I'd love to see Canada join the EU, if only for the look on Brexiteers' faces.
Sez one newbie German MEP as he launches as “aspirational” campaign.
The EU would have to radically change in function and purpose.
It’s not happening. (And if it did change to accommodate Canada then it might well be interesting again for the UK as I assume it would be a much looser arrangement)
I seem to recall hearing about how incredibly tough Canada are when it comes to trade agreements so I’m not sure how their position on protecting agriculture for example would dovetail with the EU’s position.
Then there is free movement which isn’t going to go down overly well in Canada so many reasons not to see it remotely happening.
It does however add to the sense that the EU needs to have that “outer ring” that Macron suggested or alternatively to itself become a looser arrangement based on trade and defence which would then be more attractive to potential new members.
I'm not sure why free movement wouldn't go down well in Canada. It's one of the few countries I work in which feels serously short of people. As for Canadians free moving in Europe it would be unnoticable. The Cote d'Azur at the moment is absolutely heaving and seemingly with every nationality under the sun. For the French it must feel like they're floating in cash machines
Have you not read up on Canadian politics? They had their version of a Boriswave and a lot of people are not happy with the result.
It was only Trump and his 51st state garbage that saved the Liberals. This time.
They won’t double down on that.
Free movement of Europeans is not necessarily the free movement they don't like. Similat to the UK if only they would admit to it.
If you mixed with the lower orders, you might find a reason why they don’t like huge influxes of Poles, Romanians etc, either. It’s not just racism.
As Stuart Rose admitted, at the lower end, it is about wage suppression.
One friend, who left school at 16 etc, went though a series of trades that were, one by one, reduced to minimum wage. With shitty conditions.
In the end, he emigrated to Australia, where wages for non-white collar are protected. He was lucky - his wife is Australian. So he lives in a Perth suburb, in a house he owns, with time and money to waste on having time off, rather than working a zillion hours of overtime. So he can go cycling with friends. Or even go see a play - yes, culture has arrived in Perth.
In Australia average working hours are 38 hours in the UK 36 to 37 hours though there are deductions for expenses etc in Australia even if the minimum wage is about the same
On libraries, Brighton central library is large, relatively new, and hugely popular. They run all sorts of community-based activities, and books etc. are well-stocked. It's also a haven in winter for those struggling to heat their homes.
I visit most weeks, mainly to catch up on magazines and papers, particularly those that are paywalled online. I've even been known to skim The Spectator and the DT, after which I feel the need to stop at the fine pub around the corner for a couple of pints to cleanse my soul.
Brighton isn't very northern. Sounds like a good library though, I'll visit it next time I'm there.
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
That is *exactly* what I said would happen about Mel Stride's ham-fisted blabber mouthed intervention on Kemi.
The state of the man. He is up against RACHEL REEVES for heaven's sake and the only politicians he's landed a punch against are the former Tory PM and the current Tory leader.
I'd love to see Canada join the EU, if only for the look on Brexiteers' faces.
Sez one newbie German MEP as he launches as “aspirational” campaign.
The EU would have to radically change in function and purpose.
It’s not happening. (And if it did change to accommodate Canada then it might well be interesting again for the UK as I assume it would be a much looser arrangement)
I seem to recall hearing about how incredibly tough Canada are when it comes to trade agreements so I’m not sure how their position on protecting agriculture for example would dovetail with the EU’s position.
Then there is free movement which isn’t going to go down overly well in Canada so many reasons not to see it remotely happening.
It does however add to the sense that the EU needs to have that “outer ring” that Macron suggested or alternatively to itself become a looser arrangement based on trade and defence which would then be more attractive to potential new members.
I'm not sure why free movement wouldn't go down well in Canada. It's one of the few countries I work in which feels serously short of people. As for Canadians free moving in Europe it would be unnoticable. The Cote d'Azur at the moment is absolutely heaving and seemingly with every nationality under the sun. For the French it must feel like they're floating in cash machines
Have you not read up on Canadian politics? They had their version of a Boriswave and a lot of people are not happy with the result.
It was only Trump and his 51st state garbage that saved the Liberals. This time.
They won’t double down on that.
Free movement of Europeans is not necessarily the free movement they don't like. Similat to the UK if only they would admit to it.
If you mixed with the lower orders, you might find a reason why they don’t like huge influxes of Poles, Romanians etc, either. It’s not just racism.
As Stuart Rose admitted, at the lower end, it is about wage suppression.
One friend, who left school at 16 etc, went though a series of trades that were, one by one, reduced to minimum wage. With shitty conditions.
In the end, he emigrated to Australia, where wages for non-white collar are protected. He was lucky - his wife is Australian. So he lives in a Perth suburb, in a house he owns, with time and money to waste on having time off, rather than working a zillion hours of overtime. So he can go cycling with friends. Or even go see a play - yes, culture has arrived in Perth.
In Australia average working hours are 38 hours in the UK 36 to 37 hours though there are deductions for expenses etc in Australia even if the minimum wage is about the same
Average hours worked in the UK would increase if we didn't have a tax system that meant for many people they're untaxed on first 18-20 hours they work and then on a close to 100% tax rate for any hours they work above that.
Jeremy Hunt was on Camilla Tominey earlier. I am really not a big fan, but he would be a heckuva lot better than Stride as Shadow COTE. Lean into the Tory low tax low spend sound money thing.
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Tory MPs aren't exactly being positive about the future of the country. This is the MP for Harborough.
"Britain is heading for utter oblivion. Here is why From immigration and demographics to welfare and low productivity, we are facing terminal decline Neil O'Brien" (£)
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Kemi will probably get until autumn next year to prove herself, if by then her policy review hasn't improved Tory poll ratings and there are further Tory losses in the local elections next year she will likely be gone.
She also has to remember she won the leadership with the backing of the party's moderate wing in the final round over Jenrick. If her review proposed withdrawing from the ECHR the likes of Osborne will be plotting her removal and replacement by Cleverly
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Kemi will probably get until autumn next year to prove herself, if by then her policy review hasn't improved Tory poll ratings and there are further Tory losses in the local elections next year she will likely be gone.
She also has to remember she won the leadership with the backing of the party's moderate wing in the final round over Jenrick. If her review proposed withdrawing from the ECHR the likes of Osborne will be plotting her removal and replacement by Cleverly
That's why she should democratise the party and get rid of what's left of the Central Office death grip over it. Give candidate selection back to associations. Destroys any power base Osborne and his gang of grotesques have within the party.
Jeremy Hunt was on Camilla Tominey earlier. I am really not a big fan, but he would be a heckuva lot better than Stride as Shadow COTE. Lean into the Tory low tax low spend sound money thing.
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Kemi will probably get until autumn next year to prove herself, if by then her policy review hasn't improved Tory poll ratings and there are further Tory losses in the local elections next year she will likely be gone.
She also has to remember she won the leadership with the backing of the party's moderate wing in the final round over Jenrick. If her review proposed withdrawing from the ECHR the likes of Osborne will be plotting her removal and replacement by Cleverly
The Tories suffered their worst ever defeat 12 months ago, people were livid with them. This ludicrous notion they have that they'd be anything other than hanging on for a couple of years is so daft. Their sense of entitlement to rule will destroy them. 150 seats at GE 2029 would be an astonishing result if Reform are still a thing, they aren't getting 200 whatever they do, they need to be 'firebreaking' 100 and staying relevant if they want to ever govern again
(FWIW: So far, I seem to have been following his advice, without ever having heard of him. I'll be 82 in August and have no serious health problems.
I am not joking when I say that cross country skiing has been a big benefit for me, but will add that swimming is, as far as I know, just as good an exercise.
I suspect that the clean air achievements under GHWB and, to a lesser extent, GWB, have benefited me, too.)
Jeremy Hunt was on Camilla Tominey earlier. I am really not a big fan, but he would be a heckuva lot better than Stride as Shadow COTE. Lean into the Tory low tax low spend sound money thing.
He'd be a helluva lot better than Reeves as COTE.
So would a jar of pickled onions.
But yes, I think he would do a far better job of opposing her than Stride.
Out of curiosity: Are your journalists even noting that the Canadian wild fires are producing large quantities of both free carbon (soot), and carbon dioxide? I see some of the smoke has even reached Scotland, which so far as I know, has done nothing to deserve it.
Out of curiosity: Are your journalists even noting that the Canadian wild fires are producing large quantities of both free carbon (soot), and carbon dioxide? I see some of the smoke has even reached Scotland, which so far as I know, has done nothing to deserve it.
Jeremy Hunt was on Camilla Tominey earlier. I am really not a big fan, but he would be a heckuva lot better than Stride as Shadow COTE. Lean into the Tory low tax low spend sound money thing.
He'd be a helluva lot better than Reeves as COTE.
I am not Reeves fan, and used to think Hunt one of the better and more capable Tories, but my opinion has changed.
His 18 months as CoE was all about short termism. No spending review, just unaffordable tax cuts and commitments set as heffalump traps for Reeves to blunder into. It was a scorched earth approach of a government facing certain oblivion, not one that had the countries long term interest at heart.
I'd love to see Canada join the EU, if only for the look on Brexiteers' faces.
Sez one newbie German MEP as he launches as “aspirational” campaign.
The EU would have to radically change in function and purpose.
It’s not happening. (And if it did change to accommodate Canada then it might well be interesting again for the UK as I assume it would be a much looser arrangement)
I seem to recall hearing about how incredibly tough Canada are when it comes to trade agreements so I’m not sure how their position on protecting agriculture for example would dovetail with the EU’s position.
Then there is free movement which isn’t going to go down overly well in Canada so many reasons not to see it remotely happening.
It does however add to the sense that the EU needs to have that “outer ring” that Macron suggested or alternatively to itself become a looser arrangement based on trade and defence which would then be more attractive to potential new members.
I'm not sure why free movement wouldn't go down well in Canada. It's one of the few countries I work in which feels serously short of people. As for Canadians free moving in Europe it would be unnoticable. The Cote d'Azur at the moment is absolutely heaving and seemingly with every nationality under the sun. For the French it must feel like they're floating in cash machines
Have you not read up on Canadian politics? They had their version of a Boriswave and a lot of people are not happy with the result.
It was only Trump and his 51st state garbage that saved the Liberals. This time.
They won’t double down on that.
Free movement of Europeans is not necessarily the free movement they don't like. Similat to the UK if only they would admit to it.
If you mixed with the lower orders, you might find a reason why they don’t like huge influxes of Poles, Romanians etc, either. It’s not just racism.
As Stuart Rose admitted, at the lower end, it is about wage suppression.
One friend, who left school at 16 etc, went though a series of trades that were, one by one, reduced to minimum wage. With shitty conditions.
In the end, he emigrated to Australia, where wages for non-white collar are protected. He was lucky - his wife is Australian. So he lives in a Perth suburb, in a house he owns, with time and money to waste on having time off, rather than working a zillion hours of overtime. So he can go cycling with friends. Or even go see a play - yes, culture has arrived in Perth.
