Clarkson was right. Unless it's for work or a spectacular pay rise, emigration just turns you into somebody who constantly moans.
"The primary purpose of the British constabulary is to suppress the unruly passions of a native population it holds in contempt."
Does Clarkson ever get tired of talking bollocks?
Our police (and I am closely related to, and acquainted with, a few) are actually remarkably respectful of, and friendly to, the population in general as long as you're not a criminal. There are plenty of countries in the world where the police are contemptuous of, or actively hostile to, the masses, but this isn't one of them.
The issue isn't the attitude of the police, it's that they have to follow the rulings of an arrogant, cynical and incompetent political class, of which our Prime Minister and his cronies are the stereotypical example, who really do want to suppress a population, or parts of it anyway, they hold in contempt.
My sister is a senior police officer.
I would be interested in a police (or police adjacent) view on Lee Anderson's tweet around a live rape enquiry in my town where charges were laid, and he listened to police advice, and ignored it, before tweeting. The tweet is now up to nearly 3 million views.
(I see difficulties around jury selection at the very least, given Anderson's local profile.)
I spoke with Nottinghamshire Police yesterday about this case. I was asked not to go public on this matter as it may affect the trial. Why would it affect the trial? Are our judges and juries incompetent? Or is there another reason I am being asked to remain quiet.
I've spent the last 24 hours mulling over this and cannot keep quiet.
The man charged with this vile offence is an asylum seeker who has been living in Ashfield.
I have been banging on about illegal migration since I was elected. At first I was told by other MPs that I was a racist, a bigot and I should shut up.
I will not shut up and do not care about the consequences.
I love the way shits like him make themselves out to be the victims. "They're trying to shut me up!!! It's all about ME !!!!"
Also, does he ever comment about white working class rapists?
As if. The promoted sentiment is "they're coming to rape our women". It hits two buttons at once - xenophobia ("they") and patriarchal chauvinism ("our").
As there is someone charged and remanded for this offence (and also the one in Epping) the police are clearly doing the job, what is the purpose of this tweet apart from trying to incite a pogrom?
I don't put it quite so starkly - 'inciting a pogrom', but Anderson has form on public stirring.
Some time ago he asked questions about a particular hotel with certain people staying in it (not sure of his exact terms), and reverse ferreted when they turned out by Sri Lankans working for the NHS. But the point was he could have got one of his staff members to phone up and ask - but he put his oar in publicly instead.
I do wonder if there is a risk he could bite off more than he can chew.
He will be next on Zia's little list. Then its just Pochin and Tice to go and he 'll have Farage all to himself
The bloke on R4 Today representing Israel at 8.10am this morning was interesting despite having nothing interesting to say. In an exercise of how to lose friends and alienate people it indicated that Israel has stopped trying to keep the support of its many old friends in the UK (of whom I have been one all my life).
Menser has been saying stuff like this all along, and in the same ally-alienating manner. Despite the claim of Eretz Israel experts that Israel 'doesn't give a shit', given that they suck off the worst people to help their claim to be a bulwark of western civilisation and to keep the weapons flowing, try and finagle Eurovision votes and deploy bot armies to attack any vaguely pro Palestinian utterance, it's obvious that they very evidently do give a shit. Alongside all their military successes (yay, we terror attacked those Herzbollah mofos via their pagers and our snipers are double tapping Gazan kids!), Israel's inability to find ANY sympathetic spokespeople to make their case to the wider world must count as a strategic failure.
Hunt is the voice of experience but his NI cuts are a large reason why the Government is in the financial mess it's currently in...
Bullshit.
His tax changes were, net a significant tax rise.
The reason we are in a mess is because we spend too much, and have the triple lock that guarantees we always will.
Well, perhaps or you could argue we raise too little in tax but I realise that might not be a view with which you agree.
More seriously, if we are condemned by past actions to spend nearly £100 billion a year on debt interest payments, that inevitably cuts back the room for manoeuvre and add in the certainty of increased defence spending (which I frankly question) and the inevitability of the demands of an ageing population as well as care costs in general and I'm struggling to see what can be cut to make a meaningful difference.
I'm all for Land Value Taxation as you know - land isn't easy to hide unlike other forms of wealth - and I would rather that than a wealth tax though I can see the advantages of a property value tax if we are going to rebadge Council Tax and make it a more relevant measure fir funding local services (the question of who funds social care and how is another can of worms).
The problem is simply put: 80 years of post WWII social democratic welfare state - all good in principle - means there is no political possibility of bigly rowing back on it. This is true of every rich European country, and even, in its own mysterious way, of the USA.
The current immense silence from Reform (who after all may have to manage this farago quite soon) is revealing. The only interesting things they ever say at the moment about real economics is about increasing state involvement (water) and spending more on welfare (WFA, 2 child cap). They are having to learn where the voters are when it comes to government as opposed to protest. Ask the OAPs of Clacton who should pay for their zimmer.
In a sense the next interesting thing to happen in politics is when Reform have their 2029 manifesto looked at by the IFS. Will they dare to enter the election without saying anything precise and costable at all about tax, spend, cuts, debt and deficit?
Food price inflation up and food security down. All so they could get £600m per year which they decided to give to Mauritius anyway. I honestly can't think of a worse government than this one, even Boris had some upsides, this is all downside all the time.
Some interesting by election results last evening (and one still to come today).
What conclusions can we draw?
It seems at last the Conservatives are starting to fight back against Reform but when you are holding seats in Lichfield and Swanage you are dealing with the real heartland and while the party made a little progress against the LDs in Dacorum, overall, the picture remains difficult.
Reform are still polling strongly everywhere if perhaps slightly off their post-local election levels. I don't know the extent of their ground game in any of these contests - do they have local activists, how many? Is their campaign primarily on social media for example?
I'd suggest the LDs and the Conservatives in their heartlands can run stronger local campaigns which can blunt the Reform edge somewhat.
For Labour, there's little comfort as you might expect - holding a seat in Wales is better than nothing but next year is going to be difficult.
The LDs have always picked their fights carefully and it's encouraging as a supporter to see seats held which would have been lost a decade or so ago. I suspect Reform will have the same retention problems in the 2020s the LDs had in the 2010s and earlier. Nonetheless, the rise of Reform keeps the LDs largely bottled up in their heartlands.
Id agree with all of that. Bromley was quite interesting in that in the Bromley and Biggin Hill seat last year, Reform slightly outperformed their national polling and last night they..... slightly outperformed their national polling figure. Suggests B and BH will be a very tightly fought seat, perhaps a Con hold very narrow favourite (Orpington has slightly stronger Reform start so probably falls first) and Bromley BC looks a fascinating scrap next year - NoC favourite?
I have a little local knowledge here - I think Reform's best chances would be Mottingham and the six seats in the Crays which are currently split four Conservative and two Labour and have always been marginal.
Penge and Cator might be interesting as might Plaistow but they would be for me longer shots for Reform.
NOC certainly looks most likely with the Conservatives the largest party.
Some interesting by election results last evening (and one still to come today).
What conclusions can we draw?
It seems at last the Conservatives are starting to fight back against Reform but when you are holding seats in Lichfield and Swanage you are dealing with the real heartland and while the party made a little progress against the LDs in Dacorum, overall, the picture remains difficult.
Reform are still polling strongly everywhere if perhaps slightly off their post-local election levels. I don't know the extent of their ground game in any of these contests - do they have local activists, how many? Is their campaign primarily on social media for example?
I'd suggest the LDs and the Conservatives in their heartlands can run stronger local campaigns which can blunt the Reform edge somewhat.
For Labour, there's little comfort as you might expect - holding a seat in Wales is better than nothing but next year is going to be difficult.
The LDs have always picked their fights carefully and it's encouraging as a supporter to see seats held which would have been lost a decade or so ago. I suspect Reform will have the same retention problems in the 2020s the LDs had in the 2010s and earlier. Nonetheless, the rise of Reform keeps the LDs largely bottled up in their heartlands.
Good morning
It does seem as if the conservatives had a better night, and I am far from convinced Reform will continue to be flavour of the moment over the coming months and years
With Corbyn - Sultana entering the fray and Labour in the doldrums it may be that Labour have the bigger problems, certainly under Starmer and Reeves
Anyway I remain a conservative voter, but not member, though in the next GE it will be Plaid to defeat our Labour mp
Some interesting by election results last evening (and one still to come today).
What conclusions can we draw?
It seems at last the Conservatives are starting to fight back against Reform but when you are holding seats in Lichfield and Swanage you are dealing with the real heartland and while the party made a little progress against the LDs in Dacorum, overall, the picture remains difficult.
Reform are still polling strongly everywhere if perhaps slightly off their post-local election levels. I don't know the extent of their ground game in any of these contests - do they have local activists, how many? Is their campaign primarily on social media for example?
I'd suggest the LDs and the Conservatives in their heartlands can run stronger local campaigns which can blunt the Reform edge somewhat.
For Labour, there's little comfort as you might expect - holding a seat in Wales is better than nothing but next year is going to be difficult.
The LDs have always picked their fights carefully and it's encouraging as a supporter to see seats held which would have been lost a decade or so ago. I suspect Reform will have the same retention problems in the 2020s the LDs had in the 2010s and earlier. Nonetheless, the rise of Reform keeps the LDs largely bottled up in their heartlands.
Id agree with all of that. Bromley was quite interesting in that in the Bromley and Biggin Hill seat last year, Reform slightly outperformed their national polling and last night they..... slightly outperformed their national polling figure. Suggests B and BH will be a very tightly fought seat, perhaps a Con hold very narrow favourite (Orpington has slightly stronger Reform start so probably falls first) and Bromley BC looks a fascinating scrap next year - NoC favourite?
I have a little local knowledge here - I think Reform's best chances would be Mottingham and the six seats in the Crays which are currently split four Conservative and two Labour and have always been marginal.
Penge and Cator might be interesting as might Plaistow but they would be for me longer shots for Reform.
NOC certainly looks most likely with the Conservatives the largest party.
Wasn't one of the brexit benefits was that you could purchase food more cheaply from abroad. The second benefit was that the subsidies paid would be less than EU subsidies. Thirdly as a free-trading nation we could exchange our guns for their butter.
Some interesting by election results last evening (and one still to come today).
What conclusions can we draw?
It seems at last the Conservatives are starting to fight back against Reform but when you are holding seats in Lichfield and Swanage you are dealing with the real heartland and while the party made a little progress against the LDs in Dacorum, overall, the picture remains difficult.
Reform are still polling strongly everywhere if perhaps slightly off their post-local election levels. I don't know the extent of their ground game in any of these contests - do they have local activists, how many? Is their campaign primarily on social media for example?
I'd suggest the LDs and the Conservatives in their heartlands can run stronger local campaigns which can blunt the Reform edge somewhat.
For Labour, there's little comfort as you might expect - holding a seat in Wales is better than nothing but next year is going to be difficult.
The LDs have always picked their fights carefully and it's encouraging as a supporter to see seats held which would have been lost a decade or so ago. I suspect Reform will have the same retention problems in the 2020s the LDs had in the 2010s and earlier. Nonetheless, the rise of Reform keeps the LDs largely bottled up in their heartlands.
Id agree with all of that. Bromley was quite interesting in that in the Bromley and Biggin Hill seat last year, Reform slightly outperformed their national polling and last night they..... slightly outperformed their national polling figure. Suggests B and BH will be a very tightly fought seat, perhaps a Con hold very narrow favourite (Orpington has slightly stronger Reform start so probably falls first) and Bromley BC looks a fascinating scrap next year - NoC favourite?
I have a little local knowledge here - I think Reform's best chances would be Mottingham and the six seats in the Crays which are currently split four Conservative and two Labour and have always been marginal.
Penge and Cator might be interesting as might Plaistow but they would be for me longer shots for Reform.
NOC certainly looks most likely with the Conservatives the largest party.
Quite looking forward to London 26!
Yes - plenty of fascinating contests across the capital. Even in the traditional Labour heartland of East London, nothing is certain - I could see Newham go NOC which would be the first time since the late 60s.
Some interesting by election results last evening (and one still to come today).
What conclusions can we draw?
It seems at last the Conservatives are starting to fight back against Reform but when you are holding seats in Lichfield and Swanage you are dealing with the real heartland and while the party made a little progress against the LDs in Dacorum, overall, the picture remains difficult.
Reform are still polling strongly everywhere if perhaps slightly off their post-local election levels. I don't know the extent of their ground game in any of these contests - do they have local activists, how many? Is their campaign primarily on social media for example?
I'd suggest the LDs and the Conservatives in their heartlands can run stronger local campaigns which can blunt the Reform edge somewhat.
For Labour, there's little comfort as you might expect - holding a seat in Wales is better than nothing but next year is going to be difficult.
The LDs have always picked their fights carefully and it's encouraging as a supporter to see seats held which would have been lost a decade or so ago. I suspect Reform will have the same retention problems in the 2020s the LDs had in the 2010s and earlier. Nonetheless, the rise of Reform keeps the LDs largely bottled up in their heartlands.
