The Predator v Alien v some crap Dr Who monster from the 60s will be great craic.
Reform got only 7.8% in Hamilton and Clyde Valley at the UK GE last year, barely more than half what Reform got UK wide.
Yebbut the high water mark of SCons + various unpleasant righties is about 30% (seen during the Ruth Davidson miracle - whatever happened to her?). I don’t think SCons, Reform and OTHER unpleasant righties has got above that in polling? While I would love to see Anas ‘working with’ these people I doubt it will come to pass, so impotent bellowing from the sidelines, the MO of the right at Holyrood, seems about the most Reform could hope for.
Tricky both the 850 euros and 1550 euros are within the plausible range for an overnight taxi of that length in that area. Could be genuine confusion or a scam from the taxi driver.
This is like people threatening to emigrate if their favoured party loses the election.
They are workers who have chosen to travel abroad, either for the experience or better pay and opportunities, perhaps a mix of both. Given we pay significantly less for their roles than other Anglosphere countries it would be far more surprising if a decent percentage of them weren't considering other countries for work as well.
Most other Anglosphere countries and indeed many European nations make more use of insurance and the private sector in healthcare rather than tax and so can afford higher salaries for doctors, surgeons and nurses.
Even without going to the US extreme where many can't afford private health insurance and aren't eligible for Medicare or Medicaid so go without healthcare at all
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
Is it ?
..“Nations depend on rules, fair rules. Sometimes they are written down, often they are not, but either way, they give shape to our values, guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to each other.
“In a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together...
I can understand people not liking it, but I'm not sure I'd interpret it like that.
Egyptian and Indian doctors on LBC have interpreted the speech that they are not welcome. In a hostile media of sound bites Starmer should have expected the backlash. They are off to Canada and the Middle East by the way.
Suggesting Starmer was worse than Powell, may be hyperbolic, but it resonates to an extent with Centrist Dads like me.
Why does it resonate? Can you articulate your specific objection?
This speech from Starmer is an unpleasant reaction to Reform. I believe Starmer is dog whistling to racists.
So would any speech on migration in the current climate be considered dog whistling in your opinion?
Obviously the government has had a white paper out for months, and obviously in most peoples eyes, the status quo of Tory chaos needed fixing.
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
I guess people read into these phrases whatever they want (and that is part of why the TLA is politically powerful).
To me island of strangers is a pretty accurate and bland description of modern (at least urban) life for most. Pockets of mono-cultural estates/areas within a multi-cultural city can exacerbate that feeling.
It's hostile. It's "othering". One would hope for something less racially incendiary from a Labour Prime Minister.
Sorry but I still don't understand what you are getting at and I'm a centrist, pro-immigration* type.
* (below Boris wave levels and with housebuilding)
They always used to call John Major as a cushion as he always bore the imprint of the last person who has sat on him.
It is self-evident that this week's Starmer bears a different imprint from the one we have seen that last nine months.
BTW how many noticed the change in policy over those applicants who were caught out in the middle when the rug was pulled out from the SFI, Strategic Farming Incentive ? BBC Farming Today did not say what was obvious. Those applicants who had a partial application but not finalised have now been given their 6 weeks to finalise their applications. I can assume the search for a Barrister who was prepared to defend the indefensible when the website said 6 weeks notice would be given had resulted in no barrister taking it on.
The bigger story, avoided by Farming Today, or maybe never even occuring to them is those who relied on the truth of the website but had not begun the application but who had made preparations for an application. It is a lot easier to make an application in one go so it is not unreasonable that there could be countless people who can claim they were making ready for an application. Soon one will start proceedings, will DEFRA be able to find a lawyer to defend their position ? Maybe in some hard left chambers like Starmers, but no responsible barrister would take it on. That DEFRA will lose is certain. With the DEFRA Secretary of his own personalised slimemold of a minister resign for their evil incompetence ? Not a chance.
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
Is it ?
..“Nations depend on rules, fair rules. Sometimes they are written down, often they are not, but either way, they give shape to our values, guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to each other.
“In a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together...
I can understand people not liking it, but I'm not sure I'd interpret it like that.
Egyptian and Indian doctors on LBC have interpreted the speech that they are not welcome. In a hostile media of sound bites Starmer should have expected the backlash. They are off to Canada and the Middle East by the way.
Suggesting Starmer was worse than Powell, may be hyperbolic, but it resonates to an extent with Centrist Dads like me.
Why does it resonate? Can you articulate your specific objection?
This speech from Starmer is an unpleasant reaction to Reform. I believe Starmer is dog whistling to racists.
So would any speech on migration in the current climate be considered dog whistling in your opinion?
Obviously the government has had a white paper out for months, and obviously in most peoples eyes, the status quo of Tory chaos needed fixing.
I don't disagree necessarily, but Starmer's toxic language is not what is required to right the Brexit and Boriswave error.
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
Is it ?
..“Nations depend on rules, fair rules. Sometimes they are written down, often they are not, but either way, they give shape to our values, guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to each other.
“In a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together...
I can understand people not liking it, but I'm not sure I'd interpret it like that.
Egyptian and Indian doctors on LBC have interpreted the speech that they are not welcome. In a hostile media of sound bites Starmer should have expected the backlash. They are off to Canada and the Middle East by the way.
Suggesting Starmer was worse than Powell, may be hyperbolic, but it resonates to an extent with Centrist Dads like me.
Why does it resonate? Can you articulate your specific objection?
This speech from Starmer is an unpleasant reaction to Reform. I believe Starmer is dog whistling to racists.
So would any speech on migration in the current climate be considered dog whistling in your opinion?
Obviously the government has had a white paper out for months, and obviously in most peoples eyes, the status quo of Tory chaos needed fixing.
I don't disagree necessarily, but Starmer's toxic language is not what is required to right the Brexit and Boriswave error.
You still haven't explained whats toxic about it......I genuinely have no idea what the problem is.
Trump's endorsement of Ahmed al-Sharaa has made the British Right look a bit silly. They need to reassess.
I'm very much in the wait-and-see situation with Syria and its new government. One thing is for sure: the sanctions and consequent shortages are doing nothing to help the Syrian people or the stability of the new government and country. The sanctions were put on the old (and very different) regime.
I'm cautiously in favour of this move: with the addition that if things get out of control over there, sanctions can be put on again quickly.