In Australia average working hours are 38 hours in the UK 36 to 37 hours though there are deductions for expenses etc in Australia even if the minimum wage is about the same
The difference is that most jobs pay well above minimum wage and housing is cheaper in most areas. So he could buy a nice house in Perth, in a similar job, that should have had him in a shitty rented 1 bed in London.
Jeremy Hunt was on Camilla Tominey earlier. I am really not a big fan, but he would be a heckuva lot better than Stride as Shadow COTE. Lean into the Tory low tax low spend sound money thing.
He'd be a helluva lot better than Reeves as COTE.
I am not Reeves fan, and used to think Hunt one of the better and more capable Tories.
His 18 months as CoE was all about short termism. No spending review, just unaffordable tax cuts and commitments set as heffalump traps for Reeves to blunder into. It was a scorched earth approach of a government facing certain oblivion, not one that had the countries long term interest at heart.
But his so-called unachievable welfare cuts would only take us back to pre-Covid welfare spending.
I'd love to see Canada join the EU, if only for the look on Brexiteers' faces.
Sez one newbie German MEP as he launches as “aspirational” campaign.
The EU would have to radically change in function and purpose.
It’s not happening. (And if it did change to accommodate Canada then it might well be interesting again for the UK as I assume it would be a much looser arrangement)
I seem to recall hearing about how incredibly tough Canada are when it comes to trade agreements so I’m not sure how their position on protecting agriculture for example would dovetail with the EU’s position.
Then there is free movement which isn’t going to go down overly well in Canada so many reasons not to see it remotely happening.
It does however add to the sense that the EU needs to have that “outer ring” that Macron suggested or alternatively to itself become a looser arrangement based on trade and defence which would then be more attractive to potential new members.
I'm not sure why free movement wouldn't go down well in Canada. It's one of the few countries I work in which feels serously short of people. As for Canadians free moving in Europe it would be unnoticable. The Cote d'Azur at the moment is absolutely heaving and seemingly with every nationality under the sun. For the French it must feel like they're floating in cash machines
Have you not read up on Canadian politics? They had their version of a Boriswave and a lot of people are not happy with the result.
It was only Trump and his 51st state garbage that saved the Liberals. This time.
They won’t double down on that.
Free movement of Europeans is not necessarily the free movement they don't like. Similat to the UK if only they would admit to it.
If you mixed with the lower orders, you might find a reason why they don’t like huge influxes of Poles, Romanians etc, either. It’s not just racism.
As Stuart Rose admitted, at the lower end, it is about wage suppression.
One friend, who left school at 16 etc, went though a series of trades that were, one by one, reduced to minimum wage. With shitty conditions.
In the end, he emigrated to Australia, where wages for non-white collar are protected. He was lucky - his wife is Australian. So he lives in a Perth suburb, in a house he owns, with time and money to waste on having time off, rather than working a zillion hours of overtime. So he can go cycling with friends. Or even go see a play - yes, culture has arrived in Perth.
In Australia average working hours are 38 hours in the UK 36 to 37 hours though there are deductions for expenses etc in Australia even if the minimum wage is about the same
The difference is that most jobs pay well above minimum wage and housing is cheaper in most areas. So he could buy a nice house in Perth, in a similar job, that should have had him in a shitty rented 1 bed in London.
Speaking to Australians that I meet (and Kiwis too) the cost of housing there is anything but affordable.
Jeremy Hunt was on Camilla Tominey earlier. I am really not a big fan, but he would be a heckuva lot better than Stride as Shadow COTE. Lean into the Tory low tax low spend sound money thing.
He'd be a helluva lot better than Reeves as COTE.
I am not Reeves fan, and used to think Hunt one of the better and more capable Tories, but my opinion has changed.
His 18 months as CoE was all about short termism. No spending review, just unaffordable tax cuts and commitments set as heffalump traps for Reeves to blunder into. It was a scorched earth approach of a government facing certain oblivion, not one that had the countries long term interest at heart.
I have to agree. He did the odd good thing, such as improving the tax rebates on investment and that helped but, whether it was Rishi or him, they did nothing to address the medium term, let alone the long term problems we face. I was disappointed.
Or, if they are enormously sensitive, some have claimed "muppets" is rude.
It's a shortened version of number 1. I mean it is very rude, and I can't see how anyone using it wouldn’t be aware of the meaning. Not something you'd expect to say on screen and get away with.
Still ridiculous not to report it though. And even use the wrong number of stars to spare us the vapours if we deduce it.
I'd love to see Canada join the EU, if only for the look on Brexiteers' faces.
Sez one newbie German MEP as he launches as “aspirational” campaign.
The EU would have to radically change in function and purpose.
It’s not happening. (And if it did change to accommodate Canada then it might well be interesting again for the UK as I assume it would be a much looser arrangement)
I seem to recall hearing about how incredibly tough Canada are when it comes to trade agreements so I’m not sure how their position on protecting agriculture for example would dovetail with the EU’s position.
Then there is free movement which isn’t going to go down overly well in Canada so many reasons not to see it remotely happening.
It does however add to the sense that the EU needs to have that “outer ring” that Macron suggested or alternatively to itself become a looser arrangement based on trade and defence which would then be more attractive to potential new members.
I'm not sure why free movement wouldn't go down well in Canada. It's one of the few countries I work in which feels serously short of people. As for Canadians free moving in Europe it would be unnoticable. The Cote d'Azur at the moment is absolutely heaving and seemingly with every nationality under the sun. For the French it must feel like they're floating in cash machines
Have you not read up on Canadian politics? They had their version of a Boriswave and a lot of people are not happy with the result.
It was only Trump and his 51st state garbage that saved the Liberals. This time.
They won’t double down on that.
Free movement of Europeans is not necessarily the free movement they don't like. Similat to the UK if only they would admit to it.
If you mixed with the lower orders, you might find a reason why they don’t like huge influxes of Poles, Romanians etc, either. It’s not just racism.
As Stuart Rose admitted, at the lower end, it is about wage suppression.
One friend, who left school at 16 etc, went though a series of trades that were, one by one, reduced to minimum wage. With shitty conditions.
In the end, he emigrated to Australia, where wages for non-white collar are protected. He was lucky - his wife is Australian. So he lives in a Perth suburb, in a house he owns, with time and money to waste on having time off, rather than working a zillion hours of overtime. So he can go cycling with friends. Or even go see a play - yes, culture has arrived in Perth.
In Australia average working hours are 38 hours in the UK 36 to 37 hours though there are deductions for expenses etc in Australia even if the minimum wage is about the same
The difference is that most jobs pay well above minimum wage and housing is cheaper in most areas. So he could buy a nice house in Perth, in a similar job, that should have had him in a shitty rented 1 bed in London.
To an extent but house prices in Sydney and most of Melbourne for example are well above those anywhere north of Watford in the UK
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Tory MPs aren't exactly being positive about the future of the country. This is the MP for Harborough.
"Britain is heading for utter oblivion. Here is why From immigration and demographics to welfare and low productivity, we are facing terminal decline Neil O'Brien" (£)
I'd love to see Canada join the EU, if only for the look on Brexiteers' faces.
Sez one newbie German MEP as he launches as “aspirational” campaign.
The EU would have to radically change in function and purpose.
It’s not happening. (And if it did change to accommodate Canada then it might well be interesting again for the UK as I assume it would be a much looser arrangement)
I seem to recall hearing about how incredibly tough Canada are when it comes to trade agreements so I’m not sure how their position on protecting agriculture for example would dovetail with the EU’s position.
Then there is free movement which isn’t going to go down overly well in Canada so many reasons not to see it remotely happening.
It does however add to the sense that the EU needs to have that “outer ring” that Macron suggested or alternatively to itself become a looser arrangement based on trade and defence which would then be more attractive to potential new members.
I'm not sure why free movement wouldn't go down well in Canada. It's one of the few countries I work in which feels serously short of people. As for Canadians free moving in Europe it would be unnoticable. The Cote d'Azur at the moment is absolutely heaving and seemingly with every nationality under the sun. For the French it must feel like they're floating in cash machines
Have you not read up on Canadian politics? They had their version of a Boriswave and a lot of people are not happy with the result.
It was only Trump and his 51st state garbage that saved the Liberals. This time.
They won’t double down on that.
Free movement of Europeans is not necessarily the free movement they don't like. Similat to the UK if only they would admit to it.
If you mixed with the lower orders, you might find a reason why they don’t like huge influxes of Poles, Romanians etc, either. It’s not just racism.
As Stuart Rose admitted, at the lower end, it is about wage suppression.
One friend, who left school at 16 etc, went though a series of trades that were, one by one, reduced to minimum wage. With shitty conditions.
In the end, he emigrated to Australia, where wages for non-white collar are protected. He was lucky - his wife is Australian. So he lives in a Perth suburb, in a house he owns, with time and money to waste on having time off, rather than working a zillion hours of overtime. So he can go cycling with friends. Or even go see a play - yes, culture has arrived in Perth.
In Australia average working hours are 38 hours in the UK 36 to 37 hours though there are deductions for expenses etc in Australia even if the minimum wage is about the same
Perth is famous for people getting up at 5:30 in the morning, getting to work at 7, leaving work at about 4, and doing things like walking along the beach for the rest of the day. So they work hard, but do it earlier than most places.
Jeremy Hunt was on Camilla Tominey earlier. I am really not a big fan, but he would be a heckuva lot better than Stride as Shadow COTE. Lean into the Tory low tax low spend sound money thing.
He'd be a helluva lot better than Reeves as COTE.
I am not Reeves fan, and used to think Hunt one of the better and more capable Tories, but my opinion has changed.
His 18 months as CoE was all about short termism. No spending review, just unaffordable tax cuts and commitments set as heffalump traps for Reeves to blunder into. It was a scorched earth approach of a government facing certain oblivion, not one that had the countries long term interest at heart.
And even on its own terms, improving the Conservative performance at the 2024 election, it seems to have failed. If any government had the "we're going to lose, so let's make that defeat unjust by doing the right things" (such as putting a "mission accomplished" sticker on the Triple Lock and putting taxes up) opportunity, it was Sunak's.
A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once.
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
I'd love to see Canada join the EU, if only for the look on Brexiteers' faces.
Sez one newbie German MEP as he launches as “aspirational” campaign.
The EU would have to radically change in function and purpose.
It’s not happening. (And if it did change to accommodate Canada then it might well be interesting again for the UK as I assume it would be a much looser arrangement)
I seem to recall hearing about how incredibly tough Canada are when it comes to trade agreements so I’m not sure how their position on protecting agriculture for example would dovetail with the EU’s position.
Then there is free movement which isn’t going to go down overly well in Canada so many reasons not to see it remotely happening.
It does however add to the sense that the EU needs to have that “outer ring” that Macron suggested or alternatively to itself become a looser arrangement based on trade and defence which would then be more attractive to potential new members.
