The markets could be very interesting on Monday depending on what we hear over the weekend. How many more budget news stories can we take?
One wonders if Reeves is basically in full student essay meltdown panic mode, needing 10,000 words by Friday and hasn't got beyond the title and two bullet points with question marks. Might be forced to go for the old "dog ate my homework" routine.
ChatGPT....I have run up a £30bn black hole in the finances in a year, growth is poor, inflation is high, unemployment is rising, my party is polling 15%, but won't accept any cuts to spending....can you produce a budget for me that will save my job and turn around our parties fortunes in the polls...
thinking...thinking....thinking....thinking....thinking....sorry this is an impossible task. How about a nice game of Chess Global Thermonuclear War.
This scenario combines targeted revenue measures, limited administrative savings, selective capital timing adjustments, and compliance improvements. Indicative total (Year 1): £30.0bn – Revenues: £14.0bn – Spending/Efficiency Savings: £10.5bn – Timing & One-off Receipts: £5.5bn
Aims: • Deliver early credibility and market stability • Protect poorest households via targeted mitigations • Preserve high-multiplier investment (housing, skills, green transition) • Improve structural fiscal position over 2–3 years
Line-by-Line Measures (Indicative, Year 1) Measure Type Indicative Fiscal Impact Freeze income tax thresholds for 2 years Revenue £7.5bn Tighten corporate reliefs & anti-avoidance Revenue £3.5bn HMRC compliance uplift (net of investment) Revenue £2.0bn Central admin & procurement efficiencies Spending £4.0bn Targeted hiring freeze / pay moderation Spending £2.5bn Capital spending reprioritisation (timing shift) Timing £3.0bn Asset recycling / non-core disposals One-off £3.0bn Welfare administration reform (error/fraud) Spending £1.5bn Targeted levies (digital/environmental) Revenue £1.0bn
It is a cringe, isn't it. Very Jenrick. And I'm afraid use of "mid" creates a similar sensation. I'm hoping this is the last time we see it on here. But I don't suppose it will be. I can’t control how people express themselves.
Terribly sorry for using a phrase that states a level of nothingness about someone who deserves it. Please feel free to list which phrases don’t give you conniptions.
Yes ok I'll do a list of phrases I like. That's a good challenge.
Would be helpful for a list of phrases that upset you too if that is ok?
Jonathan Carley, 64, was arrested at his home in Harlech on Friday after being accused of impersonating a rear admiral.
The retired teacher saluted the war memorial in Llandudno, North Wales, on Sunday while wearing a row of 12 medals over an ill-fitting uniform.
North Wales Police arrested him under the 1894 Uniforms Act, which bars anyone who has not served in the armed forces from wearing military uniform.
I am shocked to learn he was also educated at the University of Oxford, what an utter bounder.
He did work at Cheltenham College though whether he graduated from Oxford is debateable. 'In a newspaper article he claimed to have been captain of boats at Christ Church, Oxford, before rowing at prestigious US Ivy League university, Harvard, where he allegedly completed a business degree.' https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37309833/fake-admiral-remembrance-unmasked-retired-teacher/
It is a cringe, isn't it. Very Jenrick. And I'm afraid use of "mid" creates a similar sensation. I'm hoping this is the last time we see it on here. But I don't suppose it will be. I can’t control how people express themselves.
Mark Epstein asked his brother Jeffrey Epstein whether Steve Bannon could confirm if Putin has “the photo of Trump blowing Bubba." Jeffrey Epstein: "I thought I had tsuris,” using the Yiddish term for troubles. https://x.com/OpDeathEaters/status/1989307675491102907
The markets could be very interesting on Monday depending on what we hear over the weekend. How many more budget news stories can we take?
One wonders if Reeves is basically in full student essay meltdown panic mode, needing 10,000 words by Friday and hasn't got beyond the title and two bullet points with question marks. Might be forced to go for the old "dog ate my homework" routine.
ChatGPT....I have run up a £30bn black hole in the finances in a year, growth is poor, inflation is high, unemployment is rising, my party is polling 15%, but won't accept any cuts to spending....can you produce a budget for me that will save my job and turn around our parties fortunes in the polls...
thinking...thinking....thinking....thinking....thinking....sorry this is an impossible task. How about a nice game of Chess Global Thermonuclear War.
This scenario combines targeted revenue measures, limited administrative savings, selective capital timing adjustments, and compliance improvements. Indicative total (Year 1): £30.0bn – Revenues: £14.0bn – Spending/Efficiency Savings: £10.5bn – Timing & One-off Receipts: £5.5bn
Aims: • Deliver early credibility and market stability • Protect poorest households via targeted mitigations • Preserve high-multiplier investment (housing, skills, green transition) • Improve structural fiscal position over 2–3 years
Line-by-Line Measures (Indicative, Year 1) Measure Type Indicative Fiscal Impact Freeze income tax thresholds for 2 years Revenue £7.5bn Tighten corporate reliefs & anti-avoidance Revenue £3.5bn HMRC compliance uplift (net of investment) Revenue £2.0bn Central admin & procurement efficiencies Spending £4.0bn Targeted hiring freeze / pay moderation Spending £2.5bn Capital spending reprioritisation (timing shift) Timing £3.0bn Asset recycling / non-core disposals One-off £3.0bn Welfare administration reform (error/fraud) Spending £1.5bn Targeted levies (digital/environmental) Revenue £1.0bn
Total: £30.0bn (indicative)
Now we know how Nigel and Kemi got their economics policies drafted.
Homan: "I don't think the UK is a friend to this country and friend of the president"
Tariff increase incoming?
That might effect our ability to be an "AI Superpower", if you can remember those heady days. Probably meant something in the few hours between meeting rich people and making the statement. Superpower. Must be nice to say.
Mark Epstein asked his brother Jeffrey Epstein whether Steve Bannon could confirm if Putin has “the photo of Trump blowing Bubba." Jeffrey Epstein: "I thought I had tsuris,” using the Yiddish term for troubles. https://x.com/OpDeathEaters/status/1989307675491102907
Against my better inclinations I watched QT for a bit last night, more in hope than expectations of Sultana putting up a decent show, unfortunately hopes and expectations were dashed. She’s not a supple or subtle thinker and reverts to slogans at the drop of a hat. Strangely there’s not much difference between what Sultana and Polanski are saying, but it shows you need something extra to front a party, or a movement as Zarah would no doubt say.
Seen some of it as well. Thought she was very ranty whenever she spoke. Looked a sympathetic audience for her views too
I've seen a few clips now from QT. Have to say Ken C may be getting on a bit but he still speaks great sense and with authority.
Where are today's politicians with such talent and ability for the frontline?
Certainly not in today's Treasury.
I thought the same too, KC spoke sense on migration. He's 85 now, a good few Tory politicians would do well to heed his words.
The way the Treasury have handled this upcoming budget is astonishing, I put some of it down to a poor standard of advisors - too many fresh out of uni with PPE degrees and no experience outside politics under their belt
The dearth of talent is deep and affects all political offices from local government upwards. The ability of a lot of our local councillors is not a patch on what it was 20 years ago, that is despite less people putting themselves forward (I'm aware I sound very old saying this!)
