Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Borrowing more is not possible as our credit card is maxed out
Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices
There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren
Problem is (and I know I've asked this question before) where exactly can spending be cut?
should be simple to cut 10% off public spending , cut out lots of quangos, useless regulators , duplication , etc
There's wood to cut, but it doesn't solve everything. It's as silly as a magic money tree.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Liz Truss was right about the fourth option: growth.
But wrong to believe that spooking the gilt market was the best way to go about achieving it.
Know someone who worked in Leconfield House while MI5 were there. She always found it funny that a few streets away, Shepherds Market had a thriving business in upmarket prostitutes. And when MI5 moved out, the demand for certain services died away.
Perhaps when the new Members Club starts, Shepherds Market will see a renaissance.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
What was your reaction when Boris Johnson expelled several left leaning Tories in 2019?
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.
No Farage is Britain Trump. Economically Boris was a big spender and much more liberal than Trump and Farage on immigration too, indeed Boris even backed Ken Clarke for Tory leader in 2001
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
That is an extreme mid reading of reality. It was the obstructionist May / Hammond government that killed the Conservative Party, ably assisted by the likes of Grieve. She took their polling down to around 11% and won only 8% of the vote in the EU election.
Boris Johnson’s personal appeal briefly resurrected the brand to an extraordinary level, but when he was knifed, it did for the party for good.
The Tory wets on here don’t see to have an answer as to how they win an election. The political offering from them is becoming ever narrower. Let’s see if the ECHR pledge makes it intact to polling day.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Borrowing more is not possible as our credit card is maxed out
Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices
There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren
Health spending is on an inexorable upward trajectory, given an ageing population and the rising cost of diagnosis, medication and surgery. Social care cost is on an upward trajectory for related reasons, as are pension costs. The future costs of pensions could be reduced by scrapping the triple lock, but that’s avoiding some extra spending, not cutting it. At the moment, welfare spending excluding pensions is also rising, and while not all of that appears justified, even levelling off the increase would be an heroic achievement by government. Education spending isn’t easily going to be cut, given existing underfunding and the backlog of capital investment and repairs in schools. Local government is already cut to the bone and struggling to fulfil even its statutory responsibilities, with a string of councils going bankrupt. Defence spending clearly needs to increase. Aid spending has already been cut (and shouldn’t have been).
Where, Big G, are these cuts of yours going to come from?
Firstly means test the state pension so that it provides the safety net for pensioners, also consider similar in the NHS
Not paying WASPI women, reinstate the 2 child cap, incentivise all the milionaires and non doms to return with their taxes, and use AI
Now, these are controversial but what is certain we cannot go on as we are
Ah yes “use AI” of course. That’s the magic bullet.
"Return with their taxes" is something of a fallacy too. I wonder if people really understand why people become Non-doms.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
That is an extreme mid reading of reality. It was the obstructionist May / Hammond government that killed the Conservative Party, ably assisted by the likes of Grieve. She took their polling down to around 11% and won only 8% of the vote in the EU election.
Boris Johnson’s personal appeal briefly resurrected the brand to an extraordinary level, but when he was knifed, it did for the party for good.
The Tory wets on here don’t see to have an answer as to how they win an election. The political offering from them is becoming ever narrower. Let’s see if the ECHR pledge makes it intact to polling day.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
What was your reaction when Boris Johnson expelled several left leaning Tories in 2019?
I was mightily pleased, and so was the electorate, who shortly afterwards gave him a big majority with 44% of the vote
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Borrowing more is not possible as our credit card is maxed out
Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices
There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren
Health spending is on an inexorable upward trajectory, given an ageing population and the rising cost of diagnosis, medication and surgery. Social care cost is on an upward trajectory for related reasons, as are pension costs. The future costs of pensions could be reduced by scrapping the triple lock, but that’s avoiding some extra spending, not cutting it. At the moment, welfare spending excluding pensions is also rising, and while not all of that appears justified, even levelling off the increase would be an heroic achievement by government. Education spending isn’t easily going to be cut, given existing underfunding and the backlog of capital investment and repairs in schools. Local government is already cut to the bone and struggling to fulfil even its statutory responsibilities, with a string of councils going bankrupt. Defence spending clearly needs to increase. Aid spending has already been cut (and shouldn’t have been).