I'm not sure why free movement wouldn't go down well in Canada. It's one of the few countries I work in which feels serously short of people. As for Canadians free moving in Europe it would be unnoticable. The Cote d'Azur at the moment is absolutely heaving and seemingly with every nationality under the sun. For the French it must feel like they're floating in cash machines
Have you not read up on Canadian politics? They had their version of a Boriswave and a lot of people are not happy with the result.
It was only Trump and his 51st state garbage that saved the Liberals. This time.
They won’t double down on that.
Free movement of Europeans is not necessarily the free movement they don't like. Similat to the UK if only they would admit to it.
If you mixed with the lower orders, you might find a reason why they don’t like huge influxes of Poles, Romanians etc, either. It’s not just racism.
As Stuart Rose admitted, at the lower end, it is about wage suppression.
One friend, who left school at 16 etc, went though a series of trades that were, one by one, reduced to minimum wage. With shitty conditions.
In the end, he emigrated to Australia, where wages for non-white collar are protected. He was lucky - his wife is Australian. So he lives in a Perth suburb, in a house he owns, with time and money to waste on having time off, rather than working a zillion hours of overtime. So he can go cycling with friends. Or even go see a play - yes, culture has arrived in Perth.
In Australia average working hours are 38 hours in the UK 36 to 37 hours though there are deductions for expenses etc in Australia even if the minimum wage is about the same
The difference is that most jobs pay well above minimum wage and housing is cheaper in most areas. So he could buy a nice house in Perth, in a similar job, that should have had him in a shitty rented 1 bed in London.
Speaking to Australians that I meet (and Kiwis too) the cost of housing there is anything but affordable.
Depends where you are - and it’s relative. Yeah, there are parts of the Gold Coast (for example) where, as another friend put it - “if I’d bought a house in my hometown 25 years ago, I’d have made more money on that than working for 25 years.”
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Kemi will probably get until autumn next year to prove herself, if by then her policy review hasn't improved Tory poll ratings and there are further Tory losses in the local elections next year she will likely be gone.
She also has to remember she won the leadership with the backing of the party's moderate wing in the final round over Jenrick. If her review proposed withdrawing from the ECHR the likes of Osborne will be plotting her removal and replacement by Cleverly
The Tories suffered their worst ever defeat 12 months ago, people were livid with them. This ludicrous notion they have that they'd be anything other than hanging on for a couple of years is so daft. Their sense of entitlement to rule will destroy them. 150 seats at GE 2029 would be an astonishing result if Reform are still a thing, they aren't getting 200 whatever they do, they need to be 'firebreaking' 100 and staying relevant if they want to ever govern again
They do. Which requires them at least to be over 20% of the vote while we keep FPTP, if Kemi can't even do that and has lost even voters Rishi held last year then she will be gone by the end of next year
Jeremy Hunt was on Camilla Tominey earlier. I am really not a big fan, but he would be a heckuva lot better than Stride as Shadow COTE. Lean into the Tory low tax low spend sound money thing.
He'd be a helluva lot better than Reeves as COTE.
I am not Reeves fan, and used to think Hunt one of the better and more capable Tories, but my opinion has changed.
His 18 months as CoE was all about short termism. No spending review, just unaffordable tax cuts and commitments set as heffalump traps for Reeves to blunder into. It was a scorched earth approach of a government facing certain oblivion, not one that had the countries long term interest at heart.
I agree and it raises the question of which recent chancellor has been better. If Reeves is as bad as people here make out, the previous ones should have been a lot better.
Jeremy Hunt was on Camilla Tominey earlier. I am really not a big fan, but he would be a heckuva lot better than Stride as Shadow COTE. Lean into the Tory low tax low spend sound money thing.
He'd be a helluva lot better than Reeves as COTE.
I am not Reeves fan, and used to think Hunt one of the better and more capable Tories, but my opinion has changed.
His 18 months as CoE was all about short termism. No spending review, just unaffordable tax cuts and commitments set as heffalump traps for Reeves to blunder into. It was a scorched earth approach of a government facing certain oblivion, not one that had the countries long term interest at heart.
I have to agree. He did the odd good thing, such as improving the tax rebates on investment and that helped but, whether it was Rishi or him, they did nothing to address the medium term, let alone the long term problems we face. I was disappointed.
I don't understand why. The defeat was inevitable - if he had given Labour a somewhat respectable legacy, or at least one pointed in the right direction, then the Conservatives would be in a much better place than they are now. Cutting current spending in favour of HS2 would have snookered Reeves, for example.
Fiscal prudence and long-term thinking are the only things they have over Reform. Yet they abandoned them?
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Kemi will probably get until autumn next year to prove herself, if by then her policy review hasn't improved Tory poll ratings and there are further Tory losses in the local elections next year she will likely be gone.
She also has to remember she won the leadership with the backing of the party's moderate wing in the final round over Jenrick. If her review proposed withdrawing from the ECHR the likes of Osborne will be plotting her removal and replacement by Cleverly
The Tories suffered their worst ever defeat 12 months ago, people were livid with them. This ludicrous notion they have that they'd be anything other than hanging on for a couple of years is so daft. Their sense of entitlement to rule will destroy them. 150 seats at GE 2029 would be an astonishing result if Reform are still a thing, they aren't getting 200 whatever they do, they need to be 'firebreaking' 100 and staying relevant if they want to ever govern again
They do. Which requires them at least to be over 20% of the vote while we keep FPTP, if Kemi can't even do that and has lost even voters Rishi held last year then she will be gone by the end of next year
Ultimately, Robert Jenrick would have been better, as more sensible people said at the time.
Jeremy Hunt was on Camilla Tominey earlier. I am really not a big fan, but he would be a heckuva lot better than Stride as Shadow COTE. Lean into the Tory low tax low spend sound money thing.
He'd be a helluva lot better than Reeves as COTE.
I am not Reeves fan, and used to think Hunt one of the better and more capable Tories.
His 18 months as CoE was all about short termism. No spending review, just unaffordable tax cuts and commitments set as heffalump traps for Reeves to blunder into. It was a scorched earth approach of a government facing certain oblivion, not one that had the countries long term interest at heart.
But his so-called unachievable welfare cuts would only take us back to pre-Covid welfare spending.
Yes, but such a return fails to take account of the demographic changes to demand. It's only honest if the scale of cutbacks to entitlements is outlined alongside the budget cuts. I don't think Hunt and Sunak funked it, so much as deliberately omitted it knowing that an incoming government would have to either increase taxes or substantially reduce entitlements, or both.
No party at the last GE was willing to present the electorate with that stark truth, and that is a large part of the reason that the electorate is so disenchanted with the main legacy parties. We were lied to.
I don't think Reform is any more honest, indeed even less so. The public has very little understanding of where the money gets spent at either council or national level, hence the idea that cuts to DEI and flag budgets can finance massive tax cuts, restore WFP, massively increase the arms race etc etc. The figures obviously don't add up, but once again we will have a GE where no party is willing to tell the truth on the national finances.
Jeremy Hunt was on Camilla Tominey earlier. I am really not a big fan, but he would be a heckuva lot better than Stride as Shadow COTE. Lean into the Tory low tax low spend sound money thing.
He'd be a helluva lot better than Reeves as COTE.
I am not Reeves fan, and used to think Hunt one of the better and more capable Tories.
His 18 months as CoE was all about short termism. No spending review, just unaffordable tax cuts and commitments set as heffalump traps for Reeves to blunder into. It was a scorched earth approach of a government facing certain oblivion, not one that had the countries long term interest at heart.
But his so-called unachievable welfare cuts would only take us back to pre-Covid welfare spending.
Yes, but such a return fails to take account of the demographic changes to demand. It's only honest if the scale of cutbacks to entitlements is outlined alongside the budget cuts. I don't think Hunt and Sunak funked it, so much as deliberately omitted it knowing that an incoming government would have to either increase taxes or substantially reduce entitlements, or both.
No party at the last GE was willing to present the electorate with that stark truth, and that is a large part of the reason that the electorate is so disenchanted with the main legacy parties. We were lied to.
I don't think Reform is any more honest, indeed even less so. The public has very little understanding of where the money gets spent at either council or national level, hence the idea that cuts to DEI and flag budgets can finance massive tax cuts, restore WFP, massively increase the arms race etc etc. The figures obviously don't add up, but once again we will have a GE where no party is willing to tell the truth on the national finances.
Theresa May tried telling the truth to voters in 2017 and lost her majority for her trouble, voters won't vote for parties promising them tax rises and spending cuts is the brutal truth
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Kemi will probably get until autumn next year to prove herself, if by then her policy review hasn't improved Tory poll ratings and there are further Tory losses in the local elections next year she will likely be gone.
She also has to remember she won the leadership with the backing of the party's moderate wing in the final round over Jenrick. If her review proposed withdrawing from the ECHR the likes of Osborne will be plotting her removal and replacement by Cleverly
The Tories suffered their worst ever defeat 12 months ago, people were livid with them. This ludicrous notion they have that they'd be anything other than hanging on for a couple of years is so daft. Their sense of entitlement to rule will destroy them. 150 seats at GE 2029 would be an astonishing result if Reform are still a thing, they aren't getting 200 whatever they do, they need to be 'firebreaking' 100 and staying relevant if they want to ever govern again
They do. Which requires them at least to be over 20% of the vote while we keep FPTP, if Kemi can't even do that and has lost even voters Rishi held last year then she will be gone by the end of next year
Ultimately, Robert Jenrick would have been better, as more sensible people said at the time.
But that didn't happen so make the best of it.
He is a better speaker but the polling doesn't suggest he would be doing much better than Kemi and would still be polling below the 24% Rishi got last year
Jeremy Hunt was on Camilla Tominey earlier. I am really not a big fan, but he would be a heckuva lot better than Stride as Shadow COTE. Lean into the Tory low tax low spend sound money thing.
He'd be a helluva lot better than Reeves as COTE.
I am not Reeves fan, and used to think Hunt one of the better and more capable Tories.
His 18 months as CoE was all about short termism. No spending review, just unaffordable tax cuts and commitments set as heffalump traps for Reeves to blunder into. It was a scorched earth approach of a government facing certain oblivion, not one that had the countries long term interest at heart.
But his so-called unachievable welfare cuts would only take us back to pre-Covid welfare spending.
Yes, but such a return fails to take account of the demographic changes to demand. It's only honest if the scale of cutbacks to entitlements is outlined alongside the budget cuts. I don't think Hunt and Sunak funked it, so much as deliberately omitted it knowing that an incoming government would have to either increase taxes or substantially reduce entitlements, or both.
No party at the last GE was willing to present the electorate with that stark truth, and that is a large part of the reason that the electorate is so disenchanted with the main legacy parties. We were lied to.