Haven't special advisers normally been relatively recently outside of uni? Say what you like about Starmer and Reeves they both had experience outside politics, Reeves isn't known as 'Rachel from Complaints' for nothing
They should just be called advisers. Recent history has shown there is nothing special about them.
Against my better inclinations I watched QT for a bit last night, more in hope than expectations of Sultana putting up a decent show, unfortunately hopes and expectations were dashed. She’s not a supple or subtle thinker and reverts to slogans at the drop of a hat. Strangely there’s not much difference between what Sultana and Polanski are saying, but it shows you need something extra to front a party, or a movement as Zarah would no doubt say.
Seen some of it as well. Thought she was very ranty whenever she spoke. Looked a sympathetic audience for her views too
I've seen a few clips now from QT. Have to say Ken C may be getting on a bit but he still speaks great sense and with authority.
Where are today's politicians with such talent and ability for the frontline?
Certainly not in today's Treasury.
I thought the same too, KC spoke sense on migration. He's 85 now, a good few Tory politicians would do well to heed his words.
The way the Treasury have handled this upcoming budget is astonishing, I put some of it down to a poor standard of advisors - too many fresh out of uni with PPE degrees and no experience outside politics under their belt
The dearth of talent is deep and affects all political offices from local government upwards. The ability of a lot of our local councillors is not a patch on what it was 20 years ago, that is despite less people putting themselves forward (I'm aware I sound very old saying this!)
Haven't special advisers normally been relatively recently outside of uni? Say what you like about Starmer and Reeves they both had experience outside politics, Reeves isn't known as 'Rachel from Complaints' for nothing
They should just be called advisers. Recent history has shown there is nothing special about them.
Against my better inclinations I watched QT for a bit last night, more in hope than expectations of Sultana putting up a decent show, unfortunately hopes and expectations were dashed. She’s not a supple or subtle thinker and reverts to slogans at the drop of a hat. Strangely there’s not much difference between what Sultana and Polanski are saying, but it shows you need something extra to front a party, or a movement as Zarah would no doubt say.
Seen some of it as well. Thought she was very ranty whenever she spoke. Looked a sympathetic audience for her views too
I've seen a few clips now from QT. Have to say Ken C may be getting on a bit but he still speaks great sense and with authority.
Where are today's politicians with such talent and ability for the frontline?
Certainly not in today's Treasury.
I thought the same too, KC spoke sense on migration. He's 85 now, a good few Tory politicians would do well to heed his words.
The way the Treasury have handled this upcoming budget is astonishing, I put some of it down to a poor standard of advisors - too many fresh out of uni with PPE degrees and no experience outside politics under their belt
The dearth of talent is deep and affects all political offices from local government upwards. The ability of a lot of our local councillors is not a patch on what it was 20 years ago, that is despite less people putting themselves forward (I'm aware I sound very old saying this!)
Haven't special advisers normally been relatively recently outside of uni? Say what you like about Starmer and Reeves they both had experience outside politics, Reeves isn't known as 'Rachel from Complaints' for nothing
They should just be called advisers. Recent history has shown there is nothing special about them.
Next you'll be doing down Senior Sources. Then where would 90% of political journalism be, eh?
Against my better inclinations I watched QT for a bit last night, more in hope than expectations of Sultana putting up a decent show, unfortunately hopes and expectations were dashed. She’s not a supple or subtle thinker and reverts to slogans at the drop of a hat. Strangely there’s not much difference between what Sultana and Polanski are saying, but it shows you need something extra to front a party, or a movement as Zarah would no doubt say.
Seen some of it as well. Thought she was very ranty whenever she spoke. Looked a sympathetic audience for her views too
I've seen a few clips now from QT. Have to say Ken C may be getting on a bit but he still speaks great sense and with authority.
Where are today's politicians with such talent and ability for the frontline?
Certainly not in today's Treasury.
I thought the same too, KC spoke sense on migration. He's 85 now, a good few Tory politicians would do well to heed his words.
The way the Treasury have handled this upcoming budget is astonishing, I put some of it down to a poor standard of advisors - too many fresh out of uni with PPE degrees and no experience outside politics under their belt
The dearth of talent is deep and affects all political offices from local government upwards. The ability of a lot of our local councillors is not a patch on what it was 20 years ago, that is despite less people putting themselves forward (I'm aware I sound very old saying this!)
Haven't special advisers normally been relatively recently outside of uni? Say what you like about Starmer and Reeves they both had experience outside politics, Reeves isn't known as 'Rachel from Complaints' for nothing
They should just be called advisers. Recent history has shown there is nothing special about them.
Next you'll be doing down Senior Sources. Then where would 90% of political journalism be, eh?
Notice that nobody claims to be an informed source these days.
Against my better inclinations I watched QT for a bit last night, more in hope than expectations of Sultana putting up a decent show, unfortunately hopes and expectations were dashed. She’s not a supple or subtle thinker and reverts to slogans at the drop of a hat. Strangely there’s not much difference between what Sultana and Polanski are saying, but it shows you need something extra to front a party, or a movement as Zarah would no doubt say.
Seen some of it as well. Thought she was very ranty whenever she spoke. Looked a sympathetic audience for her views too
I've seen a few clips now from QT. Have to say Ken C may be getting on a bit but he still speaks great sense and with authority.
Where are today's politicians with such talent and ability for the frontline?
Certainly not in today's Treasury.
I thought the same too, KC spoke sense on migration. He's 85 now, a good few Tory politicians would do well to heed his words.
The way the Treasury have handled this upcoming budget is astonishing, I put some of it down to a poor standard of advisors - too many fresh out of uni with PPE degrees and no experience outside politics under their belt
The dearth of talent is deep and affects all political offices from local government upwards. The ability of a lot of our local councillors is not a patch on what it was 20 years ago, that is despite less people putting themselves forward (I'm aware I sound very old saying this!)
Haven't special advisers normally been relatively recently outside of uni? Say what you like about Starmer and Reeves they both had experience outside politics, Reeves isn't known as 'Rachel from Complaints' for nothing
They should just be called advisers. Recent history has shown there is nothing special about them.
Oh I think they are special - just in the way we can't use that word anymore...
Against my better inclinations I watched QT for a bit last night, more in hope than expectations of Sultana putting up a decent show, unfortunately hopes and expectations were dashed. She’s not a supple or subtle thinker and reverts to slogans at the drop of a hat. Strangely there’s not much difference between what Sultana and Polanski are saying, but it shows you need something extra to front a party, or a movement as Zarah would no doubt say.
Seen some of it as well. Thought she was very ranty whenever she spoke. Looked a sympathetic audience for her views too
I've seen a few clips now from QT. Have to say Ken C may be getting on a bit but he still speaks great sense and with authority.
Where are today's politicians with such talent and ability for the frontline?
Certainly not in today's Treasury.
I thought the same too, KC spoke sense on migration. He's 85 now, a good few Tory politicians would do well to heed his words.
The way the Treasury have handled this upcoming budget is astonishing, I put some of it down to a poor standard of advisors - too many fresh out of uni with PPE degrees and no experience outside politics under their belt
The dearth of talent is deep and affects all political offices from local government upwards. The ability of a lot of our local councillors is not a patch on what it was 20 years ago, that is despite less people putting themselves forward (I'm aware I sound very old saying this!)
