Indeed. But that's not the narrative. it's an event that draws 5000 people that was being held on an SSSI which is an important nature site .
The tweet, and the video attached to the tweet, frames it as 'Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites across the country', where NE are actually considering the impact on an SSSI Common.
My perspective is that imo the answer to unthinking, populist politics is not just more unthinking, populist politics.
The tweet frames it as Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites at this specific location. There's even a map showing where the event was going to be (and was previously) held. It doesn't say anything about banning kite flying nationwide.
I disagree. The Looking for Growth tweet is not location specific. And the first phrase in the video is "Why are we banned from having fun in Britain?". The text of the tweet:
Looking for Growth @lfg_uk You wanted a nice day out flying kites with your family. But @NaturalEngland won't let you.
Natural England won't let us build, won't let us have fun. It won't let us do anything.
The Government empowers them to block everything. This has to end.
The tweet also includes a video, accompanying said text. If you watch the video, it is clear they are referring to a specific case.
A lot of people locally were pi**ed off that this lovely festival, which ran for over 30 years with no reported issues, was cancelled by Natural England on spurious grounds. Lots of money no longer being raised for charity.
(Though I can think of at least one who won't be happy that the case is being used for political purposes...)
But it hasn't even been cancelled by Natural England. They objected to a planning application, and the Council opted to refuse PP - unless it works differently to every planning application I have seen.
I think that the issue has been under discussion for the best part of 5 years.
That's my main objection - we are getting false narratives.
Even the campaign by "Looking for Growth" starts "DO NOT LET NATURAL ENGLAND RUIN BRITAIN'S COMMUNITIES", which is not what is being done.
Sorry but @MattW, do you have anything to support your claim that planning permission can be allowed by a local council in defiance of Natural England? They also tried to avoid responsibility for the bat tunnel, as if this was just some whim of the HS2 management team.
AI tells me this:
British councils are not permitted to grant planning permission if doing so would be contrary to the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, particularly when European Protected Species (EPS) are involved. Natural England, as the competent authority for licensing under these regulations, must be satisfied that three statutory tests are met before a licence can be granted for activities that might otherwise be unlawful, including development affecting EPS. These tests require that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, no satisfactory alternative exists, and the action will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the species' population at a favourable conservation status.
Ai
That goes straight back to Natural England being fully responsible, AND the ultimate culprit being their enforcement of European Union retained law.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
I'm not going as far as you are in this post, but Natural England is a large organisation with a £318 million budget and lawyers on call. Going against them are a couple of small local charities.
From the perspective of the local charities, it is far too risky.
From the perspective of Natural England, some charities get no money, and some locals don't get a brilliant day out. A win!
Fascinating reading on pb today. Much of the real life feedback I have had is that Farage’s proposals are common sense. That’s a view that puts you in the jackboots crowd on here.
Even among international liberals, I have heard a resigned acceptance that the highly globalised world we knew was an aberration, and that Farage’s speech & the new US visa rules are the new norm - a reaction to rules that went too far.
All said there is an obvious electoral liability for Farage. And that lies in the extortionate fee for a naturalised person to take the final step and get the passport - £1735! This is a massive outlier globally and a racquet to massage the figures from politicians past and present who did not have the courage to run a proper migration policy.
The cost will feel particularly savage to those who have international marriages and have played by the (very expensive) visa rules for years. And are now being backed into paying this fee, to undo the mistakes made over the last decade.
I would be amazed if we don’t see a noticeable shift from Tory to Lib Dem when this thought process plays out. I am far less clear it will cause much of a drift back to Tory / Labour from Reform.
Still a long way to go before the election, this is all Overton shifting stuff.
Given that care home were charging £8k for a visa for a non-existent job, it suggests that £1735 for a passport is far too low.
Perhaps we should an auction site, with a limited number of passports for sale?
Indeed. But that's not the narrative. it's an event that draws 5000 people that was being held on an SSSI which is an important nature site .
The tweet, and the video attached to the tweet, frames it as 'Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites across the country', where NE are actually considering the impact on an SSSI Common.
My perspective is that imo the answer to unthinking, populist politics is not just more unthinking, populist politics.
The tweet frames it as Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites at this specific location. There's even a map showing where the event was going to be (and was previously) held. It doesn't say anything about banning kite flying nationwide.
I disagree. The Looking for Growth tweet is not location specific. And the first phrase in the video is "Why are we banned from having fun in Britain?". The text of the tweet:
Looking for Growth @lfg_uk You wanted a nice day out flying kites with your family. But @NaturalEngland won't let you.
Natural England won't let us build, won't let us have fun. It won't let us do anything.
The Government empowers them to block everything. This has to end.
The tweet also includes a video, accompanying said text. If you watch the video, it is clear they are referring to a specific case.
A lot of people locally were pi**ed off that this lovely festival, which ran for over 30 years with no reported issues, was cancelled by Natural England on spurious grounds. Lots of money no longer being raised for charity.
(Though I can think of at least one who won't be happy that the case is being used for political purposes...)
But it hasn't even been cancelled by Natural England. They objected to a planning application, and the Council opted to refuse PP - unless it works differently to every planning application I have seen.
I think that the issue has been under discussion for the best part of 5 years.
That's my main objection - we are getting false narratives.
Even the campaign by "Looking for Growth" starts "DO NOT LET NATURAL ENGLAND RUIN BRITAIN'S COMMUNITIES", which is not what is being done.
Sorry but @MattW, do you have anything to support your claim that planning permission can be allowed by a local council in defiance of Natural England? They also tried to avoid responsibility for the bat tunnel, as if this was just some whim of the HS2 management team.
AI tells me this:
British councils are not permitted to grant planning permission if doing so would be contrary to the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, particularly when European Protected Species (EPS) are involved. Natural England, as the competent authority for licensing under these regulations, must be satisfied that three statutory tests are met before a licence can be granted for activities that might otherwise be unlawful, including development affecting EPS. These tests require that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, no satisfactory alternative exists, and the action will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the species' population at a favourable conservation status.
Ai
That goes straight back to Natural England being fully responsible, AND the ultimate culprit being their enforcement of European Union retained law.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
I'm not going as far as you are in this post, but Natural England is a large organisation with a £318 million budget and lawyers on call. Going against them are a couple of small local charities.
From the perspective of the local charities, it is far too risky.
From the perspective of Natural England, some charities get no money, and some locals don't get a brilliant day out. A win!
Money ripe for saving. Fuckety-bye to the whole lot of them.
The other parties seem to be trying to pick holes in Reform's "kick them out" policy, rather than just saying that it is offensive and immoral.
Reform has succeeded in moving the argument onto their turf.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2h Reform’s policy started with “deport people who are here illegally”. Fine. Then it was “deport people here legally who commit a serious crime”. Fine. Now it appears to be “deport people here legally”. Where’s this going to end up.
It is a gradual shifting of the Overton window. It’s reasonable to ask where it ends. But there is silly hyperbole on here about what are quite moderate positions.
Regularly requiring non citizens to justify their right to stay as a guest in a host country is not strange. I’ve had to go through such a process six times when overseas in various places. Thems the rules, I sucked them up and played by them.
Fear is a powerful motivator. Lots of people will be fearful that the reasonable questions of where this might end might include them and their loved ones, particularly given the way some people are talking.
The counterpoint to that is hate.
Also: your last paragraph becomes somewhat irrelevant if rules are applied retrospectively.
As per my comment above, because of the extreme cost of applying for full citizenship, a great many people have preferred to consider indefinite right to remain as being essentially equivalent to citizenship. It is not. And unless / until you are a citizen, it is prudent to accept that the rules of your host country might change.
Farage should however issue a clarification around legal spouses of British citizens hailing from core British allies. There should be a nominal admin fee for such people to convert to full citizenship and the cloud lifted from them. They are not his target but have been hit by a blunt weapon today.