Id agree with all of that. Bromley was quite interesting in that in the Bromley and Biggin Hill seat last year, Reform slightly outperformed their national polling and last night they..... slightly outperformed their national polling figure. Suggests B and BH will be a very tightly fought seat, perhaps a Con hold very narrow favourite (Orpington has slightly stronger Reform start so probably falls first) and Bromley BC looks a fascinating scrap next year - NoC favourite?
I have a little local knowledge here - I think Reform's best chances would be Mottingham and the six seats in the Crays which are currently split four Conservative and two Labour and have always been marginal.
Penge and Cator might be interesting as might Plaistow but they would be for me longer shots for Reform.
NOC certainly looks most likely with the Conservatives the largest party.
Quite looking forward to London 26!
Yes - plenty of fascinating contests across the capital. Even in the traditional Labour heartland of East London, nothing is certain - I could see Newham go NOC which would be the first time since the late 60s.
And two new challengers entering the fray with Reform and Corbyn/Sultana
Clarkson was right. Unless it's for work or a spectacular pay rise, emigration just turns you into somebody who constantly moans.
"The primary purpose of the British constabulary is to suppress the unruly passions of a native population it holds in contempt."
Does Clarkson ever get tired of talking bollocks?
Our police (and I am closely related to, and acquainted with, a few) are actually remarkably respectful of, and friendly to, the population in general as long as you're not a criminal. There are plenty of countries in the world where the police are contemptuous of, or actively hostile to, the masses, but this isn't one of them.
The issue isn't the attitude of the police, it's that they have to follow the rulings of an arrogant, cynical and incompetent political class, of which our Prime Minister and his cronies are the stereotypical example, who really do want to suppress a population, or parts of it anyway, they hold in contempt.
My sister is a senior police officer.
I would be interested in a police (or police adjacent) view on Lee Anderson's tweet around a live rape enquiry in my town where charges were laid, and he listened to police advice, and ignored it, before tweeting. The tweet is now up to nearly 3 million views.
(I see difficulties around jury selection at the very least, given Anderson's local profile.)
I spoke with Nottinghamshire Police yesterday about this case. I was asked not to go public on this matter as it may affect the trial. Why would it affect the trial? Are our judges and juries incompetent? Or is there another reason I am being asked to remain quiet.
I've spent the last 24 hours mulling over this and cannot keep quiet.
The man charged with this vile offence is an asylum seeker who has been living in Ashfield.
I have been banging on about illegal migration since I was elected. At first I was told by other MPs that I was a racist, a bigot and I should shut up.
I will not shut up and do not care about the consequences.
I love the way shits like him make themselves out to be the victims. "They're trying to shut me up!!! It's all about ME !!!!"
Also, does he ever comment about white working class rapists?
As if. The promoted sentiment is "they're coming to rape our women". It hits two buttons at once - xenophobia ("they") and patriarchal chauvinism ("our").
As there is someone charged and remanded for this offence (and also the one in Epping) the police are clearly doing the job, what is the purpose of this tweet apart from trying to incite a pogrom?
I don't put it so starkly - 'inciting a pogrom', but Anderson has form on public stirring.
Some time ago he asked questions about a particular hotel with certain people staying in it (not sure of his exact terms), and reverse ferreted when they turned out by Sri Lankans working for the NHS. But the point was he could have got one of his staff members to phone up and ask - but he put his oar in publicly instead.
I do wonder if there is a risk he could bite off more than he can chew.
The Reform strategy is the one employed by populists down the ages: try to create a crisis while posing as the only solution to the crisis. Maybe it will work for them. I'm quite attached to this country -- apart from the lack of sunlight it has many advantages over other parts f the world and few of the disadvantages -- but if Reform ever get in I will give serious thought to moving somewhere else. I suspect it will mark a move into possibly terminal national decline, and the search for scapegoats will become dangerous for my family.
Hunt is the voice of experience but his NI cuts are a large reason why the Government is in the financial mess it's currently in...
Bullshit.
His tax changes were, net a significant tax rise.
The reason we are in a mess is because we spend too much, and have the triple lock that guarantees we always will.
Well, perhaps or you could argue we raise too little in tax but I realise that might not be a view with which you agree.
More seriously, if we are condemned by past actions to spend nearly £100 billion a year on debt interest payments, that inevitably cuts back the room for manoeuvre and add in the certainty of increased defence spending (which I frankly question) and the inevitability of the demands of an ageing population as well as care costs in general and I'm struggling to see what can be cut to make a meaningful difference.
I'm all for Land Value Taxation as you know - land isn't easy to hide unlike other forms of wealth - and I would rather that than a wealth tax though I can see the advantages of a property value tax if we are going to rebadge Council Tax and make it a more relevant measure fir funding local services (the question of who funds social care and how is another can of worms).
The problem is simply put: 80 years of post WWII social democratic welfare state - all good in principle - means there is no political possibility of bigly rowing back on it. This is true of every rich European country, and even, in its own mysterious way, of the USA.
The current immense silence from Reform (who after all may have to manage this farago quite soon) is revealing. The only interesting things they ever say at the moment about real economics is about increasing state involvement (water) and spending more on welfare (WFA, 2 child cap). They are having to learn where the voters are when it comes to government as opposed to protest. Ask the OAPs of Clacton who should pay for their zimmer.
In a sense the next interesting thing to happen in politics is when Reform have their 2029 manifesto looked at by the IFS. Will they dare to enter the election without saying anything precise and costable at all about tax, spend, cuts, debt and deficit?
There's an irony at work here - the 1979 election was meant to mark the end of Butskellism and the post war concensus but all it seems Thatcherism did was re-invigorate the 1945 settlement and give it another 30-40 years.
The question then becomes can we generate enough economic growth to keep the current "big state" going because no one is able to see a viable and coherent alternative given our demographics.
Food price inflation up and food security down. All so they could get £600m per year which they decided to give to Mauritius anyway. I honestly can't think of a worse government than this one, even Boris had some upsides, this is all downside all the time.
Such bollocks Max. The article itself makes it clear that the main driver behind this is higher input costs. A possible inheritance tax liability at some point in the future should have no bearing on whether a business is viable as a going concern at present.
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
The state of your membership, that spending cuts is still a vote winner despite the abject mess you left everything in.
Betting warning. The market for next leader of the Conservative Party is for next leader of the Conservative Party, and not, as is being discussed, for the best leader of the Conservative Party.
These two great causes (limiting my betting losses to finite amounts and what is good for the country) are linked, if rather vaguely.
The question: Will Reform win the next election? Is essentially a betting one. Only a finite amount can be said about it. The other question: How will Reform actually govern if they win? Has infinite scope, and IMHO is an underexplored subject both on PB and generally.
The first question is interesting. The second question could be placed in the category of 'National existential', and might affect what you back in the 'End of Civilization As We Know It' Handicap.
That might be an interesting one for one of our constitutionally minded contributors to chew on.
What is possible if RefUK get a majority, and the leader (Farage or other) goes rogue with Orders in Council? What could the Lords do?
One of Trump's proposed tactics was to get the elected chamber to put itself into voluntary recess so that he could do a lot of appointments in the absence of a ratification process. He already appointed "temporary" people to types of post who in theory did not need normal checks (eg Elon Musk's 130 days), or changed the organisation by changing terms of operation of departments (eg I think that was how DOGE became institutionalised).
He appoint Alina Habba as a "Interim US Attorney for NJ", and her 6 months ran out - as she was not confirmed by the local bench (vote amongst NJ judges said no) never got the "Blue Slip" to move to ratification, since it needs to be signed by one of the local Senators, and both are Dems and would not do it. But in a different case, another 6 month post was renewed (similar post in Upstate NY) because the local judges did not hold their vote immediately, so Trump just reappointed him as temporary for a further 6 months.
How secure is our system against such manipulation?
What could Project 2025 look like in the UK?
I am open to being wrong, and I don't support Reform and won't think about them seriously unless and until I read a proper and full manifesto for a five year Reform term of government, but your point is interesting.
My own view FWIW is that Reform during 2025 has entirely U-turned on Trump and Trumpism, has no intention of being anything other than a radical nationalist but constitutional government. Our system is secure. There are several reasons for this, but the most important are the genuine degree of separation of powers, the nature of our Supreme Court and our lack of a directly elected supreme leader.
Trump could get nowhere with his kleptocrat autocracy without a craven and politicised court system and contempt for the rule of law.
Consistent with pardon bring offered in exchange for dirt in senior Democrats a look no with a Trump whitewash.
I wouldn't call her a victim, but it is notable that the only person jailed for this sex trafficking and child abuse network that seemingly involved a large number of wealthy and powerful men is a woman.
And Epstein himself, of course.
That she is currently being 'interviewed' by Trump's former defence lawyer, in an unrecorded session, is pretty obvious in its intent.
Any testimony she might offer is, to be generous, utterly worthless.
From Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing memo: "Taken together with the defendant's perjury in her civil deposition, her lies to Pretrial Services, and her blatant lies about her own weight while in BOP custody, the Court can fairly reject many of the defendant's complaints about her conditions of confinement. Simply put, the defendant lies when it suits her." https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1948421427105034639
If they really want to find out what Epstein, Trump and Maxwell got up to, wouldn't it be better to interview the victims rather than the alleged perpetrators?
It shouldn't be a radical idea...
None have been consulted over the Maxwell interview - which in the context of a possible deal with her, is pretty vile.
The DOJ has a huge number of files regarding Epstein. Publishing them (with names redacted if necessary, to avoid prejudicing future criminal cases) would be a start.
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
The state of your membership, that spending cuts is still a vote winner despite the abject mess you left everything in.
Consistent with pardon bring offered in exchange for dirt in senior Democrats a look no with a Trump whitewash.
I wouldn't call her a victim, but it is notable that the only person jailed for this sex trafficking and child abuse network that seemingly involved a large number of wealthy and powerful men is a woman.
And Epstein himself, of course.
That she is currently being 'interviewed' by Trump's former defence lawyer, in an unrecorded session, is pretty obvious in its intent.
Any testimony she might offer is, to be generous, utterly worthless.
From Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing memo: "Taken together with the defendant's perjury in her civil deposition, her lies to Pretrial Services, and her blatant lies about her own weight while in BOP custody, the Court can fairly reject many of the defendant's complaints about her conditions of confinement. Simply put, the defendant lies when it suits her." https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1948421427105034639
If they really want to find out what Epstein, Trump and Maxwell got up to, wouldn't it be better to interview the victims rather than the alleged perpetrators?
It shouldn't be a radical idea...
Hence the tens of thousands of pages of evidence (not to mention the videos) that hasn't been released.
And that's just the stuff that went to the grand jury.
The judge was probably correct, since the government gave no good reasons, other than political convenience, for releasing those files. And given they were materials gather for the purpose of prosecuting Epstein, they will very likely omit most of the material (should it exist) about his clients,
Some interesting by election results last evening (and one still to come today).
What conclusions can we draw?
It seems at last the Conservatives are starting to fight back against Reform but when you are holding seats in Lichfield and Swanage you are dealing with the real heartland and while the party made a little progress against the LDs in Dacorum, overall, the picture remains difficult.
Reform are still polling strongly everywhere if perhaps slightly off their post-local election levels. I don't know the extent of their ground game in any of these contests - do they have local activists, how many? Is their campaign primarily on social media for example?
I'd suggest the LDs and the Conservatives in their heartlands can run stronger local campaigns which can blunt the Reform edge somewhat.
For Labour, there's little comfort as you might expect - holding a seat in Wales is better than nothing but next year is going to be difficult.
The LDs have always picked their fights carefully and it's encouraging as a supporter to see seats held which would have been lost a decade or so ago. I suspect Reform will have the same retention problems in the 2020s the LDs had in the 2010s and earlier. Nonetheless, the rise of Reform keeps the LDs largely bottled up in their heartlands.
Good morning
It does seem as if the conservatives had a better night, and I am far from convinced Reform will continue to be flavour of the moment over the coming months and years
With Corbyn - Sultana entering the fray and Labour in the doldrums it may be that Labour have the bigger problems, certainly under Starmer and Reeves
Anyway I remain a conservative voter, but not member, though in the next GE it will be Plaid to defeat our Labour mp
"Anyway I remain a conservative voter, but not member, though in the next GE it will be Plaid to defeat our Labour mp"
Seriously, BigG? Plaid? Ethon-nationalism? And far-left at that?
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
You have a weird tendresse for Mel Stride. There's no way that the Tories are going to go through all of the trauma of knifing a leader just to replace them with someone as vapid as Stride. Some people enhance their office and others are enhanced by it. He's definitely the latter and everyone knows it. I remember when Stride was widely loathed for having to implement the Loan Charge.
Stride is a heavyweight who understands the economy
Timothy there, cementing his reputation as one of the delightfully sharp satirical pens of our age.
Tim Stanley @timothy_stanley Sketch: "Jeremy Corbyn has invited suggestions for what to call his new party, after discovering that 'Hamas' is already taken."
Ooh, Nigel has issued a notpology for his false claims about 'Protestors being bussed in from the station by the police'.
Nigel Farage has issued an apology after claiming that Essex Police officers had "bussed" counter protesters to a demonstration outside the Bell Hotel in Epping. Mr Farage, the MP for Clacton and leader of Reform UK, had called for the resignation of Chief Constable Ben-Julian Harrington in a social media post.