I don't think Reform is any more honest, indeed even less so. The public has very little understanding of where the money gets spent at either council or national level, hence the idea that cuts to DEI and flag budgets can finance massive tax cuts, restore WFP, massively increase the arms race etc etc. The figures obviously don't add up, but once again we will have a GE where no party is willing to tell the truth on the national finances.
Theresa May tried telling the truth to voters in 2017 and lost her majority for her trouble, voters won't vote for parties promising them tax rises and spending cuts is the brutal truth
She sprang it on them, in the middle of an election campaign.
Things might well have been different, had she addressed the issue in Autumn 2016, and made the case for it.
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Kemi will probably get until autumn next year to prove herself, if by then her policy review hasn't improved Tory poll ratings and there are further Tory losses in the local elections next year she will likely be gone.
She also has to remember she won the leadership with the backing of the party's moderate wing in the final round over Jenrick. If her review proposed withdrawing from the ECHR the likes of Osborne will be plotting her removal and replacement by Cleverly
The Tories suffered their worst ever defeat 12 months ago, people were livid with them. This ludicrous notion they have that they'd be anything other than hanging on for a couple of years is so daft. Their sense of entitlement to rule will destroy them. 150 seats at GE 2029 would be an astonishing result if Reform are still a thing, they aren't getting 200 whatever they do, they need to be 'firebreaking' 100 and staying relevant if they want to ever govern again
I distrust Reform, but I think the Conservatives have to go. Throughout most of their history, all the Conservatives have stood for is managing decline, and squabbling with each other over the fruits of office. The Thatcher years were an anomaly. Frankly, they're a rancid bag of tits.
Jeremy Hunt was on Camilla Tominey earlier. I am really not a big fan, but he would be a heckuva lot better than Stride as Shadow COTE. Lean into the Tory low tax low spend sound money thing.
He'd be a helluva lot better than Reeves as COTE.
I am not Reeves fan, and used to think Hunt one of the better and more capable Tories, but my opinion has changed.
His 18 months as CoE was all about short termism. No spending review, just unaffordable tax cuts and commitments set as heffalump traps for Reeves to blunder into. It was a scorched earth approach of a government facing certain oblivion, not one that had the countries long term interest at heart.
I agree and it raises the question of which recent chancellor has been better. If Reeves is as bad as people here make out, the previous ones should have been a lot better.
Rachel Reeves isn't the worst Chancellor of recent times. That's clearly Kwasi Kwarteng. The second worst? Maybe, but not obvious.
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Kemi will probably get until autumn next year to prove herself, if by then her policy review hasn't improved Tory poll ratings and there are further Tory losses in the local elections next year she will likely be gone.
She also has to remember she won the leadership with the backing of the party's moderate wing in the final round over Jenrick. If her review proposed withdrawing from the ECHR the likes of Osborne will be plotting her removal and replacement by Cleverly
The Tories suffered their worst ever defeat 12 months ago, people were livid with them. This ludicrous notion they have that they'd be anything other than hanging on for a couple of years is so daft. Their sense of entitlement to rule will destroy them. 150 seats at GE 2029 would be an astonishing result if Reform are still a thing, they aren't getting 200 whatever they do, they need to be 'firebreaking' 100 and staying relevant if they want to ever govern again
They do. Which requires them at least to be over 20% of the vote while we keep FPTP, if Kemi can't even do that and has lost even voters Rishi held last year then she will be gone by the end of next year
Ultimately, Robert Jenrick would have been better, as more sensible people said at the time.
But that didn't happen so make the best of it.
Jenrick is a rancid offering, encapsulating all that the people in the middle ground who have left the Tories cite as the reason they left the Tories.
He would perform no better than Kemi. At least she doesn't appall and repel.
The tragedy of DOGE style slashing goes beyond the damage it will do, in the short term.
For a political generation or two, all reasonable attempts to increase productivity in government will be tarred with this shite.
The main saving the US DOGE seems to have made is the shuttering of USAID.
That can't be done in the UK as between the asylum bills, Sunak’s cut, and Starmer’s cut, UK aid has already been shuttered.
Good.
The corrupt circlejerk of "charities" hiring the likes of David Miliband, who then lobby for taxpayers money to go to those charities, should never return.
Taxpayers money should go on public services.
Charity should be something people choose to donate to, not get taxed to go towards.
If you donate to Water Aid, or World Vision, or Comic Relief, or CAFOD or anything else then all power to your elbow. I regularly do too. But that's a choice, it shouldn't be compelled by the State, and those donations shouldn't be funding ex- politicians who exist to lobby for more taxpayers money.
International development is not charity
Correctly implemented it address our strategic objectives, increases international security (by downregulating radicalism), builds alliances and creates new markets for commercial activities.
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Kemi will probably get until autumn next year to prove herself, if by then her policy review hasn't improved Tory poll ratings and there are further Tory losses in the local elections next year she will likely be gone.
She also has to remember she won the leadership with the backing of the party's moderate wing in the final round over Jenrick. If her review proposed withdrawing from the ECHR the likes of Osborne will be plotting her removal and replacement by Cleverly
The purpose of the review is surely to expose all the sensible but boring reasons why we should remain signed up to the ECHR.
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Kemi will probably get until autumn next year to prove herself, if by then her policy review hasn't improved Tory poll ratings and there are further Tory losses in the local elections next year she will likely be gone.
She also has to remember she won the leadership with the backing of the party's moderate wing in the final round over Jenrick. If her review proposed withdrawing from the ECHR the likes of Osborne will be plotting her removal and replacement by Cleverly
The Tories suffered their worst ever defeat 12 months ago, people were livid with them. This ludicrous notion they have that they'd be anything other than hanging on for a couple of years is so daft. Their sense of entitlement to rule will destroy them. 150 seats at GE 2029 would be an astonishing result if Reform are still a thing, they aren't getting 200 whatever they do, they need to be 'firebreaking' 100 and staying relevant if they want to ever govern again
They do. Which requires them at least to be over 20% of the vote while we keep FPTP, if Kemi can't even do that and has lost even voters Rishi held last year then she will be gone by the end of next year
Ultimately, Robert Jenrick would have been better, as more sensible people said at the time.
But that didn't happen so make the best of it.
Better for the other parties, as the two on the right competing to see who could be the more outrageous and inflammatory would have left a massive space in the centre for everyone else.
Jeremy Hunt was on Camilla Tominey earlier. I am really not a big fan, but he would be a heckuva lot better than Stride as Shadow COTE. Lean into the Tory low tax low spend sound money thing.
He'd be a helluva lot better than Reeves as COTE.
I am not Reeves fan, and used to think Hunt one of the better and more capable Tories.
His 18 months as CoE was all about short termism. No spending review, just unaffordable tax cuts and commitments set as heffalump traps for Reeves to blunder into. It was a scorched earth approach of a government facing certain oblivion, not one that had the countries long term interest at heart.
But his so-called unachievable welfare cuts would only take us back to pre-Covid welfare spending.
Yes, but such a return fails to take account of the demographic changes to demand. It's only honest if the scale of cutbacks to entitlements is outlined alongside the budget cuts. I don't think Hunt and Sunak funked it, so much as deliberately omitted it knowing that an incoming government would have to either increase taxes or substantially reduce entitlements, or both.
No party at the last GE was willing to present the electorate with that stark truth, and that is a large part of the reason that the electorate is so disenchanted with the main legacy parties. We were lied to.
I don't think Reform is any more honest, indeed even less so. The public has very little understanding of where the money gets spent at either council or national level, hence the idea that cuts to DEI and flag budgets can finance massive tax cuts, restore WFP, massively increase the arms race etc etc. The figures obviously don't add up, but once again we will have a GE where no party is willing to tell the truth on the national finances.
Theresa May tried telling the truth to voters in 2017 and lost her majority for her trouble, voters won't vote for parties promising them tax rises and spending cuts is the brutal truth
There are better ways of doing this than springing it on people - including your own party - in the middle of an election campaign and backed by no planning or analysis or strategy or in depth costing whatsoever. Mrs M probably got close to a decent answer, but the way she went about it displayed a political naivety that led relatively quickly to her downfall, to be replaced by someone naive in almost every other way.
The tragedy of DOGE style slashing goes beyond the damage it will do, in the short term.
For a political generation or two, all reasonable attempts to increase productivity in government will be tarred with this shite.
The main saving the US DOGE seems to have made is the shuttering of USAID.
That can't be done in the UK as between the asylum bills, Sunak’s cut, and Starmer’s cut, UK aid has already been shuttered.
Good.
The corrupt circlejerk of "charities" hiring the likes of David Miliband, who then lobby for taxpayers money to go to those charities, should never return.
Taxpayers money should go on public services.
Charity should be something people choose to donate to, not get taxed to go towards.
If you donate to Water Aid, or World Vision, or Comic Relief, or CAFOD or anything else then all power to your elbow. I regularly do too. But that's a choice, it shouldn't be compelled by the State, and those donations shouldn't be funding ex- politicians who exist to lobby for more taxpayers money.
International development is not charity
Correctly implemented it address our strategic objectives, increases international security (by downregulating radicalism), builds alliances and creates new markets for commercial activities.
As the US will eventually realise, when it has been replaced by China providing much of the aid that it used to deliver through USAID.
(FWIW: So far, I seem to have been following his advice, without ever having heard of him. I'll be 82 in August and have no serious health problems.
I am not joking when I say that cross country skiing has been a big benefit for me, but will add that swimming is, as far as I know, just as good an exercise.
I suspect that the clean air achievements under GHWB and, to a lesser extent, GWB, have benefited me, too.)
The two most correlated things with eventual longevity are, apparently, the number of times you can sit down and get up, from a chair without using your arms, in thirty seconds, and whether you can sit down and then get up off the floor without using your arms.
The tragedy of DOGE style slashing goes beyond the damage it will do, in the short term.
For a political generation or two, all reasonable attempts to increase productivity in government will be tarred with this shite.
The main saving the US DOGE seems to have made is the shuttering of USAID.
That can't be done in the UK as between the asylum bills, Sunak’s cut, and Starmer’s cut, UK aid has already been shuttered.
Good.
The corrupt circlejerk of "charities" hiring the likes of David Miliband, who then lobby for taxpayers money to go to those charities, should never return.
Taxpayers money should go on public services.
Charity should be something people choose to donate to, not get taxed to go towards.
If you donate to Water Aid, or World Vision, or Comic Relief, or CAFOD or anything else then all power to your elbow. I regularly do too. But that's a choice, it shouldn't be compelled by the State, and those donations shouldn't be funding ex- politicians who exist to lobby for more taxpayers money.
International development is not charity
Correctly implemented it address our strategic objectives, increases international security (by downregulating radicalism), builds alliances and creates new markets for commercial activities.
As the US will eventually realise, when it has been replaced by China providing much of the aid that it used to deliver through USAID.
China has been the big winner during the period of US hegemony. Why should the US fear a role reversal?
The tragedy of DOGE style slashing goes beyond the damage it will do, in the short term.
