I know. it's quite incredibly failing on almost every section. Kudos on openness, though: I can imagine they;'d want to keep the report secret instead of putting it on their website...
A very good point made on the BBC has been the serious mistake Reeves has made by stubbornly running the Treasury with a vanishingly small amount of fiscal headroom, so that every time a fiscal event comes round she’s run out, and needs to claw some money back from somewhere.
It’s happened once already and it’s already odds on to be happening again in the autumn. In “mid term”, budgets should be dull affairs, a bit of tinkering here, the odd little tweak there, but keeping the overall trajectory broadly on track.
But Reeves has made everything dependant on a very small window being hit. Pretty much any policy reversal or change can knock her off course, and create negative news cycles of tax rises/spending cuts.
SKS is poor, I think we all know that, but Reeves is the really terrible strategist in this government.
I'm certainly not a Labour supporter but what else could Reeves do?
To create more headroom would require even more tax rises and spending cuts.
And it's quite clear they aren't going to be able to get any meaningful spending cuts through their backbenchers.
It's obvious that the only thing they can do is raise employers NI - because it is the only really big tax raiser that the average person doesn't understand and therefore doesn't think it impacts them - so it's the only big tax increase that can be made without an outcry.
So expect another really big increase in employers NI - whatever is needed to raise about £15bn to £20bn.
You want to eliminate growth completely and add to unemployment
My point is there is no point Labour MPs and supporters now blaming Reeves - because no other Labour Chancellor would have done anything different.
Blaming Reeves now is just using her as a scapegoat to distract from the fact they haven't got any solution.
The only proper solution, of course, would be to make really serious spending cuts - principally welfare but also keeping a proper grip on public sector pay and reforming public sector pensions etc.
I believe it will be 35 degrees in London this Monday and the government of course penalises residential air con.
We’ve just had a “heat dome” here in New York, with temperatures reaching 39 degrees in my neck of the woods. You would be considered mentally unfit if you suggested forsaking air con here.
Air conditioning in homes simply isn't British. You just have to put up with it.
Air conditioning is rather energy intensive - which isn't a problem if it's a cooling because the sun is out (we are going to have an insane amount of excess energy from solar panels) but is a problem in winter where cheaper more fuel efficient options are available...
In winter, presumably opening a window?
My mistake I was thinking of air conditioning replacing your current boiler as whole - which is what happens in most of the world and hotels..
I believe it will be 35 degrees in London this Monday and the government of course penalises residential air con.
We’ve just had a “heat dome” here in New York, with temperatures reaching 39 degrees in my neck of the woods. You would be considered mentally unfit if you suggested forsaking air con here.
Air conditioning in homes simply isn't British. You just have to put up with it.
Air conditioning is rather energy intensive - which isn't a problem if it's a cooling because the sun is out (we are going to have an insane amount of excess energy from solar panels) but is a problem in winter where cheaper more fuel efficient options are available...
In winter, presumably opening a window?
I would get 5-to-1 on using it as heating in winter. Except that in a modern loft conversion, you don't need heating. The heat rising in the house does the job.
I believe it will be 35 degrees in London this Monday and the government of course penalises residential air con.
We’ve just had a “heat dome” here in New York, with temperatures reaching 39 degrees in my neck of the woods. You would be considered mentally unfit if you suggested forsaking air con here.
Air conditioning in homes simply isn't British. You just have to put up with it.
Air conditioning is rather energy intensive - which isn't a problem if it's a cooling because the sun is out (we are going to have an insane amount of excess energy from solar panels) but is a problem in winter where cheaper more fuel efficient options are available...
In winter, presumably opening a window?
My mistake I was thinking of air conditioning replacing your current boiler as whole - which is what happens in most of the world and hotels..
I'm thinking of extending the system to the whole house. At which point you could do all the heating from it.
No words currently exist to describe Starmer's utter unsuitability and hopelessness as Prime Minister
Sirkeirness must be born as an appropriate neologism
It's a bit like Trussness, but her side booted her out. What will Labour do?
It's way harder for Labour members to boot out a leader than the Tories.