Indeed. But that's not the narrative. it's an event that draws 5000 people that was being held on an SSSI which is an important nature site .
The tweet, and the video attached to the tweet, frames it as 'Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites across the country', where NE are actually considering the impact on an SSSI Common.
My perspective is that imo the answer to unthinking, populist politics is not just more unthinking, populist politics.
The tweet frames it as Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites at this specific location. There's even a map showing where the event was going to be (and was previously) held. It doesn't say anything about banning kite flying nationwide.
I disagree. The Looking for Growth tweet is not location specific. And the first phrase in the video is "Why are we banned from having fun in Britain?". The text of the tweet:
Looking for Growth @lfg_uk You wanted a nice day out flying kites with your family. But @NaturalEngland won't let you.
Natural England won't let us build, won't let us have fun. It won't let us do anything.
The Government empowers them to block everything. This has to end.
The tweet also includes a video, accompanying said text. If you watch the video, it is clear they are referring to a specific case.
A lot of people locally were pi**ed off that this lovely festival, which ran for over 30 years with no reported issues, was cancelled by Natural England on spurious grounds. Lots of money no longer being raised for charity.
(Though I can think of at least one who won't be happy that the case is being used for political purposes...)
But it hasn't even been cancelled by Natural England. They objected to a planning application, and the Council opted to refuse PP - unless it works differently to every planning application I have seen.
I think that the issue has been under discussion for the best part of 5 years.
That's my main objection - we are getting false narratives.
Even the campaign by "Looking for Growth" starts "DO NOT LET NATURAL ENGLAND RUIN BRITAIN'S COMMUNITIES", which is not what is being done.
Sorry but @MattW, do you have anything to support your claim that planning permission can be allowed by a local council in defiance of Natural England? They also tried to avoid responsibility for the bat tunnel, as if this was just some whim of the HS2 management team.
AI tells me this:
British councils are not permitted to grant planning permission if doing so would be contrary to the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, particularly when European Protected Species (EPS) are involved. Natural England, as the competent authority for licensing under these regulations, must be satisfied that three statutory tests are met before a licence can be granted for activities that might otherwise be unlawful, including development affecting EPS. These tests require that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, no satisfactory alternative exists, and the action will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the species' population at a favourable conservation status.
Ai
That goes straight back to Natural England being fully responsible, AND the ultimate culprit being their enforcement of European Union retained law.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
The query is welcome - planning law is complex, and it's easy for any of us to get details wrong.
According to my AI query, the Local Planning Authority (info: in England the LPA is the Local District or Unitary Council, or the National Park) can overrule a Natural England objection, but have to have cogent reasons:
AI Overview
Yes, a planning authority can overrule Natural England's objection, but they must have cogent reasons for doing so. While Natural England's advice carries significant weight, particularly regarding Habitats Regulations, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is not bound by it and can depart from their advice if they have strong, objective evidence showing there will be no negative impacts on nature.
I'll have a bit of a dig later. One development I was involved with was nearly caught in in a Special Protection Area for Birds - which extend a surprising distance (when there was a charge to provide alternative foraging ground). But we were just outside the zone.
Was the Duchess of York one of the offerings, at Epstein's parties?
Careful: you don't want to get sued by a bunch of paedophiles for libel.
I am not a fan of the Yorks but I have started reading "Entitled" and was surprised when the author claimed that although Sarah said she had 6 O levels, she had only 2 as 4 were D grade. Grades D and E were passes in O levels. In GCSEs D is a fail. I am surprised that in a book which claims to be thoroughly researched there was such a basic mistake. ,
In O levels D was a fail. But D's were rare at O Level because Comprehensives / Secondary Moderns would have flagged up the risk of failure and put you into the CSE for that subject instead..
So the only place where D / Es would occur was Grammar Schools.
Fascinating reading on pb today. Much of the real life feedback I have had is that Farage’s proposals are common sense. That’s a view that puts you in the jackboots crowd on here.
Even among international liberals, I have heard a resigned acceptance that the highly globalised world we knew was an aberration, and that Farage’s speech & the new US visa rules are the new norm - a reaction to rules that went too far.
All said there is an obvious electoral liability for Farage. And that lies in the extortionate fee for a naturalised person to take the final step and get the passport - £1735! This is a massive outlier globally and a racquet to massage the figures from politicians past and present who did not have the courage to run a proper migration policy.
The cost will feel particularly savage to those who have international marriages and have played by the (very expensive) visa rules for years. And are now being backed into paying this fee, to undo the mistakes made over the last decade.
I would be amazed if we don’t see a noticeable shift from Tory to Lib Dem when this thought process plays out. I am far less clear it will cause much of a drift back to Tory / Labour from Reform.
Still a long way to go before the election, this is all Overton shifting stuff.
Given that care home were charging £8k for a visa for a non-existent job, it suggests that £1735 for a passport is far too low.
Perhaps we should an auction site, with a limited number of passports for sale?
Yes quite. The cash in hand types (or those even more criminal) won’t care about a £1700 fee. Cheap for the money. It’s the law abiding who suffer, as so often in this country.
Indeed. But that's not the narrative. it's an event that draws 5000 people that was being held on an SSSI which is an important nature site .
The tweet, and the video attached to the tweet, frames it as 'Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites across the country', where NE are actually considering the impact on an SSSI Common.
My perspective is that imo the answer to unthinking, populist politics is not just more unthinking, populist politics.
The tweet frames it as Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites at this specific location. There's even a map showing where the event was going to be (and was previously) held. It doesn't say anything about banning kite flying nationwide.
I disagree. The Looking for Growth tweet is not location specific. And the first phrase in the video is "Why are we banned from having fun in Britain?". The text of the tweet:
Looking for Growth @lfg_uk You wanted a nice day out flying kites with your family. But @NaturalEngland won't let you.
Natural England won't let us build, won't let us have fun. It won't let us do anything.
The Government empowers them to block everything. This has to end.
The tweet also includes a video, accompanying said text. If you watch the video, it is clear they are referring to a specific case.
A lot of people locally were pi**ed off that this lovely festival, which ran for over 30 years with no reported issues, was cancelled by Natural England on spurious grounds. Lots of money no longer being raised for charity.
(Though I can think of at least one who won't be happy that the case is being used for political purposes...)
But it hasn't even been cancelled by Natural England. They objected to a planning application, and the Council opted to refuse PP - unless it works differently to every planning application I have seen.
I think that the issue has been under discussion for the best part of 5 years.
That's my main objection - we are getting false narratives.
Even the campaign by "Looking for Growth" starts "DO NOT LET NATURAL ENGLAND RUIN BRITAIN'S COMMUNITIES", which is not what is being done.
Sorry but @MattW, do you have anything to support your claim that planning permission can be allowed by a local council in defiance of Natural England? They also tried to avoid responsibility for the bat tunnel, as if this was just some whim of the HS2 management team.
AI tells me this:
British councils are not permitted to grant planning permission if doing so would be contrary to the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, particularly when European Protected Species (EPS) are involved. Natural England, as the competent authority for licensing under these regulations, must be satisfied that three statutory tests are met before a licence can be granted for activities that might otherwise be unlawful, including development affecting EPS. These tests require that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, no satisfactory alternative exists, and the action will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the species' population at a favourable conservation status.
Ai
That goes straight back to Natural England being fully responsible, AND the ultimate culprit being their enforcement of European Union retained law.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
I'm not going as far as you are in this post, but Natural England is a large organisation with a £318 million budget and lawyers on call. Going against them are a couple of small local charities.
From the perspective of the local charities, it is far too risky.
From the perspective of Natural England, some charities get no money, and some locals don't get a brilliant day out. A win!