I can imagine the pro-Assad excusers are not very happy, though.
The SNP appear to be getting slightly nervous about Reform & the Hamilton byelection: "Stop Farage, vote for a better future. This election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is an opportunity to stop Farage in Scotland. His Reform party is gaining support down south, but we can take the wind out of his sails with a victory here. The SNP is stepping in where Labour have let you down and, crucially, offering hope for a better future."
Pretty sure the SNP are v. grateful for Reform stirring the Unionist pot and will highlight their presence as much as possible. The SLab candidate is a Rangers fanboi (seats in the directors' box etc), the SCon is Orange Lodge and Reform is of course the Union Bears with a rosette. The Predator v Alien v some crap Dr Who monster from the 60s will be great craic.
Reform got only 7.8% in Hamilton and Clyde Valley at the UK GE last year, barely more than half what Reform got UK wide.
If (when) Reform make gains in Scotland it will be at the expense of unionists who realise that both Labour and the Tories are useless and powerless, particularly in Scotland. Nationalists will grit their teeth, swallow hard and continue to vote SNP.
The latest Holyrood poll has the combined SNP, Green and Alba vote on 39% for the constituency vote and 41% for the regional vote.
In 2021 the combined SNP, Green and Alba vote was 48% on the constituency vote and 49% on the regional vote.
So Reform are taking nationalist votes in Scotland not just Unionist votes
How many Americans who threatened to leave if Trump won the election have actually done so?
Rosie O'Donnell and Richard Gere for starters.
I was surprised to read an excellent article by Lena Dunham (Girls) in the New Yorker about the fact she has been living in London for 5 years and had no intention at all of returning to the U.S.
"Reform UK ‘would trigger immediate and violent sterling crisis’ Nigel Farage’s tax-cutting plans risk blowing an £80bn hole in public finances if he wins power, economists warn"
As we see with Trump, if and when they gain power they will collide with economic and fiscal reality with a series of measures announced and quickly u-turned on in a chaotic shamble that makes it impossible for business to invest or plan properly for the future.
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
Is it ?
..“Nations depend on rules, fair rules. Sometimes they are written down, often they are not, but either way, they give shape to our values, guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to each other.
“In a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together...
I can understand people not liking it, but I'm not sure I'd interpret it like that.
Egyptian and Indian doctors on LBC have interpreted the speech that they are not welcome. In a hostile media of sound bites Starmer should have expected the backlash. They are off to Canada and the Middle East by the way.
Suggesting Starmer was worse than Powell, may be hyperbolic, but it resonates to an extent with Centrist Dads like me.
Why does it resonate? Can you articulate your specific objection?
This speech from Starmer is an unpleasant reaction to Reform. I believe Starmer is dog whistling to racists.
So would any speech on migration in the current climate be considered dog whistling in your opinion?
Obviously the government has had a white paper out for months, and obviously in most peoples eyes, the status quo of Tory chaos needed fixing.
I don't disagree necessarily, but Starmer's toxic language is not what is required to right the Brexit and Boriswave error.
You still haven't explained whats toxic about it......I genuinely have no idea what the problem is.
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
Is it ?
..“Nations depend on rules, fair rules. Sometimes they are written down, often they are not, but either way, they give shape to our values, guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to each other.
“In a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together...
I can understand people not liking it, but I'm not sure I'd interpret it like that.
Egyptian and Indian doctors on LBC have interpreted the speech that they are not welcome. In a hostile media of sound bites Starmer should have expected the backlash. They are off to Canada and the Middle East by the way.
Suggesting Starmer was worse than Powell, may be hyperbolic, but it resonates to an extent with Centrist Dads like me.
Why does it resonate? Can you articulate your specific objection?
This speech from Starmer is an unpleasant reaction to Reform. I believe Starmer is dog whistling to racists.
So would any speech on migration in the current climate be considered dog whistling in your opinion?
Obviously the government has had a white paper out for months, and obviously in most peoples eyes, the status quo of Tory chaos needed fixing.
I am struggling to understand why the government should not “respond” to Reform’s success in the locals.
Has Mexicanpete heard of this thing called politics.
Great thread about how a series of daft regulations are hampering housing development in London.
For example, a special (and unaccountable) quango set up post-Grenfell to review developments over 18 metres has essentially resulted in no developments over 18 metres being consented.
London (and Britain) can’t afford this nonsense. Will Sadiq Khan address any of this? Seems doubtful, given his default position of do-nothingism and virtue signalling.
Canary Wharf student rooms skyscraper gets go-ahead as City Hall overrules council
As an aside, it’s absurd this 46-storey tower was ever delayed. It’s in the Canary Wharf cluster so can’t possibly be objected to on massing grounds.
I'm bemused by the fact it'll be student digs. My first year at uni was on the ?ninth? floor of a tower block in South Woodford, and plenty of high jinks ensued. The climb up the stairs when drunk and the lift was out of order was not fun, though...
(I got moved onto the first floor for the last couple of months, as I was on crutches and the lift outages were too frequent. Going up that many flights of stairs on crutches certainly built my shoulders up.)
Great thread about how a series of daft regulations are hampering housing development in London.
For example, a special (and unaccountable) quango set up post-Grenfell to review developments over 18 metres has essentially resulted in no developments over 18 metres being consented.
London (and Britain) can’t afford this nonsense. Will Sadiq Khan address any of this? Seems doubtful, given his default position of do-nothingism and virtue signalling.
Canary Wharf student rooms skyscraper gets go-ahead as City Hall overrules council
As an aside, it’s absurd this 46-storey tower was ever delayed. It’s in the Canary Wharf cluster so can’t possibly be objected to on massing grounds.
Agree on the Student Tower - that's pure Nimbyism for that location:
Four councillors had voted against the advice of the borough’s own planning officers by refusing permission for the project, while three voted in favour of it. Councillors opposed to the tower had argued it could lead to an increase in “anti-social activity”, “noise and disturbance” for neighbouring residents, and that it was an “inappropriate location for student accommodation”.
OTOH the guy on Twitter suggesting eg that towers up to 30m or 50m should only need one escape staircase seems to me to be perhaps abusing his data and confusing categories, and making arguments for changes which will make such buildings more dangerous.
On the single staircase for example, his argument is that "there are few scenarios in a properly maintained building in which a fire renders only one staircase impassable for a significant amount of time". That's exactly the point - he is relying on "well-regulated", which is precisely what failed at Grenfell in maintenance work, renovation and management. That's why we need the second staircase, to provide resilience to failure to regulate well.