Equally I'm not sure who you could replace her with - it's not like they have someone like Rishi who was preferred by MPs in the wings quietly waiting to take over.
The reality is none of the Cabinet look much better..
Unlike the Tories, Labour requires its members to always have the final say on its leader if a contested leadership election. MPs can only nominate the candidates, so most likely if Starmer went Rayner would be elected to replace him as UK PM and Labour leader by Labour members
A very good point made on the BBC has been the serious mistake Reeves has made by stubbornly running the Treasury with a vanishingly small amount of fiscal headroom, so that every time a fiscal event comes round she’s run out, and needs to claw some money back from somewhere.
It’s happened once already and it’s already odds on to be happening again in the autumn. In “mid term”, budgets should be dull affairs, a bit of tinkering here, the odd little tweak there, but keeping the overall trajectory broadly on track.
But Reeves has made everything dependant on a very small window being hit. Pretty much any policy reversal or change can knock her off course, and create negative news cycles of tax rises/spending cuts.
SKS is poor, I think we all know that, but Reeves is the really terrible strategist in this government.
I'm certainly not a Labour supporter but what else could Reeves do?
To create more headroom would require even more tax rises and spending cuts.
And it's quite clear they aren't going to be able to get any meaningful spending cuts through their backbenchers.
It's obvious that the only thing they can do is raise employers NI - because it is the only really big tax raiser that the average person doesn't understand and therefore doesn't think it impacts them - so it's the only big tax increase that can be made without an outcry.
So expect another really big increase in employers NI - whatever is needed to raise about £15bn to £20bn.
You want to eliminate growth completely and add to unemployment
My point is there is no point Labour MPs and supporters now blaming Reeves - because no other Labour Chancellor would have done anything different.
Blaming Reeves now is just using her as a scapegoat to distract from the fact they haven't got any solution.
The only proper solution, of course, would be to make really serious spending cuts - principally welfare but also keeping a proper grip on public sector pay and reforming public sector pensions etc.
Regular reminder that keeping a proper grip on public sector pay Tory style has been re-employ the very same people you employed on a salary three years ago, then paid to make redundant, on a shift basis at 3-5x the cost because of a dispute over whether to increase wages by 4% or 6%.
The essence of Sir Keir. A vegetarian who eats chicken when he’s a bit hungry.
People welcoming the 'candour' in Starmer's Observer interview. In it, he concedes he gave a major speech on immigration, the number one issue of concern to voters. But admits he hadn't properly read it, didn't believe it, didn't want to do it, and regrets delivering it.
Don't think I've ever heard a politician say they read a speech they didn't agree with. There really is a first time for everything.
Starmer has - incredibly - reached a state of pitiable wankerdom after just one year. His pitch to the voters now is basically “yes I’m quite shit and I don’t know what I’m doing and I keep getting it wrong but I’m tired”
Most jobs have a probation period. Voters should be able to sack the PM and call for another GE after 6 months or a year when a government is as shit as this one has been.
No, voters get their say every 4 or 5 years at a general election that is it, otherwise if they could recall all MPs and the government at once not just those convicted for expenses fraud or a crime no government could govern properly.
The system as is is fine, 200 years ago 90% of the UK population weren't even eligible to vote at all
A very good point made on the BBC has been the serious mistake Reeves has made by stubbornly running the Treasury with a vanishingly small amount of fiscal headroom, so that every time a fiscal event comes round she’s run out, and needs to claw some money back from somewhere.
It’s happened once already and it’s already odds on to be happening again in the autumn. In “mid term”, budgets should be dull affairs, a bit of tinkering here, the odd little tweak there, but keeping the overall trajectory broadly on track.
But Reeves has made everything dependant on a very small window being hit. Pretty much any policy reversal or change can knock her off course, and create negative news cycles of tax rises/spending cuts.
SKS is poor, I think we all know that, but Reeves is the really terrible strategist in this government.
I'm certainly not a Labour supporter but what else could Reeves do?
To create more headroom would require even more tax rises and spending cuts.