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Indeed. But that's not the narrative. it's an event that draws 5000 people that was being held on an SSSI which is an important nature site .
The tweet, and the video attached to the tweet, frames it as 'Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites across the country', where NE are actually considering the impact on an SSSI Common.
My perspective is that imo the answer to unthinking, populist politics is not just more unthinking, populist politics.
The tweet frames it as Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites at this specific location. There's even a map showing where the event was going to be (and was previously) held. It doesn't say anything about banning kite flying nationwide.
I disagree. The Looking for Growth tweet is not location specific. And the first phrase in the video is "Why are we banned from having fun in Britain?". The text of the tweet:
Looking for Growth @lfg_uk You wanted a nice day out flying kites with your family. But @NaturalEngland won't let you.
Natural England won't let us build, won't let us have fun. It won't let us do anything.
The Government empowers them to block everything. This has to end.
The tweet also includes a video, accompanying said text. If you watch the video, it is clear they are referring to a specific case.
A lot of people locally were pi**ed off that this lovely festival, which ran for over 30 years with no reported issues, was cancelled by Natural England on spurious grounds. Lots of money no longer being raised for charity.
(Though I can think of at least one who won't be happy that the case is being used for political purposes...)
But it hasn't even been cancelled by Natural England. They objected to a planning application, and the Council opted to refuse PP - unless it works differently to every planning application I have seen.
I think that the issue has been under discussion for the best part of 5 years.
That's my main objection - we are getting false narratives.
Even the campaign by "Looking for Growth" starts "DO NOT LET NATURAL ENGLAND RUIN BRITAIN'S COMMUNITIES", which is not what is being done.
Sorry but @MattW, do you have anything to support your claim that planning permission can be allowed by a local council in defiance of Natural England? They also tried to avoid responsibility for the bat tunnel, as if this was just some whim of the HS2 management team.
AI tells me this:
British councils are not permitted to grant planning permission if doing so would be contrary to the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, particularly when European Protected Species (EPS) are involved. Natural England, as the competent authority for licensing under these regulations, must be satisfied that three statutory tests are met before a licence can be granted for activities that might otherwise be unlawful, including development affecting EPS. These tests require that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, no satisfactory alternative exists, and the action will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the species' population at a favourable conservation status.
Ai
That goes straight back to Natural England being fully responsible, AND the ultimate culprit being their enforcement of European Union retained law.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
I'm not going as far as you are in this post, but Natural England is a large organisation with a £318 million budget and lawyers on call. Going against them are a couple of small local charities.
From the perspective of the local charities, it is far too risky.
From the perspective of Natural England, some charities get no money, and some locals don't get a brilliant day out. A win!
If government isn't happy about the current intersection of environmental and planning policy, the remedy is entirely within government's hands.
You cannot expect a 'government' to look at every little detail at this level - which is why organisations like NE exist in the first place. But perhaps NE's remit needs to include reasonableness and local concerns as well as NATURE FIRST EVEN WHEN THERE'S NO REASON!!!!!!
Is he repeating the allegation that Charlie Kirk was killed by Mossad to hide the fact that Kirk was about to reveal that Epstein worked for Israeli intelligence?
5 by elections this week. Locally i'm interested in Thetford Castle. Its actually on Wednesday so a day before the others. It should be a very easy Reform gain from Labour and the Cons might push Lab into third (but that's not certain, Thetford is the most Labour friendly part of SW Norfolk by a distance). UKIP won one of the 2 seats here in 2015 and even managed over 10% in 2023 long after becoming a joke so its KipperReformTastic in Thetford. Benchmarks im looking at Lab hold - Lab in contention to hold SW Norfolk against all odds Con Gain - Con in pole position to regain SW Norfolk by a good margin Ref Gain - amount is critical Gain by less than 10% over Con, Con narrow favourites for SW Norfolk to toss up as we approach 10% Gain by 10-15% over Con- Reform favourites to win the seat Gain by 15% plus - Reform very very likely to win the seat Gain by 25% - put a fork in SW Norfolk, its done
Reform are seen as new, not that surprising if they become the party for the Thatcherite and Nationalist wing of the old Conservative Party they lose some of that support
Of course the big question is: where do all those Others go?
If those Others are mainly Tory voters, unwilling to vote for a Farage alliance, then many of them may end up doing so if their local candidate is a familiar Tory. And, similarly, the anti-Tory Reform voters might be mollified by a suitably non-Tory local candidate.
So might this be something that could be finessed by having Tory candidates for rural areas and the home counties, and Reform candidates for the Saxon shore and Midlands/Northern towns?
It's really interesting that Labour seem to get a boost at the Lib Dem's expense, but the Lib Dems don't seem to be picking up any moderate Tory voters. The Lib Dems seem to be really missing the opportunity of the present political upheaval.
Most ex Tory Remainers who were going to go LD did so last year
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Actually, I think there are things that could be done relatively easily, in particular around criminal justice (i.e. reclaim the streets) and planning reform. (The latter of which would go a long way to kick starting economic growth.)
Reform are seen as new, not that surprising if they become the party for the Thatcherite and Nationalist wing of the old Conservative Party they lose some of that support
What do you make of Farage’s speech today coming so soon after Danny Kruger’s defection?
The other parties seem to be trying to pick holes in Reform's "kick them out" policy, rather than just saying that it is offensive and immoral.
Reform has succeeded in moving the argument onto their turf.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2h Reform’s policy started with “deport people who are here illegally”. Fine. Then it was “deport people here legally who commit a serious crime”. Fine. Now it appears to be “deport people here legally”. Where’s this going to end up.
He works for a paper that supports Farage and is now pearl clutching over this latest Reform policy . If he’s so disgusted with Farage then he should stop working for the DM .
I do not agree
The mail has been more pro Badenoch recently and it is not a given they will back Farage on this
Is he repeating the allegation that Charlie Kirk was killed by Mossad to hide the fact that Kirk was about to reveal that Epstein worked for Israeli intelligence?
Apparently he has floated that. But it's just the overall performance I find spooky. The smoothie facade dissolves and what's revealed, at least to me, is a complete nutcase. Maybe you had to be there.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Actually, I think there are things that could be done relatively easily, in particular around criminal justice (i.e. reclaim the streets) and planning reform. (The latter of which would go a long way to kick starting economic growth.)
Indeed, the question is having a government with the cojones to stand up to the vested interests and do what needs doing.
Reform are seen as new, not that surprising if they become the party for the Thatcherite and Nationalist wing of the old Conservative Party they lose some of that support
What do you make of Farage’s speech today coming so soon after Danny Kruger’s defection?
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Somewhere, amongst all of Keir's "AI Superpower" talk - I'd love a project to use LLM/AI to go through the whole history of our lawmaking and spot contradictions, nonsense, simplifications. Just as a long, long bullet list. Then run any new legislation against it as a bit of a 'urm - but what about....?'. Ideally produce a simplified 'ok, this is actually' what we meant in 2018 without realising the 1743 act of....' meant'.
I'm sure - in theory - there are good people in westminster clerk offices trying to do it - but, I'd guess it's just such a historical hot mess it must be almost impossible
Reform are seen as new, not that surprising if they become the party for the Thatcherite and Nationalist wing of the old Conservative Party they lose some of that support
What do you make of Farage’s speech today coming so soon after Danny Kruger’s defection?
Reform are seen as new, not that surprising if they become the party for the Thatcherite and Nationalist wing of the old Conservative Party they lose some of that support
What do you make of Farage’s speech today coming so soon after Danny Kruger’s defection?
He needs to shore up his nationalist right fringe
'He needs to shore up his nationalist right fringe'
Was the Duchess of York one of the offerings, at Epstein's parties?
Careful: you don't want to get sued by a bunch of paedophiles for libel.