Where, Big G, are these cuts of yours going to come from?
Firstly means test the state pension so that it provides the safety net for pensioners, also consider similar in the NHS
Not paying WASPI women, reinstate the 2 child cap, incentivise all the milionaires and non doms to return with their taxes, and use AI
Now, these are controversial but what is certain we cannot go on as we are
Ah yes “use AI” of course. That’s the magic bullet.
Your response is sarcastic, of course, but I’d wager that, like email, AI as it impacts regular office jobs and the like will end up creating as much work as it eliminates
I think AI is more likely to raise unemployment and cut the tax base than to save the state money, i.e. it will make the problem worse not better.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.
No Farage is Britain Trump. Economically Boris was a big spender and much more liberal than Trump and Farage on immigration too, indeed Boris even backed Ken Clarke for Tory leader in 2001
Farage is Trump's fanboy. That's not the same thing. Boris is closer in personality, politics, number of wives and mysterious ties to Russia. Even insofar as both men's lies are often better characterised as bullshitting. Lying implies they knew or cared what the truth was in order to deny it.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.
No Farage is Britain Trump. Economically Boris was a big spender and much more liberal than Trump and Farage on immigration too, indeed Boris even backed Ken Clarke for Tory leader in 2001
Is not Trump a big spender also? That was my impression.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.
No Farage is Britain Trump. Economically Boris was a big spender and much more liberal than Trump and Farage on immigration too, indeed Boris even backed Ken Clarke for Tory leader in 2001
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
What was your reaction when Boris Johnson expelled several left leaning Tories in 2019?
I was mightily pleased, and so was the electorate, who shortly afterwards gave him a big majority with 44% of the vote
As OGH pointed out that election was more about Corbyn than Brexit, but thanks for confirming you’re a hypocrite.
Just got home to hear the marvellous news that Kemi has managed to get rid of Suella!
Are there any more vile Tories to defect?
Norman Tebbit's ghost would I am sure now be preparing his endorsement of Farage as would Enoch Powell's
I doubt it. Reform aren’t just “properly right wing Tory”, they’re a gang of spivs, chancers, and wannabe demagogues.
Not all, Kruger for example is a principled intellectual heavyweight
Kruger was Cameron's SpAd and went to Eton, if you will excuse the tautology. Kruger is charged with doing for Reform what he had failed to do for the Conservatives: find a coherent political philosophy.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
That is an extreme mid reading of reality. It was the obstructionist May / Hammond government that killed the Conservative Party, ably assisted by the likes of Grieve. She took their polling down to around 11% and won only 8% of the vote in the EU election.
Boris Johnson’s personal appeal briefly resurrected the brand to an extraordinary level, but when he was knifed, it did for the party for good.
The Tory wets on here don’t see to have an answer as to how they win an election. The political offering from them is becoming ever narrower. Let’s see if the ECHR pledge makes it intact to polling day.
Reform’s lead in the polls increasingly looks like vapour to me.
The councils are going to be soooo interesting. (Not that they’ll be reported as such, given what passes for political journalism now in the UK).
Perhaps, though in the same way that Green councillors get elected even if their national political platform is economically illiterate, I suspect the locals will flatter Reform (as they allow people a protest vote).
Short of a Reform self-implosion I don't think we'll actually know how solid Reform's lead is until a month or two before the next election.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
What was your reaction when Boris Johnson expelled several left leaning Tories in 2019?
I was mightily pleased, and so was the electorate, who shortly afterwards gave him a big majority with 44% of the vote
As OGH pointed out that election was more about Corbyn than Brexit, but thanks for confirming you’re a hypocrite.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
What was your reaction when Boris Johnson expelled several left leaning Tories in 2019?
I was mightily pleased, and so was the electorate, who shortly afterwards gave him a big majority with 44% of the vote
As OGH pointed out that election was more about Corbyn than Brexit, but thanks for confirming you’re a hypocrite.