And it's quite clear they aren't going to be able to get any meaningful spending cuts through their backbenchers.
It's obvious that the only thing they can do is raise employers NI - because it is the only really big tax raiser that the average person doesn't understand and therefore doesn't think it impacts them - so it's the only big tax increase that can be made without an outcry.
So expect another really big increase in employers NI - whatever is needed to raise about £15bn to £20bn.
You want to eliminate growth completely and add to unemployment
My point is there is no point Labour MPs and supporters now blaming Reeves - because no other Labour Chancellor would have done anything different.
Blaming Reeves now is just using her as a scapegoat to distract from the fact they haven't got any solution.
The only proper solution, of course, would be to make really serious spending cuts - principally welfare but also keeping a proper grip on public sector pay and reforming public sector pensions etc.
That’s sadly not happening and we’ve the spectre of Rayners ‘workers rights’ bill to come
Crunched the numbers on the YouGov MRP from yesterday which gave Reform 277 seats and it turns out a swing of about 2% to the party would have given them an extra 61 seats taking them to 338 seats and a majority of around 26.
I simply don’t recognise this Britain. Why aren’t the other passengers squirming uncomfortably and peering fiercely into their phones.
I absolutely f##king hate how so many people when presented with live music insist on filming it on their cellphones. It feels like 75% of the people at gigs now watch the entire performance through the screen of their phone.
Crunched the numbers on the YouGov MRP from yesterday which gave Reform 277 seats and it turns out a swing of about 2% to the party would have given them an extra 61 seats taking them to 338 seats and a majority of around 26.
And a 2% swing the other way would have made a Labour and LD and SNP and Green government possible, as it is Reform would need Tory and DUP support to govern on the Yougov MRP
Seems like a huge change for the US after the new SCOTUS ruling. Not sure how anything can stop Trump simply deporting citizens now. Grim times ahead for the US.
It's blind partisan loyalty, mixed with denial and despair
I've kept out of your way today. Simply adding a joke to lighten all of the PB RefCon herd's otherwise witheringly dreary posts.
I don't suggest you do read them, but if you had read my posts yesterday I was scathing about Starmer's performance over the performatively cruel Welfare Reform Bill. A lesson in how to dispose of all one's political capital with nil gain. Likewise WFA, a lesson in how to mis-sell an otherwise worthy policy.
Starmer is incredibly bad at politics. However he joins a substantial list of crap politicians who have been at the forefront of the last decade. Utterly pathetic though he may have been he is yet to (although it is possible he will) plumb Johnsonian levels of political depravity.
Crunched the numbers on the YouGov MRP from yesterday which gave Reform 277 seats and it turns out a swing of about 2% to the party would have given them an extra 61 seats taking them to 338 seats and a majority of around 26.
And a 2% swing the other way would have made a Labour and LD and SNP and Green government possible, as it is Reform would need Tory and DUP support to govern on the Yougov MRP
Yes of course. It shows Reform could win a majority with as little as 30% because the overall figure for the MRP was 27% for the party.
Seems like a huge change for the US after the new SCOTUS ruling. Not sure how anything can stop Trump simply deporting citizens now. Grim times ahead for the US.
The SCOTUS judgment reads like a very well argued slap down of activist judges, to me. We could do with the same in the UK/EU
This is not an opinion on Trump's ICE antics: that is a different matter
"This is why London must be portrayed as a rotting failure. If London is seen as a success, it collapses their worldview. If it is seen as a failure, it vindicates it. For these purposes, London is immigration. That is what it symbolises. That is what it represents. It has effectively ceased to have meaning outside of that association."
My wife has a speeding charge; first for 60+ years, before anyone asks. She's been offered the usual choice; Speed Awareness Course or fine. So, of course, she wants to do the course. BUT the website won't load and the 'advisors' at Essex Police's office are all, it seems, too busy to answer the phone. Grrr
Never do the course, it's an act of submission. Deny, deny, deny. Then pay up if you have to.
do the course, if you can, its quite an interesting cross section of peeps.