The force said it was "categorically wrong" to claim that protesters had been transported by police vans to the protest. They later issued drone footage showing a group of people being monitored with a foot cordon on their way to the protest. Some people who were at risk of being hurt were taken away from the area for their safety by vehicle.
Consistent with pardon bring offered in exchange for dirt in senior Democrats a look no with a Trump whitewash.
I wouldn't call her a victim, but it is notable that the only person jailed for this sex trafficking and child abuse network that seemingly involved a large number of wealthy and powerful men is a woman.
And Epstein himself, of course.
That she is currently being 'interviewed' by Trump's former defence lawyer, in an unrecorded session, is pretty obvious in its intent.
Any testimony she might offer is, to be generous, utterly worthless.
From Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing memo: "Taken together with the defendant's perjury in her civil deposition, her lies to Pretrial Services, and her blatant lies about her own weight while in BOP custody, the Court can fairly reject many of the defendant's complaints about her conditions of confinement. Simply put, the defendant lies when it suits her." https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1948421427105034639
If they really want to find out what Epstein, Trump and Maxwell got up to, wouldn't it be better to interview the victims rather than the alleged perpetrators?
It shouldn't be a radical idea...
Hence the tens of thousands of pages of evidence (not to mention the videos) that hasn't been released.
And that's just the stuff that went to the grand jury.
The judge was probably correct, since the government gave no good reasons, other than political convenience, for releasing those files. And given they were materials gather for the purpose of prosecuting Epstein, they will very likely omit most of the material (should it exist) about his clients,
The witness testimonies go into very considerable detail about the clients, from what has been made public.
Some interesting by election results last evening (and one still to come today).
What conclusions can we draw?
It seems at last the Conservatives are starting to fight back against Reform but when you are holding seats in Lichfield and Swanage you are dealing with the real heartland and while the party made a little progress against the LDs in Dacorum, overall, the picture remains difficult.
Reform are still polling strongly everywhere if perhaps slightly off their post-local election levels. I don't know the extent of their ground game in any of these contests - do they have local activists, how many? Is their campaign primarily on social media for example?
I'd suggest the LDs and the Conservatives in their heartlands can run stronger local campaigns which can blunt the Reform edge somewhat.
For Labour, there's little comfort as you might expect - holding a seat in Wales is better than nothing but next year is going to be difficult.
The LDs have always picked their fights carefully and it's encouraging as a supporter to see seats held which would have been lost a decade or so ago. I suspect Reform will have the same retention problems in the 2020s the LDs had in the 2010s and earlier. Nonetheless, the rise of Reform keeps the LDs largely bottled up in their heartlands.
Good morning
It does seem as if the conservatives had a better night, and I am far from convinced Reform will continue to be flavour of the moment over the coming months and years
With Corbyn - Sultana entering the fray and Labour in the doldrums it may be that Labour have the bigger problems, certainly under Starmer and Reeves
Anyway I remain a conservative voter, but not member, though in the next GE it will be Plaid to defeat our Labour mp
"Anyway I remain a conservative voter, but not member, though in the next GE it will be Plaid to defeat our Labour mp"
Seriously, BigG? Plaid? Ethon-nationalism? And far-left at that?
Timothy there, cementing his reputation as one of the delightfully sharp satirical pens of our age.
Tim Stanley @timothy_stanley Sketch: "Jeremy Corbyn has invited suggestions for what to call his new party, after discovering that 'Hamas' is already taken."
Hunt is the voice of experience but his NI cuts are a large reason why the Government is in the financial mess it's currently in...
Bullshit.
His tax changes were, net a significant tax rise.
The reason we are in a mess is because we spend too much, and have the triple lock that guarantees we always will.
Well, perhaps or you could argue we raise too little in tax but I realise that might not be a view with which you agree.
More seriously, if we are condemned by past actions to spend nearly £100 billion a year on debt interest payments, that inevitably cuts back the room for manoeuvre and add in the certainty of increased defence spending (which I frankly question) and the inevitability of the demands of an ageing population as well as care costs in general and I'm struggling to see what can be cut to make a meaningful difference.
I'm all for Land Value Taxation as you know - land isn't easy to hide unlike other forms of wealth - and I would rather that than a wealth tax though I can see the advantages of a property value tax if we are going to rebadge Council Tax and make it a more relevant measure fir funding local services (the question of who funds social care and how is another can of worms).
The problem is simply put: 80 years of post WWII social democratic welfare state - all good in principle - means there is no political possibility of bigly rowing back on it. This is true of every rich European country, and even, in its own mysterious way, of the USA.
The current immense silence from Reform (who after all may have to manage this farago quite soon) is revealing. The only interesting things they ever say at the moment about real economics is about increasing state involvement (water) and spending more on welfare (WFA, 2 child cap). They are having to learn where the voters are when it comes to government as opposed to protest. Ask the OAPs of Clacton who should pay for their zimmer.
In a sense the next interesting thing to happen in politics is when Reform have their 2029 manifesto looked at by the IFS. Will they dare to enter the election without saying anything precise and costable at all about tax, spend, cuts, debt and deficit?
There's an irony at work here - the 1979 election was meant to mark the end of Butskellism and the post war concensus but all it seems Thatcherism did was re-invigorate the 1945 settlement and give it another 30-40 years.
The question then becomes can we generate enough economic growth to keep the current "big state" going because no one is able to see a viable and coherent alternative given our demographics.
Indeed. From 1945 until now, and this is widely misunderstood even though it is hiding in plain sight, the 100% consensus in politics has been the social democratic state. (High spend, high tax, NHS, welfare safety net, social housing, pensions, free education to 18, NATO, regulated private enterprise).
All politics has been about tinkering with other stuff and the issue of scale, competence and running the social democratic state well or badly.
There is no political language or theory to hand which can discuss the social democratic state WRT whether or not it is the best way of running things, and which bits might go. This is what 100% unites the politics of, say, Michael Foot and Mrs T.
Hence the immense silence because it looks as if something will have to give way. Note that Reform/Farage have nothing at all to say about it.
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
The state of your membership, that spending cuts is still a vote winner despite the abject mess you left everything in.
The more one looks at the state of the country from the vantage point of what is almost extreme old age..... late 80's .... it appears that the Thatcherite policy of selling off the family silver (to quote Supermac) was a serious mistake. And, if there is any left, one which is likely to be repeated. The modern Conservative party is nothing whatsoever like that of the 50's and 60's. Having said that, neither is the Labour Party like it's earlier incarnation, a coalition between Methodism and Marx.
I am by nature an optimist, and I've never been one to hark back to a misremembered youth when everything was 'better'. A lot wasn't but at least people seemed to have an idea of how the future could be.
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
You have a weird tendresse for Mel Stride. There's no way that the Tories are going to go through all of the trauma of knifing a leader just to replace them with someone as vapid as Stride. Some people enhance their office and others are enhanced by it. He's definitely the latter and everyone knows it. I remember when Stride was widely loathed for having to implement the Loan Charge.
I honestly don't think Mel Stride is likely to set the heather alight. He's competent, but not a game-changer and, I suspect, is very little known to the public. The Tories need someone with a stronger profile.
If you want someone reassuring, then it's obviously got to be Hunt, assuming Cleverly is not interested. On reflection, I think Hunt is the better choice anyway. He would certainly be the LibDems least-favourite Tory leader which is a good enough reason on its own.
The Tories brought back Michael Howard who did a good job for them in tricky circumstances, and Hunt is certainly more voter-friendly than "something of the night" Howard. The man to watch.
Betting warning. The market for next leader of the Conservative Party is for next leader of the Conservative Party, and not, as is being discussed, for the best leader of the Conservative Party.
These two great causes (limiting my betting losses to finite amounts and what is good for the country) are linked, if rather vaguely.
The question: Will Reform win the next election? Is essentially a betting one. Only a finite amount can be said about it. The other question: How will Reform actually govern if they win? Has infinite scope, and IMHO is an underexplored subject both on PB and generally.
The first question is interesting. The second question could be placed in the category of 'National existential', and might affect what you back in the 'End of Civilization As We Know It' Handicap.
That might be an interesting one for one of our constitutionally minded contributors to chew on.
What is possible if RefUK get a majority, and the leader (Farage or other) goes rogue with Orders in Council? What could the Lords do?
One of Trump's proposed tactics was to get the elected chamber to put itself into voluntary recess so that he could do a lot of appointments in the absence of a ratification process. He already appointed "temporary" people to types of post who in theory did not need normal checks (eg Elon Musk's 130 days), or changed the organisation by changing terms of operation of departments (eg I think that was how DOGE became institutionalised).
He appoint Alina Habba as a "Interim US Attorney for NJ", and her 6 months ran out - as she was not confirmed by the local bench (vote amongst NJ judges said no) never got the "Blue Slip" to move to ratification, since it needs to be signed by one of the local Senators, and both are Dems and would not do it. But in a different case, another 6 month post was renewed (similar post in Upstate NY) because the local judges did not hold their vote immediately, so Trump just reappointed him as temporary for a further 6 months.
How secure is our system against such manipulation?
What could Project 2025 look like in the UK?
I am open to being wrong, and I don't support Reform and won't think about them seriously unless and until I read a proper and full manifesto for a five year Reform term of government, but your point is interesting.
My own view FWIW is that Reform during 2025 has entirely U-turned on Trump and Trumpism, has no intention of being anything other than a radical nationalist but constitutional government. Our system is secure. There are several reasons for this, but the most important are the genuine degree of separation of powers, the nature of our Supreme Court and our lack of a directly elected supreme leader.
Trump could get nowhere with his kleptocrat autocracy without a craven and politicised court system and contempt for the rule of law.
As a serious reply, I'm not sure if that fits with the positions that Farage has increasingly been taking, for example in loosening his candidate-vetting system, allowing Pochin to question the suitability of women for (she claims "some") police work, his reluctance to deal with more extreme councillors, and others.
OTOH a piece would be a "how could it work here" thought experiment. My take is that we have far stronger checks and balances - a small example would be the Warwickshire Chief Executive who refused to change the flags policy until the Minority Council Leader had gone through the proper process - which Farage termed "obstructivism".
Consistent with pardon bring offered in exchange for dirt in senior Democrats a look no with a Trump whitewash.
I wouldn't call her a victim, but it is notable that the only person jailed for this sex trafficking and child abuse network that seemingly involved a large number of wealthy and powerful men is a woman.
And Epstein himself, of course.
That she is currently being 'interviewed' by Trump's former defence lawyer, in an unrecorded session, is pretty obvious in its intent.
Any testimony she might offer is, to be generous, utterly worthless.
From Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing memo: "Taken together with the defendant's perjury in her civil deposition, her lies to Pretrial Services, and her blatant lies about her own weight while in BOP custody, the Court can fairly reject many of the defendant's complaints about her conditions of confinement. Simply put, the defendant lies when it suits her." https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1948421427105034639
If they really want to find out what Epstein, Trump and Maxwell got up to, wouldn't it be better to interview the victims rather than the alleged perpetrators?
It shouldn't be a radical idea...
Hence the tens of thousands of pages of evidence (not to mention the videos) that hasn't been released.
And that's just the stuff that went to the grand jury.
The judge was probably correct, since the government gave no good reasons, other than political convenience, for releasing those files. And given they were materials gather for the purpose of prosecuting Epstein, they will very likely omit most of the material (should it exist) about his clients,
The witness testimonies go into very considerable detail about the clients, from what has been made public.
SFAICS nothing prevents the media, anywhere in the world, talking to the victims and publishing what they have to say. There has been remarkably little of this I think.
Consistent with pardon bring offered in exchange for dirt in senior Democrats a look no with a Trump whitewash.
I wouldn't call her a victim, but it is notable that the only person jailed for this sex trafficking and child abuse network that seemingly involved a large number of wealthy and powerful men is a woman.
And Epstein himself, of course.
That she is currently being 'interviewed' by Trump's former defence lawyer, in an unrecorded session, is pretty obvious in its intent.
Any testimony she might offer is, to be generous, utterly worthless.
From Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing memo: "Taken together with the defendant's perjury in her civil deposition, her lies to Pretrial Services, and her blatant lies about her own weight while in BOP custody, the Court can fairly reject many of the defendant's complaints about her conditions of confinement. Simply put, the defendant lies when it suits her." https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1948421427105034639
If they really want to find out what Epstein, Trump and Maxwell got up to, wouldn't it be better to interview the victims rather than the alleged perpetrators?
It shouldn't be a radical idea...
Hence the tens of thousands of pages of evidence (not to mention the videos) that hasn't been released.
And that's just the stuff that went to the grand jury.
The judge was probably correct, since the government gave no good reasons, other than political convenience, for releasing those files. And given they were materials gather for the purpose of prosecuting Epstein, they will very likely omit most of the material (should it exist) about his clients,
The witness testimonies go into very considerable detail about the clients, from what has been made public.
Given this, ..The department previously said it had around 200 documents relating to Epstein and that the FBI had thousands more. It is unknown how much of this is grand jury testimony...
together with the keenness of the government to unseal the grand jury testimony - in contrast to its extreme reluctance to do the same with the FBI/DOJ files - I would hazard a guess that most of the *interesting* stuff is not in the former.