You are all wrong. That election was mainly about Boris running against his predecessors, promising growth, and sotto voce a pre-electoral pact for brave Sir Nige to let Conservatives stand unopposed.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Borrowing more is not possible as our credit card is maxed out
Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices
There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren
Problem is (and I know I've asked this question before) where exactly can spending be cut?
should be simple to cut 10% off public spending , cut out lots of quangos, useless regulators , duplication , etc
There's wood to cut, but it doesn't solve everything. It's as silly as a magic money tree.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.
No Farage is Britain Trump. Economically Boris was a big spender and much more liberal than Trump and Farage on immigration too, indeed Boris even backed Ken Clarke for Tory leader in 2001
Is not Trump a big spender also? That was my impression.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Borrowing more is not possible as our credit card is maxed out
Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices
There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren
Health spending is on an inexorable upward trajectory, given an ageing population and the rising cost of diagnosis, medication and surgery. Social care cost is on an upward trajectory for related reasons, as are pension costs. The future costs of pensions could be reduced by scrapping the triple lock, but that’s avoiding some extra spending, not cutting it. At the moment, welfare spending excluding pensions is also rising, and while not all of that appears justified, even levelling off the increase would be an heroic achievement by government. Education spending isn’t easily going to be cut, given existing underfunding and the backlog of capital investment and repairs in schools. Local government is already cut to the bone and struggling to fulfil even its statutory responsibilities, with a string of councils going bankrupt. Defence spending clearly needs to increase. Aid spending has already been cut (and shouldn’t have been).
Where, Big G, are these cuts of yours going to come from?
Firstly means test the state pension so that it provides the safety net for pensioners, also consider similar in the NHS
Not paying WASPI women, reinstate the 2 child cap, incentivise all the milionaires and non doms to return with their taxes, and use AI
Now, these are controversial but what is certain we cannot go on as we are
Ah yes “use AI” of course. That’s the magic bullet.
Your response is sarcastic, of course, but I’d wager that, like email, AI as it impacts regular office jobs and the like will end up creating as much work as it eliminates
I think AI is more likely to raise unemployment and cut the tax base than to save the state money, i.e. it will make the problem worse not better.
I agree and I have been saying this for a while.
We need a forward thinking govt to look at where the jobs of the future are and plan to support the transition.
Take driving. Taxis, Trucks, vans. You could easily see the roll out of driverless taxis and Lorries.
A lorry is loaded up, set off in the early hours, gets to its destination and is unloaded. No driver needed. Also helps with traffic moving it from the day to the night. However there are many people employed driving. What do they move to ?
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.
No Farage is Britain Trump. Economically Boris was a big spender and much more liberal than Trump and Farage on immigration too, indeed Boris even backed Ken Clarke for Tory leader in 2001
In 2001 Trump was a registered Democrat.
Fair point, Farage has always been a Thatcherite though so on that basis Farage is even right of Trump economically
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Borrowing more is not possible as our credit card is maxed out
Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices
There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren
Health spending is on an inexorable upward trajectory, given an ageing population and the rising cost of diagnosis, medication and surgery. Social care cost is on an upward trajectory for related reasons, as are pension costs. The future costs of pensions could be reduced by scrapping the triple lock, but that’s avoiding some extra spending, not cutting it. At the moment, welfare spending excluding pensions is also rising, and while not all of that appears justified, even levelling off the increase would be an heroic achievement by government. Education spending isn’t easily going to be cut, given existing underfunding and the backlog of capital investment and repairs in schools. Local government is already cut to the bone and struggling to fulfil even its statutory responsibilities, with a string of councils going bankrupt. Defence spending clearly needs to increase. Aid spending has already been cut (and shouldn’t have been).
Where, Big G, are these cuts of yours going to come from?
Firstly means test the state pension so that it provides the safety net for pensioners, also consider similar in the NHS
Not paying WASPI women, reinstate the 2 child cap, incentivise all the milionaires and non doms to return with their taxes, and use AI
Now, these are controversial but what is certain we cannot go on as we are
Ah yes “use AI” of course. That’s the magic bullet.