Having attended a couple, I suspect Dura would either be chucked out for relentlessly taking the piss out of the instructor, or actually lamping them.
I believe it will be 35 degrees in London this Monday and the government of course penalises residential air con.
We’ve just had a “heat dome” here in New York, with temperatures reaching 39 degrees in my neck of the woods. You would be considered mentally unfit if you suggested forsaking air con here.
Air conditioning in homes simply isn't British. You just have to put up with it.
Air conditioning is rather energy intensive - which isn't a problem if it's a cooling because the sun is out (we are going to have an insane amount of excess energy from solar panels) but is a problem in winter where cheaper more fuel efficient options are available...
Con HAS imploded and Lab ARE imploding - Farage is going to be PM isn't he?
I think it's the most likely outcome. Still, four years to go, a lot can happen in that time.
'Labour most seats' is the front runner in the betting for the next election, though not by much. Personally I think they are value. I would say at the next government being Labour led, either alone or in coalition is about a 65-70% chance. Reform led, about 20-25% chance. Other outcomes therefore 5-15% chance.
Big unknown at the moment is if SKS is even going to fight it.
On current form I’m beginning to find myself persuaded he will throw in the towel by then.
Thee only hope for Labour, and for renewal of the country is for Starmer to be replaced by someone with vision.
The only one near is probably (Sic) David Blunkett!😂😂😂🦯🦯🦯
The man who couldn't see any upper limit on immigration.
I know. it's quite incredibly failing on almost every section. Kudos on openness, though: I can imagine they;'d want to keep the report secret instead of putting it on their website...
Yikes! What's the background to this, JJ? How long has the incompetence been going on?
Must say S Cambs seems a pretty nice place, the Council notwithstanding.
I know. it's quite incredibly failing on almost every section. Kudos on openness, though: I can imagine they;'d want to keep the report secret instead of putting it on their website...
Yikes! What's the background to this, JJ? How long has the incompetence been going on?
Must say S Cambs seems a pretty nice place, the Council notwithstanding.
I've no idea what the background is, or how long it's been going on. But it's the local town council, not S. Cambs council. And yes, it's a great place to live.
"This is why London must be portrayed as a rotting failure. If London is seen as a success, it collapses their worldview. If it is seen as a failure, it vindicates it. For these purposes, London is immigration. That is what it symbolises. That is what it represents. It has effectively ceased to have meaning outside of that association."
Con HAS imploded and Lab ARE imploding - Farage is going to be PM isn't he?
I think it's the most likely outcome. Still, four years to go, a lot can happen in that time.
'Labour most seats' is the front runner in the betting for the next election, though not by much. Personally I think they are value. I would say at the next government being Labour led, either alone or in coalition is about a 65-70% chance. Reform led, about 20-25% chance. Other outcomes therefore 5-15% chance.
Big unknown at the moment is if SKS is even going to fight it.
On current form I’m beginning to find myself persuaded he will throw in the towel by then.
Thee only hope for Labour, and for renewal of the country is for Starmer to be replaced by someone with vision.
The only one near is probably (Sic) David Blunkett!😂😂😂🦯🦯🦯
The man who couldn't see any upper limit on immigration.
"This is why London must be portrayed as a rotting failure. If London is seen as a success, it collapses their worldview. If it is seen as a failure, it vindicates it. For these purposes, London is immigration. That is what it symbolises. That is what it represents. It has effectively ceased to have meaning outside of that association."
there's big bucks to be made in talking down our beautiful country these days. it's a sad state of affairs
"This is why London must be portrayed as a rotting failure. If London is seen as a success, it collapses their worldview. If it is seen as a failure, it vindicates it. For these purposes, London is immigration. That is what it symbolises. That is what it represents. It has effectively ceased to have meaning outside of that association."
"This is why London must be portrayed as a rotting failure. If London is seen as a success, it collapses their worldview. If it is seen as a failure, it vindicates it. For these purposes, London is immigration. That is what it symbolises. That is what it represents. It has effectively ceased to have meaning outside of that association."
there's big bucks to be made in talking down our beautiful country these days. it's a sad state of affairs
Good point. Especially as there’s so little to complain about.