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
The state of your membership, that spending cuts is still a vote winner despite the abject mess you left everything in.
Their big debate is whether to talk about spending cuts that they are not going to make or instead whether it is better to talk about bigger spending cuts which are impossible to make.
Betting warning. The market for next leader of the Conservative Party is for next leader of the Conservative Party, and not, as is being discussed, for the best leader of the Conservative Party.
These two great causes (limiting my betting losses to finite amounts and what is good for the country) are linked, if rather vaguely.
The question: Will Reform win the next election? Is essentially a betting one. Only a finite amount can be said about it. The other question: How will Reform actually govern if they win? Has infinite scope, and IMHO is an underexplored subject both on PB and generally.
The first question is interesting. The second question could be placed in the category of 'National existential', and might affect what you back in the 'End of Civilization As We Know It' Handicap.
That might be an interesting one for one of our constitutionally minded contributors to chew on.
What is possible if RefUK get a majority, and the leader (Farage or other) goes rogue with Orders in Council? What could the Lords do?
One of Trump's proposed tactics was to get the elected chamber to put itself into voluntary recess so that he could do a lot of appointments in the absence of a ratification process. He already appointed "temporary" people to types of post who in theory did not need normal checks (eg Elon Musk's 130 days), or changed the organisation by changing terms of operation of departments (eg I think that was how DOGE became institutionalised).
He appoint Alina Habba as a "Interim US Attorney for NJ", and her 6 months ran out - as she was not confirmed by the local bench (vote amongst NJ judges said no) never got the "Blue Slip" to move to ratification, since it needs to be signed by one of the local Senators, and both are Dems and would not do it. But in a different case, another 6 month post was renewed (similar post in Upstate NY) because the local judges did not hold their vote immediately, so Trump just reappointed him as temporary for a further 6 months.
How secure is our system against such manipulation?
What could Project 2025 look like in the UK?
I am open to being wrong, and I don't support Reform and won't think about them seriously unless and until I read a proper and full manifesto for a five year Reform term of government, but your point is interesting.
My own view FWIW is that Reform during 2025 has entirely U-turned on Trump and Trumpism, has no intention of being anything other than a radical nationalist but constitutional government. Our system is secure. There are several reasons for this, but the most important are the genuine degree of separation of powers, the nature of our Supreme Court and our lack of a directly elected supreme leader.
Trump could get nowhere with his kleptocrat autocracy without a craven and politicised court system and contempt for the rule of law.
As a serious reply, I'm not sure if that fits with the positions that Farage has increasingly been taking, for example in loosening his candidate-vetting system, allowing Pochin to question the suitability of women for (she claims "some") police work, his reluctance to deal with more extreme councillors, and others.
Noted, but I think this is all in the category of local difficulties Farage has in turning the circus of his party and supporters into an election winning outfit. I think a Reform government wiould be a disaster (but wait to see his 2029 manifesto before deciding everything), but not a fascist disaster; more Laurel and Hardy than J.D Vance.
Betting warning. The market for next leader of the Conservative Party is for next leader of the Conservative Party, and not, as is being discussed, for the best leader of the Conservative Party.
These two great causes (limiting my betting losses to finite amounts and what is good for the country) are linked, if rather vaguely.
The question: Will Reform win the next election? Is essentially a betting one. Only a finite amount can be said about it. The other question: How will Reform actually govern if they win? Has infinite scope, and IMHO is an underexplored subject both on PB and generally.
The first question is interesting. The second question could be placed in the category of 'National existential', and might affect what you back in the 'End of Civilization As We Know It' Handicap.
That might be an interesting one for one of our constitutionally minded contributors to chew on.
What is possible if RefUK get a majority, and the leader (Farage or other) goes rogue with Orders in Council? What could the Lords do?
One of Trump's proposed tactics was to get the elected chamber to put itself into voluntary recess so that he could do a lot of appointments in the absence of a ratification process. He already appointed "temporary" people to types of post who in theory did not need normal checks (eg Elon Musk's 130 days), or changed the organisation by changing terms of operation of departments (eg I think that was how DOGE became institutionalised).
He appoint Alina Habba as a "Interim US Attorney for NJ", and her 6 months ran out - as she was not confirmed by the local bench (vote amongst NJ judges said no) never got the "Blue Slip" to move to ratification, since it needs to be signed by one of the local Senators, and both are Dems and would not do it. But in a different case, another 6 month post was renewed (similar post in Upstate NY) because the local judges did not hold their vote immediately, so Trump just reappointed him as temporary for a further 6 months.
How secure is our system against such manipulation?
What could Project 2025 look like in the UK?
I am open to being wrong, and I don't support Reform and won't think about them seriously unless and until I read a proper and full manifesto for a five year Reform term of government, but your point is interesting.
My own view FWIW is that Reform during 2025 has entirely U-turned on Trump and Trumpism, has no intention of being anything other than a radical nationalist but constitutional government. Our system is secure. There are several reasons for this, but the most important are the genuine degree of separation of powers, the nature of our Supreme Court and our lack of a directly elected supreme leader.
Trump could get nowhere with his kleptocrat autocracy without a craven and politicised court system and contempt for the rule of law.
As a serious reply, I'm not sure if that fits with the positions that Farage has increasingly been taking, for example in loosening his candidate-vetting system, allowing Pochin to question the suitability of women for (she claims "some") police work, his reluctance to deal with more extreme councillors, and others.
Noted, but I think this is all in the category of local difficulties Farage has in turning the circus of his party and supporters into an election winning outfit. I think a Reform government wiould be a disaster (but wait to see his 2029 manifesto before deciding everything), but not a fascist disaster; more Laurel and Hardy than J.D Vance.
I don't think it will be particularly worse than the last couple of Tory governments. It will be mostly the same people, still in fighting and lacking cohesion, using culture for popularity and simple short termist solutions for complex problems that need long term thinking. Close to guaranteed failure but its not fascism.
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
The state of your membership, that spending cuts is still a vote winner despite the abject mess you left everything in.
Their big debate is whether to talk about spending cuts that they are not going to make or instead whether it is better to talk about bigger spending cuts which are impossible to make.
About the only things left to cut and/or sell off are the NHS and the Armed Forces.
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
You have a weird tendresse for Mel Stride. There's no way that the Tories are going to go through all of the trauma of knifing a leader just to replace them with someone as vapid as Stride. Some people enhance their office and others are enhanced by it. He's definitely the latter and everyone knows it. I remember when Stride was widely loathed for having to implement the Loan Charge.
I honestly don't think Mel Stride is likely to set the heather alight. He's competent, but not a game-changer and, I suspect, is very little known to the public. The Tories need someone with a stronger profile.
If you want someone reassuring, then it's obviously got to be Hunt, assuming Cleverly is not interested. On reflection, I think Hunt is the better choice anyway. He would certainly be the LibDems least-favourite Tory leader which is a good enough reason on its own.
The Tories brought back Michael Howard who did a good job for them in tricky circumstances, and Hunt is certainly more voter-friendly than "something of the night" Howard. The man to watch.
Katie Lam seems like a Tory wet dream to me. Elements of Thatcher and Reform. A better speaker than Badenoch, but still quite feisty. Obviously the fact she is white will probably make quite a few right wingers prefer her to the incumbent as well
Timothy there, cementing his reputation as one of the delightfully sharp satirical pens of our age.
Tim Stanley @timothy_stanley Sketch: "Jeremy Corbyn has invited suggestions for what to call his new party, after discovering that 'Hamas' is already taken."
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
The state of your membership, that spending cuts is still a vote winner despite the abject mess you left everything in.
Their big debate is whether to talk about spending cuts that they are not going to make or instead whether it is better to talk about bigger spending cuts which are impossible to make.
About the only things left to cut and/or sell off are the NHS and the Armed Forces.
There is lots that could be cut with varying degrees of impact. There is very little that can be cut quickly without ending the political career of the cutter and perhaps their party.
Most of the savings, and there are plenty imo, come later from investment upfront.
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
The state of your membership, that spending cuts is still a vote winner despite the abject mess you left everything in.
Their big debate is whether to talk about spending cuts that they are not going to make or instead whether it is better to talk about bigger spending cuts which are impossible to make.
About the only things left to cut and/or sell off are the NHS and the Armed Forces.
There is lots that could be cut with varying degrees of impact. There is very little that can be cut quickly without ending the political career of the cutter and perhaps their party.
Most of the savings, and there are plenty imo, come later from investment upfront.
In the second term that the respective government isn't going to get?
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
The state of your membership, that spending cuts is still a vote winner despite the abject mess you left everything in.
Their big debate is whether to talk about spending cuts that they are not going to make or instead whether it is better to talk about bigger spending cuts which are impossible to make.
About the only things left to cut and/or sell off are the NHS and the Armed Forces.
There is lots that could be cut with varying degrees of impact. There is very little that can be cut quickly without ending the political career of the cutter and perhaps their party.
Most of the savings, and there are plenty imo, come later from investment upfront.
Except this Government has no money to invest upfront nor shows any inclination to do so
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
You have a weird tendresse for Mel Stride. There's no way that the Tories are going to go through all of the trauma of knifing a leader just to replace them with someone as vapid as Stride. Some people enhance their office and others are enhanced by it. He's definitely the latter and everyone knows it. I remember when Stride was widely loathed for having to implement the Loan Charge.
I honestly don't think Mel Stride is likely to set the heather alight. He's competent, but not a game-changer and, I suspect, is very little known to the public. The Tories need someone with a stronger profile.
If you want someone reassuring, then it's obviously got to be Hunt, assuming Cleverly is not interested. On reflection, I think Hunt is the better choice anyway. He would certainly be the LibDems least-favourite Tory leader which is a good enough reason on its own.
The Tories brought back Michael Howard who did a good job for them in tricky circumstances, and Hunt is certainly more voter-friendly than "something of the night" Howard. The man to watch.
Katie Lam seems like a Tory wet dream to me. Elements of Thatcher and Reform. A better speaker than Badenoch, but still quite feisty. Obviously the fact she is white will probably make quite a few right wingers prefer her to the incumbent as well
Katie Lam has only been in Parliament for five minutes (technically a whole year now). Future leader, maybe. Next leader, no.
Hunt is the voice of experience but his NI cuts are a large reason why the Government is in the financial mess it's currently in...
Bullshit.
His tax changes were, net a significant tax rise.
The reason we are in a mess is because we spend too much, and have the triple lock that guarantees we always will.
Well, perhaps or you could argue we raise too little in tax but I realise that might not be a view with which you agree.
More seriously, if we are condemned by past actions to spend nearly £100 billion a year on debt interest payments, that inevitably cuts back the room for manoeuvre and add in the certainty of increased defence spending (which I frankly question) and the inevitability of the demands of an ageing population as well as care costs in general and I'm struggling to see what can be cut to make a meaningful difference.
I'm all for Land Value Taxation as you know - land isn't easy to hide unlike other forms of wealth - and I would rather that than a wealth tax though I can see the advantages of a property value tax if we are going to rebadge Council Tax and make it a more relevant measure fir funding local services (the question of who funds social care and how is another can of worms).
The problem is simply put: 80 years of post WWII social democratic welfare state - all good in principle - means there is no political possibility of bigly rowing back on it. This is true of every rich European country, and even, in its own mysterious way, of the USA.
The current immense silence from Reform (who after all may have to manage this farago quite soon) is revealing. The only interesting things they ever say at the moment about real economics is about increasing state involvement (water) and spending more on welfare (WFA, 2 child cap). They are having to learn where the voters are when it comes to government as opposed to protest. Ask the OAPs of Clacton who should pay for their zimmer.
In a sense the next interesting thing to happen in politics is when Reform have their 2029 manifesto looked at by the IFS. Will they dare to enter the election without saying anything precise and costable at all about tax, spend, cuts, debt and deficit?
There's an irony at work here - the 1979 election was meant to mark the end of Butskellism and the post war concensus but all it seems Thatcherism did was re-invigorate the 1945 settlement and give it another 30-40 years.
The question then becomes can we generate enough economic growth to keep the current "big state" going because no one is able to see a viable and coherent alternative given our demographics.
Indeed. From 1945 until now, and this is widely misunderstood even though it is hiding in plain sight, the 100% consensus in politics has been the social democratic state. (High spend, high tax, NHS, welfare safety net, social housing, pensions, free education to 18, NATO, regulated private enterprise).
All politics has been about tinkering with other stuff and the issue of scale, competence and running the social democratic state well or badly.
There is no political language or theory to hand which can discuss the social democratic state WRT whether or not it is the best way of running things, and which bits might go. This is what 100% unites the politics of, say, Michael Foot and Mrs T.
Hence the immense silence because it looks as if something will have to give way. Note that Reform/Farage have nothing at all to say about it.
Yet the problem is how do you conceive an alternative - what would that alternative be and how would it work?
We could, I suppose, go a more European (naughty word I know for this time of the day) model with much higher taxes and if we could guarantee improved public services as a result it would be worth it but the general view (which isn't without merit) is we'd end up paying more for less.
We could do things better - no question - but change often requires a big investment of time and/or money which just isn't there currently. Perhaps the two vowels we cannot mention will be transformative - it's certainly likely human ingenuity will achieve some positive results - but in the long run it comes back to the kind of society and world in which we want to live and the consequences of those choices.