I am not a fan of the Yorks but I have started reading "Entitled" and was surprised when the author claimed that although Sarah said she had 6 O levels, she had only 2 as 4 were D grade. Grades D and E were passes in O levels. In GCSEs D is a fail. I am surprised that in a book which claims to be thoroughly researched there was such a basic mistake. ,
In O levels D was a fail. But D's were rare at O Level because Comprehensives / Secondary Moderns would have flagged up the risk of failure and put you into the CSE for that subject instead..
So the only place where D / Es would occur was Grammar Schools.
It changed about 1975 but D and E were passes prior to that.
Was the Duchess of York one of the offerings, at Epstein's parties?
Careful: you don't want to get sued by a bunch of paedophiles for libel.
I am not a fan of the Yorks but I have started reading "Entitled" and was surprised when the author claimed that although Sarah said she had 6 O levels, she had only 2 as 4 were D grade. Grades D and E were passes in O levels. In GCSEs D is a fail. I am surprised that in a book which claims to be thoroughly researched there was such a basic mistake. ,
In O levels D was a fail. But D's were rare at O Level because Comprehensives / Secondary Moderns would have flagged up the risk of failure and put you into the CSE for that subject instead..
So the only place where D / Es would occur was Grammar Schools.
It changed about 1975 but D and E were passes prior to that.
She took her O levels in 1976 so you're probably correct.
On topic, it took a long time for Labour and the Liberals to come to an implicit understanding of how not to tread on each others toes in the fight against the Conservatives.
Reform and the Conservatives will no doubt get there eventually- though Reform have to develop a post-Nigel model and the Conservatives need to avoid utter collapse. But as long as politics involves human emotion and ambition, it's going to be tough to get there for 2028/9.
Post Farage they will surely merge with the Tories. I don't think it is factored in how much of a one man band they are
Of course the big question is: where do all those Others go?
If those Others are mainly Tory voters, unwilling to vote for a Farage alliance, then many of them may end up doing so if their local candidate is a familiar Tory. And, similarly, the anti-Tory Reform voters might be mollified by a suitably non-Tory local candidate.
So might this be something that could be finessed by having Tory candidates for rural areas and the home counties, and Reform candidates for the Saxon shore and Midlands/Northern towns?
It's really interesting that Labour seem to get a boost at the Lib Dem's expense, but the Lib Dems don't seem to be picking up any moderate Tory voters. The Lib Dems seem to be really missing the opportunity of the present political upheaval.
Most ex Tory Remainers who were going to go LD did so last year
The Tories’ stunning achievement in dividing the country with Cammo’s little referendum is that in the aftermath they are now neither the party of choice for centre-right leavers nor centre-right remainers.
Of course the big question is: where do all those Others go?
If those Others are mainly Tory voters, unwilling to vote for a Farage alliance, then many of them may end up doing so if their local candidate is a familiar Tory. And, similarly, the anti-Tory Reform voters might be mollified by a suitably non-Tory local candidate.
So might this be something that could be finessed by having Tory candidates for rural areas and the home counties, and Reform candidates for the Saxon shore and Midlands/Northern towns?
It's really interesting that Labour seem to get a boost at the Lib Dem's expense, but the Lib Dems don't seem to be picking up any moderate Tory voters. The Lib Dems seem to be really missing the opportunity of the present political upheaval.
Most ex Tory Remainers who were going to go LD did so last year
The Tories’ stunning achievement in dividing the country with Cammo’s little referendum is that in the aftermath they are now neither the party of choice for centre-right leavers nor centre-right remainers.
They are still the party of choice for centre right leavers, just hard right leavers have gone Reform
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Actually, I think there are things that could be done relatively easily, in particular around criminal justice (i.e. reclaim the streets) and planning reform. (The latter of which would go a long way to kick starting economic growth.)
Inadequately radical planning reform is a real missed opportunity from this Labour government.
Of course the big question is: where do all those Others go?
If those Others are mainly Tory voters, unwilling to vote for a Farage alliance, then many of them may end up doing so if their local candidate is a familiar Tory. And, similarly, the anti-Tory Reform voters might be mollified by a suitably non-Tory local candidate.
So might this be something that could be finessed by having Tory candidates for rural areas and the home counties, and Reform candidates for the Saxon shore and Midlands/Northern towns?
It's really interesting that Labour seem to get a boost at the Lib Dem's expense, but the Lib Dems don't seem to be picking up any moderate Tory voters. The Lib Dems seem to be really missing the opportunity of the present political upheaval.
Most ex Tory Remainers who were going to go LD did so last year
The Tories’ stunning achievement in dividing the country with Cammo’s little referendum is that in the aftermath they are now neither the party of choice for centre-right leavers nor centre-right remainers.
They are still the party of choice for centre right leavers, just hard right leavers have gone Reform
There really aren’t nearly as many “hard right” leavers as you seem to think
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Somewhere, amongst all of Keir's "AI Superpower" talk - I'd love a project to use LLM/AI to go through the whole history of our lawmaking and spot contradictions, nonsense, simplifications. Just as a long, long bullet list. Then run any new legislation against it as a bit of a 'urm - but what about....?'. Ideally produce a simplified 'ok, this is actually' what we meant in 2018 without realising the 1743 act of....' meant'.
I'm sure - in theory - there are good people in westminster clerk offices trying to do it - but, I'd guess it's just such a historical hot mess it must be almost impossible
My father was handling a complication with my step-mother's immigration paperwork.
He read the law and then sent the Home Office a detailed appreciation about why about 20 pages of the law in question was illogical garbage. He is retired Philosophy lecturer.
He got back a letter, which gave the impression the writer was slightly scared of him. Offering a part time job parsing laws.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Actually, I think there are things that could be done relatively easily, in particular around criminal justice (i.e. reclaim the streets) and planning reform. (The latter of which would go a long way to kick starting economic growth.)
Inadequately radical planning reform is a real missed opportunity from this Labour government.
The problem is that that Starmer is a professional Process Stater. Less process means less government, to him. Less professionalism.
For those on the conservative right, can someone please explain to me why welfare spending has apparently become so out of control? PIP, mobility etc that gets discussed.
The last I paid close attention to it, we had a Conservative-led government for 14 years that started out with a mission of simplifying and cutting welfare spending under Universal Credit? What happened since? Which Conservative Prime Minister is to blame?
It seems mad that everyone is expecting Labour to be the ones cutting welfare spending after 14 years of Tory rule. It should have been sorted years ago, taking as read that it needs to be.
For those on the conservative right, can someone please explain to me why welfare spending has apparently become so out of control? PIP, mobility etc that gets discussed.
The last I paid close attention to it, we had a Conservative-led government for 14 years that started out with a mission of simplifying and cutting welfare spending under Universal Credit? What happened since? Which Conservative Prime Minister is to blame?
It seems mad that everyone is expecting Labour to be the ones cutting welfare spending after 14 years of Tory rule. It should have been sorted years ago, taking as read that it needs to be.
Theresa May expanded many incapacity benefits to incorporate mental health as well as physical health, opening the floodgates to a lot more claims.
During covid many people got used to not going to work (or school for younger years) that continues to date. Especially linked with mental health issues.
Irony of course is that steady routines of working is good for your mental health.
For those on the conservative right, can someone please explain to me why welfare spending has apparently become so out of control? PIP, mobility etc that gets discussed.
The last I paid close attention to it, we had a Conservative-led government for 14 years that started out with a mission of simplifying and cutting welfare spending under Universal Credit? What happened since? Which Conservative Prime Minister is to blame?
It seems mad that everyone is expecting Labour to be the ones cutting welfare spending after 14 years of Tory rule. It should have been sorted years ago, taking as read that it needs to be.