Your response is sarcastic, of course, but I’d wager that, like email, AI as it impacts regular office jobs and the like will end up creating as much work as it eliminates
I think AI is more likely to raise unemployment and cut the tax base than to save the state money, i.e. it will make the problem worse not better.
More likely it will create shedloads of jobs clearing up the shambles and crap service provided by AI.
Tory spokesman on Suella Braverman's defection to Reform: "The Conservatives did all we could to look after Suella’s mental health, but she was clearly very unhappy."
Reform’s lead in the polls increasingly looks like vapour to me.
The councils are going to be soooo interesting. (Not that they’ll be reported as such, given what passes for political journalism now in the UK).
I was amazed by a conversation I just overheard in my office against the hubbub of the Braverman defection. Massive anti Trump, anti boris, anti Brexit people. Who intimated they will vote Reform at the locals because they are so aghast at the apparent corruption and ineptitude at their Tory / Lib Dem run councils.
I don’t expect they’d follow with that vote at a national level. But I suppose the locals might act as a gateway drug. The level of denial on these pages has never been stronger.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Borrowing more is not possible as our credit card is maxed out
Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices
There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren
Health spending is on an inexorable upward trajectory, given an ageing population and the rising cost of diagnosis, medication and surgery. Social care cost is on an upward trajectory for related reasons, as are pension costs. The future costs of pensions could be reduced by scrapping the triple lock, but that’s avoiding some extra spending, not cutting it. At the moment, welfare spending excluding pensions is also rising, and while not all of that appears justified, even levelling off the increase would be an heroic achievement by government. Education spending isn’t easily going to be cut, given existing underfunding and the backlog of capital investment and repairs in schools. Local government is already cut to the bone and struggling to fulfil even its statutory responsibilities, with a string of councils going bankrupt. Defence spending clearly needs to increase. Aid spending has already been cut (and shouldn’t have been).
Where, Big G, are these cuts of yours going to come from?
Firstly means test the state pension so that it provides the safety net for pensioners, also consider similar in the NHS
Not paying WASPI women, reinstate the 2 child cap, incentivise all the milionaires and non doms to return with their taxes, and use AI
Now, these are controversial but what is certain we cannot go on as we are
The 'means tested state pension' is already in place - it's called Pension Credit.
Any government that took away the state pension that millions had spent years contributing to would, of course, be toast. Same for restricting the NHS. I can't help feeling that you'd be shouting as loudly as any if Labour suggested either of those two policies (remember how upset you were that some prostate drugs were not going rolled-out wholesale).
Removal of the triple lock would imo be doable, as would rolling NI into Income Tax (but that's a tax increase not a spending cut)
Tory spokesman on Suella Braverman's defection to Reform: "The Conservatives did all we could to look after Suella’s mental health, but she was clearly very unhappy."
Reform’s lead in the polls increasingly looks like vapour to me.
The councils are going to be soooo interesting. (Not that they’ll be reported as such, given what passes for political journalism now in the UK).
I suspect Reform will still do well in the 2026 local elections - because their failure in running the councils they won in 2025 won't be common knowledge yet.
Add another year and their failure to achieve anything that they promised in 2025 will start to bite them, come 2029 I suspect they will be losing the councils they control.
Tory spokesman on Suella Braverman's defection to Reform: "The Conservatives did all we could to look after Suella’s mental health, but she was clearly very unhappy."
👀
The full statement is correscating about Braverman
Reform’s lead in the polls increasingly looks like vapour to me.
The councils are going to be soooo interesting. (Not that they’ll be reported as such, given what passes for political journalism now in the UK).
I was amazed by a conversation I just overheard in my office against the hubbub of the Braverman defection. Massive anti Trump, anti boris, anti Brexit people. Who intimated they will vote Reform at the locals because they are so aghast at the apparent corruption and ineptitude at their Tory / Lib Dem run councils.
I don’t expect they’d follow with that vote at a national level. But I suppose the locals might act as a gateway drug. The level of denial on these pages has never been stronger.