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
The state of your membership, that spending cuts is still a vote winner despite the abject mess you left everything in.
Their big debate is whether to talk about spending cuts that they are not going to make or instead whether it is better to talk about bigger spending cuts which are impossible to make.
About the only things left to cut and/or sell off are the NHS and the Armed Forces.
There is lots that could be cut with varying degrees of impact. There is very little that can be cut quickly without ending the political career of the cutter and perhaps their party.
Most of the savings, and there are plenty imo, come later from investment upfront.
Except this Government has no money to invest upfront nor shows any inclination to do so
Food price inflation up and food security down. All so they could get £600m per year which they decided to give to Mauritius anyway. I honestly can't think of a worse government than this one, even Boris had some upsides, this is all downside all the time.
Such bollocks Max. The article itself makes it clear that the main driver behind this is higher input costs. A possible inheritance tax liability at some point in the future should have no bearing on whether a business is viable as a going concern at present.
Agreed. From the graph of closures, it appears that farms starting closing in larger numbers in 2021. It's up this year, but the inheritance tax changes clearly aren't the main cause of the losses over the last few years.
There would also have been the end to EU subsidies in 2021, and a gradual reduction in the replacement schemes since.
Cover for a close associate of a convicted paedophile is never a good look, Senator.
That it even needs saying shows the depths to which the massed ranks of the Republicans have sunk. You would expect at least SOME of them to have broken ranks. Better the wrath of Trump than the wrath of the voters.
Betting warning. The market for next leader of the Conservative Party is for next leader of the Conservative Party, and not, as is being discussed, for the best leader of the Conservative Party.
These two great causes (limiting my betting losses to finite amounts and what is good for the country) are linked, if rather vaguely.
The question: Will Reform win the next election? Is essentially a betting one. Only a finite amount can be said about it. The other question: How will Reform actually govern if they win? Has infinite scope, and IMHO is an underexplored subject both on PB and generally.
The first question is interesting. The second question could be placed in the category of 'National existential', and might affect what you back in the 'End of Civilization As We Know It' Handicap.
That might be an interesting one for one of our constitutionally minded contributors to chew on.
What is possible if RefUK get a majority, and the leader (Farage or other) goes rogue with Orders in Council? What could the Lords do?
One of Trump's proposed tactics was to get the elected chamber to put itself into voluntary recess so that he could do a lot of appointments in the absence of a ratification process. He already appointed "temporary" people to types of post who in theory did not need normal checks (eg Elon Musk's 130 days), or changed the organisation by changing terms of operation of departments (eg I think that was how DOGE became institutionalised).
He appoint Alina Habba as a "Interim US Attorney for NJ", and her 6 months ran out - as she was not confirmed by the local bench (vote amongst NJ judges said no) never got the "Blue Slip" to move to ratification, since it needs to be signed by one of the local Senators, and both are Dems and would not do it. But in a different case, another 6 month post was renewed (similar post in Upstate NY) because the local judges did not hold their vote immediately, so Trump just reappointed him as temporary for a further 6 months.
How secure is our system against such manipulation?
What could Project 2025 look like in the UK?
I am open to being wrong, and I don't support Reform and won't think about them seriously unless and until I read a proper and full manifesto for a five year Reform term of government, but your point is interesting.
My own view FWIW is that Reform during 2025 has entirely U-turned on Trump and Trumpism, has no intention of being anything other than a radical nationalist but constitutional government. Our system is secure. There are several reasons for this, but the most important are the genuine degree of separation of powers, the nature of our Supreme Court and our lack of a directly elected supreme leader.
Trump could get nowhere with his kleptocrat autocracy without a craven and politicised court system and contempt for the rule of law.
As a serious reply, I'm not sure if that fits with the positions that Farage has increasingly been taking, for example in loosening his candidate-vetting system, allowing Pochin to question the suitability of women for (she claims "some") police work, his reluctance to deal with more extreme councillors, and others.
Noted, but I think this is all in the category of local difficulties Farage has in turning the circus of his party and supporters into an election winning outfit. I think a Reform government wiould be a disaster (but wait to see his 2029 manifesto before deciding everything), but not a fascist disaster; more Laurel and Hardy than J.D Vance.
That's your graphics for the next General Election on the BBC - groups of politicians taking a piano up the steps to Parliament.
Ooh, Nigel has issued a notpology for his false claims about 'Protestors being bussed in from the station by the police'.
Nigel Farage has issued an apology after claiming that Essex Police officers had "bussed" counter protesters to a demonstration outside the Bell Hotel in Epping. Mr Farage, the MP for Clacton and leader of Reform UK, had called for the resignation of Chief Constable Ben-Julian Harrington in a social media post.
The force said it was "categorically wrong" to claim that protesters had been transported by police vans to the protest. They later issued drone footage showing a group of people being monitored with a foot cordon on their way to the protest. Some people who were at risk of being hurt were taken away from the area for their safety by vehicle.
Farage and Anderson are wilfully seeking to raise the temperature in regard to the asylum seeker hotel protests - though as far as I know, Farage has never attended the protests he supports in person, presumably because he knows that's a dangerous game. As for the police escorting counter-protestors, I look forward to Farage's comments when the police escort Leeds supporters from the station to their first away game this season.
Hunt is the voice of experience but his NI cuts are a large reason why the Government is in the financial mess it's currently in...
Bullshit.
His tax changes were, net a significant tax rise.
The reason we are in a mess is because we spend too much, and have the triple lock that guarantees we always will.
Well, perhaps or you could argue we raise too little in tax but I realise that might not be a view with which you agree.
More seriously, if we are condemned by past actions to spend nearly £100 billion a year on debt interest payments, that inevitably cuts back the room for manoeuvre and add in the certainty of increased defence spending (which I frankly question) and the inevitability of the demands of an ageing population as well as care costs in general and I'm struggling to see what can be cut to make a meaningful difference.
I'm all for Land Value Taxation as you know - land isn't easy to hide unlike other forms of wealth - and I would rather that than a wealth tax though I can see the advantages of a property value tax if we are going to rebadge Council Tax and make it a more relevant measure fir funding local services (the question of who funds social care and how is another can of worms).
The problem is simply put: 80 years of post WWII social democratic welfare state - all good in principle - means there is no political possibility of bigly rowing back on it. This is true of every rich European country, and even, in its own mysterious way, of the USA.
The current immense silence from Reform (who after all may have to manage this farago quite soon) is revealing. The only interesting things they ever say at the moment about real economics is about increasing state involvement (water) and spending more on welfare (WFA, 2 child cap). They are having to learn where the voters are when it comes to government as opposed to protest. Ask the OAPs of Clacton who should pay for their zimmer.
In a sense the next interesting thing to happen in politics is when Reform have their 2029 manifesto looked at by the IFS. Will they dare to enter the election without saying anything precise and costable at all about tax, spend, cuts, debt and deficit?
There's an irony at work here - the 1979 election was meant to mark the end of Butskellism and the post war concensus but all it seems Thatcherism did was re-invigorate the 1945 settlement and give it another 30-40 years.
The question then becomes can we generate enough economic growth to keep the current "big state" going because no one is able to see a viable and coherent alternative given our demographics.
Indeed. From 1945 until now, and this is widely misunderstood even though it is hiding in plain sight, the 100% consensus in politics has been the social democratic state. (High spend, high tax, NHS, welfare safety net, social housing, pensions, free education to 18, NATO, regulated private enterprise).
All politics has been about tinkering with other stuff and the issue of scale, competence and running the social democratic state well or badly.
There is no political language or theory to hand which can discuss the social democratic state WRT whether or not it is the best way of running things, and which bits might go. This is what 100% unites the politics of, say, Michael Foot and Mrs T.
Hence the immense silence because it looks as if something will have to give way. Note that Reform/Farage have nothing at all to say about it.
Yet the problem is how do you conceive an alternative - what would that alternative be and how would it work?
We could, I suppose, go a more European (naughty word I know for this time of the day) model with much higher taxes and if we could guarantee improved public services as a result it would be worth it but the general view (which isn't without merit) is we'd end up paying more for less.
We could do things better - no question - but change often requires a big investment of time and/or money which just isn't there currently. Perhaps the two vowels we cannot mention will be transformative - it's certainly likely human ingenuity will achieve some positive results - but in the long run it comes back to the kind of society and world in which we want to live and the consequences of those choices.
In general, it seems that politicians and officials have given up on really productivity increases in the public sector.
And no, arbitrary reductions in spending (15!%! C!U!T! {smashes fist into table}) don’t do this.
Some little time ago, I watched £30k being spent on a small playground, by the council. 2 men in a beaten up flatbed lorry installed £5k of equipment and a railing. In 1.5 days.
A relative, who runs a building company, noticed that the price per square foot for building schools exceeds to the price per square foot for building luxury basements* in Kensington.
*putting a basement under an existing building is the most expensive and complex thing you can do, pretty much.
The final by election result is a Con Gain from Green (who did not defend) in Rutland
Barleythorpe ward by-election:
Conservative 209 LibDem 136 Reform 123 Ind 114
Not sure what to make of this. A better Conservative performance in terms of numbers but far from overwhelming and solid interventions from both Reform and the LDs neither of whom contested this seat last time.
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
The state of your membership, that spending cuts is still a vote winner despite the abject mess you left everything in.
Their big debate is whether to talk about spending cuts that they are not going to make or instead whether it is better to talk about bigger spending cuts which are impossible to make.
About the only things left to cut and/or sell off are the NHS and the Armed Forces.
There is lots that could be cut with varying degrees of impact. There is very little that can be cut quickly without ending the political career of the cutter and perhaps their party.
Most of the savings, and there are plenty imo, come later from investment upfront.
If you can't cut, where does the burden fall? Seems that 'activity' taxes on business runs at twice the level of tax on (UK internal) spending. So another tax cut to boost spending is not going to help, nor is burdening UK 'activity'. Time to explore new world (markets) and go where no one (Brit) has gone before. Time to send Leon overseas with a box of samples?
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
The state of your membership, that spending cuts is still a vote winner despite the abject mess you left everything in.
Their big debate is whether to talk about spending cuts that they are not going to make or instead whether it is better to talk about bigger spending cuts which are impossible to make.
About the only things left to cut and/or sell off are the NHS and the Armed Forces.
There is lots that could be cut with varying degrees of impact. There is very little that can be cut quickly without ending the political career of the cutter and perhaps their party.
Most of the savings, and there are plenty imo, come later from investment upfront.
Except this Government has no money to invest upfront nor shows any inclination to do so
There's also the timeline, as Brown found, your investment in Surestart etc doesn't show any benefits for 5-10 years, you receive no credit as you've been voted out and it just mitigates the cuts made by your successors for a few years.
The final by election result is a Con Gain from Green (who did not defend) in Rutland
Barleythorpe ward by-election:
Conservative 209 LibDem 136 Reform 123 Ind 114
Not sure what to make of this. A better Conservative performance in terms of numbers but far from overwhelming and solid interventions from both Reform and the LDs neither of whom contested this seat last time.
Con candidate was Andrew Dinsmore formerly of Fulham who's moved up to Rutland. Its not a traditional Tory ward although they have held it at times and Barleythorpe is very new. Odd result, but Rutland and Stamford is a good 'stay blue' candidate for 2029
Hunt is the voice of experience but his NI cuts are a large reason why the Government is in the financial mess it's currently in...
Bullshit.
His tax changes were, net a significant tax rise.
The reason we are in a mess is because we spend too much, and have the triple lock that guarantees we always will.
Well, perhaps or you could argue we raise too little in tax but I realise that might not be a view with which you agree.
More seriously, if we are condemned by past actions to spend nearly £100 billion a year on debt interest payments, that inevitably cuts back the room for manoeuvre and add in the certainty of increased defence spending (which I frankly question) and the inevitability of the demands of an ageing population as well as care costs in general and I'm struggling to see what can be cut to make a meaningful difference.
I'm all for Land Value Taxation as you know - land isn't easy to hide unlike other forms of wealth - and I would rather that than a wealth tax though I can see the advantages of a property value tax if we are going to rebadge Council Tax and make it a more relevant measure fir funding local services (the question of who funds social care and how is another can of worms).
The problem is simply put: 80 years of post WWII social democratic welfare state - all good in principle - means there is no political possibility of bigly rowing back on it. This is true of every rich European country, and even, in its own mysterious way, of the USA.
The current immense silence from Reform (who after all may have to manage this farago quite soon) is revealing. The only interesting things they ever say at the moment about real economics is about increasing state involvement (water) and spending more on welfare (WFA, 2 child cap). They are having to learn where the voters are when it comes to government as opposed to protest. Ask the OAPs of Clacton who should pay for their zimmer.
In a sense the next interesting thing to happen in politics is when Reform have their 2029 manifesto looked at by the IFS. Will they dare to enter the election without saying anything precise and costable at all about tax, spend, cuts, debt and deficit?
There's an irony at work here - the 1979 election was meant to mark the end of Butskellism and the post war concensus but all it seems Thatcherism did was re-invigorate the 1945 settlement and give it another 30-40 years.
The question then becomes can we generate enough economic growth to keep the current "big state" going because no one is able to see a viable and coherent alternative given our demographics.