I’ve pointed out similar many times. It is laughable to blame Labour for this country’s ills. Almost everything that small c conservatives are currently having an allergic reaction to, was conceived and executed by the big C Conservative Party.
I find it increasingly hard to take seriously those that say they are of a centre right disposition that are still defending them.
Labour release their Repatriation Economic Bombshell poster and social media campaign arguing that sending 'them' all home will fuck the economy big time and wreck the nhs.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Of course the big question is: where do all those Others go?
If those Others are mainly Tory voters, unwilling to vote for a Farage alliance, then many of them may end up doing so if their local candidate is a familiar Tory. And, similarly, the anti-Tory Reform voters might be mollified by a suitably non-Tory local candidate.
So might this be something that could be finessed by having Tory candidates for rural areas and the home counties, and Reform candidates for the Saxon shore and Midlands/Northern towns?
It's really interesting that Labour seem to get a boost at the Lib Dem's expense, but the Lib Dems don't seem to be picking up any moderate Tory voters. The Lib Dems seem to be really missing the opportunity of the present political upheaval.
Most ex Tory Remainers who were going to go LD did so last year
The Tories’ stunning achievement in dividing the country with Cammo’s little referendum is that in the aftermath they are now neither the party of choice for centre-right leavers nor centre-right remainers.
They are my choice as a centre right who voted remain [ but accepts the referendum result]
Labour release their Repatriation Economic Bombshell poster and social media campaign arguing that sending 'them' all home will fuck the economy big time and wreck the nhs.
They cannot possibly make such a claim credibly.
Reform's policy would make everyone reapply for visas on a 5-year basis. It would not eliminate the Government's discretion in choosing whether to allow more nurses etc. to retain visas at whatever salary was appropriate.
For those on the conservative right, can someone please explain to me why welfare spending has apparently become so out of control? PIP, mobility etc that gets discussed.
The last I paid close attention to it, we had a Conservative-led government for 14 years that started out with a mission of simplifying and cutting welfare spending under Universal Credit? What happened since? Which Conservative Prime Minister is to blame?
It seems mad that everyone is expecting Labour to be the ones cutting welfare spending after 14 years of Tory rule. It should have been sorted years ago, taking as read that it needs to be.
Covid cost over £400 billion mainly in supporting people in work
Labour release their Repatriation Economic Bombshell poster and social media campaign arguing that sending 'them' all home will fuck the economy big time and wreck the nhs.
Reform can quote this and say they are putting right the chaos that the Tories allowed, and Labour condemned
"Between 2019 and 2023, even as they were going around our country telling people, with a straight face, they would get immigration down, net migration quadrupled. Until in 2023, it reached nearly 1 million, which is about the population of Birmingham, our second largest city. That’s not control – it’s chaos.
And look, they must answer for themselves, but I don’t think you can do something like that by accident. It was a choice. A choice made even as they told you, told the country, they were doing the opposite. A one-nation experiment in open borders conducted on a country that voted for control. Well, no more. Today, this [political content redacted] Government is shutting down the lab. The experiment is over. We will deliver what you have asked for – time and again – and we will take back control of our borders.
So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse, that encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people, or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise, then you’re not championing growth, you’re not championing justice, or however else people defend the status quo. You’re actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart."
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
I'm not entirely convinced by that. It is certainly possible to legislate for overarching principles which affect all public bodies, and the legislation relating to them. See the "reasonableness" test mentioned above, of the proposed duty of candour.
We could also look at things like delay (planing decisions ought not to be held up for a decade at a time) of absolute cost to the public purse.
All policy is a trade off when it comes down to it. But some existing legislation doesn't seem to recognise that the trade offs must, in the end, be to the public benefit.
Holding up a planning decision for a decade (as a hypothetical illustration), whichever way it is eventually decided, is not to the public benefit.
Is he repeating the allegation that Charlie Kirk was killed by Mossad to hide the fact that Kirk was about to reveal that Epstein worked for Israeli intelligence?
Is the alleged killer likely to be an agent of Mossad, and what on earth would convince him to do what he's done in the course of his duties?
Labour release their Repatriation Economic Bombshell poster and social media campaign arguing that sending 'them' all home will fuck the economy big time and wreck the nhs.
Prior to that, the US will give us a practical demonstration of what is involved in attempting to deport so large a number of people,
The economic effect might possibly be the least of those concerns.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
In theory no, but like the present ones they can take decisions which are so ludicrous that they in effect bind their successors. Would a future parliament be able to retake the Chagos Islands for instance ?
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
In theory no, but like the present ones they can take decisions which are so ludicrous that they in effect bind their successors. Would a future parliament be able to retake the Chagos Islands for instance ?
It is unfeasible, but it could certainly stop paying Mauritius, and I hope and believe it will.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Somewhere, amongst all of Keir's "AI Superpower" talk - I'd love a project to use LLM/AI to go through the whole history of our lawmaking and spot contradictions, nonsense, simplifications. Just as a long, long bullet list. Then run any new legislation against it as a bit of a 'urm - but what about....?'. Ideally produce a simplified 'ok, this is actually' what we meant in 2018 without realising the 1743 act of....' meant'.
I'm sure - in theory - there are good people in westminster clerk offices trying to do it - but, I'd guess it's just such a historical hot mess it must be almost impossible
That's actually not a daft idea, as long as it's used only as an analytical tool. Given how lazy most folk are, it might end up being used actually to write legislation.
Not going anywhere in particular, and possibly not even armed, but the airports and airspace over the city is closed and the Russians are going to have to scramble jets to shoot them down.
Labour release their Repatriation Economic Bombshell poster and social media campaign arguing that sending 'them' all home will fuck the economy big time and wreck the nhs.
Prior to that, the US will give us a practical demonstration of what is involved in attempting to deport so large a number of people,
The economic effect might possibly be the least of those concerns.
Which ofcourse, yet again, is clearly where Farage is getting the idea.
If he so admires that, why wouldn't he also admire Trump's cavalier attitude to democracy ? He already described Putin as "the world leader I mosf admire", ten years back, now. I do struggle to understand the complacency surrounding Farage, at times.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
Indeed, surely 'enshrined' just means that a future government would need to explicitly reverse certain things, which can sometimes be simple and sometimes not, but either way enshrined seems like an overdramatic description.
Labour release their Repatriation Economic Bombshell poster and social media campaign arguing that sending 'them' all home will fuck the economy big time and wreck the nhs.
Prior to that, the US will give us a practical demonstration of what is involved in attempting to deport so large a number of people,
The economic effect might possibly be the least of those concerns.
I predict that Farage will walk away from today's policy of retrospectively taking away ILR before we open our xmas presents.
Indeed. But that's not the narrative. it's an event that draws 5000 people that was being held on an SSSI which is an important nature site .
The tweet, and the video attached to the tweet, frames it as 'Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites across the country', where NE are actually considering the impact on an SSSI Common.
My perspective is that imo the answer to unthinking, populist politics is not just more unthinking, populist politics.
The tweet frames it as Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites at this specific location. There's even a map showing where the event was going to be (and was previously) held. It doesn't say anything about banning kite flying nationwide.
I disagree. The Looking for Growth tweet is not location specific. And the first phrase in the video is "Why are we banned from having fun in Britain?". The text of the tweet:
Looking for Growth @lfg_uk You wanted a nice day out flying kites with your family. But @NaturalEngland won't let you.
Natural England won't let us build, won't let us have fun. It won't let us do anything.
The Government empowers them to block everything. This has to end.
The tweet also includes a video, accompanying said text. If you watch the video, it is clear they are referring to a specific case.
A lot of people locally were pi**ed off that this lovely festival, which ran for over 30 years with no reported issues, was cancelled by Natural England on spurious grounds. Lots of money no longer being raised for charity.