His space standards argument seems similar, in having a spurious comparison between the area of a one bed flat, and the area per person of a two bed flat, and suggesting that the two should be the same. But I have not yet checked the relevant standards for NL and FR.
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
Is it ?
..“Nations depend on rules, fair rules. Sometimes they are written down, often they are not, but either way, they give shape to our values, guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to each other.
“In a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together...
I can understand people not liking it, but I'm not sure I'd interpret it like that.
Egyptian and Indian doctors on LBC have interpreted the speech that they are not welcome. In a hostile media of sound bites Starmer should have expected the backlash. They are off to Canada and the Middle East by the way.
Suggesting Starmer was worse than Powell, may be hyperbolic, but it resonates to an extent with Centrist Dads like me.
Why does it resonate? Can you articulate your specific objection?
This speech from Starmer is an unpleasant reaction to Reform. I believe Starmer is dog whistling to racists.
So would any speech on migration in the current climate be considered dog whistling in your opinion?
Obviously the government has had a white paper out for months, and obviously in most peoples eyes, the status quo of Tory chaos needed fixing.
I don't disagree necessarily, but Starmer's toxic language is not what is required to right the Brexit and Boriswave error.
You still haven't explained whats toxic about it......I genuinely have no idea what the problem is.
The SNP appear to be getting slightly nervous about Reform & the Hamilton byelection: "Stop Farage, vote for a better future. This election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is an opportunity to stop Farage in Scotland. His Reform party is gaining support down south, but we can take the wind out of his sails with a victory here. The SNP is stepping in where Labour have let you down and, crucially, offering hope for a better future."
Pretty sure the SNP are v. grateful for Reform stirring the Unionist pot and will highlight their presence as much as possible. The SLab candidate is a Rangers fanboi (seats in the directors' box etc), the SCon is Orange Lodge and Reform is of course the Union Bears with a rosette. The Predator v Alien v some crap Dr Who monster from the 60s will be great craic.
Reform got only 7.8% in Hamilton and Clyde Valley at the UK GE last year, barely more than half what Reform got UK wide.
Yebbut the high water mark of SCons + various unpleasant righties is about 30% (seen during the Ruth Davidson miracle - whatever happened to her?). I don’t think SCons, Reform and OTHER unpleasant righties has got above that in polling? While I would love to see Anas ‘working with’ these people I doubt it will come to pass, so impotent bellowing from the sidelines, the MO of the right at Holyrood, seems about the most Reform could hope for.
Survey after survey has shown that Scots are no more "progressive" in their attitudes than anyone else in the UK. The reason for the "progressive" majority at Holyrood is that many "unpleasant righties" vote SNP as they are wedded to Indy and are prepared to overlook the SNP's, by-and-large, social progressivism.
White van man, who now votes Reform in England and Wales, will in many cases be voting SNP in next year's Holyrood elections. Hence the 30% high watermark.
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
Is it ?
..“Nations depend on rules, fair rules. Sometimes they are written down, often they are not, but either way, they give shape to our values, guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to each other.
“In a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together...
I can understand people not liking it, but I'm not sure I'd interpret it like that.
Egyptian and Indian doctors on LBC have interpreted the speech that they are not welcome. In a hostile media of sound bites Starmer should have expected the backlash. They are off to Canada and the Middle East by the way.
Suggesting Starmer was worse than Powell, may be hyperbolic, but it resonates to an extent with Centrist Dads like me.
Why does it resonate? Can you articulate your specific objection?
This speech from Starmer is an unpleasant reaction to Reform. I believe Starmer is dog whistling to racists.
So would any speech on migration in the current climate be considered dog whistling in your opinion?
Obviously the government has had a white paper out for months, and obviously in most peoples eyes, the status quo of Tory chaos needed fixing.
I don't disagree necessarily, but Starmer's toxic language is not what is required to right the Brexit and Boriswave error.
You still haven't explained whats toxic about it......I genuinely have no idea what the problem is.
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
Is it ?
..“Nations depend on rules, fair rules. Sometimes they are written down, often they are not, but either way, they give shape to our values, guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to each other.
“In a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together...
I can understand people not liking it, but I'm not sure I'd interpret it like that.
Egyptian and Indian doctors on LBC have interpreted the speech that they are not welcome. In a hostile media of sound bites Starmer should have expected the backlash. They are off to Canada and the Middle East by the way.
Suggesting Starmer was worse than Powell, may be hyperbolic, but it resonates to an extent with Centrist Dads like me.
Why does it resonate? Can you articulate your specific objection?
This speech from Starmer is an unpleasant reaction to Reform. I believe Starmer is dog whistling to racists.
So would any speech on migration in the current climate be considered dog whistling in your opinion?
Obviously the government has had a white paper out for months, and obviously in most peoples eyes, the status quo of Tory chaos needed fixing.
I don't disagree necessarily, but Starmer's toxic language is not what is required to right the Brexit and Boriswave error.
You still haven't explained whats toxic about it......I genuinely have no idea what the problem is.
This press release, from the Scottish Greens, is total gobbledygook, starting with its claim that the UK government can “improve wages and conditions…any time it wants to”.
"Reform UK ‘would trigger immediate and violent sterling crisis’ Nigel Farage’s tax-cutting plans risk blowing an £80bn hole in public finances if he wins power, economists warn"
As we see with Trump, if and when they gain power they will collide with economic and fiscal reality with a series of measures announced and quickly u-turned on in a chaotic shamble that makes it impossible for business to invest or plan properly for the future.
The problem with such warnings, as we’ve seen with Brexit, is whatever their truth, Arthur Slobb of 7a Railway Cuttings doesn’t give a shit.
Great thread about how a series of daft regulations are hampering housing development in London.
For example, a special (and unaccountable) quango set up post-Grenfell to review developments over 18 metres has essentially resulted in no developments over 18 metres being consented.
London (and Britain) can’t afford this nonsense. Will Sadiq Khan address any of this? Seems doubtful, given his default position of do-nothingism and virtue signalling.
Canary Wharf student rooms skyscraper gets go-ahead as City Hall overrules council
As an aside, it’s absurd this 46-storey tower was ever delayed. It’s in the Canary Wharf cluster so can’t possibly be objected to on massing grounds.