Indeed. From 1945 until now, and this is widely misunderstood even though it is hiding in plain sight, the 100% consensus in politics has been the social democratic state. (High spend, high tax, NHS, welfare safety net, social housing, pensions, free education to 18, NATO, regulated private enterprise).
All politics has been about tinkering with other stuff and the issue of scale, competence and running the social democratic state well or badly.
There is no political language or theory to hand which can discuss the social democratic state WRT whether or not it is the best way of running things, and which bits might go. This is what 100% unites the politics of, say, Michael Foot and Mrs T.
Hence the immense silence because it looks as if something will have to give way. Note that Reform/Farage have nothing at all to say about it.
Yet the problem is how do you conceive an alternative - what would that alternative be and how would it work?
We could, I suppose, go a more European (naughty word I know for this time of the day) model with much higher taxes and if we could guarantee improved public services as a result it would be worth it but the general view (which isn't without merit) is we'd end up paying more for less.
We could do things better - no question - but change often requires a big investment of time and/or money which just isn't there currently. Perhaps the two vowels we cannot mention will be transformative - it's certainly likely human ingenuity will achieve some positive results - but in the long run it comes back to the kind of society and world in which we want to live and the consequences of those choices.
In general, it seems that politicians and officials have given up on really productivity increases in the public sector.
And no, arbitrary reductions in spending (15!%! C!U!T! {smashes fist into table}) don’t do this.
Some little time ago, I watched £30k being spent on a small playground, by the council. 2 men in a beaten up flatbed lorry installed £5k of equipment and a railing. In 1.5 days.
A relative, who runs a building company, noticed that the price per square foot for building schools exceeds to the price per square foot for building luxury basements* in Kensington.
*putting a basement under an existing building is the most expensive and complex thing you can do, pretty much.
School buildings have to be built to exacting standards in terms of suitability and capacity so I'm not surprised at the overall cost. You can also only work six weeks per year (now, actually) on the big stuff which further complicates your costs.
We're back to the "productivity" thing - how do you measure the productivity of an adult or child social care worker - by their caseload? As far as most local councils are concerned, the big costs are Adults and Children and the greater part of the work force is in education so you're looking at teachers, school admin and classroom assistants and that's regulated by law.
Oddly enough, if the demographics are right, the numbers on rolls will be falling off and that will free up capacity in the social care and education sectors (as well as land and buildings for redevelopment) and reduce costs so in 10-20 years it might look very different. That will be counterbalanced by increasing demands and costs in the adult care sector.
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
You have a weird tendresse for Mel Stride. There's no way that the Tories are going to go through all of the trauma of knifing a leader just to replace them with someone as vapid as Stride. Some people enhance their office and others are enhanced by it. He's definitely the latter and everyone knows it. I remember when Stride was widely loathed for having to implement the Loan Charge.
I honestly don't think Mel Stride is likely to set the heather alight. He's competent, but not a game-changer and, I suspect, is very little known to the public. The Tories need someone with a stronger profile.
If you want someone reassuring, then it's obviously got to be Hunt, assuming Cleverly is not interested. On reflection, I think Hunt is the better choice anyway. He would certainly be the LibDems least-favourite Tory leader which is a good enough reason on its own.
The Tories brought back Michael Howard who did a good job for them in tricky circumstances, and Hunt is certainly more voter-friendly than "something of the night" Howard. The man to watch.
Katie Lam seems like a Tory wet dream to me. Elements of Thatcher and Reform. A better speaker than Badenoch, but still quite feisty. Obviously the fact she is white will probably make quite a few right wingers prefer her to the incumbent as well
Katie Lam has only been in Parliament for five minutes (technically a whole year now). Future leader, maybe. Next leader, no.
True. If Badenoch does fight, and lose, the GE then she might be a runner
That it even needs saying shows the depths to which the massed ranks of the Republicans have sunk. You would expect at least SOME of them to have broken ranks. Better the wrath of Trump than the wrath of the voters.
This is the bit I don't understand
What do they think happens after Trump?
He's not gonna live for ever (maybe not even 4 years)
Is sucking (up to) Trump really the best way to get the next guy to like you?
The final by election result is a Con Gain from Green (who did not defend) in Rutland
Barleythorpe ward by-election:
Conservative 209 LibDem 136 Reform 123 Ind 114
Not sure what to make of this. A better Conservative performance in terms of numbers but far from overwhelming and solid interventions from both Reform and the LDs neither of whom contested this seat last time.
Con candidate was Andrew Dinsmore formerly of Fulham who's moved up to Rutland. Its not a traditional Tory ward although they have held it at times and Barleythorpe is very new. Odd result, but Rutland and Stamford is a good 'stay blue' candidate for 2029
The final by election result is a Con Gain from Green (who did not defend) in Rutland
Barleythorpe ward by-election:
Conservative 209 LibDem 136 Reform 123 Ind 114
Not sure what to make of this. A better Conservative performance in terms of numbers but far from overwhelming and solid interventions from both Reform and the LDs neither of whom contested this seat last time.
Con candidate was Andrew Dinsmore formerly of Fulham who's moved up to Rutland. Its not a traditional Tory ward although they have held it at times and Barleythorpe is very new. Odd result, but Rutland and Stamford is a good 'stay blue' candidate for 2029
Given Alicia Kearns had a five figure majority last year, that's a pretty safe bet.
Indeed, it was one of only five Conservative held seats with majorities over 10,000 and it is the fifth safest Conservative seat. The four safer ones are.....well, you can either figure it out or look it up, do the former, it's more fun.
Consistent with pardon bring offered in exchange for dirt in senior Democrats a look no with a Trump whitewash.
I wouldn't call her a victim, but it is notable that the only person jailed for this sex trafficking and child abuse network that seemingly involved a large number of wealthy and powerful men is a woman.
And Epstein himself, of course.
That she is currently being 'interviewed' by Trump's former defence lawyer, in an unrecorded session, is pretty obvious in its intent.
Any testimony she might offer is, to be generous, utterly worthless.
From Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing memo: "Taken together with the defendant's perjury in her civil deposition, her lies to Pretrial Services, and her blatant lies about her own weight while in BOP custody, the Court can fairly reject many of the defendant's complaints about her conditions of confinement. Simply put, the defendant lies when it suits her." https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1948421427105034639
If they really want to find out what Epstein, Trump and Maxwell got up to, wouldn't it be better to interview the victims rather than the alleged perpetrators?
It shouldn't be a radical idea...
Hence the tens of thousands of pages of evidence (not to mention the videos) that hasn't been released.
And that's just the stuff that went to the grand jury.
The judge was probably correct, since the government gave no good reasons, other than political convenience, for releasing those files. And given they were materials gather for the purpose of prosecuting Epstein, they will very likely omit most of the material (should it exist) about his clients,
The witness testimonies go into very considerable detail about the clients, from what has been made public.
SFAICS nothing prevents the media, anywhere in the world, talking to the victims and publishing what they have to say. There has been remarkably little of this I think.
Victims are probably all too aware that if they do so then there is a high likelihood of them being persecuted on social and mainstream media and their life ruined.
Badenoch will hope her spending cuts plans and likely proposal the leave the ECHR will win back enough Thatcherites who have gone Reform to save her leadership and avoid major losses in the local elections next year.
If not then Stride or Jenrick would likely be the next leader, remember when IDS was removed it was his Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard made leader by coronation and Stride now holds that role. If Stride did not stand, Hunt might make a third leadership bid but Stride would be most likely to get ex Badenoch and ex Cleverly backing Tory MPs behind him if Kemi was removed to keep out Jenrick. Stride or Hunt would be the most likely to hold the 2024 Sunak Conservative vote too.
Burghart is one of the few heavyweights in the Shadow Cabinet and is one to watch longer term
You have a weird tendresse for Mel Stride. There's no way that the Tories are going to go through all of the trauma of knifing a leader just to replace them with someone as vapid as Stride. Some people enhance their office and others are enhanced by it. He's definitely the latter and everyone knows it. I remember when Stride was widely loathed for having to implement the Loan Charge.
I honestly don't think Mel Stride is likely to set the heather alight. He's competent, but not a game-changer and, I suspect, is very little known to the public. The Tories need someone with a stronger profile.
If you want someone reassuring, then it's obviously got to be Hunt, assuming Cleverly is not interested. On reflection, I think Hunt is the better choice anyway. He would certainly be the LibDems least-favourite Tory leader which is a good enough reason on its own.
The Tories brought back Michael Howard who did a good job for them in tricky circumstances, and Hunt is certainly more voter-friendly than "something of the night" Howard. The man to watch.
Katie Lam seems like a Tory wet dream to me. Elements of Thatcher and Reform. A better speaker than Badenoch, but still quite feisty. Obviously the fact she is white will probably make quite a few right wingers prefer her to the incumbent as well
Katie Lam has only been in Parliament for five minutes (technically a whole year now). Future leader, maybe. Next leader, no.
Lam seems to me to be a female, somewhat younger, version of Chris Philps. She was more of a Westminster insider, he a councillor.
He echoes Jenrick in his themes, so does she. Both can sound somewhat authoritarian afaics, which the Right will like.
One question: Lam is single I think, at 33. How does that ride with today's Tory Party, given what I think is a swing away from Cameroonian values? Have there been any senior single women since Ann Widdecombe?
The final by election result is a Con Gain from Green (who did not defend) in Rutland
Barleythorpe ward by-election:
Conservative 209 LibDem 136 Reform 123 Ind 114
Not sure what to make of this. A better Conservative performance in terms of numbers but far from overwhelming and solid interventions from both Reform and the LDs neither of whom contested this seat last time.
Con candidate was Andrew Dinsmore formerly of Fulham who's moved up to Rutland. Its not a traditional Tory ward although they have held it at times and Barleythorpe is very new. Odd result, but Rutland and Stamford is a good 'stay blue' candidate for 2029
Given Alicia Kearns had a five figure majority last year, that's a pretty safe bet.
Indeed, it was one of only five Conservative held seats with majorities over 10,000 and it is the fifth safest Conservative seat. The four safer ones are.....well, you can either figure it out or look it up, do the former, it's more fun.
Ill guess - Richmond, Harrow East, Hertsmere and Tonbridge?
The final by election result is a Con Gain from Green (who did not defend) in Rutland
Barleythorpe ward by-election:
Conservative 209 LibDem 136 Reform 123 Ind 114
Not sure what to make of this. A better Conservative performance in terms of numbers but far from overwhelming and solid interventions from both Reform and the LDs neither of whom contested this seat last time.
Con candidate was Andrew Dinsmore formerly of Fulham who's moved up to Rutland. Its not a traditional Tory ward although they have held it at times and Barleythorpe is very new. Odd result, but Rutland and Stamford is a good 'stay blue' candidate for 2029
Given Alicia Kearns had a five figure majority last year, that's a pretty safe bet.
Indeed, it was one of only five Conservative held seats with majorities over 10,000 and it is the fifth safest Conservative seat. The four safer ones are.....well, you can either figure it out or look it up, do the former, it's more fun.
I think the little quadrant/area of Newark, Rushcliffe, Rutland/Stamford, Peterborough and Harborough/Oadby will be an island of dark blue next time (edit - and Melton)
Hunt is the voice of experience but his NI cuts are a large reason why the Government is in the financial mess it's currently in...
Bullshit.
His tax changes were, net a significant tax rise.
The reason we are in a mess is because we spend too much, and have the triple lock that guarantees we always will.
Well, perhaps or you could argue we raise too little in tax but I realise that might not be a view with which you agree.
More seriously, if we are condemned by past actions to spend nearly £100 billion a year on debt interest payments, that inevitably cuts back the room for manoeuvre and add in the certainty of increased defence spending (which I frankly question) and the inevitability of the demands of an ageing population as well as care costs in general and I'm struggling to see what can be cut to make a meaningful difference.
I'm all for Land Value Taxation as you know - land isn't easy to hide unlike other forms of wealth - and I would rather that than a wealth tax though I can see the advantages of a property value tax if we are going to rebadge Council Tax and make it a more relevant measure fir funding local services (the question of who funds social care and how is another can of worms).
The problem is simply put: 80 years of post WWII social democratic welfare state - all good in principle - means there is no political possibility of bigly rowing back on it. This is true of every rich European country, and even, in its own mysterious way, of the USA.
The current immense silence from Reform (who after all may have to manage this farago quite soon) is revealing. The only interesting things they ever say at the moment about real economics is about increasing state involvement (water) and spending more on welfare (WFA, 2 child cap). They are having to learn where the voters are when it comes to government as opposed to protest. Ask the OAPs of Clacton who should pay for their zimmer.
In a sense the next interesting thing to happen in politics is when Reform have their 2029 manifesto looked at by the IFS. Will they dare to enter the election without saying anything precise and costable at all about tax, spend, cuts, debt and deficit?
There's an irony at work here - the 1979 election was meant to mark the end of Butskellism and the post war concensus but all it seems Thatcherism did was re-invigorate the 1945 settlement and give it another 30-40 years.
The question then becomes can we generate enough economic growth to keep the current "big state" going because no one is able to see a viable and coherent alternative given our demographics.