Sorry to say that has the whiff of moonshine about it.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.
No Farage is Britain Trump. Economically Boris was a big spender and much more liberal than Trump and Farage on immigration too, indeed Boris even backed Ken Clarke for Tory leader in 2001
In 2001 Trump was a registered Democrat.
Fair point, Farage has always been a Thatcherite though so on that basis Farage is even right of Trump economically
Most western governments of all colours seem utterly addicted to over spending and transfer payments. I don’t know what’s to be done about it. Sunak was the most left wing Chancellor/PM in our history probably.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Borrowing more is not possible as our credit card is maxed out
Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices
There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren
Health spending is on an inexorable upward trajectory, given an ageing population and the rising cost of diagnosis, medication and surgery. Social care cost is on an upward trajectory for related reasons, as are pension costs. The future costs of pensions could be reduced by scrapping the triple lock, but that’s avoiding some extra spending, not cutting it. At the moment, welfare spending excluding pensions is also rising, and while not all of that appears justified, even levelling off the increase would be an heroic achievement by government. Education spending isn’t easily going to be cut, given existing underfunding and the backlog of capital investment and repairs in schools. Local government is already cut to the bone and struggling to fulfil even its statutory responsibilities, with a string of councils going bankrupt. Defence spending clearly needs to increase. Aid spending has already been cut (and shouldn’t have been).
Where, Big G, are these cuts of yours going to come from?
Firstly means test the state pension so that it provides the safety net for pensioners, also consider similar in the NHS
Not paying WASPI women, reinstate the 2 child cap, incentivise all the milionaires and non doms to return with their taxes, and use AI
Now, these are controversial but what is certain we cannot go on as we are
The 'means tested state pension' is already in place - it's called Pension Credit.
Any government that took away the state pension that millions had spent years contributing to would, of course, be toast. Same for restricting the NHS. I can't help feeling that you'd be shouting as loudly as any if Labour suggested either of those two policies (remember how upset you were that some prostate drugs were not going rolled-out wholesale).
Removal of the triple lock would imo be doable, as would rolling NI into Income Tax (but that's a tax increase not a spending cut)
Of course but ultimately reality will force unpopular decisions
Tory spokesman on Suella Braverman's defection to Reform: "The Conservatives did all we could to look after Suella’s mental health, but she was clearly very unhappy."
👀
The full statement is correscating about Braverman
Blimey, labelling her as bonkers / unstable is a bit strong... even is she is. Where are their manners?
Tory spokesman on Suella Braverman's defection to Reform: "The Conservatives did all we could to look after Suella’s mental health, but she was clearly very unhappy."
👀
The full statement is correscating about Braverman
Blimey, labelling her as bonkers / unstable is a bit strong... even is she is. Where are their manners?
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.
No Farage is Britain Trump. Economically Boris was a big spender and much more liberal than Trump and Farage on immigration too, indeed Boris even backed Ken Clarke for Tory leader in 2001
In 2001 Trump was a registered Democrat.
Fair point, Farage has always been a Thatcherite though so on that basis Farage is even right of Trump economically
Most western governments of all colours seem utterly addicted to over spending and transfer payments. I don’t know what’s to be done about it. Sunak was the most left wing Chancellor/PM in our history probably.
Osborne was more fiscally conservative as to an extent were Hunt and Hammond and Stride is more in that vein too
As I have said before, Labour need to hammer home that this is the Trump Party and they will bring to UK the same shite that USA are enduring.
I agree.
However, Starmer's problem is that so long as he remains guarded not to rock the boat with Trump (which is still by and large the position despite Greenland) he's hampered to the degree that he can go full tilt at Farage for being Britain's Trump. That's why Labour have confined themselves to characterising Farage as Putin's mate instead, which doesn't have quite the same impact.
So there's a double domestic political penalty for trying to stay in Trump's good books, however justified or not that policy is. It's that Starmer has firstly attracted distaste from the public for being too close to Trump, and secondly hampered his party exploiting an obvious and much needed attack line against Reform.