Haven't special advisers normally been relatively recently outside of uni? Say what you like about Starmer and Reeves they both had experience outside politics, Reeves isn't known as 'Rachel from Complaints' for nothing
They should just be called advisers. Recent history has shown there is nothing special about them.
Next you'll be doing down Senior Sources. Then where would 90% of political journalism be, eh?
Or even “sources close to the Government “ meaning someone who walked past Westminster earlier today.
It is a cringe, isn't it. Very Jenrick. And I'm afraid use of "mid" creates a similar sensation. I'm hoping this is the last time we see it on here. But I don't suppose it will be. I can’t control how people express themselves.
Terribly sorry for using a phrase that states a level of nothingness about someone who deserves it. Please feel free to list which phrases don’t give you conniptions.
Yes ok I'll do a list of phrases I like. That's a good challenge.
Would be helpful for a list of phrases that upset you too if that is ok?
Against my better inclinations I watched QT for a bit last night, more in hope than expectations of Sultana putting up a decent show, unfortunately hopes and expectations were dashed. She’s not a supple or subtle thinker and reverts to slogans at the drop of a hat. Strangely there’s not much difference between what Sultana and Polanski are saying, but it shows you need something extra to front a party, or a movement as Zarah would no doubt say.
Seen some of it as well. Thought she was very ranty whenever she spoke. Looked a sympathetic audience for her views too
I've seen a few clips now from QT. Have to say Ken C may be getting on a bit but he still speaks great sense and with authority.
Where are today's politicians with such talent and ability for the frontline?
Certainly not in today's Treasury.
I thought the same too, KC spoke sense on migration. He's 85 now, a good few Tory politicians would do well to heed his words.
The way the Treasury have handled this upcoming budget is astonishing, I put some of it down to a poor standard of advisors - too many fresh out of uni with PPE degrees and no experience outside politics under their belt
The dearth of talent is deep and affects all political offices from local government upwards. The ability of a lot of our local councillors is not a patch on what it was 20 years ago, that is despite less people putting themselves forward (I'm aware I sound very old saying this!)
Haven't special advisers normally been relatively recently outside of uni? Say what you like about Starmer and Reeves they both had experience outside politics, Reeves isn't known as 'Rachel from Complaints' for nothing
They should just be called advisers. Recent history has shown there is nothing special about them.
Not sure, I think they're very special.
A serious point, before I descend into Cats Does Countdown and cheap Spanish wine-
Starmer and Johnson both look set to be broken by their choices of Chief of Staff. Jeeves and Wooster rewritten by Harold Pinter. Possibly also TMay and Nick Timothy.
At what point does this become a systemic problem, and what's the answer?
It is a cringe, isn't it. Very Jenrick. And I'm afraid use of "mid" creates a similar sensation. I'm hoping this is the last time we see it on here. But I don't suppose it will be. I can’t control how people express themselves.
Terribly sorry for using a phrase that states a level of nothingness about someone who deserves it. Please feel free to list which phrases don’t give you conniptions.
Yes ok I'll do a list of phrases I like. That's a good challenge.
Would be helpful for a list of phrases that upset you too if that is ok?
Ah yes, that'll be more enjoyable. On it.
Here’s one to start the list. The Channel Isles are shite.
Mark Epstein asked his brother Jeffrey Epstein whether Steve Bannon could confirm if Putin has “the photo of Trump blowing Bubba." Jeffrey Epstein: "I thought I had tsuris,” using the Yiddish term for troubles. https://x.com/OpDeathEaters/status/1989307675491102907
It's been miserably wet here, too, and randomly windy.
I've been at a funeral of a friend's dad I knew since about 1970 (they used to babysit us). Went in a good way - compos mentis until last spring, and went down hill quickly from then. He married in 1962, and they lived in the same house from the mid-1960s to the end.
A very interesting conversation about offshore wind, with someone who was Project Director for the build of one of the big windfarms off the south coast, and is now high-up for one of the big companies. The biggest problem has been "feast and famine", and he thinks that the gas-based pricing model will go, but not yet.
I've also just plugged myself into the my school's network. The first e-newsletter that comes through is an invitation to a speech by Lord Frost at the school. I'd be interested to hear what he has to say, and they are able to cope with a large audience - it is in the assembly hall with a capacity of 1000+, though that sounds optimistic to me. That says something about the upsides and downsides of peer networks. I hope that there is a charge to go to endowment funds, or similar.
60 years in the same house is some effort - I'm around half that time, at least it saves stamp duty! A couple of locals (no longer with us) were born in the same house they died in
That sounds like a fascinating conversation, trying to read between the lines, I wonder if the brakes are being put on some of the bigger projects, due to rising construction costs? I know some of them would like to see an increase to CfD support systems, maybe we will hear more in the budget. Plenty of onshore ones on the table in rural SW Scotland, they don't seem to be letting up. Some of these companies will have their fingers in several pies and there will be the odd speculative application thrown in
CJ Warnke @cjwarnke · 1h 🚨NRCC pollster show MASSIVE warning signs for Republicans🚨
For the first time in two years, voters whose top priority is inflation and the economy now prefer a generic Democrat for Congress (D+13) OVER a Republican.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
CJ Warnke @cjwarnke · 1h 🚨NRCC pollster show MASSIVE warning signs for Republicans🚨
For the first time in two years, voters whose top priority is inflation and the economy now prefer a generic Democrat for Congress (D+13) OVER a Republican.
'Some of the documents mentioned Trump, including one from Epstein's brother, Mark, which references photos of Trump "blowing Bubba." "Bubba" is a nickname of former president Bill Clinton, but Mark Epstein told Newsweek the individual was not Clinton. He did not provide any additional details about the identity of “Bubba” or the meaning of the emails. ' https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-blowing-bubba-message-epstein-emails-under-scrutiny-11046836
CJ Warnke @cjwarnke · 1h 🚨NRCC pollster show MASSIVE warning signs for Republicans🚨
For the first time in two years, voters whose top priority is inflation and the economy now prefer a generic Democrat for Congress (D+13) OVER a Republican.
Against my better inclinations I watched QT for a bit last night, more in hope than expectations of Sultana putting up a decent show, unfortunately hopes and expectations were dashed. She’s not a supple or subtle thinker and reverts to slogans at the drop of a hat. Strangely there’s not much difference between what Sultana and Polanski are saying, but it shows you need something extra to front a party, or a movement as Zarah would no doubt say.
Seen some of it as well. Thought she was very ranty whenever she spoke. Looked a sympathetic audience for her views too
I've seen a few clips now from QT. Have to say Ken C may be getting on a bit but he still speaks great sense and with authority.
Where are today's politicians with such talent and ability for the frontline?
Certainly not in today's Treasury.
I thought the same too, KC spoke sense on migration. He's 85 now, a good few Tory politicians would do well to heed his words.