Indeed. From 1945 until now, and this is widely misunderstood even though it is hiding in plain sight, the 100% consensus in politics has been the social democratic state. (High spend, high tax, NHS, welfare safety net, social housing, pensions, free education to 18, NATO, regulated private enterprise).
All politics has been about tinkering with other stuff and the issue of scale, competence and running the social democratic state well or badly.
There is no political language or theory to hand which can discuss the social democratic state WRT whether or not it is the best way of running things, and which bits might go. This is what 100% unites the politics of, say, Michael Foot and Mrs T.
Hence the immense silence because it looks as if something will have to give way. Note that Reform/Farage have nothing at all to say about it.
Yet the problem is how do you conceive an alternative - what would that alternative be and how would it work?
We could, I suppose, go a more European (naughty word I know for this time of the day) model with much higher taxes and if we could guarantee improved public services as a result it would be worth it but the general view (which isn't without merit) is we'd end up paying more for less.
We could do things better - no question - but change often requires a big investment of time and/or money which just isn't there currently. Perhaps the two vowels we cannot mention will be transformative - it's certainly likely human ingenuity will achieve some positive results - but in the long run it comes back to the kind of society and world in which we want to live and the consequences of those choices.
In general, it seems that politicians and officials have given up on really productivity increases in the public sector.
And no, arbitrary reductions in spending (15!%! C!U!T! {smashes fist into table}) don’t do this.
Some little time ago, I watched £30k being spent on a small playground, by the council. 2 men in a beaten up flatbed lorry installed £5k of equipment and a railing. In 1.5 days.
A relative, who runs a building company, noticed that the price per square foot for building schools exceeds to the price per square foot for building luxury basements* in Kensington.
*putting a basement under an existing building is the most expensive and complex thing you can do, pretty much.
"A relative, who runs a building company, noticed that the price per square foot for building schools exceeds to the price per square foot for building luxury basements* in Kensington."
My parents' old house was adjacent to a primary school (it was the school I attended for a couple of years, and as I had a key if I ever said "I left my homework at home", they would send me home to get it).
It was a single-storey building, and when it underwent renovation, my dad was amused to see that a scaffolding staircase had been built up to the roof. In his day, the men would just have used ladders. And as I walk around the new housing around here, I see lots of safety and time-saving related stuff, all of which costs money. It's probably better for the workers, though.
Food price inflation up and food security down. All so they could get £600m per year which they decided to give to Mauritius anyway. I honestly can't think of a worse government than this one, even Boris had some upsides, this is all downside all the time.
Such bollocks Max. The article itself makes it clear that the main driver behind this is higher input costs. A possible inheritance tax liability at some point in the future should have no bearing on whether a business is viable as a going concern at present.
Agreed. From the graph of closures, it appears that farms starting closing in larger numbers in 2021. It's up this year, but the inheritance tax changes clearly aren't the main cause of the losses over the last few years.
There would also have been the end to EU subsidies in 2021, and a gradual reduction in the replacement schemes since.
Consistent with pardon bring offered in exchange for dirt in senior Democrats a look no with a Trump whitewash.
I wouldn't call her a victim, but it is notable that the only person jailed for this sex trafficking and child abuse network that seemingly involved a large number of wealthy and powerful men is a woman.
And Epstein himself, of course.
That she is currently being 'interviewed' by Trump's former defence lawyer, in an unrecorded session, is pretty obvious in its intent.
Any testimony she might offer is, to be generous, utterly worthless.
From Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing memo: "Taken together with the defendant's perjury in her civil deposition, her lies to Pretrial Services, and her blatant lies about her own weight while in BOP custody, the Court can fairly reject many of the defendant's complaints about her conditions of confinement. Simply put, the defendant lies when it suits her." https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1948421427105034639
If they really want to find out what Epstein, Trump and Maxwell got up to, wouldn't it be better to interview the victims rather than the alleged perpetrators?
It shouldn't be a radical idea...
Hence the tens of thousands of pages of evidence (not to mention the videos) that hasn't been released.
And that's just the stuff that went to the grand jury.
The judge was probably correct, since the government gave no good reasons, other than political convenience, for releasing those files. And given they were materials gather for the purpose of prosecuting Epstein, they will very likely omit most of the material (should it exist) about his clients,
The witness testimonies go into very considerable detail about the clients, from what has been made public.
SFAICS nothing prevents the media, anywhere in the world, talking to the victims and publishing what they have to say. There has been remarkably little of this I think.
Victims are probably all too aware that if they do so then there is a high likelihood of them being persecuted on social and mainstream media and their life ruined.
As I pointed out the other day, Epstein's Estate has paid out 100+ settlements comprising $100m+.
NDAs will be in force, surely?
There's also plenty of material in submissions in a lot of lawsuits I think; a lot of people are looking in the wrong places. But as you say there is surely a lot which is currently being sat on; a lot will emerge when Trump is 6 feet under.
The final by election result is a Con Gain from Green (who did not defend) in Rutland
Barleythorpe ward by-election:
Conservative 209 LibDem 136 Reform 123 Ind 114
Not sure what to make of this. A better Conservative performance in terms of numbers but far from overwhelming and solid interventions from both Reform and the LDs neither of whom contested this seat last time.
Con candidate was Andrew Dinsmore formerly of Fulham who's moved up to Rutland. Its not a traditional Tory ward although they have held it at times and Barleythorpe is very new. Odd result, but Rutland and Stamford is a good 'stay blue' candidate for 2029
The final by election result is a Con Gain from Green (who did not defend) in Rutland
Barleythorpe ward by-election:
Conservative 209 LibDem 136 Reform 123 Ind 114
Not sure what to make of this. A better Conservative performance in terms of numbers but far from overwhelming and solid interventions from both Reform and the LDs neither of whom contested this seat last time.
Con candidate was Andrew Dinsmore formerly of Fulham who's moved up to Rutland. Its not a traditional Tory ward although they have held it at times and Barleythorpe is very new. Odd result, but Rutland and Stamford is a good 'stay blue' candidate for 2029
The final by election result is a Con Gain from Green (who did not defend) in Rutland
Barleythorpe ward by-election:
Conservative 209 LibDem 136 Reform 123 Ind 114
Not sure what to make of this. A better Conservative performance in terms of numbers but far from overwhelming and solid interventions from both Reform and the LDs neither of whom contested this seat last time.
Con candidate was Andrew Dinsmore formerly of Fulham who's moved up to Rutland. Its not a traditional Tory ward although they have held it at times and Barleythorpe is very new. Odd result, but Rutland and Stamford is a good 'stay blue' candidate for 2029
Cover for a close associate of a convicted paedophile is never a good look, Senator.
That it even needs saying shows the depths to which the massed ranks of the Republicans have sunk. You would expect at least SOME of them to have broken ranks. Better the wrath of Trump than the wrath of the voters.
Ooh, Nigel has issued a notpology for his false claims about 'Protestors being bussed in from the station by the police'.
Nigel Farage has issued an apology after claiming that Essex Police officers had "bussed" counter protesters to a demonstration outside the Bell Hotel in Epping. Mr Farage, the MP for Clacton and leader of Reform UK, had called for the resignation of Chief Constable Ben-Julian Harrington in a social media post.
The force said it was "categorically wrong" to claim that protesters had been transported by police vans to the protest. They later issued drone footage showing a group of people being monitored with a foot cordon on their way to the protest. Some people who were at risk of being hurt were taken away from the area for their safety by vehicle.
Farage and Anderson are wilfully seeking to raise the temperature in regard to the asylum seeker hotel protests - though as far as I know, Farage has never attended the protests he supports in person, presumably because he knows that's a dangerous game. As for the police escorting counter-protestors, I look forward to Farage's comments when the police escort Leeds supporters from the station to their first away game this season.
The final by election result is a Con Gain from Green (who did not defend) in Rutland
Barleythorpe ward by-election:
Conservative 209 LibDem 136 Reform 123 Ind 114
Not sure what to make of this. A better Conservative performance in terms of numbers but far from overwhelming and solid interventions from both Reform and the LDs neither of whom contested this seat last time.
Con candidate was Andrew Dinsmore formerly of Fulham who's moved up to Rutland. Its not a traditional Tory ward although they have held it at times and Barleythorpe is very new. Odd result, but Rutland and Stamford is a good 'stay blue' candidate for 2029
Given Alicia Kearns had a five figure majority last year, that's a pretty safe bet.
Indeed, it was one of only five Conservative held seats with majorities over 10,000 and it is the fifth safest Conservative seat. The four safer ones are.....well, you can either figure it out or look it up, do the former, it's more fun.
I think the little quadrant/area of Newark, Rushcliffe, Rutland/Stamford, Peterborough and Harborough/Oadby will be an island of dark blue next time (edit - and Melton)
Not so sure, Melton and Syston looks pretty Reformey to me.
Alicia Kearns may well be one of the few Tories surviving the GE, helped by not being as mad as a box of frogs, and working her constituency well.
I actually quite like Nadine Dorries. A rare politician with no pretences.
Nevertheless she's wrong about everything.
I'm really not sure about that - is she not still in a strop because "Baroness Dorries" failed to materialise?
That was hilarious. Not that she would be the worst Peer ever appointed, in fact on paper she qualifies fine, but in how blatant her upset was at being denied a treat.
The final by election result is a Con Gain from Green (who did not defend) in Rutland
Barleythorpe ward by-election:
Conservative 209 LibDem 136 Reform 123 Ind 114
Not sure what to make of this. A better Conservative performance in terms of numbers but far from overwhelming and solid interventions from both Reform and the LDs neither of whom contested this seat last time.
Con candidate was Andrew Dinsmore formerly of Fulham who's moved up to Rutland. Its not a traditional Tory ward although they have held it at times and Barleythorpe is very new. Odd result, but Rutland and Stamford is a good 'stay blue' candidate for 2029
Given Alicia Kearns had a five figure majority last year, that's a pretty safe bet.
Indeed, it was one of only five Conservative held seats with majorities over 10,000 and it is the fifth safest Conservative seat. The four safer ones are.....well, you can either figure it out or look it up, do the former, it's more fun.
I think the little quadrant/area of Newark, Rushcliffe, Rutland/Stamford, Peterborough and Harborough/Oadby will be an island of dark blue next time (edit - and Melton)
Not so sure, Melton and Syston looks pretty Reformey to me.
Alicia Kearns may well be one of the few Tories surviving the GE, helped by not being as mad as a box of frogs, and working her constituency well.
If the Tories hold on to their vote they'll hold it imo, the 38% will be enough, Lab, Ld and Green will pick up 25% between them
Clarkson was right. Unless it's for work or a spectacular pay rise, emigration just turns you into somebody who constantly moans.
"The primary purpose of the British constabulary is to suppress the unruly passions of a native population it holds in contempt."
Does Clarkson ever get tired of talking bollocks?
Our police (and I am closely related to, and acquainted with, a few) are actually remarkably respectful of, and friendly to, the population in general as long as you're not a criminal. There are plenty of countries in the world where the police are contemptuous of, or actively hostile to, the masses, but this isn't one of them.
The issue isn't the attitude of the police, it's that they have to follow the rulings of an arrogant, cynical and incompetent political class, of which our Prime Minister and his cronies are the stereotypical example, who really do want to suppress a population, or parts of it anyway, they hold in contempt.
What a load of impartial forelock tugging bullshit.
But I guess your perspective of plod depends on where you are in society and where you are geographically
I know this is sacrilege, but I'd actually like India to win, or at least draw, this test. It's been such a marvellous series that it would be great to have a decider at the Oval, rather than the dead game it will be if England win this one.
Michael Gove, Jesse Norman, Boris Johnson and Adam Afriyie are favourites to succeed David Cameron, says MP
Three Tory MPs - Michael Gove, Jesse Norman and Adam Afriyie - and London Mayor Boris Johnson are in the frame to succeed David Cameron, a maverick fellow MP has claimed.
Clarkson was right. Unless it's for work or a spectacular pay rise, emigration just turns you into somebody who constantly moans.
"The primary purpose of the British constabulary is to suppress the unruly passions of a native population it holds in contempt."
Does Clarkson ever get tired of talking bollocks?
Our police (and I am closely related to, and acquainted with, a few) are actually remarkably respectful of, and friendly to, the population in general as long as you're not a criminal. There are plenty of countries in the world where the police are contemptuous of, or actively hostile to, the masses, but this isn't one of them.
The issue isn't the attitude of the police, it's that they have to follow the rulings of an arrogant, cynical and incompetent political class, of which our Prime Minister and his cronies are the stereotypical example, who really do want to suppress a population, or parts of it anyway, they hold in contempt.
What a load of impartial forelock tugging bullshit.
But I guess your perspective of plod depends on where you are in society and where you are geographically
It's may also be the difference between the rank and file and the Senior Management Team (SMT).
The SMT are uniformly (ha!) held in contempt by the rank and file.
The classic was the senior officer who was present at the time that a policeman was stabbed to death at Parliament. Right in front of him. The senior officer didn't intervene, but locked himself in his armoured, chauffeur driven car. He said that this was due to the fact that he wasn't wearing body armour.
Said officer used to amuse himself by berating staff in police stations, in the secure areas (behind locked doors, police only) for not wearing their body armour.