(Though I can think of at least one who won't be happy that the case is being used for political purposes...)
But it hasn't even been cancelled by Natural England. They objected to a planning application, and the Council opted to refuse PP - unless it works differently to every planning application I have seen.
I think that the issue has been under discussion for the best part of 5 years.
That's my main objection - we are getting false narratives.
Even the campaign by "Looking for Growth" starts "DO NOT LET NATURAL ENGLAND RUIN BRITAIN'S COMMUNITIES", which is not what is being done.
Sorry but @MattW, do you have anything to support your claim that planning permission can be allowed by a local council in defiance of Natural England? They also tried to avoid responsibility for the bat tunnel, as if this was just some whim of the HS2 management team.
AI tells me this:
British councils are not permitted to grant planning permission if doing so would be contrary to the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, particularly when European Protected Species (EPS) are involved. Natural England, as the competent authority for licensing under these regulations, must be satisfied that three statutory tests are met before a licence can be granted for activities that might otherwise be unlawful, including development affecting EPS. These tests require that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, no satisfactory alternative exists, and the action will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the species' population at a favourable conservation status.
Ai
That goes straight back to Natural England being fully responsible, AND the ultimate culprit being their enforcement of European Union retained law.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
The query is welcome - planning law is complex, and it's easy for any of us to get details wrong.
According to my AI query, the Local Planning Authority (info: in England the LPA is the Local District or Unitary Council, or the National Park) can overrule a Natural England objection, but have to have cogent reasons:
AI Overview
Yes, a planning authority can overrule Natural England's objection, but they must have cogent reasons for doing so. While Natural England's advice carries significant weight, particularly regarding Habitats Regulations, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is not bound by it and can depart from their advice if they have strong, objective evidence showing there will be no negative impacts on nature.
I'll have a bit of a dig later. One development I was involved with was nearly caught in in a Special Protection Area for Birds - which extend a surprising distance (when there was a charge to provide alternative foraging ground). But we were just outside the zone.
How on earth could any council wanting a kite festival to proceed provide such evidence in the face of 'the experts' at Natural England objecting? And who is the final arbiter of such a dispute? Sorry but this is typically mealy mouthed 'not our fault guv' nonsense. Natural England are fully to blame for this decision, there was no realistic prospect of the kite festival 'winning' this argument, and the campaigner was entirely correct to blame them.
The other parties seem to be trying to pick holes in Reform's "kick them out" policy, rather than just saying that it is offensive and immoral.
Reform has succeeded in moving the argument onto their turf.
Farage has aligned himself with the position of most voters and is wholly on board with their concerns. The others are trying to play catch-up but are mostly uncomfortable and unsympathetic to voters' views on migration, etc. This is vividly displayed nightly on here with the manic reactions and pearl clutching whenever Farage opines.
70% aren't voting Reform. 30% are. I think you don't understand what the word "most" means.
You think only Reform voters are bothered by immigration? Dumber than I thought. 😱
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
For those on the conservative right, can someone please explain to me why welfare spending has apparently become so out of control? PIP, mobility etc that gets discussed.
The last I paid close attention to it, we had a Conservative-led government for 14 years that started out with a mission of simplifying and cutting welfare spending under Universal Credit? What happened since? Which Conservative Prime Minister is to blame?
It seems mad that everyone is expecting Labour to be the ones cutting welfare spending after 14 years of Tory rule. It should have been sorted years ago, taking as read that it needs to be.
Covid cost over £400 billion mainly in supporting people in work
Irrelevant as to why current budget spending on welfare was still apparently out of control in 2024. That £400bn just adds to our debt pile.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but apparently it's the Rapture tomorrow. Coincidentally, my parents are in Utah on holiday. I'll tell them to look out for it
Friend of mine has asserted confidently that the Rapture was about to happen, twice in the past two years.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
Labour release their Repatriation Economic Bombshell poster and social media campaign arguing that sending 'them' all home will fuck the economy big time and wreck the nhs.
Won't help.
The core Ref vote and Con vote skew old. Provided it doesn't affect their Triple Lock, the performance of the broad economy has little impact on their personal prosperity.
Cultural homogeneity and stasis is a luxury belief, which the young can't afford and don't particularly want anyway.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
I agree with this. However, there was also a singular lack of analysis as to what the policy actually was - only partly due to the sensationalist terms used by the Telegraph piece.
Of course the big question is: where do all those Others go?
If those Others are mainly Tory voters, unwilling to vote for a Farage alliance, then many of them may end up doing so if their local candidate is a familiar Tory. And, similarly, the anti-Tory Reform voters might be mollified by a suitably non-Tory local candidate.
So might this be something that could be finessed by having Tory candidates for rural areas and the home counties, and Reform candidates for the Saxon shore and Midlands/Northern towns?
It's really interesting that Labour seem to get a boost at the Lib Dem's expense, but the Lib Dems don't seem to be picking up any moderate Tory voters. The Lib Dems seem to be really missing the opportunity of the present political upheaval.
Most ex Tory Remainers who were going to go LD did so last year
The Tories’ stunning achievement in dividing the country with Cammo’s little referendum is that in the aftermath they are now neither the party of choice for centre-right leavers nor centre-right remainers.
They are still the party of choice for centre right leavers, just hard right leavers have gone Reform
There really aren’t nearly as many “hard right” leavers as you seem to think
Look at Farage's announcement today, not a million miles away from the type of thing the BNP were proposing a decade or two ago
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but apparently it's the Rapture tomorrow. Coincidentally, my parents are in Utah on holiday. I'll tell them to look out for it
Friend of mine has asserted confidently that the Rapture was about to happen, twice in the past two years.
Do they ever give a reason for it not arriving? Wrong type of leaves on the line?
Labour release their Repatriation Economic Bombshell poster and social media campaign arguing that sending 'them' all home will fuck the economy big time and wreck the nhs.
You can't tell people who are struggling to get by that change will be bad for them. They won't believe it. The only way for Labour to win is to reduce immigration, stop the boats and commit to their own "deportation plan" that looksike what Kemi has proposed. It's not even deportation, it's just ending visas and not giving out new ones - they go home of their own accord and we'd only deport the ones that overstay.
For those on the conservative right, can someone please explain to me why welfare spending has apparently become so out of control? PIP, mobility etc that gets discussed.
The last I paid close attention to it, we had a Conservative-led government for 14 years that started out with a mission of simplifying and cutting welfare spending under Universal Credit? What happened since? Which Conservative Prime Minister is to blame?
It seems mad that everyone is expecting Labour to be the ones cutting welfare spending after 14 years of Tory rule. It should have been sorted years ago, taking as read that it needs to be.
Covid cost over £400 billion mainly in supporting people in work
Irrelevant as to why current budget spending on welfare was still apparently out of control in 2024. That £400bn just adds to our debt pile.
It gave people a taste of a something for nothing lifestyle and many have gamed the welfare system to continue living that life.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but apparently it's the Rapture tomorrow. Coincidentally, my parents are in Utah on holiday. I'll tell them to look out for it
Friend of mine has asserted confidently that the Rapture was about to happen, twice in the past two years.
Do they ever give a reason for it not arriving? Wrong type of leaves on the line?
Oh, no, perfectly open acceptance that "I was wrong before (but this time I'm convinced)".
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
For those on the conservative right, can someone please explain to me why welfare spending has apparently become so out of control? PIP, mobility etc that gets discussed.
The last I paid close attention to it, we had a Conservative-led government for 14 years that started out with a mission of simplifying and cutting welfare spending under Universal Credit? What happened since? Which Conservative Prime Minister is to blame?
It seems mad that everyone is expecting Labour to be the ones cutting welfare spending after 14 years of Tory rule. It should have been sorted years ago, taking as read that it needs to be.