The way the Treasury have handled this upcoming budget is astonishing, I put some of it down to a poor standard of advisors - too many fresh out of uni with PPE degrees and no experience outside politics under their belt
The dearth of talent is deep and affects all political offices from local government upwards. The ability of a lot of our local councillors is not a patch on what it was 20 years ago, that is despite less people putting themselves forward (I'm aware I sound very old saying this!)
Haven't special advisers normally been relatively recently outside of uni? Say what you like about Starmer and Reeves they both had experience outside politics, Reeves isn't known as 'Rachel from Complaints' for nothing
Plenty of younger MSP candidates have been heavily involved in party politics, some of them junior office members before standing for election themselves. Being a weel kent face helps
I don't know what Starmers excuse is for the ongoing budget shambles, it's panto season soon so maybe he's just getting into the spirit
Mark Epstein asked his brother Jeffrey Epstein whether Steve Bannon could confirm if Putin has “the photo of Trump blowing Bubba." Jeffrey Epstein: "I thought I had tsuris,” using the Yiddish term for troubles. https://x.com/OpDeathEaters/status/1989307675491102907
Donald Lewinsky.
Is that what he meant by Big Beautiful Bill ?
I think we can be confident that no one foresaw this turn of events.
Mark Epstein asked his brother Jeffrey Epstein whether Steve Bannon could confirm if Putin has “the photo of Trump blowing Bubba." Jeffrey Epstein: "I thought I had tsuris,” using the Yiddish term for troubles. https://x.com/OpDeathEaters/status/1989307675491102907
Donald Lewinsky.
Is that what he meant by Big Beautiful Bill ?
I think we can be confident that no one foresaw this turn of events.
Mark Epstein asked his brother Jeffrey Epstein whether Steve Bannon could confirm if Putin has “the photo of Trump blowing Bubba." Jeffrey Epstein: "I thought I had tsuris,” using the Yiddish term for troubles. https://x.com/OpDeathEaters/status/1989307675491102907
Donald Lewinsky.
Is that what he meant by Big Beautiful Bill ?
I think we can be confident that no one foresaw this turn of events.
Bill Clinton is, what, 80 now?
He should confirm it happened - whether it did or not - just for the lolz. He surely hasn't got much dignity left to save anyway.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
It’s fascinating how politics shifts. Before this week I’d have said Starmer was more likely than not to go before the end of 2027/28, but he had the benefit of time to try and strengthen his position.
It now looks increasingly unlikely he’ll be in post in 12 months time.
In some ways it’s because his fortunes are tied to Reeves, and if we weren’t already aware of this she has again demonstrated just how badly she is performing as a steward of our economy and how increasingly out of her depth she is appearing. Can they really afford to keep her in post much longer? The chances of a very negative bond market reaction in the coming months feel significantly higher to me this evening.
'Some of the documents mentioned Trump, including one from Epstein's brother, Mark, which references photos of Trump "blowing Bubba." "Bubba" is a nickname of former president Bill Clinton, but Mark Epstein told Newsweek the individual was not Clinton. He did not provide any additional details about the identity of “Bubba” or the meaning of the emails. ' https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-blowing-bubba-message-epstein-emails-under-scrutiny-11046836
Well if it had been Clinton, it would of course have been consensual and legal (if not something many of Trump's base would like to contemplate).
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
There is 18 months when a Government gets into power during which it can get all the awkward painful stuff out of the way - after that you need things to turn so you have a chance at the next election...
'Some of the documents mentioned Trump, including one from Epstein's brother, Mark, which references photos of Trump "blowing Bubba." "Bubba" is a nickname of former president Bill Clinton, but Mark Epstein told Newsweek the individual was not Clinton. He did not provide any additional details about the identity of “Bubba” or the meaning of the emails. ' https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-blowing-bubba-message-epstein-emails-under-scrutiny-11046836
Well if it had been Clinton, it would of course have been consensual and legal (if not something many of Trump's base would like to contemplate).
What's interesting here is that if Trump had blown Clinton and didn't do any of the diddling stuff, he's in the clear legally but politically it's better to be a pedo than to be gay if you're a Republican
Mark Epstein asked his brother Jeffrey Epstein whether Steve Bannon could confirm if Putin has “the photo of Trump blowing Bubba." Jeffrey Epstein: "I thought I had tsuris,” using the Yiddish term for troubles. https://x.com/OpDeathEaters/status/1989307675491102907
Donald Lewinsky.
Is that what he meant by Big Beautiful Bill ?
I think we can be confident that no one foresaw this turn of events.
Bill Clinton is, what, 80 now?
He should confirm it happened - whether it did or not - just for the lolz. He surely hasn't got much dignity left to save anyway.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
There is 18 months when a Government gets into power during which it can get all the awkward painful stuff out of the way - after that you need things to turn so you have a chance at the next election...
Starmer and Reeves have wasted that 18 months.
They wanted power but they had no idea why will be on their gravestones.
Against my better inclinations I watched QT for a bit last night, more in hope than expectations of Sultana putting up a decent show, unfortunately hopes and expectations were dashed. She’s not a supple or subtle thinker and reverts to slogans at the drop of a hat. Strangely there’s not much difference between what Sultana and Polanski are saying, but it shows you need something extra to front a party, or a movement as Zarah would no doubt say.
Seen some of it as well. Thought she was very ranty whenever she spoke. Looked a sympathetic audience for her views too
I've seen a few clips now from QT. Have to say Ken C may be getting on a bit but he still speaks great sense and with authority.
Where are today's politicians with such talent and ability for the frontline?
Certainly not in today's Treasury.
I thought the same too, KC spoke sense on migration. He's 85 now, a good few Tory politicians would do well to heed his words.
The way the Treasury have handled this upcoming budget is astonishing, I put some of it down to a poor standard of advisors - too many fresh out of uni with PPE degrees and no experience outside politics under their belt
The dearth of talent is deep and affects all political offices from local government upwards. The ability of a lot of our local councillors is not a patch on what it was 20 years ago, that is despite less people putting themselves forward (I'm aware I sound very old saying this!)
Haven't special advisers normally been relatively recently outside of uni? Say what you like about Starmer and Reeves they both had experience outside politics, Reeves isn't known as 'Rachel from Complaints' for nothing
They should just be called advisers. Recent history has shown there is nothing special about them.
Not sure, I think they're very special.
A serious point, before I descend into Cats Does Countdown and cheap Spanish wine-
Starmer and Johnson both look set to be broken by their choices of Chief of Staff. Jeeves and Wooster rewritten by Harold Pinter. Possibly also TMay and Nick Timothy.
At what point does this become a systemic problem, and what's the answer?
Anyone at a very senior level is to a very large extent reliant on the capability of the people they appoint to delegate doing things to. The issue here is that power in the British government has become so concentrated on the Prime Minister that a single point of failure has been created, and they can only hope not to fail completely if they have a very capable assistant, as Chief of Staff.
The solution is to somehow achieve the impossible and distribute power more widely - across the Cabinet, to local or regional government, to the people doing the work.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
It’s fascinating how politics shifts. Before this week I’d have said Starmer was more likely than not to go before the end of 2027/28, but he had the benefit of time to try and strengthen his position.
It now looks increasingly unlikely he’ll be in post in 12 months time.