For a political generation or two, all reasonable attempts to increase productivity in government will be tarred with this shite.
The main saving the US DOGE seems to have made is the shuttering of USAID.
That can't be done in the UK as between the asylum bills, Sunak’s cut, and Starmer’s cut, UK aid has already been shuttered.
Good.
The corrupt circlejerk of "charities" hiring the likes of David Miliband, who then lobby for taxpayers money to go to those charities, should never return.
Taxpayers money should go on public services.
Charity should be something people choose to donate to, not get taxed to go towards.
If you donate to Water Aid, or World Vision, or Comic Relief, or CAFOD or anything else then all power to your elbow. I regularly do too. But that's a choice, it shouldn't be compelled by the State, and those donations shouldn't be funding ex- politicians who exist to lobby for more taxpayers money.
International development is not charity
Correctly implemented it address our strategic objectives, increases international security (by downregulating radicalism), builds alliances and creates new markets for commercial activities.
And if people or firms or foundations wish to donate to that then all power to them.
It is not a public service that we should be taxed to provide though.
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Kemi will probably get until autumn next year to prove herself, if by then her policy review hasn't improved Tory poll ratings and there are further Tory losses in the local elections next year she will likely be gone.
She also has to remember she won the leadership with the backing of the party's moderate wing in the final round over Jenrick. If her review proposed withdrawing from the ECHR the likes of Osborne will be plotting her removal and replacement by Cleverly
The purpose of the review is surely to expose all the sensible but boring reasons why we should remain signed up to the ECHR.
Can you give me any good reasons why we should remain signed up to the ECHR when fellow Common Law democracies with good human rights like Australia and Canada are not?
And no, the fact we are in Europe and they're not is not relevant. They're humans just as much as we are.
The tragedy of DOGE style slashing goes beyond the damage it will do, in the short term.
For a political generation or two, all reasonable attempts to increase productivity in government will be tarred with this shite.
The main saving the US DOGE seems to have made is the shuttering of USAID.
That can't be done in the UK as between the asylum bills, Sunak’s cut, and Starmer’s cut, UK aid has already been shuttered.
Good.
The corrupt circlejerk of "charities" hiring the likes of David Miliband, who then lobby for taxpayers money to go to those charities, should never return.
Taxpayers money should go on public services.
Charity should be something people choose to donate to, not get taxed to go towards.
If you donate to Water Aid, or World Vision, or Comic Relief, or CAFOD or anything else then all power to your elbow. I regularly do too. But that's a choice, it shouldn't be compelled by the State, and those donations shouldn't be funding ex- politicians who exist to lobby for more taxpayers money.
International development is not charity
Correctly implemented it address our strategic objectives, increases international security (by downregulating radicalism), builds alliances and creates new markets for commercial activities.
As third world countries get richer the people in them are more able to afford people smugglers
The tragedy of DOGE style slashing goes beyond the damage it will do, in the short term.
For a political generation or two, all reasonable attempts to increase productivity in government will be tarred with this shite.
The main saving the US DOGE seems to have made is the shuttering of USAID.
That can't be done in the UK as between the asylum bills, Sunak’s cut, and Starmer’s cut, UK aid has already been shuttered.
Good.
The corrupt circlejerk of "charities" hiring the likes of David Miliband, who then lobby for taxpayers money to go to those charities, should never return.
Taxpayers money should go on public services.
Charity should be something people choose to donate to, not get taxed to go towards.
If you donate to Water Aid, or World Vision, or Comic Relief, or CAFOD or anything else then all power to your elbow. I regularly do too. But that's a choice, it shouldn't be compelled by the State, and those donations shouldn't be funding ex- politicians who exist to lobby for more taxpayers money.
International development is not charity
Correctly implemented it address our strategic objectives, increases international security (by downregulating radicalism), builds alliances and creates new markets for commercial activities.
I was talking yesterday, with a couple of people I row with.
One is an idealist, working in developing world aid.
The other is working in the field of food standards in the supply chain from developing countries to the shops here.
After a few drinks, the idealist decided that moving into corporate would do more for the developing countries. She’s fed up with 90% of donated money going on bullshit. And doing things like enforcing sanitation, local minimum wage, local child labour laws etc seemed like a real thing.
I'd love to see Canada join the EU, if only for the look on Brexiteers' faces.
Sez one newbie German MEP as he launches as “aspirational” campaign.
The EU would have to radically change in function and purpose.
It’s not happening. (And if it did change to accommodate Canada then it might well be interesting again for the UK as I assume it would be a much looser arrangement)
I seem to recall hearing about how incredibly tough Canada are when it comes to trade agreements so I’m not sure how their position on protecting agriculture for example would dovetail with the EU’s position.
Then there is free movement which isn’t going to go down overly well in Canada so many reasons not to see it remotely happening.
It does however add to the sense that the EU needs to have that “outer ring” that Macron suggested or alternatively to itself become a looser arrangement based on trade and defence which would then be more attractive to potential new members.
I'm not sure why free movement wouldn't go down well in Canada. It's one of the few countries I work in which feels serously short of people. As for Canadians free moving in Europe it would be unnoticable. The Cote d'Azur at the moment is absolutely heaving and seemingly with every nationality under the sun. For the French it must feel like they're floating in cash machines
Have you not read up on Canadian politics? They had their version of a Boriswave and a lot of people are not happy with the result.
It was only Trump and his 51st state garbage that saved the Liberals. This time.
They won’t double down on that.
Free movement of Europeans is not necessarily the free movement they don't like. Similat to the UK if only they would admit to it.
If you mixed with the lower orders, you might find a reason why they don’t like huge influxes of Poles, Romanians etc, either. It’s not just racism.
As Stuart Rose admitted, at the lower end, it is about wage suppression.
One friend, who left school at 16 etc, went though a series of trades that were, one by one, reduced to minimum wage. With shitty conditions.
In the end, he emigrated to Australia, where wages for non-white collar are protected. He was lucky - his wife is Australian. So he lives in a Perth suburb, in a house he owns, with time and money to waste on having time off, rather than working a zillion hours of overtime. So he can go cycling with friends. Or even go see a play - yes, culture has arrived in Perth.
In Australia average working hours are 38 hours in the UK 36 to 37 hours though there are deductions for expenses etc in Australia even if the minimum wage is about the same
Perth is famous for people getting up at 5:30 in the morning, getting to work at 7, leaving work at about 4, and doing things like walking along the beach for the rest of the day. So they work hard, but do it earlier than most places.
California is like that as well.
In CA it’s about working NY hours - does Perth work Sydney hours or is it just a left bank thing?
Jeremy Hunt was on Camilla Tominey earlier. I am really not a big fan, but he would be a heckuva lot better than Stride as Shadow COTE. Lean into the Tory low tax low spend sound money thing.
He'd be a helluva lot better than Reeves as COTE.
I am not Reeves fan, and used to think Hunt one of the better and more capable Tories.
His 18 months as CoE was all about short termism. No spending review, just unaffordable tax cuts and commitments set as heffalump traps for Reeves to blunder into. It was a scorched earth approach of a government facing certain oblivion, not one that had the countries long term interest at heart.
But his so-called unachievable welfare cuts would only take us back to pre-Covid welfare spending.
Yes, but such a return fails to take account of the demographic changes to demand. It's only honest if the scale of cutbacks to entitlements is outlined alongside the budget cuts. I don't think Hunt and Sunak funked it, so much as deliberately omitted it knowing that an incoming government would have to either increase taxes or substantially reduce entitlements, or both.
No party at the last GE was willing to present the electorate with that stark truth, and that is a large part of the reason that the electorate is so disenchanted with the main legacy parties. We were lied to.
I don't think Reform is any more honest, indeed even less so. The public has very little understanding of where the money gets spent at either council or national level, hence the idea that cuts to DEI and flag budgets can finance massive tax cuts, restore WFP, massively increase the arms race etc etc. The figures obviously don't add up, but once again we will have a GE where no party is willing to tell the truth on the national finances.
Theresa May tried telling the truth to voters in 2017 and lost her majority for her trouble, voters won't vote for parties promising them tax rises and spending cuts is the brutal truth
We know what needs to be done, but not how to win an election doing it.
There's a kind of Prisoners' Dilemma dynamic here. If every party signs up to acknowledging arithmetic, there is a way out for the country. But if every other party is doing so, the electoral rewards for being the one party to say "the pain is unnecessary, fairy X will save us" are enormous.
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Kemi will probably get until autumn next year to prove herself, if by then her policy review hasn't improved Tory poll ratings and there are further Tory losses in the local elections next year she will likely be gone.
She also has to remember she won the leadership with the backing of the party's moderate wing in the final round over Jenrick. If her review proposed withdrawing from the ECHR the likes of Osborne will be plotting her removal and replacement by Cleverly
The purpose of the review is surely to expose all the sensible but boring reasons why we should remain signed up to the ECHR.
Can you give me any good reasons why we should remain signed up to the ECHR when fellow Common Law democracies with good human rights like Australia and Canada are not?
And no, the fact we are in Europe and they're not is not relevant. They're humans just as much as we are.
SFAICS there is nothing in the convention itself that anyone in the UK apart from some lunatic fringe would take exception to. The problems arise with the case law and precedents associated with it.
I wonder if the answer is to adopt it for the UK, but legislate so that it is entirely interpreted by our own courts who have to have regard to guidance that parliament approves from time to time.
Australia isn't in it for the same reason that they don't have teams qualifying for the Champions League.
The tragedy of DOGE style slashing goes beyond the damage it will do, in the short term.
For a political generation or two, all reasonable attempts to increase productivity in government will be tarred with this shite.
The main saving the US DOGE seems to have made is the shuttering of USAID.
That can't be done in the UK as between the asylum bills, Sunak’s cut, and Starmer’s cut, UK aid has already been shuttered.
Good.
The corrupt circlejerk of "charities" hiring the likes of David Miliband, who then lobby for taxpayers money to go to those charities, should never return.
Taxpayers money should go on public services.
Charity should be something people choose to donate to, not get taxed to go towards.
If you donate to Water Aid, or World Vision, or Comic Relief, or CAFOD or anything else then all power to your elbow. I regularly do too. But that's a choice, it shouldn't be compelled by the State, and those donations shouldn't be funding ex- politicians who exist to lobby for more taxpayers money.
International development is not charity
Correctly implemented it address our strategic objectives, increases international security (by downregulating radicalism), builds alliances and creates new markets for commercial activities.
And if people or firms or foundations wish to donate to that then all power to them.
It is not a public service that we should be taxed to provide though.
So which part of, say, reducing radicalism in East Africa (through female secondary education) and thereby reduce terrorist activity not a public service?
That strikes me as exactly what our government should be doing.
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Kemi will probably get until autumn next year to prove herself, if by then her policy review hasn't improved Tory poll ratings and there are further Tory losses in the local elections next year she will likely be gone.