Covid cost over £400 billion mainly in supporting people in work
Irrelevant as to why current budget spending on welfare was still apparently out of control in 2024. That £400bn just adds to our debt pile.
And what would you have done during the Covid years to protect jobs and people's health?
It is not irrelevant nor was the inflation effect of the Ukraine war both of which contributing to our debt and immigration when we offered a safe haven to Ukranians together with Hong Kong citizens and Afghans
And Starmer wanted longer lock downs costing many billions more
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but apparently it's the Rapture tomorrow. Coincidentally, my parents are in Utah on holiday. I'll tell them to look out for it
Friend of mine has asserted confidently that the Rapture was about to happen, twice in the past two years.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
PB is about predicting what’s going to happen. Expressing your moral outrage and shouting down views contrary to the pb groupthink, clouds the communal crystal ball.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
Indeed PB is no guide to public opinion. We should be thankful for small mercies. It is, however, a very good guide to what questions should be asked of politicians and government, and a guide to what questions are not being answered.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but apparently it's the Rapture tomorrow. Coincidentally, my parents are in Utah on holiday. I'll tell them to look out for it
Friend of mine has asserted confidently that the Rapture was about to happen, twice in the past two years.
For those on the conservative right, can someone please explain to me why welfare spending has apparently become so out of control? PIP, mobility etc that gets discussed.
The last I paid close attention to it, we had a Conservative-led government for 14 years that started out with a mission of simplifying and cutting welfare spending under Universal Credit? What happened since? Which Conservative Prime Minister is to blame?
It seems mad that everyone is expecting Labour to be the ones cutting welfare spending after 14 years of Tory rule. It should have been sorted years ago, taking as read that it needs to be.
Covid cost over £400 billion mainly in supporting people in work
Irrelevant as to why current budget spending on welfare was still apparently out of control in 2024. That £400bn just adds to our debt pile.
And what would you have done during the Covid years to protect jobs and people's health?
It is not irrelevant nor was the inflation effect of the Ukraine war both of which contributing to our debt and immigration when we offered a safe haven to Ukranians together with Hong Kong citizens and Afghans
And Starmer wanted longer lock downs costing many billions more
Are we still flogging the lockdown dead horse? By July 2020, the virus origin, transmission mechanisms, IFR and first therapeutic strategies were already coming into focus. It was utterly extraordinary that the various funny money handouts didn’t end until Sept 2021, and even worse, reactionary voices that clamoured for fresh lockdown with the arrival of the patently positive development of Omicron.
I do not absolve Starmer (or Khan), but the last government and Parliament utterly failed us by giving in to the protracted hysteria.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Thta's the problem with many of the "Judges Thwarting The People" stories.
There is a whole tangle of laws already in place. Some of them are from our dalliance with the EEC/EU, but many of them aren't. So if there are two laws that imply different conculsions, how does the state decide what to do?
I suspect that it needs increasingly smart (one might almost say forensic) Parliamentarians to navigate that tangle, and work out which knots to swerve, which to tangle, and which to cut. Unfortunately, the mood of the times is not to have smart Parlimentarians, but to throw a massive wobbly when anyone points out "you might want to legislate for X, but there are these other laws that say not-X". And whilst "no Parliament may bind its sucessor" is an excellent principle, it does raise practical difficulties unless we wipe the slate totally clean each election.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
PB is about predicting what’s going to happen. Expressing your moral outrage and shouting down views contrary to the pb groupthink, clouds the communal crystal ball.
Yeah, I generally agree we should avoid the moral outrage. If something is a bad idea, we ought to be able to find a reason why it's bad rather than "it just is".
Where has the next edition of the Rapture suddenly come from?
(Jehovah's Witnesses more or less gave up on scheduling events of that type when Jesus failed to turn up in the sky in 1878, 1881, 1914, 1925 and 1975. He is not a bus service on a magic carpet.)
For your "religion and politics" information, education and entertainment this afternoon, here is President Trump's Spiritual Adviser, Paula White-Cain, explaining how the Jewish people were granted the "deed" to Israel, at the time of Abraham documented for the record by the Book of Genesis. This was a fortnight ago, so contemporaneous. It is abotu 60 seconds.
President Netanyahu must be extraordinarily dedicated to his political campaign, because he is sitting through it with the most frozen expression I have ever seen on a politician.
For those on the conservative right, can someone please explain to me why welfare spending has apparently become so out of control? PIP, mobility etc that gets discussed.
The last I paid close attention to it, we had a Conservative-led government for 14 years that started out with a mission of simplifying and cutting welfare spending under Universal Credit? What happened since? Which Conservative Prime Minister is to blame?
It seems mad that everyone is expecting Labour to be the ones cutting welfare spending after 14 years of Tory rule. It should have been sorted years ago, taking as read that it needs to be.
Covid cost over £400 billion mainly in supporting people in work
Irrelevant as to why current budget spending on welfare was still apparently out of control in 2024. That £400bn just adds to our debt pile.
And what would you have done during the Covid years to protect jobs and people's health?
It is not irrelevant nor was the inflation effect of the Ukraine war both of which contributing to our debt and immigration when we offered a safe haven to Ukranians together with Hong Kong citizens and Afghans
And Starmer wanted longer lock downs costing many billions more
They are both irrelevant. You are failing to understand the difference between ongoing spending / deficit and one-off spending / debt.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
Oh Hello Mr Passive Aggressive!
Who says Farage shouldn't be subject to scrutiny?
And who said PB is meant to be a barometer of public opinion? It is certainly worth knowing that it isn't, as you end up reading a load of people agreeing with each other that something is terribly awful and beyond the pale, whilst the public are voting for it
Was the Duchess of York one of the offerings, at Epstein's parties?
Careful: you don't want to get sued by a bunch of paedophiles for libel.
I am not a fan of the Yorks but I have started reading "Entitled" and was surprised when the author claimed that although Sarah said she had 6 O levels, she had only 2 as 4 were D grade. Grades D and E were passes in O levels. In GCSEs D is a fail. I am surprised that in a book which claims to be thoroughly researched there was such a basic mistake. ,
Sarah is rather stupid and very foolish (with awful judgement) but fundamentally a decent person
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but apparently it's the Rapture tomorrow. Coincidentally, my parents are in Utah on holiday. I'll tell them to look out for it
Friend of mine has asserted confidently that the Rapture was about to happen, twice in the past two years.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
100%
Reform suffer from magic thinking, every bit as much as the Corbyn/Sultanas.
Is he repeating the allegation that Charlie Kirk was killed by Mossad to hide the fact that Kirk was about to reveal that Epstein worked for Israeli intelligence?
Is the alleged killer likely to be an agent of Mossad, and what on earth would convince him to do what he's done in the course of his duties?
I think it's unlikely the alleged killer is an agent of Mossad. However, it is worth remember that Israel did give us Dana International, so there is definitely a trans element there if you look closely enough...
Was the Duchess of York one of the offerings, at Epstein's parties?
Careful: you don't want to get sued by a bunch of paedophiles for libel.
I am not a fan of the Yorks but I have started reading "Entitled" and was surprised when the author claimed that although Sarah said she had 6 O levels, she had only 2 as 4 were D grade. Grades D and E were passes in O levels. In GCSEs D is a fail. I am surprised that in a book which claims to be thoroughly researched there was such a basic mistake. ,
Sarah is rather stupid and very foolish (with awful judgement) but fundamentally a decent person
Basically, you're saying she's like her ex, only with one big redeeming characteristic?
Flag update: one of the local hand car washes has raised on either side of its gates an England flag and a British one. The employees, I have to say, are fairly typical in appearance for the type of business, so not sure what message they are sending.
Comments
From the perspective of the local charities, it is far too risky.