When he retired a little time later, he didn't get much of a send off. So an email snotty gram was sent out berating more junior police officers for showing *enough enthusiasm* at the laudatory speeches etc at the leaving do. Yes, literally, "Not enough clapping for The Leader".
I'm quite sure his opinion of the public matched his apparent opinion of the lower levels of the Police Farce.
Remarkable indeed. Going by your commentary, I'd have expected those numbers to be much higher.
It would be interesting to know if a PB commenter is allowed to say “I agree with more than half the British people, and Islam is not compatible with British values”
Or would that get the commenter banned like @williamglenn on the grounds that the PB centrist dads find this opinion “unacceptable”
I know this is sacrilege, but I'd actually like India to win, or at least draw, this test. It's been such a marvellous series that it would be great to have a decider at the Oval, rather than the dead game it will be if England win this one.
I sort of agree. An exciting match at The Oval would be good for cricket in general.
Remarkable indeed. Going by your commentary, I'd have expected those numbers to be much higher.
It would be interesting to know if a PB commenter is allowed to say “I agree with more than half the British people, and Islam is not compatible with British values”
Or would that get the commenter banned like @williamglenn on the grounds that the PB centrist dads find this opinion “unacceptable”
Centrist dad? I'm a socialist grandad, if you don't mind.
Remarkable indeed. Going by your commentary, I'd have expected those numbers to be much higher.
It would be interesting to know if a PB commenter is allowed to say “I agree with more than half the British people, and Islam is not compatible with British values”
Or would that get the commenter banned like @williamglenn on the grounds that the PB centrist dads find this opinion “unacceptable”
Passive aggressive Leon is one of your less appealing incarnations.
Remarkable indeed. Going by your commentary, I'd have expected those numbers to be much higher.
It would be interesting to know if a PB commenter is allowed to say “I agree with more than half the British people, and Islam is not compatible with British values”
Or would that get the commenter banned like @williamglenn on the grounds that the PB centrist dads find this opinion “unacceptable”
Passive aggressive Leon is one of your less appealing incarnations.
Comments
"the number of farms is shrinking at the fastest pace on record."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/07/24/record-number-of-farms-shut-in-wake-of-inheritance-tax-raid
Despite the claim of Eretz Israel experts that Israel 'doesn't give a shit', given that they suck off the worst people to help their claim to be a bulwark of western civilisation and to keep the weapons flowing, try and finagle Eurovision votes and deploy bot armies to attack any vaguely pro Palestinian utterance, it's obvious that they very evidently do give a shit. Alongside all their military successes (yay, we terror attacked those Herzbollah mofos via their pagers and our snipers are double tapping Gazan kids!), Israel's inability to find ANY sympathetic spokespeople to make their case to the wider world must count as a strategic failure.
The current immense silence from Reform (who after all may have to manage this farago quite soon) is revealing. The only interesting things they ever say at the moment about real economics is about increasing state involvement (water) and spending more on welfare (WFA, 2 child cap). They are having to learn where the voters are when it comes to government as opposed to protest. Ask the OAPs of Clacton who should pay for their zimmer.
In a sense the next interesting thing to happen in politics is when Reform have their 2029 manifesto looked at by the IFS. Will they dare to enter the election without saying anything precise and costable at all about tax, spend, cuts, debt and deficit?
Penge and Cator might be interesting as might Plaistow but they would be for me longer shots for Reform.
NOC certainly looks most likely with the Conservatives the largest party.
It does seem as if the conservatives had a better night, and I am far from convinced Reform will continue to be flavour of the moment over the coming months and years
With Corbyn - Sultana entering the fray and Labour in the doldrums it may be that Labour have the bigger problems, certainly under Starmer and Reeves
Anyway I remain a conservative voter, but not member, though in the next GE it will be Plaid to defeat our Labour mp
I'm quite attached to this country -- apart from the lack of sunlight it has many advantages over other parts f the world and few of the disadvantages -- but if Reform ever get in I will give serious thought to moving somewhere else. I suspect it will mark a move into possibly terminal national decline, and the search for scapegoats will become dangerous for my family.
The question then becomes can we generate enough economic growth to keep the current "big state" going because no one is able to see a viable and coherent alternative given our demographics.
My own view FWIW is that Reform during 2025 has entirely U-turned on Trump and Trumpism, has no intention of being anything other than a radical nationalist but constitutional government. Our system is secure. There are several reasons for this, but the most important are the genuine degree of separation of powers, the nature of our Supreme Court and our lack of a directly elected supreme leader.
Trump could get nowhere with his kleptocrat autocracy without a craven and politicised court system and contempt for the rule of law.
The DOJ has a huge number of files regarding Epstein. Publishing them (with names redacted if necessary, to avoid prejudicing future criminal cases) would be a start.
Seriously, BigG? Plaid? Ethon-nationalism? And far-left at that?
Jeezo.
Tim Stanley
@timothy_stanley
Sketch: "Jeremy Corbyn has invited suggestions for what to call his new party, after discovering that 'Hamas' is already taken."
https://x.com/timothy_stanley/status/1948498644836962347
Nigel Farage has issued an apology after claiming that Essex Police officers had "bussed" counter protesters to a demonstration outside the Bell Hotel in Epping. Mr Farage, the MP for Clacton and leader of Reform UK, had called for the resignation of Chief Constable Ben-Julian Harrington in a social media post.
The force said it was "categorically wrong" to claim that protesters had been transported by police vans to the protest. They later issued drone footage showing a group of people being monitored with a foot cordon on their way to the protest. Some people who were at risk of being hurt were taken away from the area for their safety by vehicle.
Mr Harrington said that accusations that officers drove people to the protest were “not true”. Mr Farage, meanwhile, said he apologised if he was "slightly out on accuracy" but "the gist of what I was saying was right".
https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/nigel-farage-makes-apology-after-10372291
One for @Luckyguy1983
All politics has been about tinkering with other stuff and the issue of scale, competence and running the social democratic state well or badly.
There is no political language or theory to hand which can discuss the social democratic state WRT whether or not it is the best way of running things, and which bits might go. This is what 100% unites the politics of, say, Michael Foot and Mrs T.
Hence the immense silence because it looks as if something will have to give way. Note that Reform/Farage have nothing at all to say about it.
The modern Conservative party is nothing whatsoever like that of the 50's and 60's.
Having said that, neither is the Labour Party like it's earlier incarnation, a coalition between Methodism and Marx.
I am by nature an optimist, and I've never been one to hark back to a misremembered youth when everything was 'better'. A lot wasn't but at least people seemed to have an idea of how the future could be.
If you want someone reassuring, then it's obviously got to be Hunt, assuming Cleverly is not interested. On reflection, I think Hunt is the better choice anyway. He would certainly be the LibDems least-favourite Tory leader which is a good enough reason on its own.
The Tories brought back Michael Howard who did a good job for them in tricky circumstances, and Hunt is certainly more voter-friendly than "something of the night" Howard. The man to watch.
OTOH a piece would be a "how could it work here" thought experiment. My take is that we have far stronger checks and balances - a small example would be the Warwickshire Chief Executive who refused to change the flags policy until the Minority Council Leader had gone through the proper process - which Farage termed "obstructivism".
..The department previously said it had around 200 documents relating to Epstein and that the FBI had thousands more.
It is unknown how much of this is grand jury testimony...
together with the keenness of the government to unseal the grand jury testimony - in contrast to its extreme reluctance to do the same with the FBI/DOJ files - I would hazard a guess that most of the *interesting* stuff is not in the former.
“What we’re simply trying to do here is give President Trump cover.” - Senator Markwayne Mullin
https://x.com/GavinNewsom/status/1948449964054774117
Most of the savings, and there are plenty imo, come later from investment upfront.
Epstein remains silent on Trump connection
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Q7vrdW1bn7s
We could, I suppose, go a more European (naughty word I know for this time of the day) model with much higher taxes and if we could guarantee improved public services as a result it would be worth it but the general view (which isn't without merit) is we'd end up paying more for less.
We could do things better - no question - but change often requires a big investment of time and/or money which just isn't there currently. Perhaps the two vowels we cannot mention will be transformative - it's certainly likely human ingenuity will achieve some positive results - but in the long run it comes back to the kind of society and world in which we want to live and the consequences of those choices.
Barleythorpe ward by-election:
Conservative 209
LibDem 136
Reform 123
Ind 114
There would also have been the end to EU subsidies in 2021, and a gradual reduction in the replacement schemes since.
That it even needs saying shows the depths to which the massed ranks of the Republicans have sunk. You would expect at least SOME of them to have broken ranks. Better the wrath of Trump than the wrath of the voters.
Remember Jeremy Vine as Doc Holliday?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7JX8D1Kb88
And no, arbitrary reductions in spending (15!%! C!U!T! {smashes fist into table}) don’t do this.
Some little time ago, I watched £30k being spent on a small playground, by the council. 2 men in a beaten up flatbed lorry installed £5k of equipment and a railing. In 1.5 days.
A relative, who runs a building company, noticed that the price per square foot for building schools exceeds to the price per square foot for building luxury basements* in Kensington.
*putting a basement under an existing building is the most expensive and complex thing you can do, pretty much.
Nevertheless she's wrong about everything.
Reform 1 (+1)
LD 1 (=)
Con 4 (= gained 1 lost 1)
Lab 1 (=)
Green 0 (-1)
Its not a traditional Tory ward although they have held it at times and Barleythorpe is very new. Odd result, but Rutland and Stamford is a good 'stay blue' candidate for 2029
We're back to the "productivity" thing - how do you measure the productivity of an adult or child social care worker - by their caseload? As far as most local councils are concerned, the big costs are Adults and Children and the greater part of the work force is in education so you're looking at teachers, school admin and classroom assistants and that's regulated by law.
Oddly enough, if the demographics are right, the numbers on rolls will be falling off and that will free up capacity in the social care and education sectors (as well as land and buildings for redevelopment) and reduce costs so in 10-20 years it might look very different. That will be counterbalanced by increasing demands and costs in the adult care sector.
What do they think happens after Trump?
He's not gonna live for ever (maybe not even 4 years)
Is sucking (up to) Trump really the best way to get the next guy to like you?
Indeed, it was one of only five Conservative held seats with majorities over 10,000 and it is the fifth safest Conservative seat. The four safer ones are.....well, you can either figure it out or look it up, do the former, it's more fun.
Him: Private school, Oxbridge, KcKinsey. Her: Comp (Head Girl), Oxbridge, Goldman Sachs.
He echoes Jenrick in his themes, so does she. Both can sound somewhat authoritarian afaics, which the Right will like.
One question: Lam is single I think, at 33. How does that ride with today's Tory Party, given what I think is a swing away from Cameroonian values? Have there been any senior single women since Ann Widdecombe?
My parents' old house was adjacent to a primary school (it was the school I attended for a couple of years, and as I had a key if I ever said "I left my homework at home", they would send me home to get it).
It was a single-storey building, and when it underwent renovation, my dad was amused to see that a scaffolding staircase had been built up to the roof. In his day, the men would just have used ladders. And as I walk around the new housing around here, I see lots of safety and time-saving related stuff, all of which costs money. It's probably better for the workers, though.
Or in three words, loss of subsidy
NDAs will be in force, surely?
There's also plenty of material in submissions in a lot of lawsuits I think; a lot of people are looking in the wrong places. But as you say there is surely a lot which is currently being sat on; a lot will emerge when Trump is 6 feet under.
Tendulkar 15,921
Ponting 13,378
Kallis 13,289
Dravid 13,288
Root 13,270
https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/most-runs-in-career-223646
Presumably the total of agricultural land in production isn't changing.
Alicia Kearns may well be one of the few Tories surviving the GE, helped by not being as mad as a box of frogs, and working her constituency well.
But I guess your perspective of plod depends on where you are in society and where you are geographically
“More than half of the public think Islam is not compatible with British values, according to a survey.
“The YouGov polling also found that four in 10 feel Muslim immigrants have a negative impact on the UK.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/25/public-think-islam-not-compatible-with-british-values/
It's been such a marvellous series that it would be great to have a decider at the Oval, rather than the dead game it will be if England win this one.
"Streeting warns doctors must feel ‘pain’ of strikes to prevent further action"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/doctor-strikes-streeting-nhs-hospitals-b2795836.html
The SMT are uniformly (ha!) held in contempt by the rank and file.
The classic was the senior officer who was present at the time that a policeman was stabbed to death at Parliament. Right in front of him. The senior officer didn't intervene, but locked himself in his armoured, chauffeur driven car. He said that this was due to the fact that he wasn't wearing body armour.
Said officer used to amuse himself by berating staff in police stations, in the secure areas (behind locked doors, police only) for not wearing their body armour.
When he retired a little time later, he didn't get much of a send off. So an email snotty gram was sent out berating more junior police officers for showing *enough enthusiasm* at the laudatory speeches etc at the leaving do. Yes, literally, "Not enough clapping for The Leader".
I'm quite sure his opinion of the public matched his apparent opinion of the lower levels of the Police Farce.
Or would that get the commenter banned like @williamglenn on the grounds that the PB centrist dads find this opinion “unacceptable”
Both are usually structured as Ltd, so there won't be an inheritance tax, going forward.
I'm a socialist grandad, if you don't mind.