She also has to remember she won the leadership with the backing of the party's moderate wing in the final round over Jenrick. If her review proposed withdrawing from the ECHR the likes of Osborne will be plotting her removal and replacement by Cleverly
The purpose of the review is surely to expose all the sensible but boring reasons why we should remain signed up to the ECHR.
Can you give me any good reasons why we should remain signed up to the ECHR when fellow Common Law democracies with good human rights like Australia and Canada are not?
And no, the fact we are in Europe and they're not is not relevant. They're humans just as much as we are.
SFAICS there is nothing in the convention itself that anyone in the UK apart from some lunatic fringe would take exception to. The problems arise with the case law and precedents associated with it.
I wonder if the answer is to adopt it for the UK, but legislate so that it is entirely interpreted by our own courts who have to have regard to guidance that parliament approves from time to time.
Australia isn't in it for the same reason that they don't have teams qualifying for the Champions League.
That system you recommend is of course the system Churchill created.
The Court came afterwards.
Australian teams don't qualify for the Champions League as it would be too much of a trek to play a game on a Wednesday night in Sydney when you're playing in Liverpool on Saturday morning.
Whats the legal reason for the Court?
Our continental geography isn't relevant to human rights.
The tragedy of DOGE style slashing goes beyond the damage it will do, in the short term.
For a political generation or two, all reasonable attempts to increase productivity in government will be tarred with this shite.
The main saving the US DOGE seems to have made is the shuttering of USAID.
That can't be done in the UK as between the asylum bills, Sunak’s cut, and Starmer’s cut, UK aid has already been shuttered.
Good.
The corrupt circlejerk of "charities" hiring the likes of David Miliband, who then lobby for taxpayers money to go to those charities, should never return.
Taxpayers money should go on public services.
Charity should be something people choose to donate to, not get taxed to go towards.
If you donate to Water Aid, or World Vision, or Comic Relief, or CAFOD or anything else then all power to your elbow. I regularly do too. But that's a choice, it shouldn't be compelled by the State, and those donations shouldn't be funding ex- politicians who exist to lobby for more taxpayers money.
International development is not charity
Correctly implemented it address our strategic objectives, increases international security (by downregulating radicalism), builds alliances and creates new markets for commercial activities.
And if people or firms or foundations wish to donate to that then all power to them.
It is not a public service that we should be taxed to provide though.
So which part of, say, reducing radicalism in East Africa (through female secondary education) and thereby reduce terrorist activity not a public service?
That strikes me as exactly what our government should be doing.
It's not our public, so its not a public service.
It's a service to others, not our public. That's charity.
It's a great charitable thing to do, which is why I'll happily make voluntary donations based on what I think is appropriate and I can afford and I'll happily praise those like Gates who do more.
The tragedy of DOGE style slashing goes beyond the damage it will do, in the short term.
For a political generation or two, all reasonable attempts to increase productivity in government will be tarred with this shite.
The main saving the US DOGE seems to have made is the shuttering of USAID.
That can't be done in the UK as between the asylum bills, Sunak’s cut, and Starmer’s cut, UK aid has already been shuttered.
Good.
The corrupt circlejerk of "charities" hiring the likes of David Miliband, who then lobby for taxpayers money to go to those charities, should never return.
Taxpayers money should go on public services.
Charity should be something people choose to donate to, not get taxed to go towards.
If you donate to Water Aid, or World Vision, or Comic Relief, or CAFOD or anything else then all power to your elbow. I regularly do too. But that's a choice, it shouldn't be compelled by the State, and those donations shouldn't be funding ex- politicians who exist to lobby for more taxpayers money.
International development is not charity
Correctly implemented it address our strategic objectives, increases international security (by downregulating radicalism), builds alliances and creates new markets for commercial activities.
And if people or firms or foundations wish to donate to that then all power to them.
It is not a public service that we should be taxed to provide though.
So which part of, say, reducing radicalism in East Africa (through female secondary education) and thereby reduce terrorist activity not a public service?
That strikes me as exactly what our government should be doing.
It's not our public, so its not a public service.
It's a service to others, not our public. That's charity.
It's a great charitable thing to do, which is why I'll happily make voluntary donations based on what I think is appropriate and I can afford and I'll happily praise those like Gates who do more.
But its not a public service.
Protecting the UK public from terrorist threats is not a public service?
The tragedy of DOGE style slashing goes beyond the damage it will do, in the short term.
For a political generation or two, all reasonable attempts to increase productivity in government will be tarred with this shite.
The main saving the US DOGE seems to have made is the shuttering of USAID.
That can't be done in the UK as between the asylum bills, Sunak’s cut, and Starmer’s cut, UK aid has already been shuttered.
Good.
The corrupt circlejerk of "charities" hiring the likes of David Miliband, who then lobby for taxpayers money to go to those charities, should never return.
Taxpayers money should go on public services.
Charity should be something people choose to donate to, not get taxed to go towards.
If you donate to Water Aid, or World Vision, or Comic Relief, or CAFOD or anything else then all power to your elbow. I regularly do too. But that's a choice, it shouldn't be compelled by the State, and those donations shouldn't be funding ex- politicians who exist to lobby for more taxpayers money.
International development is not charity
Correctly implemented it address our strategic objectives, increases international security (by downregulating radicalism), builds alliances and creates new markets for commercial activities.
And if people or firms or foundations wish to donate to that then all power to them.
It is not a public service that we should be taxed to provide though.
So which part of, say, reducing radicalism in East Africa (through female secondary education) and thereby reduce terrorist activity not a public service?
That strikes me as exactly what our government should be doing.
It's not our public, so its not a public service.
It's a service to others, not our public. That's charity.
It's a great charitable thing to do, which is why I'll happily make voluntary donations based on what I think is appropriate and I can afford and I'll happily praise those like Gates who do more.
But its not a public service.
Protecting the UK public from terrorist threats is not a public service?
Well, it’s a view I suppose.
Investing in our security services etc to protect the UK public from terrorist threats is, yes.
We get more terrorists coming to the British Isles from abroad now than we did before we invested in development aid.
Aiding others so they might potentially be marginally less likely to engage in terrorism, perhaps, maybe, without any evidence. No, its not.
"Boy, 8, turned away by NHS because he is a private school pupil, amid claims by MPs that Labour's raid on fee-paying schools has triggered 'class war' and 'discrimination' in our public services"
"Boy, 8, turned away by NHS because he is a private school pupil, amid claims by MPs that Labour's raid on fee-paying schools has triggered 'class war' and 'discrimination' in our public services"
Well, the Children and Families Act 2014 meant that educational services such as speech and languages therapy and occupational therapy provided by the local authority to state schools, aren’t available to non special independent schools
Jeremy Hunt was on Camilla Tominey earlier. I am really not a big fan, but he would be a heckuva lot better than Stride as Shadow COTE. Lean into the Tory low tax low spend sound money thing.
He'd be a helluva lot better than Reeves as COTE.
I am not Reeves fan, and used to think Hunt one of the better and more capable Tories.
His 18 months as CoE was all about short termism. No spending review, just unaffordable tax cuts and commitments set as heffalump traps for Reeves to blunder into. It was a scorched earth approach of a government facing certain oblivion, not one that had the countries long term interest at heart.
But his so-called unachievable welfare cuts would only take us back to pre-Covid welfare spending.
Yes, but such a return fails to take account of the demographic changes to demand. It's only honest if the scale of cutbacks to entitlements is outlined alongside the budget cuts. I don't think Hunt and Sunak funked it, so much as deliberately omitted it knowing that an incoming government would have to either increase taxes or substantially reduce entitlements, or both.
No party at the last GE was willing to present the electorate with that stark truth, and that is a large part of the reason that the electorate is so disenchanted with the main legacy parties. We were lied to.
I don't think Reform is any more honest, indeed even less so. The public has very little understanding of where the money gets spent at either council or national level, hence the idea that cuts to DEI and flag budgets can finance massive tax cuts, restore WFP, massively increase the arms race etc etc. The figures obviously don't add up, but once again we will have a GE where no party is willing to tell the truth on the national finances.
Theresa May tried telling the truth to voters in 2017 and lost her majority for her trouble, voters won't vote for parties promising them tax rises and spending cuts is the brutal truth
She sprang it on them, in the middle of an election campaign.
Things might well have been different, had she addressed the issue in Autumn 2016, and made the case for it.
They wouldn't. Voters were never going to accept their house being taken for at home social care
The tragedy of DOGE style slashing goes beyond the damage it will do, in the short term.
For a political generation or two, all reasonable attempts to increase productivity in government will be tarred with this shite.
The main saving the US DOGE seems to have made is the shuttering of USAID.
That can't be done in the UK as between the asylum bills, Sunak’s cut, and Starmer’s cut, UK aid has already been shuttered.
Good.
The corrupt circlejerk of "charities" hiring the likes of David Miliband, who then lobby for taxpayers money to go to those charities, should never return.
Taxpayers money should go on public services.
Charity should be something people choose to donate to, not get taxed to go towards.
If you donate to Water Aid, or World Vision, or Comic Relief, or CAFOD or anything else then all power to your elbow. I regularly do too. But that's a choice, it shouldn't be compelled by the State, and those donations shouldn't be funding ex- politicians who exist to lobby for more taxpayers money.
International development is not charity
Correctly implemented it address our strategic objectives, increases international security (by downregulating radicalism), builds alliances and creates new markets for commercial activities.
And if people or firms or foundations wish to donate to that then all power to them.
It is not a public service that we should be taxed to provide though.
So which part of, say, reducing radicalism in East Africa (through female secondary education) and thereby reduce terrorist activity not a public service?
That strikes me as exactly what our government should be doing.
It's not our public, so its not a public service.
It's a service to others, not our public. That's charity.
It's a great charitable thing to do, which is why I'll happily make voluntary donations based on what I think is appropriate and I can afford and I'll happily praise those like Gates who do more.
But its not a public service.
Protecting the UK public from terrorist threats is not a public service?
Well, it’s a view I suppose.
Investing in our security services etc to protect the UK public from terrorist threats is, yes.
We get more terrorists coming to the British Isles from abroad now than we did before we invested in development aid.
Aiding others so they might potentially be marginally less likely to engage in terrorism, perhaps, maybe, without any evidence. No, its not.
Andrew Mitchell used to say it was the single most impactful way to address the root causes of terrorism.
(And it’s not valid to say migration today is higher than 40 years ago therefore all development projects have failed)
The tragedy of DOGE style slashing goes beyond the damage it will do, in the short term.
For a political generation or two, all reasonable attempts to increase productivity in government will be tarred with this shite.
The main saving the US DOGE seems to have made is the shuttering of USAID.
That can't be done in the UK as between the asylum bills, Sunak’s cut, and Starmer’s cut, UK aid has already been shuttered.
Good.
The corrupt circlejerk of "charities" hiring the likes of David Miliband, who then lobby for taxpayers money to go to those charities, should never return.