From the perspective of Natural England, some charities get no money, and some locals don't get a brilliant day out. A win!
Perhaps we should an auction site, with a limited number of passports for sale?
Farage should however issue a clarification around legal spouses of British citizens hailing from core British allies. There should be a nominal admin fee for such people to convert to full citizenship and the cloud lifted from them. They are not his target but have been hit by a blunt weapon today.
https://youtu.be/n73SRvrAVZg?si=HENp5suaFuO-hMRu
According to my AI query, the Local Planning Authority (info: in England the LPA is the Local District or Unitary Council, or the National Park) can overrule a Natural England objection, but have to have cogent reasons:
AI Overview
Yes, a planning authority can overrule Natural England's objection, but they must have cogent reasons for doing so. While Natural England's advice carries significant weight, particularly regarding Habitats Regulations, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is not bound by it and can depart from their advice if they have strong, objective evidence showing there will be no negative impacts on nature.
I'll have a bit of a dig later. One development I was involved with was nearly caught in in a Special Protection Area for Birds - which extend a surprising distance (when there was a charge to provide alternative foraging ground). But we were just outside the zone.
So the only place where D / Es would occur was Grammar Schools.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/natural-england-action-plan-2024-to-2025/natural-england-action-plan-2024-to-2025
(I challenge anyone to read the entirety of that link without falling asleep.)
If government isn't happy about the current intersection of environmental and planning policy, the remedy is entirely within government's hands.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
- Kick-start economic growth
- Make Britain a clean energy superpower
- Take back our streets
- Break down barriers to opportunity
- Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
5 by elections this week. Locally i'm interested in Thetford Castle. Its actually on Wednesday so a day before the others. It should be a very easy Reform gain from Labour and the Cons might push Lab into third (but that's not certain, Thetford is the most Labour friendly part of SW Norfolk by a distance). UKIP won one of the 2 seats here in 2015 and even managed over 10% in 2023 long after becoming a joke so its KipperReformTastic in Thetford.
Benchmarks im looking at
Lab hold - Lab in contention to hold SW Norfolk against all odds
Con Gain - Con in pole position to regain SW Norfolk by a good margin
Ref Gain - amount is critical
Gain by less than 10% over Con, Con narrow favourites for SW Norfolk to toss up as we approach 10%
Gain by 10-15% over Con- Reform favourites to win the seat
Gain by 15% plus - Reform very very likely to win the seat
Gain by 25% - put a fork in SW Norfolk, its done
The mail has been more pro Badenoch recently and it is not a given they will back Farage on this
Sadly this one has already been found lacking.
I'm sure - in theory - there are good people in westminster clerk offices trying to do it - but, I'd guess it's just such a historical hot mess it must be almost impossible
LDs holding all but 1 of their seats on 10% would be quite something
Tommy Robinson says hello !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He read the law and then sent the Home Office a detailed appreciation about why about 20 pages of the law in question was illogical garbage. He is retired Philosophy lecturer.
He got back a letter, which gave the impression the writer was slightly scared of him. Offering a part time job parsing laws.
I tried to get him to do it, but he refused.
The last I paid close attention to it, we had a Conservative-led government for 14 years that started out with a mission of simplifying and cutting welfare spending under Universal Credit? What happened since? Which Conservative Prime Minister is to blame?
It seems mad that everyone is expecting Labour to be the ones cutting welfare spending after 14 years of Tory rule. It should have been sorted years ago, taking as read that it needs to be.
During covid many people got used to not going to work (or school for younger years) that continues to date. Especially linked with mental health issues.
Irony of course is that steady routines of working is good for your mental health.
I find it increasingly hard to take seriously those that say they are of a centre right disposition that are still defending them.
General Election.
Labour release their Repatriation Economic Bombshell poster and social media campaign arguing that sending 'them' all home will fuck the economy big time and wreck the nhs.
Evening all!
Slumming it in Chester this week
Reform's policy would make everyone reapply for visas on a 5-year basis. It would not eliminate the Government's discretion in choosing whether to allow more nurses etc. to retain visas at whatever salary was appropriate.
"Between 2019 and 2023, even as they were going around our country telling people, with a straight face, they would get immigration down, net migration quadrupled. Until in 2023, it reached nearly 1 million, which is about the population of Birmingham, our second largest city. That’s not control – it’s chaos.
And look, they must answer for themselves, but I don’t think you can do something like that by accident. It was a choice. A choice made even as they told you, told the country, they were doing the opposite. A one-nation experiment in open borders conducted on a country that voted for control. Well, no more. Today, this [political content redacted] Government is shutting down the lab. The experiment is over. We will deliver what you have asked for – time and again – and we will take back control of our borders.
So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse, that encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people, or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise, then you’re not championing growth, you’re not championing justice, or however else people defend the status quo. You’re actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart."
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-remarks-at-immigration-white-paper-press-conference-12-may-2025
It is certainly possible to legislate for overarching principles which affect all public bodies, and the legislation relating to them.
See the "reasonableness" test mentioned above, of the proposed duty of candour.
We could also look at things like delay (planing decisions ought not to be held up for a decade at a time) of absolute cost to the public purse.
All policy is a trade off when it comes down to it. But some existing legislation doesn't seem to recognise that the trade offs must, in the end, be to the public benefit.
Holding up a planning decision for a decade (as a hypothetical illustration), whichever way it is eventually decided, is not to the public benefit.
The economic effect might possibly be the least of those concerns.
Given how lazy most folk are, it might end up being used actually to write legislation.
Is Waterman's railway up in the cathedral?
https://x.com/jayinkyiv/status/1970189764801278184
Not going anywhere in particular, and possibly not even armed, but the airports and airspace over the city is closed and the Russians are going to have to scramble jets to shoot them down.
Oh well, what a shame.
If he so admires that, why wouldn't he also admire Trump's cavalier attitude to democracy ? He already described Putin as "the world leader I mosf admire", ten years back, now. I do struggle to understand the complacency surrounding Farage, at times.
Throw another log on the fire...
Danny Kruger.
Nadine also very quiet.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
The core Ref vote and Con vote skew old. Provided it doesn't affect their Triple Lock, the performance of the broad economy has little impact on their personal prosperity.
Cultural homogeneity and stasis is a luxury belief, which the young can't afford and don't particularly want anyway.
Commons. He was her sun king, her golden stallion.
The great eagle of Conservatism.
On the bright side, the rate of darkening slows down from here. At the moment we're losing five minutes sunlight a day.
It is not irrelevant nor was the inflation effect of the Ukraine war both of which contributing to our debt and immigration when we offered a safe haven to Ukranians together with Hong Kong citizens and Afghans
And Starmer wanted longer lock downs costing many billions more
I do not absolve Starmer (or Khan), but the last government and Parliament utterly failed us by giving in to the protracted hysteria.
There is a whole tangle of laws already in place. Some of them are from our dalliance with the EEC/EU, but many of them aren't. So if there are two laws that imply different conculsions, how does the state decide what to do?
I suspect that it needs increasingly smart (one might almost say forensic) Parliamentarians to navigate that tangle, and work out which knots to swerve, which to tangle, and which to cut. Unfortunately, the mood of the times is not to have smart Parlimentarians, but to throw a massive wobbly when anyone points out "you might want to legislate for X, but there are these other laws that say not-X". And whilst "no Parliament may bind its sucessor" is an excellent principle, it does raise practical difficulties unless we wipe the slate totally clean each election.
Who says Farage shouldn't be subject to scrutiny?
And who said PB is meant to be a barometer of public opinion? It is certainly worth knowing that it isn't, as you end up reading a load of people agreeing with each other that something is terribly awful and beyond the pale, whilst the public are voting for it
Reform suffer from magic thinking, every bit as much as the Corbyn/Sultanas.