The Spectator - the oldest magazine in the world - has 100,000-120,000 subscribers/readers, and millons online. It is busily expanding into the USA, where Spectator World now has 20,000 rich educated subscribers, reading brilliant articles like this:
If it was ever sold it would cost the new owner about 50p and a packet of organic, fair trade, Quinoa-flavoured crisps
We were talking about quality, not quantity.
Yes, that will be great solace to all the New Statesman writers when the magazine goes bust and they have nowhere to write
"But, we were quality!"
Journalism of this ilk is always the fine art of writing good clever prose that is ALSO readable, entertaining and accessible - ie popular
There's no point in writing "well" if no one wants to read it: indeed, it means you have not written well
It's like saying "that guy that always gets knocked out at the second round of Wimbledon has one of the best backhand spins I've ever seen". That may or may not be true, but he is certainly not good at tennis
That's not true - to sell well you don't just need to write well, you need an editor to commission and edit, an audience willing to spend money and marketing to attract that audience.
The Spectator has done all 4 things well, the New Statesman has at best done 2 of them.
The current editor of the New Statesman is Tom McTague. The current editor of the Spectator is Michael Gove. Michael Gove is a [don't go there - Ed]
Among all special elections this year, Democrats have outperformed Kamala Harris’s vote share in 2024 by 13 percentage points, based on Harris-Trump baselines calculated by the Downballot, an election data newsletter. That’s the largest shift toward any party in years. In fact, all but four of the 31 special elections have seen movement toward Democrats.
Comments
My point is there is no point Labour MPs and supporters now blaming Reeves - because no other Labour Chancellor would have done anything different.
Blaming Reeves now is just using her as a scapegoat to distract from the fact they haven't got any solution.
The only proper solution, of course, would be to make really serious spending cuts - principally welfare but also keeping a proper grip on public sector pay and reforming public sector pensions etc.
Surely all sensible folk see this as embarrassing weakness from a man elected with a two thousand seat majority less than a year ago
Yet to understand how this saves money......
It's blind partisan loyalty, mixed with denial and despair
The system as is is fine, 200 years ago 90% of the UK population weren't even eligible to vote at all
That’s sadly not happening and we’ve the spectre of Rayners ‘workers rights’ bill to come
One pound is too much
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52437-first-yougov-mrp-since-2024-election-shows-a-hung-parliament-with-reform-uk-as-largest-party
Reform less than 1% behind winning party: 11 seats
1% behind: 14
2% behind: 11
3% behind: 12
4% behind: 13
I don't suggest you do read them, but if you had read my posts yesterday I was scathing about Starmer's performance over the performatively cruel Welfare Reform Bill. A lesson in how to dispose of all one's political capital with nil gain. Likewise WFA, a lesson in how to mis-sell an otherwise worthy policy.
Starmer is incredibly bad at politics. However he joins a substantial list of crap politicians who have been at the forefront of the last decade. Utterly pathetic though he may have been he is yet to (although it is possible he will) plumb Johnsonian levels of political depravity.
This is not an opinion on Trump's ICE antics: that is a different matter
"They hate London because it is beautiful
Matthew Goodwin went to London the other day and what he found shook him to his core.
Ian Dunt"
https://iandunt.substack.com/p/they-hate-london-because-it-is-beautiful
Quote
"This is why London must be portrayed as a rotting failure. If London is seen as a success, it collapses their worldview. If it is seen as a failure, it vindicates it. For these purposes, London is immigration. That is what it symbolises. That is what it represents. It has effectively ceased to have meaning outside of that association."
The online version is considerably less trying.
NEW THREAD
Must say S Cambs seems a pretty nice place, the Council notwithstanding.
I'm bemused and horrified in equal measure...
He certainly wasn't in the low twenties like Slalom
'You lied about being mildy progressive lefty, OUT!'
Good point. Especially as there’s so little to complain about.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/27/democratic-special-election-gains/ https://www.the-downballot.com/
If that pattern continues for a year I would change that "Possibly" to "Very probably".