Taxpayers money should go on public services.
Charity should be something people choose to donate to, not get taxed to go towards.
If you donate to Water Aid, or World Vision, or Comic Relief, or CAFOD or anything else then all power to your elbow. I regularly do too. But that's a choice, it shouldn't be compelled by the State, and those donations shouldn't be funding ex- politicians who exist to lobby for more taxpayers money.
International development is not charity
Correctly implemented it address our strategic objectives, increases international security (by downregulating radicalism), builds alliances and creates new markets for commercial activities.
And if people or firms or foundations wish to donate to that then all power to them.
It is not a public service that we should be taxed to provide though.
So which part of, say, reducing radicalism in East Africa (through female secondary education) and thereby reduce terrorist activity not a public service?
That strikes me as exactly what our government should be doing.
It's not our public, so its not a public service.
It's a service to others, not our public. That's charity.
It's a great charitable thing to do, which is why I'll happily make voluntary donations based on what I think is appropriate and I can afford and I'll happily praise those like Gates who do more.
But its not a public service.
Protecting the UK public from terrorist threats is not a public service?
Well, it’s a view I suppose.
Investing in our security services etc to protect the UK public from terrorist threats is, yes.
We get more terrorists coming to the British Isles from abroad now than we did before we invested in development aid.
Aiding others so they might potentially be marginally less likely to engage in terrorism, perhaps, maybe, without any evidence. No, its not.
Andrew Mitchell used to say it was the single most impactful way to address the root causes of terrorism.
(And it’s not valid to say migration today is higher than 40 years ago therefore all development projects have failed)
Andrew Mitchell says a lot of things, where is the evidence?
What are the facts and figures in the cost per British death from terrorism prevented via overseas development aid? Try the same thing with investment in the security services, or the NHS.
I never mentioned migration, I mentioned facts about terrorism, since you brought it up.
"Boy, 8, turned away by NHS because he is a private school pupil, amid claims by MPs that Labour's raid on fee-paying schools has triggered 'class war' and 'discrimination' in our public services"
According to the White House, President Trump’s Memoranda tonight to deploy 2,000 National Guardsmen to Los Angeles was done without invoking the Insurrection Act and instead using Title 10, likely a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement, including the National Guard, unless authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress. https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1931544129621643462
The tragedy of DOGE style slashing goes beyond the damage it will do, in the short term.
For a political generation or two, all reasonable attempts to increase productivity in government will be tarred with this shite.
The main saving the US DOGE seems to have made is the shuttering of USAID.
That can't be done in the UK as between the asylum bills, Sunak’s cut, and Starmer’s cut, UK aid has already been shuttered.
Good.
The corrupt circlejerk of "charities" hiring the likes of David Miliband, who then lobby for taxpayers money to go to those charities, should never return.
Taxpayers money should go on public services.
Charity should be something people choose to donate to, not get taxed to go towards.
If you donate to Water Aid, or World Vision, or Comic Relief, or CAFOD or anything else then all power to your elbow. I regularly do too. But that's a choice, it shouldn't be compelled by the State, and those donations shouldn't be funding ex- politicians who exist to lobby for more taxpayers money.
International development is not charity
Correctly implemented it address our strategic objectives, increases international security (by downregulating radicalism), builds alliances and creates new markets for commercial activities.
And if people or firms or foundations wish to donate to that then all power to them.
It is not a public service that we should be taxed to provide though.
So which part of, say, reducing radicalism in East Africa (through female secondary education) and thereby reduce terrorist activity not a public service?
That strikes me as exactly what our government should be doing.
It's not our public, so its not a public service.
It's a service to others, not our public. That's charity.
It's a great charitable thing to do, which is why I'll happily make voluntary donations based on what I think is appropriate and I can afford and I'll happily praise those like Gates who do more.
But its not a public service.
Protecting the UK public from terrorist threats is not a public service?
Well, it’s a view I suppose.
Investing in our security services etc to protect the UK public from terrorist threats is, yes.
We get more terrorists coming to the British Isles from abroad now than we did before we invested in development aid.
Aiding others so they might potentially be marginally less likely to engage in terrorism, perhaps, maybe, without any evidence. No, its not.
Andrew Mitchell used to say it was the single most impactful way to address the root causes of terrorism.
(And it’s not valid to say migration today is higher than 40 years ago therefore all development projects have failed)
Andrew Mitchell says a lot of things, where is the evidence?
What are the facts and figures in the cost per British death from terrorism prevented via overseas development aid? Try the same thing with investment in the security services, or the NHS.
I never mentioned migration, I mentioned facts about terrorism, since you brought it up.
Well he was running DfID when I discussed it with him over lunch. I suppose he could have been lying to me.
Given that Reform claims that terrorists are using illegal migration routes to get into the country it’s a reasonable inference.
Although I note, on re-reading that you carefully used the “British Isles” rather than the UK so as to exclude all Irish terrorists. I believe the phrase du jour is “dishonest framing”.
The tragedy of DOGE style slashing goes beyond the damage it will do, in the short term.
For a political generation or two, all reasonable attempts to increase productivity in government will be tarred with this shite.
The main saving the US DOGE seems to have made is the shuttering of USAID.
That can't be done in the UK as between the asylum bills, Sunak’s cut, and Starmer’s cut, UK aid has already been shuttered.
Good.
The corrupt circlejerk of "charities" hiring the likes of David Miliband, who then lobby for taxpayers money to go to those charities, should never return.
Taxpayers money should go on public services.
Charity should be something people choose to donate to, not get taxed to go towards.
If you donate to Water Aid, or World Vision, or Comic Relief, or CAFOD or anything else then all power to your elbow. I regularly do too. But that's a choice, it shouldn't be compelled by the State, and those donations shouldn't be funding ex- politicians who exist to lobby for more taxpayers money.
International development is not charity
Correctly implemented it address our strategic objectives, increases international security (by downregulating radicalism), builds alliances and creates new markets for commercial activities.
And if people or firms or foundations wish to donate to that then all power to them.
It is not a public service that we should be taxed to provide though.
So which part of, say, reducing radicalism in East Africa (through female secondary education) and thereby reduce terrorist activity not a public service?
That strikes me as exactly what our government should be doing.
It's not our public, so its not a public service.
It's a service to others, not our public. That's charity.
It's a great charitable thing to do, which is why I'll happily make voluntary donations based on what I think is appropriate and I can afford and I'll happily praise those like Gates who do more.
But its not a public service.
Protecting the UK public from terrorist threats is not a public service?
Well, it’s a view I suppose.
Investing in our security services etc to protect the UK public from terrorist threats is, yes.
We get more terrorists coming to the British Isles from abroad now than we did before we invested in development aid.
Aiding others so they might potentially be marginally less likely to engage in terrorism, perhaps, maybe, without any evidence. No, its not.
Andrew Mitchell used to say it was the single most impactful way to address the root causes of terrorism.
(And it’s not valid to say migration today is higher than 40 years ago therefore all development projects have failed)
Andrew Mitchell says a lot of things, where is the evidence?
What are the facts and figures in the cost per British death from terrorism prevented via overseas development aid? Try the same thing with investment in the security services, or the NHS.
I never mentioned migration, I mentioned facts about terrorism, since you brought it up.
Well he was running DfID when I discussed it with him over lunch. I suppose he could have been lying to me.
Given that Reform claims that terrorists are using illegal migration routes to get into the country it’s a reasonable inference.
Although I note, on re-reading that you carefully used the “British Isles” rather than the UK so as to exclude all Irish terrorists. I believe the phrase du jour is “dishonest framing”.
He could have been lying, or he could have been saying his agenda. He could have been right, or he could have been wrong. Since when have we ever believed what a politician says, just because they say it?
For healthcare then NICE use QALYS assessments to determine if intervention is worth it.
What is the equivalent QALYS assessment data on the value of overseas aid in preventing terrorism fatalities in the UK? Is there any? Or just a lofty claim to further an agenda without any evidence?
That wasn't dishonest framing no, it was very deliberate framing, precisely because Irish terrorism is sui generis and had bugger all to do with overseas aid, or since you subsequently brought it up, migration. Indeed the British Isles including the Republic of Ireland form the Common Travel Area and did throughout the Troubles too.
I was in a Spoons a couple of weeks ago getting a perfectly acceptable pint for under £2.
Of what, though?
A delicious pint of Ruddles of course
No such thing. How they decide which pubs get Ruddles and which get Greene King IPA as their cheapest beer I don't know. The IPA is just about ok. Ruddles is dishwater.
I had a decent pint of Goff's Gold for £1.49 at Spoons last week though.
"Boy, 8, turned away by NHS because he is a private school pupil, amid claims by MPs that Labour's raid on fee-paying schools has triggered 'class war' and 'discrimination' in our public services"
It's a specialist service - child occupational therapy - so there may be reasons, and it is not possible to check whether this is pre- or post- the last Election.
"Boy, 8, turned away by NHS because he is a private school pupil, amid claims by MPs that Labour's raid on fee-paying schools has triggered 'class war' and 'discrimination' in our public services"
Well, the Children and Families Act 2014 meant that educational services such as speech and languages therapy and occupational therapy provided by the local authority to state schools, aren’t available to non special independent schools
"Boy, 8, turned away by NHS because he is a private school pupil, amid claims by MPs that Labour's raid on fee-paying schools has triggered 'class war' and 'discrimination' in our public services"
It's a specialist service - child occupational therapy - so there may be reasons, and it is not possible to check whether this is pre- or post- the last Election.
It is apparently m***s. Which should give it to you.
The BBC has changed a lot. A few years back the guy running Dr Who used to refer to fans, who weren’t totally North Korean in their love of his show, as Ming-Mongs. The term apparently came from a Victoria Wood sketch.
Fact check, please. This is my list of Reform "controlled" Councils.
Have I missed any?
Council, Type, Control/Lead
Derbyshire CC, County, Control Durham CC, County, Control Kent CC, County, Control Lancashire CC, County, Control Lincolnshire CC, County, Control Nottinghamshire CC, County, Control Staffordshire CC, County, Control Doncaster, Unitary, Control West Northamptonshire, Unitary, Control North Northamptonshire, Unitary, Control Worcestershire, County, Minority lead Warwickshire, County, Minority lead
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Kemi will probably get until autumn next year to prove herself, if by then her policy review hasn't improved Tory poll ratings and there are further Tory losses in the local elections next year she will likely be gone.
She also has to remember she won the leadership with the backing of the party's moderate wing in the final round over Jenrick. If her review proposed withdrawing from the ECHR the likes of Osborne will be plotting her removal and replacement by Cleverly
The Tories suffered their worst ever defeat 12 months ago, people were livid with them. This ludicrous notion they have that they'd be anything other than hanging on for a couple of years is so daft. Their sense of entitlement to rule will destroy them. 150 seats at GE 2029 would be an astonishing result if Reform are still a thing, they aren't getting 200 whatever they do, they need to be 'firebreaking' 100 and staying relevant if they want to ever govern again
They do. Which requires them at least to be over 20% of the vote while we keep FPTP, if Kemi can't even do that and has lost even voters Rishi held last year then she will be gone by the end of next year
Ultimately, Robert Jenrick would have been better, as more sensible people said at the time.