I don’t think pensioners should be mean-tested. However, we absolutely should tax with national insurance, and get rid of all of the various perks.
The only one I’d save is free bus travel as I suspect that’s highly conducive to good mental health.
I would have then announced the retirement of the triple lock at the end of this terms, to be replaced with some other guarantee which essentially locked pensions to GDP growth.
If Rachael had done the above in her first budget, it would have sent a powerful message to the bond markets. It would also have justified scrapping the two-child benefits cap, allowed her to do something about crippling student loan interest rates, and provided a fiscal framework to enable additional capital spending.
Instead she decided to close down private schools and chase after non-doms.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Borrowing more is not possible as our credit card is maxed out
Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices
There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren
Health spending is on an inexorable upward trajectory, given an ageing population and the rising cost of diagnosis, medication and surgery. Social care cost is on an upward trajectory for related reasons, as are pension costs. The future costs of pensions could be reduced by scrapping the triple lock, but that’s avoiding some extra spending, not cutting it. At the moment, welfare spending excluding pensions is also rising, and while not all of that appears justified, even levelling off the increase would be an heroic achievement by government. Education spending isn’t easily going to be cut, given existing underfunding and the backlog of capital investment and repairs in schools. Local government is already cut to the bone and struggling to fulfil even its statutory responsibilities, with a string of councils going bankrupt. Defence spending clearly needs to increase. Aid spending has already been cut (and shouldn’t have been).
Where, Big G, are these cuts of yours going to come from?
Firstly means test the state pension so that it provides the safety net for pensioners, also consider similar in the NHS
Not paying WASPI women, reinstate the 2 child cap, incentivise all the milionaires and non doms to return with their taxes, and use AI
Now, these are controversial but what is certain we cannot go on as we are
The 'means tested state pension' is already in place - it's called Pension Credit.
Any government that took away the state pension that millions had spent years contributing to would, of course, be toast. Same for restricting the NHS. I can't help feeling that you'd be shouting as loudly as any if Labour suggested either of those two policies (remember how upset you were that some prostate drugs were not going rolled-out wholesale).
Removal of the triple lock would imo be doable, as would rolling NI into Income Tax (but that's a tax increase not a spending cut)
Of course but ultimately reality will force unpopular decisions
We hear this time and time again: "the country is broke", "spending is out of control", "we can't raise taxes and further"... I have heard it all my adult life.
But somehow the country survives, things carry on, etc., so I am not convinced we cannot soldier on much as is for the foreseeable.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.
No Farage is Britain Trump. Economically Boris was a big spender and much more liberal than Trump and Farage on immigration too, indeed Boris even backed Ken Clarke for Tory leader in 2001
In 2001 Trump was a registered Democrat.
Fair point, Farage has always been a Thatcherite though so on that basis Farage is even right of Trump economically
Reform’s lead in the polls increasingly looks like vapour to me.
The councils are going to be soooo interesting. (Not that they’ll be reported as such, given what passes for political journalism now in the UK).
I was amazed by a conversation I just overheard in my office against the hubbub of the Braverman defection. Massive anti Trump, anti boris, anti Brexit people. Who intimated they will vote Reform at the locals because they are so aghast at the apparent corruption and ineptitude at their Tory / Lib Dem run councils.
I don’t expect they’d follow with that vote at a national level. But I suppose the locals might act as a gateway drug. The level of denial on these pages has never been stronger.
Corruption and ineptitude? Farage says "hold my pint"
Tory spokesman on Suella Braverman's defection to Reform: "The Conservatives did all we could to look after Suella’s mental health, but she was clearly very unhappy."
👀
The full statement is correscating about Braverman
It is, though this ex-teacher would prefer coruscating.
Iran’s National Security Council said in a statement that 3,117 people had been killed, among them 427 of its security forces. Officials, including Ayatollah Khamenei, have blamed terrorist cells tied to Israel and the United States for the uprising and killings.
“This is not merely a violent protest crackdown,” said Raha Bahreini, a lawyer and an Iran researcher at Amnesty International. “It is a state-orchestrated massacre.”