In some ways it’s because his fortunes are tied to Reeves, and if we weren’t already aware of this she has again demonstrated just how badly she is performing as a steward of our economy and how increasingly out of her depth she is appearing. Can they really afford to keep her in post much longer? The chances of a very negative bond market reaction in the coming months feel significantly higher to me this evening.
I heard an economist earlier say that they would be better off raising income tax now, because markets would at least understand the rationale and believe it would be effective. He said that markets generally don't believe that the kind of tinkering to taxation and smaller niche taxes that are raised will work. He more or less implied that come the following budget Labour will be forced to do what they should have done last year, and with two years wasted they haven't a hope of achieving their aims. i.e. They are clueless and useless.
Against my better inclinations I watched QT for a bit last night, more in hope than expectations of Sultana putting up a decent show, unfortunately hopes and expectations were dashed. She’s not a supple or subtle thinker and reverts to slogans at the drop of a hat. Strangely there’s not much difference between what Sultana and Polanski are saying, but it shows you need something extra to front a party, or a movement as Zarah would no doubt say.
Seen some of it as well. Thought she was very ranty whenever she spoke. Looked a sympathetic audience for her views too
I've seen a few clips now from QT. Have to say Ken C may be getting on a bit but he still speaks great sense and with authority.
Where are today's politicians with such talent and ability for the frontline?
Certainly not in today's Treasury.
I thought the same too, KC spoke sense on migration. He's 85 now, a good few Tory politicians would do well to heed his words.
The way the Treasury have handled this upcoming budget is astonishing, I put some of it down to a poor standard of advisors - too many fresh out of uni with PPE degrees and no experience outside politics under their belt
The dearth of talent is deep and affects all political offices from local government upwards. The ability of a lot of our local councillors is not a patch on what it was 20 years ago, that is despite less people putting themselves forward (I'm aware I sound very old saying this!)
Haven't special advisers normally been relatively recently outside of uni? Say what you like about Starmer and Reeves they both had experience outside politics, Reeves isn't known as 'Rachel from Complaints' for nothing
They should just be called advisers. Recent history has shown there is nothing special about them.
Not sure, I think they're very special.
A serious point, before I descend into Cats Does Countdown and cheap Spanish wine-
Starmer and Johnson both look set to be broken by their choices of Chief of Staff. Jeeves and Wooster rewritten by Harold Pinter. Possibly also TMay and Nick Timothy.
At what point does this become a systemic problem, and what's the answer?
Anyone at a very senior level is to a very large extent reliant on the capability of the people they appoint to delegate doing things to. The issue here is that power in the British government has become so concentrated on the Prime Minister that a single point of failure has been created, and they can only hope not to fail completely if they have a very capable assistant, as Chief of Staff.
The solution is to somehow achieve the impossible and distribute power more widely - across the Cabinet, to local or regional government, to the people doing the work.
Or, alternatively, not to appoint failed hacks with delusions of adequacy and falsified CVs as chief of staff.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
There is 18 months when a Government gets into power during which it can get all the awkward painful stuff out of the way - after that you need things to turn so you have a chance at the next election...
Starmer and Reeves have wasted that 18 months.
They wanted power but they had no idea why will be on their gravestones.
The American constitution and the shining city on a hill where a people governed themselves under the rule of law turned out to be a children's fairy story.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
It’s fascinating how politics shifts. Before this week I’d have said Starmer was more likely than not to go before the end of 2027/28, but he had the benefit of time to try and strengthen his position.
It now looks increasingly unlikely he’ll be in post in 12 months time.
In some ways it’s because his fortunes are tied to Reeves, and if we weren’t already aware of this she has again demonstrated just how badly she is performing as a steward of our economy and how increasingly out of her depth she is appearing. Can they really afford to keep her in post much longer? The chances of a very negative bond market reaction in the coming months feel significantly higher to me this evening.
I have some sympathy for Reeves. It increasingly looks like Starmer is an impossible Prime Minister to work for and many of the ways she looks like an idiot seem to be his fault.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
It’s fascinating how politics shifts. Before this week I’d have said Starmer was more likely than not to go before the end of 2027/28, but he had the benefit of time to try and strengthen his position.
It now looks increasingly unlikely he’ll be in post in 12 months time.
In some ways it’s because his fortunes are tied to Reeves, and if we weren’t already aware of this she has again demonstrated just how badly she is performing as a steward of our economy and how increasingly out of her depth she is appearing. Can they really afford to keep her in post much longer? The chances of a very negative bond market reaction in the coming months feel significantly higher to me this evening.
Now that Reeves has excluded Income Tax from the list of taxes she won’t raise, she is in danger of spooking the markets because there are no taxes left to raise to keep the country solvent.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
There is 18 months when a Government gets into power during which it can get all the awkward painful stuff out of the way - after that you need things to turn so you have a chance at the next election...
Starmer and Reeves have wasted that 18 months.
They wanted power but they had no idea why will be on their gravestones.
Against my better inclinations I watched QT for a bit last night, more in hope than expectations of Sultana putting up a decent show, unfortunately hopes and expectations were dashed. She’s not a supple or subtle thinker and reverts to slogans at the drop of a hat. Strangely there’s not much difference between what Sultana and Polanski are saying, but it shows you need something extra to front a party, or a movement as Zarah would no doubt say.
Seen some of it as well. Thought she was very ranty whenever she spoke. Looked a sympathetic audience for her views too
I've seen a few clips now from QT. Have to say Ken C may be getting on a bit but he still speaks great sense and with authority.
Where are today's politicians with such talent and ability for the frontline?
Certainly not in today's Treasury.
I thought the same too, KC spoke sense on migration. He's 85 now, a good few Tory politicians would do well to heed his words.
The way the Treasury have handled this upcoming budget is astonishing, I put some of it down to a poor standard of advisors - too many fresh out of uni with PPE degrees and no experience outside politics under their belt
The dearth of talent is deep and affects all political offices from local government upwards. The ability of a lot of our local councillors is not a patch on what it was 20 years ago, that is despite less people putting themselves forward (I'm aware I sound very old saying this!)
Haven't special advisers normally been relatively recently outside of uni? Say what you like about Starmer and Reeves they both had experience outside politics, Reeves isn't known as 'Rachel from Complaints' for nothing
They should just be called advisers. Recent history has shown there is nothing special about them.
Not sure, I think they're very special.
A serious point, before I descend into Cats Does Countdown and cheap Spanish wine-
Starmer and Johnson both look set to be broken by their choices of Chief of Staff. Jeeves and Wooster rewritten by Harold Pinter. Possibly also TMay and Nick Timothy.
At what point does this become a systemic problem, and what's the answer?
Anyone at a very senior level is to a very large extent reliant on the capability of the people they appoint to delegate doing things to. The issue here is that power in the British government has become so concentrated on the Prime Minister that a single point of failure has been created, and they can only hope not to fail completely if they have a very capable assistant, as Chief of Staff.
The solution is to somehow achieve the impossible and distribute power more widely - across the Cabinet, to local or regional government, to the people doing the work.
Or, alternatively, not to appoint failed hacks with delusions of adequacy and falsified CVs as chief of staff.