Agree on the Student Tower - that's pure Nimbyism for that location:
Four councillors had voted against the advice of the borough’s own planning officers by refusing permission for the project, while three voted in favour of it. Councillors opposed to the tower had argued it could lead to an increase in “anti-social activity”, “noise and disturbance” for neighbouring residents, and that it was an “inappropriate location for student accommodation”.
OTOH the guy on Twitter suggesting eg that towers up to 30m or 50m should only need one escape staircase seems to me to be perhaps abusing his data and confusing categories, and making arguments for changes which will make such buildings more dangerous.
On the single staircase for example, his argument is that "there are few scenarios in a properly maintained building in which a fire renders only one staircase impassable for a significant amount of time". That's exactly the point - he is relying on "well-regulated", which is precisely what failed at Grenfell in maintenance work, renovation and management. That's why we need the second staircase, to provide resilience to failure to regulate well.
His space standards argument seems similar, in having a spurious comparison between the area of a one bed flat, and the area per person of a two bed flat, and suggesting that the two should be the same. But I have not yet checked the relevant standards for NL and FR.
Why don’t we just insist on maintenance being carried out, instead of imposing regulatory gold-plating on every new build?
How many Americans who threatened to leave if Trump won the election have actually done so?
Rosie O'Donnell and Richard Gere for starters.
I was surprised to read an excellent article by Lena Dunham (Girls) in the New Yorker about the fact she has been living in London for 5 years and had no intention at all of returning to the U.S.
How many Americans who threatened to leave if Trump won the election have actually done so?
Rosie O'Donnell and Richard Gere for starters.
I was surprised to read an excellent article by Lena Dunham (Girls) in the New Yorker about the fact she has been living in London for 5 years and had no intention at all of returning to the U.S.
She had become, rightly or wrongly, a hate figure:
Moves for political, as opposed to monetary, reasons do happen. The British actor David McCallum relocated to the States because he thought the 60/70s Labour governments were too left wing.
Moves for political, as opposed to monetary, reasons do happen. The British actor David McCallum relocated to the States because he thought the 60/70s Labour governments were too left wing.
I thought he left because he got the Man from Uncle gig.
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
I myself took gross exception to “citizens of nowhere”, as it was uttered in the heat of an intense rise of xenophobia post-Brexit.
May’s intent was to criticise an ideology of rootless capitalism - “globalists” avant la letter - but she delivered it in an incredibly ham-fisted way.
There is a key difference between “citizens of nowhere” and “island of strangers”.
May sought to “other” and blame a sector of society.
Starmer’s speech only identifies the anxiety felt by existing resident in response to massive societal change.
It certainly resonates with me, but not so much as a result of immigration. It makes me think of:
the closure of pubs
people living hundreds of miles away from family
WFH
Not going to church
Lack of universal cultural events, like the finales to TV programmes or popular music
Car based society where you never interact with people on the pavements or in buses and trains
fewer young people having children, and higher rates of divorce
A man in my tenement died suddenly a few days ago, and we've had the police in the stairwell doing some sort of investigation. We're all going to the pub on Friday to have a drink in his memory. Feels weird and alien; my only interaction with him was to help retrieve his washing when the rain came in. But for the older people living here, a perfectly normal social occasion.
The SNP appear to be getting slightly nervous about Reform & the Hamilton byelection: "Stop Farage, vote for a better future. This election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is an opportunity to stop Farage in Scotland. His Reform party is gaining support down south, but we can take the wind out of his sails with a victory here. The SNP is stepping in where Labour have let you down and, crucially, offering hope for a better future."
Pretty sure the SNP are v. grateful for Reform stirring the Unionist pot and will highlight their presence as much as possible. The SLab candidate is a Rangers fanboi (seats in the directors' box etc), the SCon is Orange Lodge and Reform is of course the Union Bears with a rosette. The Predator v Alien v some crap Dr Who monster from the 60s will be great craic.
Reform got only 7.8% in Hamilton and Clyde Valley at the UK GE last year, barely more than half what Reform got UK wide.
Yebbut the high water mark of SCons + various unpleasant righties is about 30% (seen during the Ruth Davidson miracle - whatever happened to her?). I don’t think SCons, Reform and OTHER unpleasant righties has got above that in polling? While I would love to see Anas ‘working with’ these people I doubt it will come to pass, so impotent bellowing from the sidelines, the MO of the right at Holyrood, seems about the most Reform could hope for.
Survey after survey has shown that Scots are no more "progressive" in their attitudes than anyone else in the UK. The reason for the "progressive" majority at Holyrood is that many "unpleasant righties" vote SNP as they are wedded to Indy and are prepared to overlook the SNP's, by-and-large, social progressivism.
White van man, who now votes Reform in England and Wales, will in many cases be voting SNP in next year's Holyrood elections. Hence the 30% high watermark.
Haven’t backed a Tory government for 60+ years, loathed Maggie & Boris, resoundingly voted against Brexit, considers Farage & co an annoying weeping sore on the body politic, but APART from that…
I do love the Yoon ‘we’re all as awful as each other’ meme though.
"Family doctors in England are deeply divided on the issue of assisted dying, BBC research on plans to legalise the practice suggests.
BBC News sent more than 5,000 GPs a questionnaire asking whether they agreed with changing the law to allow assisted dying for certain terminally ill people in England and Wales.
More than 1,000 GPs replied, with about 500 telling us they were against an assisted dying law and about 400 saying they were in favour."
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
But as ever with Starmer it’s not necessarily the words, but the direct contradiction of them in tone, spirit and content to words previously uttered by him. I’ve said it before that all pols do it to a certain extent but I can’t think of many that have made it a defining characteristic the way SKS has. There are a few factors that have contributed to voters’ general cynicism but the impression of politicians being completely untethered from consistent principle is definitely one of them.
Could anyone name a solid Starmer ethical value that he has stuck to since he burst (sad trombone noise) upon the political scene?
* He unthinkingly obeys the law. Two obvious examples are the payments for Diego Garcia and the Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of woman * Assisted dying. I think this dates from his old lawyer days when he handled a case.
Moves for political, as opposed to monetary, reasons do happen. The British actor David McCallum relocated to the States because he thought the 60/70s Labour governments were too left wing.
I thought he left because he got the Man from Uncle gig.