But that didn't happen so make the best of it.
He is a better speaker but the polling doesn't suggest he would be doing much better than Kemi and would still be polling below the 24% Rishi got last year
His fare dodging video has certainly made an impact with the public. 15 million views. Unless most of them were from Texas, etc.
I was in a Spoons a couple of weeks ago getting a perfectly acceptable pint for under £2.
Of what, though?
A delicious pint of Ruddles of course
No such thing. How they decide which pubs get Ruddles and which get Greene King IPA as their cheapest beer I don't know. The IPA is just about ok. Ruddles is dishwater.
I had a decent pint of Goff's Gold for £1.49 at Spoons last week though.
I really despise Greene King IPA. No fan of Ruddles best either.
"Boy, 8, turned away by NHS because he is a private school pupil, amid claims by MPs that Labour's raid on fee-paying schools has triggered 'class war' and 'discrimination' in our public services"
Well, the Children and Families Act 2014 meant that educational services such as speech and languages therapy and occupational therapy provided by the local authority to state schools, aren’t available to non special independent schools
We may or may not be sitting at the death bed of the world’s oldest and historically most successful party. We are definitely moving closer to the point where a critical mass of Tories conclude that Kemi Badenoch has been given enough time to prove that she hasn’t got what it takes.
Kemi will probably get until autumn next year to prove herself, if by then her policy review hasn't improved Tory poll ratings and there are further Tory losses in the local elections next year she will likely be gone.
She also has to remember she won the leadership with the backing of the party's moderate wing in the final round over Jenrick. If her review proposed withdrawing from the ECHR the likes of Osborne will be plotting her removal and replacement by Cleverly
The Tories suffered their worst ever defeat 12 months ago, people were livid with them. This ludicrous notion they have that they'd be anything other than hanging on for a couple of years is so daft. Their sense of entitlement to rule will destroy them. 150 seats at GE 2029 would be an astonishing result if Reform are still a thing, they aren't getting 200 whatever they do, they need to be 'firebreaking' 100 and staying relevant if they want to ever govern again
They do. Which requires them at least to be over 20% of the vote while we keep FPTP, if Kemi can't even do that and has lost even voters Rishi held last year then she will be gone by the end of next year
Ultimately, Robert Jenrick would have been better, as more sensible people said at the time.
But that didn't happen so make the best of it.
He is a better speaker but the polling doesn't suggest he would be doing much better than Kemi and would still be polling below the 24% Rishi got last year
His fare dodging video has certainly made an impact with the public. 15 million views. Unless most of them were from Texas, etc.
They may agree with him on fare dodging, doesn't mean they will all vote for him
Comments
The state of the man. He is up against RACHEL REEVES for heaven's sake and the only politicians he's landed a punch against are the former Tory PM and the current Tory leader.
GET RID.
"Britain is heading for utter oblivion. Here is why
From immigration and demographics to welfare and low productivity, we are facing terminal decline
Neil O'Brien" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/08/these-are-the-things-destroying-britain/
She also has to remember she won the leadership with the backing of the party's moderate wing in the final round over Jenrick. If her review proposed withdrawing from the ECHR the likes of Osborne will be plotting her removal and replacement by Cleverly
They won't even say what he said
#pbfreespeech
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/35305760/eastenders-jamie-borthwick-suspended-bbc/
150 seats at GE 2029 would be an astonishing result if Reform are still a thing, they aren't getting 200 whatever they do, they need to be 'firebreaking' 100 and staying relevant if they want to ever govern again
(FWIW: So far, I seem to have been following his advice, without ever having heard of him. I'll be 82 in August and have no serious health problems.
I am not joking when I say that cross country skiing has been a big benefit for me, but will add that swimming is, as far as I know, just as good an exercise.
I suspect that the clean air achievements under GHWB and, to a lesser extent, GWB, have benefited me, too.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b-nFSUXcuM&ab_channel=JadedLies
But yes, I think he would do a far better job of opposing her than Stride.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/06/08/how-7-pints-destroying-britain-pubs
His 18 months as CoE was all about short termism. No spending review, just unaffordable tax cuts and commitments set as heffalump traps for Reeves to blunder into. It was a scorched earth approach of a government facing certain oblivion, not one that had the countries long term interest at heart.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations
Or, if they are enormously sensitive, some have claimed "muppets" is rude.
Still ridiculous not to report it though. And even use the wrong number of stars to spare us the vapours if we deduce it.
A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once.
Ultimately, Sunak and Hunt were cowards.
https://x.com/ianbremmer/status/1930702600510537790
https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1931657496336179241
Is Rachel Reeves the next Steve Jobs?
Fiscal prudence and long-term thinking are the only things they have over Reform. Yet they abandoned them?
But that didn't happen so make the best of it.
No party at the last GE was willing to present the electorate with that stark truth, and that is a large part of the reason that the electorate is so disenchanted with the main legacy parties. We were lied to.
I don't think Reform is any more honest, indeed even less so. The public has very little understanding of where the money gets spent at either council or national level, hence the idea that cuts to DEI and flag budgets can finance massive tax cuts, restore WFP, massively increase the arms race etc etc. The figures obviously don't add up, but once again we will have a GE where no party is willing to tell the truth on the national finances.
Things might well have been different, had she addressed the issue in Autumn 2016, and made the case for it.
He would perform no better than Kemi. At least she doesn't appall and repel.
Correctly implemented it address our strategic objectives, increases international security (by downregulating radicalism), builds alliances and creates new markets for commercial activities.
It is not a public service that we should be taxed to provide though.
And no, the fact we are in Europe and they're not is not relevant. They're humans just as much as we are.
One is an idealist, working in developing world aid.
The other is working in the field of food standards in the supply chain from developing countries to the shops here.
After a few drinks, the idealist decided that moving into corporate would do more for the developing countries. She’s fed up with 90% of donated money going on bullshit. And doing things like enforcing sanitation, local minimum wage, local child labour laws etc seemed like a real thing.
In CA it’s about working NY hours - does Perth work Sydney hours or is it just a left bank thing?
There's a kind of Prisoners' Dilemma dynamic here. If every party signs up to acknowledging arithmetic, there is a way out for the country. But if every other party is doing so, the electoral rewards for being the one party to say "the pain is unnecessary, fairy X will save us" are enormous.
As we're seeing.
I wonder if the answer is to adopt it for the UK, but legislate so that it is entirely interpreted by our own courts who have to have regard to guidance that parliament approves from time to time.
Australia isn't in it for the same reason that they don't have teams qualifying for the Champions League.
That strikes me as exactly what our government should be doing.
The Court came afterwards.
Australian teams don't qualify for the Champions League as it would be too much of a trek to play a game on a Wednesday night in Sydney when you're playing in Liverpool on Saturday morning.
Whats the legal reason for the Court?
Our continental geography isn't relevant to human rights.
It's a service to others, not our public. That's charity.
It's a great charitable thing to do, which is why I'll happily make voluntary donations based on what I think is appropriate and I can afford and I'll happily praise those like Gates who do more.
But its not a public service.
Well, it’s a view I suppose.
We get more terrorists coming to the British Isles from abroad now than we did before we invested in development aid.
Aiding others so they might potentially be marginally less likely to engage in terrorism, perhaps, maybe, without any evidence. No, its not.
"Boy, 8, turned away by NHS because he is a private school pupil, amid claims by MPs that Labour's raid on fee-paying schools has triggered 'class war' and 'discrimination' in our public services"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14790767/Boy-8-turned-away-NHS-private-school-pupil-MP-Labour-raid-schools-discrimination.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5335345-in-fight-with-columbia-trump-seeks-death-sentence/
This is not the action of anyone with even a shred of respect for democracy.
So why would that be?
Well, the Children and Families Act 2014 meant that educational services such as speech and languages therapy and occupational therapy provided by the local authority to state schools, aren’t available to non special independent schools
https://bsky.app/profile/monkemma.bsky.social/post/3lr3ul3y4ep2a
(And it’s not valid to say migration today is higher than 40 years ago therefore all development projects have failed)
What are the facts and figures in the cost per British death from terrorism prevented via overseas development aid?
Try the same thing with investment in the security services, or the NHS.
I never mentioned migration, I mentioned facts about terrorism, since you brought it up.
In Ukraine...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugEH3zSJYL4&ab_channel=TheMilitaryShow
The president invoked his Title 10 authority to federalize and deploy 2,000 National Guard in California and did not invoke the Insurrection Act, @PressSec tells me.
https://x.com/edokeefe/status/1931528977471987896
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1931544129621643462
Given that Reform claims that terrorists are using illegal migration routes to get into the country it’s a reasonable inference.
Although I note, on re-reading that you carefully used the “British Isles” rather than the UK so as to exclude all Irish terrorists. I believe the phrase du jour is “dishonest framing”.
For healthcare then NICE use QALYS assessments to determine if intervention is worth it.
What is the equivalent QALYS assessment data on the value of overseas aid in preventing terrorism fatalities in the UK? Is there any? Or just a lofty claim to further an agenda without any evidence?
That wasn't dishonest framing no, it was very deliberate framing, precisely because Irish terrorism is sui generis and had bugger all to do with overseas aid, or since you subsequently brought it up, migration. Indeed the British Isles including the Republic of Ireland form the Common Travel Area and did throughout the Troubles too.
I had a decent pint of Goff's Gold for £1.49 at Spoons last week though.
This page:
https://www.kingstonandrichmond.nhs.uk/services/service-search-z/occupational-therapy-children-richmond
"What is the referral criteria?" dropdown.
It's a specialist service - child occupational therapy - so there may be reasons, and it is not possible to check whether this is pre- or post- the last Election.
We need more information.
https://www.lincolnshirechildrenstherapyservices.nhs.uk/our-services/childrens-occupational-therapy
So that implies it is locally determined, perhaps by a body at area level.)
Have I missed any?
Council, Type, Control/Lead
Derbyshire CC, County, Control
Durham CC, County, Control
Kent CC, County, Control
Lancashire CC, County, Control
Lincolnshire CC, County, Control
Nottinghamshire CC, County, Control
Staffordshire CC, County, Control
Doncaster, Unitary, Control
West Northamptonshire, Unitary, Control
North Northamptonshire, Unitary, Control
Worcestershire, County, Minority lead
Warwickshire, County, Minority lead
Thanks
3.4% beers aren’t worth anything.
Kristi Noem in Feb 2024: If Biden federalizes the National Guard [to handle border issues], we’ve got a war on our hands.”
Kristi Noem in 2025 as DHS Secretary: …federalizing the National Guard.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1931520233350869403
31 !