But also... Is CoS to the PM a role which has so much practical power and so little scrutiny that anyone who wants it should not only be disqualified, but locked up in advance for public safety?
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
It’s fascinating how politics shifts. Before this week I’d have said Starmer was more likely than not to go before the end of 2027/28, but he had the benefit of time to try and strengthen his position.
It now looks increasingly unlikely he’ll be in post in 12 months time.
In some ways it’s because his fortunes are tied to Reeves, and if we weren’t already aware of this she has again demonstrated just how badly she is performing as a steward of our economy and how increasingly out of her depth she is appearing. Can they really afford to keep her in post much longer? The chances of a very negative bond market reaction in the coming months feel significantly higher to me this evening.
I have some sympathy for Reeves. It increasingly looks like Starmer is an impossible Prime Minister to work for and many of the ways she looks like an idiot seem to be his fault.
Maybe the best way to bring this all to a head would be for her to resign before the budget and put the boot into Starmer.
The American constitution and the shining city on a hill where a people governed themselves under the rule of law turned out to be a children's fairy story.
It never existed.
That's hardly true. The constitution has obvious strengths, and done weaknesses, but it's only recently that the GOP have started to demolish it wholesale.
It would for instance have been unthinkable for prior presidents to direct his AG to investigate political opponents on his behalf. When Nixon tried something similar, he was almost immediately threatened with impeachment, and forced to resign.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
It’s fascinating how politics shifts. Before this week I’d have said Starmer was more likely than not to go before the end of 2027/28, but he had the benefit of time to try and strengthen his position.
It now looks increasingly unlikely he’ll be in post in 12 months time.
In some ways it’s because his fortunes are tied to Reeves, and if we weren’t already aware of this she has again demonstrated just how badly she is performing as a steward of our economy and how increasingly out of her depth she is appearing. Can they really afford to keep her in post much longer? The chances of a very negative bond market reaction in the coming months feel significantly higher to me this evening.
I have some sympathy for Reeves. It increasingly looks like Starmer is an impossible Prime Minister to work for and many of the ways she looks like an idiot seem to be his fault.
Maybe the best way to bring this all to a head would be for her to resign before the budget and put the boot into Starmer.
The way things are going I half expect her to resign *during* it.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
It’s fascinating how politics shifts. Before this week I’d have said Starmer was more likely than not to go before the end of 2027/28, but he had the benefit of time to try and strengthen his position.
It now looks increasingly unlikely he’ll be in post in 12 months time.
In some ways it’s because his fortunes are tied to Reeves, and if we weren’t already aware of this she has again demonstrated just how badly she is performing as a steward of our economy and how increasingly out of her depth she is appearing. Can they really afford to keep her in post much longer? The chances of a very negative bond market reaction in the coming months feel significantly higher to me this evening.
I have some sympathy for Reeves. It increasingly looks like Starmer is an impossible Prime Minister to work for and many of the ways she looks like an idiot seem to be his fault.
Maybe the best way to bring this all to a head would be for her to resign before the budget and put the boot into Starmer.
The way things are going I half expect her to resign *during* it.
Then unresign by the end of the speech.
See you, your a f##king ombishambles, from bean to cup, you fuck up.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
The American constitution and the shining city on a hill where a people governed themselves under the rule of law turned out to be a children's fairy story.
It never existed.
The "shining city on a hill" was always hyperbole, of course, somewhat akin to the "sceptred isle" bit about Britain.
But this is not normal, at all.
I wish I could impress on younger generations right now just how unprecedented this is.
This level of corruption is not normal - it’s like nothing that has happened in American history, and it is stealing from your future.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
It’s fascinating how politics shifts. Before this week I’d have said Starmer was more likely than not to go before the end of 2027/28, but he had the benefit of time to try and strengthen his position.
It now looks increasingly unlikely he’ll be in post in 12 months time.
In some ways it’s because his fortunes are tied to Reeves, and if we weren’t already aware of this she has again demonstrated just how badly she is performing as a steward of our economy and how increasingly out of her depth she is appearing. Can they really afford to keep her in post much longer? The chances of a very negative bond market reaction in the coming months feel significantly higher to me this evening.
I have some sympathy for Reeves. It increasingly looks like Starmer is an impossible Prime Minister to work for and many of the ways she looks like an idiot seem to be his fault.
The American constitution and the shining city on a hill where a people governed themselves under the rule of law turned out to be a children's fairy story.
It never existed.
The "shining city on a hill" was always hyperbole, of course, somewhat akin to the "sceptred isle" bit about Britain.
But this is not normal, at all.
I wish I could impress on younger generations right now just how unprecedented this is.
This level of corruption is not normal - it’s like nothing that has happened in American history, and it is stealing from your future.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
It’s fascinating how politics shifts. Before this week I’d have said Starmer was more likely than not to go before the end of 2027/28, but he had the benefit of time to try and strengthen his position.
It now looks increasingly unlikely he’ll be in post in 12 months time.
In some ways it’s because his fortunes are tied to Reeves, and if we weren’t already aware of this she has again demonstrated just how badly she is performing as a steward of our economy and how increasingly out of her depth she is appearing. Can they really afford to keep her in post much longer? The chances of a very negative bond market reaction in the coming months feel significantly higher to me this evening.
I have some sympathy for Reeves. It increasingly looks like Starmer is an impossible Prime Minister to work for and many of the ways she looks like an idiot seem to be his fault.
Maybe the best way to bring this all to a head would be for her to resign before the budget and put the boot into Starmer.
The way things are going I half expect her to resign *during* it.
Then unresign by the end of the speech.
See you, your a f##king ombishambles, from bean to cup, you fuck up.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
It’s fascinating how politics shifts. Before this week I’d have said Starmer was more likely than not to go before the end of 2027/28, but he had the benefit of time to try and strengthen his position.
It now looks increasingly unlikely he’ll be in post in 12 months time.
In some ways it’s because his fortunes are tied to Reeves, and if we weren’t already aware of this she has again demonstrated just how badly she is performing as a steward of our economy and how increasingly out of her depth she is appearing. Can they really afford to keep her in post much longer? The chances of a very negative bond market reaction in the coming months feel significantly higher to me this evening.
I have some sympathy for Reeves. It increasingly looks like Starmer is an impossible Prime Minister to work for and many of the ways she looks like an idiot seem to be his fault.
Maybe the best way to bring this all to a head would be for her to resign before the budget and put the boot into Starmer.
The way things are going I half expect her to resign *during* it.
No chance before, during or after for austerity Reeves or SKS
They literally still believe they are doing a good job.
Zero self awareness to match zero aptitude for their roles
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
It’s fascinating how politics shifts. Before this week I’d have said Starmer was more likely than not to go before the end of 2027/28, but he had the benefit of time to try and strengthen his position.
It now looks increasingly unlikely he’ll be in post in 12 months time.
In some ways it’s because his fortunes are tied to Reeves, and if we weren’t already aware of this she has again demonstrated just how badly she is performing as a steward of our economy and how increasingly out of her depth she is appearing. Can they really afford to keep her in post much longer? The chances of a very negative bond market reaction in the coming months feel significantly higher to me this evening.