Moves for political, as opposed to monetary, reasons do happen. The British actor David McCallum relocated to the States because he thought the 60/70s Labour governments were too left wing.
I thought he left because he got the Man from Uncle gig.
There was some discussion here a couple of days ago about Liz Truss possibly joining Reform:
Nigel Farage has been mocked after Reform UK left Liz Truss off a list of Tory leaders who “broke Britain”. The former prime minister, who only last 49 days in office, was conspicuous by her absence from a Reform election leaflet seen by HuffPost UK. The pamphlet shows pictures of former Conservative PMs Theresa May, Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson and David Cameron, as well as current leader Kemi Badenoch. Underneath it says: “In 14 years, the Conservatives broke Britain. Their record in government must not be forgotten.”
Moves for political, as opposed to monetary, reasons do happen. The British actor David McCallum relocated to the States because he thought the 60/70s Labour governments were too left wing.
I thought he left because he got the Man from Uncle gig.
He mentioned it in an interview once: it stuck in the mind. I *think* he was in the States before TMFU, (he was in an Outer Limits episode in 1963) but happy to be contradicted.
Moves for political, as opposed to monetary, reasons do happen. The British actor David McCallum relocated to the States because he thought the 60/70s Labour governments were too left wing.
I thought he left because he got the Man from Uncle gig.
Yeah, plus his second wife was a Yank.
He will always be Ducky to me.
Oooh Mrs!
Charles Branson stole his first wife, the absolute cad and bounder.
Starmer is renting his 4-bed house in Kentish Town to his sister in law for less than £10,000 a year. Very generous, market rate must be almost that per month I’d guess
That's part of the Starmer enigma, like the field he bought for his mothers donkeys. When left to his own devices he is a nice guy and supportive of his family. Yet he acts like a tosser in his PM role. I think it is imposter syndrome.
Great thread about how a series of daft regulations are hampering housing development in London.
For example, a special (and unaccountable) quango set up post-Grenfell to review developments over 18 metres has essentially resulted in no developments over 18 metres being consented.
London (and Britain) can’t afford this nonsense. Will Sadiq Khan address any of this? Seems doubtful, given his default position of do-nothingism and virtue signalling.
Canary Wharf student rooms skyscraper gets go-ahead as City Hall overrules council
As an aside, it’s absurd this 46-storey tower was ever delayed. It’s in the Canary Wharf cluster so can’t possibly be objected to on massing grounds.
Agree on the Student Tower - that's pure Nimbyism for that location:
Four councillors had voted against the advice of the borough’s own planning officers by refusing permission for the project, while three voted in favour of it. Councillors opposed to the tower had argued it could lead to an increase in “anti-social activity”, “noise and disturbance” for neighbouring residents, and that it was an “inappropriate location for student accommodation”.
OTOH the guy on Twitter suggesting eg that towers up to 30m or 50m should only need one escape staircase seems to me to be perhaps abusing his data and confusing categories, and making arguments for changes which will make such buildings more dangerous.
On the single staircase for example, his argument is that "there are few scenarios in a properly maintained building in which a fire renders only one staircase impassable for a significant amount of time". That's exactly the point - he is relying on "well-regulated", which is precisely what failed at Grenfell in maintenance work, renovation and management. That's why we need the second staircase, to provide resilience to failure to regulate well.
His space standards argument seems similar, in having a spurious comparison between the area of a one bed flat, and the area per person of a two bed flat, and suggesting that the two should be the same. But I have not yet checked the relevant standards for NL and FR.
Why don’t we just insist on maintenance being carried out, instead of imposing regulatory gold-plating on every new build?
I tend to agree. But requiring it to be well-maintained does not mean that that will happen, and the cases where lives are lost will disproportionately be those where the maintenance regime failed.
I'd distinguish between the two as "fail safe" and "fail unsafe". We pay our money and take our pick.
The main driver of his argument is the prices of flats for single people being too high, and I think that can perhaps be fixed by less radical means than ones requiring reductions in safety.
I've tracked down "space per person" comparisons of "one bedroom flats" in London with "studio flats" abroad, and there seems to be some ambiguity in the terms. That's a rabbit hole I don't have space to map completely.
The SNP appear to be getting slightly nervous about Reform & the Hamilton byelection: "Stop Farage, vote for a better future. This election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is an opportunity to stop Farage in Scotland. His Reform party is gaining support down south, but we can take the wind out of his sails with a victory here. The SNP is stepping in where Labour have let you down and, crucially, offering hope for a better future."
Pretty sure the SNP are v. grateful for Reform stirring the Unionist pot and will highlight their presence as much as possible. The SLab candidate is a Rangers fanboi (seats in the directors' box etc), the SCon is Orange Lodge and Reform is of course the Union Bears with a rosette. The Predator v Alien v some crap Dr Who monster from the 60s will be great craic.
Reform got only 7.8% in Hamilton and Clyde Valley at the UK GE last year, barely more than half what Reform got UK wide.
Yebbut the high water mark of SCons + various unpleasant righties is about 30% (seen during the Ruth Davidson miracle - whatever happened to her?). I don’t think SCons, Reform and OTHER unpleasant righties has got above that in polling? While I would love to see Anas ‘working with’ these people I doubt it will come to pass, so impotent bellowing from the sidelines, the MO of the right at Holyrood, seems about the most Reform could hope for.
Survey after survey has shown that Scots are no more "progressive" in their attitudes than anyone else in the UK. The reason for the "progressive" majority at Holyrood is that many "unpleasant righties" vote SNP as they are wedded to Indy and are prepared to overlook the SNP's, by-and-large, social progressivism.
White van man, who now votes Reform in England and Wales, will in many cases be voting SNP in next year's Holyrood elections. Hence the 30% high watermark.
Haven’t backed a Tory government for 60+ years, loathed Maggie & Boris, resoundingly voted against Brexit, considers Farage & co an annoying weeping sore on the body politic, but APART from that…
I do love the Yoon ‘we’re all as awful as each other’ meme though.
Just to pick that apart a bit.
Lack of Tory backing, due to being perceived as the "English" party, not because Scots have a long-lasting affection for the Summer of Love. Maggie and Boris quintessentially offensive to many of a Scottish sensibility.
Brexit, fair enough, although some parts did vote in favour, or very close, Moray and Buchan coast, for instance.
As for Farage, we'll find out soon enough.