Now that Reeves has excluded Income Tax from the list of taxes she won’t raise, she is in danger of spooking the markets because there are no taxes left to raise to keep the country solvent.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
I cannot believe just how incapable this Govt is of actual running a Govt. Things got tough for Brown back in the day, but this last week makes the "election that never was" look completely inconsequential now. And it just comes on top of one thing after another thing after another thing, And guess what? All these things just look the same. And they rinse and repeat.
Who is actually running this country? The Labour back bench MP's who are going to be massacred come what may next time? The press? The hedge funds? Donald Trump? I certainly do not have a clue...but I know one thing, Starmer couldn't run a piss up in brewery.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
It’s fascinating how politics shifts. Before this week I’d have said Starmer was more likely than not to go before the end of 2027/28, but he had the benefit of time to try and strengthen his position.
It now looks increasingly unlikely he’ll be in post in 12 months time.
In some ways it’s because his fortunes are tied to Reeves, and if we weren’t already aware of this she has again demonstrated just how badly she is performing as a steward of our economy and how increasingly out of her depth she is appearing. Can they really afford to keep her in post much longer? The chances of a very negative bond market reaction in the coming months feel significantly higher to me this evening.
Now that Reeves has excluded Income Tax from the list of taxes she won’t raise, she is in danger of spooking the markets because there are no taxes left to raise to keep the country solvent.
This.
I can't remember a chancellor more out of ideas and depth to be honest. Lamont was told to do the ERM and he didn't want to and it all went tits up but at least it was an idea and they carried it through.
Why is Reeves in office? What does she want to do with the power?
I've no idea and I suspect she also has no idea.
Tomorrow she will backtrack on ending the two child benefit cap based on how she has done so far this autumn.
"We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties,” according to DOJ & FBI’s July letter.
Now AG Bondi has announced she has tapped Jay Clayton, the current U.S. attorney for SDNY, to lead the Trump-ordered investigation of Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement with high-profile Democrats & JP Morgan Chase. https://x.com/KFaulders/status/1989415603556188210
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
It’s fascinating how politics shifts. Before this week I’d have said Starmer was more likely than not to go before the end of 2027/28, but he had the benefit of time to try and strengthen his position.
It now looks increasingly unlikely he’ll be in post in 12 months time.
In some ways it’s because his fortunes are tied to Reeves, and if we weren’t already aware of this she has again demonstrated just how badly she is performing as a steward of our economy and how increasingly out of her depth she is appearing. Can they really afford to keep her in post much longer? The chances of a very negative bond market reaction in the coming months feel significantly higher to me this evening.
Now that Reeves has excluded Income Tax from the list of taxes she won’t raise, she is in danger of spooking the markets because there are no taxes left to raise to keep the country solvent.
This.
I can't remember a chancellor more out of ideas and depth to be honest. Lamont was told to do the ERM and he didn't want to and it all went tits up but at least it was an idea and they carried it through.
Why is Reeves in office? What does she want to do with the power?
I've no idea and I suspect she also has no idea.
Tomorrow she will backtrack on ending the two child benefit cap based on how she has done so far this autumn.
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
It’s fascinating how politics shifts. Before this week I’d have said Starmer was more likely than not to go before the end of 2027/28, but he had the benefit of time to try and strengthen his position.
It now looks increasingly unlikely he’ll be in post in 12 months time.
In some ways it’s because his fortunes are tied to Reeves, and if we weren’t already aware of this she has again demonstrated just how badly she is performing as a steward of our economy and how increasingly out of her depth she is appearing. Can they really afford to keep her in post much longer? The chances of a very negative bond market reaction in the coming months feel significantly higher to me this evening.
Now that Reeves has excluded Income Tax from the list of taxes she won’t raise, she is in danger of spooking the markets because there are no taxes left to raise to keep the country solvent.
This.
I can't remember a chancellor more out of ideas and depth to be honest. Lamont was told to do the ERM and he didn't want to and it all went tits up but at least it was an idea and they carried it through.
Why is Reeves in office? What does she want to do with the power?
I've no idea and I suspect she also has no idea.
Tomorrow she will backtrack on ending the two child benefit cap based on how she has done so far this autumn.
Budget: looks like there will be a revaluation of the 2.4 million properties in Council Bands F, G and H to determine around 300,000 properties where an additional tax will be levied to be paid direct to Central government. In other words the start of a new annual tax on property values.
Properties in bands F G and H will be covered as some London properties in band F will now be worth more than some band H properties in say Lincolnshire.
To be in place for 2028. To raise £600m so average £2,000 per affected property but bands within the levy are likely so the most expensive properties will be charged much more than those at the margin.
Around 700,000 properties worth £1m or more so effective value threshold likely to be more than £1m but probably less than £1.5m.
See Telegraph for more details, I have seen Sky Newspapers webpage.
Budget: looks like there will be a revaluation of the 2.4 million properties in Council Bands F, G and H to determine around 300,000 properties where an additional tax will be levied to be paid direct to Central government. In other words the start of a new annual tax on property values.
Properties in bands F G and H will be covered as some London properties in band F will now be worth more than some band H properties in say Lincolnshire.
To be in place for 2028. To raise £600m so average £2,000 per affected property but bands within the levy are likely so the most expensive properties will be charged much more than those at the margin.
Around 700,000 properties worth £1m or more so effective value threshold likely to be more than £1m but probably less than £1.5m.
See Telegraph for more details, I have seen Sky Newspapers webpage.
Checks who still says they will vote Labour....better off people in the South.....
Against my better inclinations I watched QT for a bit last night, more in hope than expectations of Sultana putting up a decent show, unfortunately hopes and expectations were dashed. She’s not a supple or subtle thinker and reverts to slogans at the drop of a hat. Strangely there’s not much difference between what Sultana and Polanski are saying, but it shows you need something extra to front a party, or a movement as Zarah would no doubt say.
Seen some of it as well. Thought she was very ranty whenever she spoke. Looked a sympathetic audience for her views too
I've seen a few clips now from QT. Have to say Ken C may be getting on a bit but he still speaks great sense and with authority.
Where are today's politicians with such talent and ability for the frontline?
Certainly not in today's Treasury.
I thought the same too, KC spoke sense on migration. He's 85 now, a good few Tory politicians would do well to heed his words.
The way the Treasury have handled this upcoming budget is astonishing, I put some of it down to a poor standard of advisors - too many fresh out of uni with PPE degrees and no experience outside politics under their belt
The dearth of talent is deep and affects all political offices from local government upwards. The ability of a lot of our local councillors is not a patch on what it was 20 years ago, that is despite less people putting themselves forward (I'm aware I sound very old saying this!)
Haven't special advisers normally been relatively recently outside of uni? Say what you like about Starmer and Reeves they both had experience outside politics, Reeves isn't known as 'Rachel from Complaints' for nothing
They should just be called advisers. Recent history has shown there is nothing special about them.
Not sure, I think they're very special.
A serious point, before I descend into Cats Does Countdown and cheap Spanish wine-
Starmer and Johnson both look set to be broken by their choices of Chief of Staff. Jeeves and Wooster rewritten by Harold Pinter. Possibly also TMay and Nick Timothy.
At what point does this become a systemic problem, and what's the answer?