Scotland, with its large industrial belt, will always be more left-wing than median England, but not more socially progressive.
Moves for political, as opposed to monetary, reasons do happen. The British actor David McCallum relocated to the States because he thought the 60/70s Labour governments were too left wing.
I thought he left because he got the Man from Uncle gig.
Yeah, plus his second wife was a Yank.
He will always be Ducky to me.
Oooh Mrs!
Charles Branson stole his first wife, the absolute cad and bounder.
There was some discussion here a couple of days ago about Liz Truss possibly joining Reform:
Nigel Farage has been mocked after Reform UK left Liz Truss off a list of Tory leaders who “broke Britain”. The former prime minister, who only last 49 days in office, was conspicuous by her absence from a Reform election leaflet seen by HuffPost UK. The pamphlet shows pictures of former Conservative PMs Theresa May, Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson and David Cameron, as well as current leader Kemi Badenoch. Underneath it says: “In 14 years, the Conservatives broke Britain. Their record in government must not be forgotten.”
The SNP appear to be getting slightly nervous about Reform & the Hamilton byelection: "Stop Farage, vote for a better future. This election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is an opportunity to stop Farage in Scotland. His Reform party is gaining support down south, but we can take the wind out of his sails with a victory here. The SNP is stepping in where Labour have let you down and, crucially, offering hope for a better future."
Pretty sure the SNP are v. grateful for Reform stirring the Unionist pot and will highlight their presence as much as possible. The SLab candidate is a Rangers fanboi (seats in the directors' box etc), the SCon is Orange Lodge and Reform is of course the Union Bears with a rosette. The Predator v Alien v some crap Dr Who monster from the 60s will be great craic.
Reform got only 7.8% in Hamilton and Clyde Valley at the UK GE last year, barely more than half what Reform got UK wide.
Yebbut the high water mark of SCons + various unpleasant righties is about 30% (seen during the Ruth Davidson miracle - whatever happened to her?). I don’t think SCons, Reform and OTHER unpleasant righties has got above that in polling? While I would love to see Anas ‘working with’ these people I doubt it will come to pass, so impotent bellowing from the sidelines, the MO of the right at Holyrood, seems about the most Reform could hope for.
Survey after survey has shown that Scots are no more "progressive" in their attitudes than anyone else in the UK. The reason for the "progressive" majority at Holyrood is that many "unpleasant righties" vote SNP as they are wedded to Indy and are prepared to overlook the SNP's, by-and-large, social progressivism.
White van man, who now votes Reform in England and Wales, will in many cases be voting SNP in next year's Holyrood elections. Hence the 30% high watermark.
Haven’t backed a Tory government for 60+ years, loathed Maggie & Boris, resoundingly voted against Brexit, considers Farage & co an annoying weeping sore on the body politic, but APART from that…
I do love the Yoon ‘we’re all as awful as each other’ meme though.
I got on at 10/1
I honestly will have a really good laugh if Reform do win.
Moves for political, as opposed to monetary, reasons do happen. The British actor David McCallum relocated to the States because he thought the 60/70s Labour governments were too left wing.
I thought he left because he got the Man from Uncle gig.
Yeah, plus his second wife was a Yank.
He will always be Ducky to me.
Great as Ducky, great as Kuryakin, great as Steel.
There was some discussion here a couple of days ago about Liz Truss possibly joining Reform:
Nigel Farage has been mocked after Reform UK left Liz Truss off a list of Tory leaders who “broke Britain”. The former prime minister, who only last 49 days in office, was conspicuous by her absence from a Reform election leaflet seen by HuffPost UK. The pamphlet shows pictures of former Conservative PMs Theresa May, Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson and David Cameron, as well as current leader Kemi Badenoch. Underneath it says: “In 14 years, the Conservatives broke Britain. Their record in government must not be forgotten.”
Quite excellent from Kemi today. Starmer couldn’t answer her question of how his JOB TAX is closing the hospice, he was all over the place. 🤤
Did you miss the "Beales" debacle?
It was right for Kemi to lead on the economic indicators were better the day the Conservatives handed it over to Labour. This is a government in economic trouble of its own making, and the projections are indicating it’s going to get a lot worse.
A term of no growth and no recovery in incomes, and voters will vote for everything else on the ballot paper rather than Labour. Kemi gets better and better on choosing the right issues and asking clear, pointed, unanswerable problems. She is swiftly moving the electorate on from “Tory’s crashed the economy” to “Labour are in power and own this economic mess”.
There was some discussion here a couple of days ago about Liz Truss possibly joining Reform:
Nigel Farage has been mocked after Reform UK left Liz Truss off a list of Tory leaders who “broke Britain”. The former prime minister, who only last 49 days in office, was conspicuous by her absence from a Reform election leaflet seen by HuffPost UK. The pamphlet shows pictures of former Conservative PMs Theresa May, Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson and David Cameron, as well as current leader Kemi Badenoch. Underneath it says: “In 14 years, the Conservatives broke Britain. Their record in government must not be forgotten.”
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
I myself took gross exception to “citizens of nowhere”, as it was uttered in the heat of an intense rise of xenophobia post-Brexit.
May’s intent was to criticise an ideology of rootless capitalism - “globalists” avant la letter - but she delivered it in an incredibly ham-fisted way.
There is a key difference between “citizens of nowhere” and “island of strangers”.
May sought to “other” and blame a sector of society.
Starmer’s speech only identifies the anxiety felt by existing resident in response to massive societal change.
It certainly resonates with me, but not so much as a result of immigration. It makes me think of:
the closure of pubs
people living hundreds of miles away from family
WFH
Not going to church
Lack of universal cultural events, like the finales to TV programmes or popular music
Car based society where you never interact with people on the pavements or in buses and trains
fewer young people having children, and higher rates of divorce
A man in my tenement died suddenly a few days ago, and we've had the police in the stairwell doing some sort of investigation. We're all going to the pub on Friday to have a drink in his memory. Feels weird and alien; my only interaction with him was to help retrieve his washing when the rain came in. But for the older people living here, a perfectly normal social occasion.
I guess this feeling of atomization varies depending on where you live or your stage of life. Despite living in supposedly anonymous and unfriendly inner London I have never felt so rooted in a community as I do now. We know so many of our neighbours and people in neighboring streets, through having children at school together but also through participating in various local groups and activities. It's hard for me to walk around the local park or visit the local Cafe without running into people I know. I'm even on first name terms with our local vicar. And these are people with roots from across the world. I know we are lucky to live in such a nice neighbourhood, but I have to say that Starmer’s Island of Strangers speech didn't resonate with me on every level. Perhaps everyone just needs to try being a bit more friendly instead of always thinking the worst of people.
Great thread about how a series of daft regulations are hampering housing development in London.
For example, a special (and unaccountable) quango set up post-Grenfell to review developments over 18 metres has essentially resulted in no developments over 18 metres being consented.
London (and Britain) can’t afford this nonsense. Will Sadiq Khan address any of this? Seems doubtful, given his default position of do-nothingism and virtue signalling.
Canary Wharf student rooms skyscraper gets go-ahead as City Hall overrules council
As an aside, it’s absurd this 46-storey tower was ever delayed. It’s in the Canary Wharf cluster so can’t possibly be objected to on massing grounds.
Agree on the Student Tower - that's pure Nimbyism for that location:
Four councillors had voted against the advice of the borough’s own planning officers by refusing permission for the project, while three voted in favour of it. Councillors opposed to the tower had argued it could lead to an increase in “anti-social activity”, “noise and disturbance” for neighbouring residents, and that it was an “inappropriate location for student accommodation”.
OTOH the guy on Twitter suggesting eg that towers up to 30m or 50m should only need one escape staircase seems to me to be perhaps abusing his data and confusing categories, and making arguments for changes which will make such buildings more dangerous.
On the single staircase for example, his argument is that "there are few scenarios in a properly maintained building in which a fire renders only one staircase impassable for a significant amount of time". That's exactly the point - he is relying on "well-regulated", which is precisely what failed at Grenfell in maintenance work, renovation and management. That's why we need the second staircase, to provide resilience to failure to regulate well.
His space standards argument seems similar, in having a spurious comparison between the area of a one bed flat, and the area per person of a two bed flat, and suggesting that the two should be the same. But I have not yet checked the relevant standards for NL and FR.
Why don’t we just insist on maintenance being carried out, instead of imposing regulatory gold-plating on every new build?
Because we have a culture in this country where no-one wants to take any accountability for the treatment of risk.
There was some discussion here a couple of days ago about Liz Truss possibly joining Reform:
Nigel Farage has been mocked after Reform UK left Liz Truss off a list of Tory leaders who “broke Britain”. The former prime minister, who only last 49 days in office, was conspicuous by her absence from a Reform election leaflet seen by HuffPost UK. The pamphlet shows pictures of former Conservative PMs Theresa May, Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson and David Cameron, as well as current leader Kemi Badenoch. Underneath it says: “In 14 years, the Conservatives broke Britain. Their record in government must not be forgotten.”
Quite excellent from Kemi today. Starmer couldn’t answer her question of how his JOB TAX is closing the hospice, he was all over the place. 🤤
Did you miss the "Beales" debacle?
It was right for Kemi to lead on the economic indicators were better the day the Conservatives handed it over to Labour. This is a government in economic trouble of its own making, and the projections are indicating it’s going to get a lot worse.
A term of no growth and no recovery in incomes, and voters will vote for everything else on the ballot paper rather than Labour. Kemi gets better and better on choosing the right issues and asking clear, pointed, unanswerable problems. She is swiftly moving the electorate on from “Tory’s crashed the economy” to “Labour are in power and own this economic mess”.
A lot of the toxicity of immigration would be reduced if there was a clear strategy (including numbers!) which acknowledged the benefits and negatives of immigration, and then defined the various means of entry (students, work, family) and of control.
As many have pointed out, our population is ageing vast and inbound migration of some quantity is desirable. The public expectation is that both quantity AND quality will be managed.
The asylum problem, is actually I think I different issue altogether, and at this juncture seemingly more intractable. Starmer should separate them out and appoint an Asylum Tsar or some such.
Comments
May’s intent was to criticise an ideology of rootless capitalism - “globalists” avant la letter - but she delivered it in an incredibly ham-fisted way.
There is a key difference between “citizens of nowhere” and “island of strangers”.
May sought to “other” and blame a sector of society.
Starmer’s speech only identifies the anxiety felt by existing resident in response to massive societal change.
The government is aiming to cut the number of roles in London by 12,000 and close 11 offices in the capital to save £94m a year by 2032.
The changes will see two new government campuses opened in Manchester and Aberdeen, and roles created in other towns and cities.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mgrnn7lv5o
Plans to build a 46-storey tower containing almost 1,000 student bedrooms in Canary Wharf have been given the green light by City Hall, after Sir Sadiq Khan’s planning deputy overruled the local council.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/canary-wharf-student-tower-approved-city-hall-tower-hamlets-b1227570.html
46-floor tower block approved just yesterday.
Suggesting Starmer was worse than Powell, may be hyperbolic, but it resonates to an extent with Centrist Dads like me.
* Mr Braverman having already jumped ship.
So if Reform make big gains in the Holyrood by election there that should concern the SNP not just Labour and the Tories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_and_Clyde_Valley_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
As an aside, it’s absurd this 46-storey tower was ever delayed. It’s in the Canary Wharf cluster so can’t possibly be objected to on massing grounds.
* (below Boris wave levels and with housebuilding)
Can you articulate your specific objection?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14710271/Taxi-driver-says-victim-assault-David-Lammy-wife-refused-pay-590-fare-driving-Italy-French-ski-resort.html
Nigel Farage’s tax-cutting plans risk blowing an £80bn hole in public finances if he wins power, economists warn"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/05/14/reforms-economic-plans-would-trigger-run-on-the-pound/
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/1922598164592300389/photo/1
Who knows, he might even get CCHQ and Labour HQ to direct some donors his way too!
Even without going to the US extreme where many can't afford private health insurance and aren't eligible for Medicare or Medicaid so go without healthcare at all
Obviously the government has had a white paper out for months, and obviously in most peoples eyes, the status quo of Tory chaos needed fixing.
It is self-evident that this week's Starmer bears a different imprint from the one we have seen that last nine months.
BTW how many noticed the change in policy over those applicants who were caught out in the middle when the rug was pulled out from the SFI, Strategic Farming Incentive ? BBC Farming Today did not say what was obvious. Those applicants who had a partial application but not finalised have now been given their 6 weeks to finalise their applications. I can assume the search for a Barrister who was prepared to defend the indefensible when the website said 6 weeks notice would be given had resulted in no barrister taking it on.