Anyone at a very senior level is to a very large extent reliant on the capability of the people they appoint to delegate doing things to. The issue here is that power in the British government has become so concentrated on the Prime Minister that a single point of failure has been created, and they can only hope not to fail completely if they have a very capable assistant, as Chief of Staff.
The solution is to somehow achieve the impossible and distribute power more widely - across the Cabinet, to local or regional government, to the people doing the work.
Parties always include fluff about empowering communities in their manifestoes, but funnily enough not much tends to happen other than making local authorities compete for funding pots controlled by Whitehall. This government has done slightly more than that perhaps with it's mayoralty plans, but they are not going to simplify or empower areas as much as claimed, and seems mostly about making it easier for, again, Whitehall to deal with fewer people.
Comments
Indicative total (Year 1): £30.0bn
– Revenues: £14.0bn
– Spending/Efficiency Savings: £10.5bn
– Timing & One-off Receipts: £5.5bn
Aims:
• Deliver early credibility and market stability
• Protect poorest households via targeted mitigations
• Preserve high-multiplier investment (housing, skills, green transition)
• Improve structural fiscal position over 2–3 years
Line-by-Line Measures (Indicative, Year 1)
Measure Type Indicative Fiscal Impact
Freeze income tax thresholds for 2 years Revenue £7.5bn
Tighten corporate reliefs & anti-avoidance Revenue £3.5bn
HMRC compliance uplift (net of investment) Revenue £2.0bn
Central admin & procurement efficiencies Spending £4.0bn
Targeted hiring freeze / pay moderation Spending £2.5bn
Capital spending reprioritisation (timing shift) Timing £3.0bn
Asset recycling / non-core disposals One-off £3.0bn
Welfare administration reform (error/fraud) Spending £1.5bn
Targeted levies (digital/environmental) Revenue £1.0bn
Total: £30.0bn (indicative)
There is even speculation that Tehran, a city of 10m, may need to be evacuated given the shortage of water.
Mark Epstein asked his brother Jeffrey Epstein whether Steve Bannon could confirm if Putin has “the photo of Trump blowing Bubba." Jeffrey Epstein: "I thought I had tsuris,” using the Yiddish term for troubles.
https://x.com/OpDeathEaters/status/1989307675491102907
Starmer and Johnson both look set to be broken by their choices of Chief of Staff. Jeeves and Wooster rewritten by Harold Pinter. Possibly also TMay and Nick Timothy.
At what point does this become a systemic problem, and what's the answer?
A couple of locals (no longer with us) were born in the same house they died in
That sounds like a fascinating conversation, trying to read between the lines, I wonder if the brakes are being put on some of the bigger projects, due to rising construction costs? I know some of them would like to see an increase to CfD support systems, maybe we will hear more in the budget. Plenty of onshore ones on the table in rural SW Scotland, they don't seem to be letting up. Some of these companies will have their fingers in several pies and there will be the odd speculative application thrown in
https://bsky.app/profile/coachfinstock.bsky.social/post/3m5mfim6tdc2k
Minsiter: "I'm between fury and despair now. At least they were going to do a very hard, very bad thing that probably was the right thing to do. It's just so weak. This only ends one way' "
Minister: "[Starmer] going to have to be forced out - and that's going to be bloody and it's going to be messy.' "
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1989433582138359866
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-blowing-bubba-message-epstein-emails-under-scrutiny-11046836
They just wanted to own the libs more.
For shame.
I don't know what Starmers excuse is for the ongoing budget shambles, it's panto season soon so maybe he's just getting into the spirit
And still going on...
He should confirm it happened - whether it did or not - just for the lolz. He surely hasn't got much dignity left to save anyway.
It now looks increasingly unlikely he’ll be in post in 12 months time.
In some ways it’s because his fortunes are tied to Reeves, and if we weren’t already aware of this she has again demonstrated just how badly she is performing as a steward of our economy and how increasingly out of her depth she is appearing. Can they really afford to keep her in post much longer? The chances of a very negative bond market reaction in the coming months feel significantly higher to me this evening.
Starmer and Reeves have wasted that 18 months.
What's interesting here is that if Trump had blown Clinton and didn't do any of the diddling stuff, he's in the clear legally but politically it's better to be a pedo than to be gay if you're a Republican
Dan Bongino was named Deputy Director of the FBI WITHOUT passing a background check???
https://x.com/TVietor08/status/1989425611744612817
The solution is to somehow achieve the impossible and distribute power more widely - across the Cabinet, to local or regional government, to the people doing the work.
A new Times story.
British soldiers who tested the new Ajax armoured fighting vehicle in the summer were so badly affected they can no longer be deployed overseas
https://x.com/larisamlbrown/status/1989405639433769242
It never existed.
Starmerism is somehow trying to placate everyone and appealing to no one.
The constitution has obvious strengths, and done weaknesses, but it's only recently that the GOP have started to demolish it wholesale.
It would for instance have been unthinkable for prior presidents to direct his AG to investigate political opponents on his behalf.
When Nixon tried something similar, he was almost immediately threatened with impeachment, and forced to resign.
See you, your a f##king ombishambles, from bean to cup, you fuck up.
This budget was a chance to put the fiscal position on a firm footing by making difficult decisions, so perhaps they could focus on other issues.
Instead it seems they are skirting broad based tax increases and conceding ground on popular spending increases.
Which just means more fiscal black holes will follow them around at the budget next year too.
The big risk is Ed Miliband creates another upset and we have a more actively damaging, rather than merely hopeless, government.
But this is not normal, at all.
I wish I could impress on younger generations right now just how unprecedented this is.
This level of corruption is not normal - it’s like nothing that has happened in American history, and it is stealing from your future.
No one should grow up thinking this is normal.
https://x.com/clearing_fog/status/1989188626987774168
Though of course, for those who came uf political age in the last decade, it almost IS normal.
They literally still believe they are doing a good job.
Zero self awareness to match zero aptitude for their roles
Who is actually running this country? The Labour back bench MP's who are going to be massacred come what may next time? The press? The hedge funds? Donald Trump? I certainly do not have a clue...but I know one thing, Starmer couldn't run a piss up in brewery.
Perhaps the budget he would have come up with would have been more like what was trailed 2 weeks ago and less like what we're going to get.
The market, and indeed all sentient observers, concluded that Starmer and Reeves weren’t up to it.
This week’s “turnaround” is not quite Trussian, but it’s approaching it.
Why is Reeves in office? What does she want to do with the power?
I've no idea and I suspect she also has no idea.
Tomorrow she will backtrack on ending the two child benefit cap based on how she has done so far this autumn.
She wanted to be first female Chancellor.
Yet again I ask - what is the point of any of it?
This is Sunak 2.0
Properties in bands F G and H will be covered as some London properties in band F will now be worth more than some band H properties in say Lincolnshire.
To be in place for 2028. To raise £600m so average £2,000 per affected property but bands within the levy are likely so the most expensive properties will be charged much more than those at the margin.
Around 700,000 properties worth £1m or more so effective value threshold likely to be more than £1m but probably less than £1.5m.
See Telegraph for more details, I have seen Sky Newspapers webpage.