The bigger story, avoided by Farming Today, or maybe never even occuring to them is those who relied on the truth of the website but had not begun the application but who had made preparations for an application. It is a lot easier to make an application in one go so it is not unreasonable that there could be countless people who can claim they were making ready for an application. Soon one will start proceedings, will DEFRA be able to find a lawyer to defend their position ? Maybe in some hard left chambers like Starmers, but no responsible barrister would take it on. That DEFRA will lose is certain. With the DEFRA Secretary of his own personalised slimemold of a minister resign for their evil incompetence ? Not a chance.
I'm cautiously in favour of this move: with the addition that if things get out of control over there, sanctions can be put on again quickly.
I can imagine the pro-Assad excusers are not very happy, though.
In 2021 the combined SNP, Green and Alba vote was 48% on the constituency vote and 49% on the regional vote.
So Reform are taking nationalist votes in Scotland not just Unionist votes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Scottish_Parliament_election#Results
Has Mexicanpete heard of this thing called politics.
(I got moved onto the first floor for the last couple of months, as I was on crutches and the lift outages were too frequent. Going up that many flights of stairs on crutches certainly built my shoulders up.)
Four councillors had voted against the advice of the borough’s own planning officers by refusing permission for the project, while three voted in favour of it.
Councillors opposed to the tower had argued it could lead to an increase in “anti-social activity”, “noise and disturbance” for neighbouring residents, and that it was an “inappropriate location for student accommodation”.
OTOH the guy on Twitter suggesting eg that towers up to 30m or 50m should only need one escape staircase seems to me to be perhaps abusing his data and confusing categories, and making arguments for changes which will make such buildings more dangerous.
On the single staircase for example, his argument is that "there are few scenarios in a properly maintained building in which a fire renders only one staircase impassable for a significant amount of time". That's exactly the point - he is relying on "well-regulated", which is precisely what failed at Grenfell in maintenance work, renovation and management. That's why we need the second staircase, to provide resilience to failure to regulate well.
His space standards argument seems similar, in having a spurious comparison between the area of a one bed flat, and the area per person of a two bed flat, and suggesting that the two should be the same. But I have not yet checked the relevant standards for NL and FR.
Talking about migration is not automatically blaming anyone.
White van man, who now votes Reform in England and Wales, will in many cases be voting SNP in next year's Holyrood elections. Hence the 30% high watermark.
https://www.cracked.com/article_31134_everybody-was-too-annoyed-with-lena-dunham-to-appreciate-girls.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_DeGeneres
Moves for political, as opposed to monetary, reasons do happen. The British actor David McCallum relocated to the States because he thought the 60/70s Labour governments were too left wing.
- the closure of pubs
- people living hundreds of miles away from family
- WFH
- Not going to church
- Lack of universal cultural events, like the finales to TV programmes or popular music
- Car based society where you never interact with people on the pavements or in buses and trains
- fewer young people having children, and higher rates of divorce
A man in my tenement died suddenly a few days ago, and we've had the police in the stairwell doing some sort of investigation. We're all going to the pub on Friday to have a drink in his memory. Feels weird and alien; my only interaction with him was to help retrieve his washing when the rain came in. But for the older people living here, a perfectly normal social occasion.I do love the Yoon ‘we’re all as awful as each other’ meme though.
BBC News sent more than 5,000 GPs a questionnaire asking whether they agreed with changing the law to allow assisted dying for certain terminally ill people in England and Wales.
More than 1,000 GPs replied, with about 500 telling us they were against an assisted dying law and about 400 saying they were in favour."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8e6ww5036go
* Assisted dying. I think this dates from his old lawyer days when he handled a case.
That says everything you ever need to know.
He will always be Ducky to me.
Nigel Farage has been mocked after Reform UK left Liz Truss off a list of Tory leaders who “broke Britain”.
The former prime minister, who only last 49 days in office, was conspicuous by her absence from a Reform election leaflet seen by HuffPost UK.
The pamphlet shows pictures of former Conservative PMs Theresa May, Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson and David Cameron, as well as current leader Kemi Badenoch.
Underneath it says: “In 14 years, the Conservatives broke Britain. Their record in government must not be forgotten.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/exclusive-farage-mocked-after-reform-leave-liz-truss-off-list-of-tory-leaders-who-broke-britain_uk_68231cc5e4b0205e6886b58a
I'd distinguish between the two as "fail safe" and "fail unsafe". We pay our money and take our pick.
The main driver of his argument is the prices of flats for single people being too high, and I think that can perhaps be fixed by less radical means than ones requiring reductions in safety.
I've tracked down "space per person" comparisons of "one bedroom flats" in London with "studio flats" abroad, and there seems to be some ambiguity in the terms. That's a rabbit hole I don't have space to map completely.
Lack of Tory backing, due to being perceived as the "English" party, not because Scots have a long-lasting affection for the Summer of Love. Maggie and Boris quintessentially offensive to many of a Scottish sensibility.
Brexit, fair enough, although some parts did vote in favour, or very close, Moray and Buchan coast, for instance.
As for Farage, we'll find out soon enough.
Scotland, with its large industrial belt, will always be more left-wing than median England, but not more socially progressive.
She's so toxic she'd damage the Reform brand.
I honestly will have a really good laugh if Reform do win.
A term of no growth and no recovery in incomes, and voters will vote for everything else on the ballot paper rather than Labour. Kemi gets better and better on choosing the right issues and asking clear, pointed, unanswerable problems. She is swiftly moving the electorate on from “Tory’s crashed the economy” to “Labour are in power and own this economic mess”.
Reform lead by 10pts
🟦 REF – 32% (+4)
🔴 LAB – 22% (-)
🔵 CON – 19% (-8)
🟠 LD – 15% (+1)
🟢 GRN – 8% (+3)
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
A lot of the toxicity of immigration would be reduced if there was a clear strategy (including numbers!) which acknowledged the benefits and negatives of immigration, and then defined the various means of entry (students, work, family) and of control.
As many have pointed out, our population is ageing vast and inbound migration of some quantity is desirable. The public expectation is that both quantity AND quality will be managed.
The asylum problem, is actually I think I different issue altogether, and at this juncture seemingly more intractable. Starmer should separate them out and appoint an Asylum Tsar or some such.