As I have said before, Labour need to hammer home that this is the Trump Party and they will bring to UK the same shite that USA are enduring.
I agree.
However, Starmer's problem is that so long as he remains guarded not to rock the boat with Trump (which is still by and large the position despite Greenland) he's hampered to the degree that he can go full tilt at Farage for being Britain's Trump. That's why Labour have confined themselves to characterising Farage as Putin's mate instead, which doesn't have quite the same impact.
So there's a double domestic political penalty for trying to stay in Trump's good books, however justified or not that policy is. It's that Starmer has firstly attracted distaste from the public for being too close to Trump, and secondly hampered his party exploiting an obvious and much needed attack line against Reform.
The other issue is that it thwarts Starmer making an effective alliance with Carney, ie moves toward an Anglo-Canadian Partnership.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.
I’d like to think that if any senior British politician or official went live on TV to describe the blatant shooting of an innocent member of the public, filmed on video, in a way that was demonstrably totally false, they would have been hounded by public opinion and our independent media into resignation by now. Or maybe I am being complacent?
Simon Marks was wondering on LBC earlier whether Trump is rowing back in order to sack some of his people who have been peddling the most egregious lies to the media. One can only hope that he is right.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
What the Tory Party should be offering at the next GE is a fresh prospectus to make the state more efficient and effective and encouraging investment, growth, entrepreneurship and opportunity. That doesn’t make it less right wing - it makes it more right wing if anything than the previous Tory government.
Where it shouldn’t go is into a space where it peddles the more reactionary, grievance based politics of the figures in Reform. There are genuine, serious and legitimate concerns that the electorate have about the way the country is being run. They won’t be fixed by what Reform peddle.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Liz Truss was right about the fourth option: growth.
Don't be silly. UK growth has been something of a nebulas concept since 2008.
“At a certain age, about 86, 87, he started getting, what do they call it?” He pointed to his forehead and looked to his press secretary for the word that escaped him.
“Alzheimer’s,” Leavitt said.
“Like an Alzheimer’s thing,” Trump said. “Well, I don’t have it.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.
I’d like to think that if any senior British politician or official went live on TV to describe the blatant shooting of an innocent member of the public, filmed on video, in a way that was demonstrably totally false, they would have been hounded by public opinion and our independent media into resignation by now. Or maybe I am being complacent?
I think maybe you are complacent.
If they were Tory, Laura K would be offering the opportunity for said politician to unburden themselves of “their side of the story”; Chris Mason would suggest that we should wait to see how Farage does it bigger and better, while Beth Rigby and Robert Peston would just be jabbering incoherently.
The Guardian would suggest that the main issue was the tensions created in the lesbian Muslim community, while the Telegraph would suggest a conspiracy of Belgian health and safety administrators.
I don’t think pensioners should be mean-tested. However, we absolutely should tax with national insurance, and get rid of all of the various perks.
The only one I’d save is free bus travel as I suspect that’s highly conducive to good mental health.
I would have then announced the retirement of the triple lock at the end of this terms, to be replaced with some other guarantee which essentially locked pensions to GDP growth.
If Rachael had done the above in her first budget, it would have sent a powerful message to the bond markets. It would also have justified scrapping the two-child benefits cap, allowed her to do something about crippling student loan interest rates, and provided a fiscal framework to enable additional capital spending.
Instead she decided to close down private schools and chase after non-doms.
"means testing" with taxation is the simplest and fairest solution.
If you merge employee NI and IT and give the old tax rate to pensioners on the basic rate of tax, then you are not touching pensioners on user £50,000 a year.
It would raise money, while keeping promise about not raising tax rates. You could even reduce the rates slightly and still raise more money than before!
At the same time I would have announced a benefit rework policy - all the old age benefits additional to the pension go in the blender and come out with one shiny payment. Targeted at the poorest (tax the benefit).
Quadruple lock - pension and the personal allowance are the same. So if you want to raise the pension, you have to in law, raise the personal allowance. {Snicker}
Tory spokesman on Suella Braverman's defection to Reform: "The Conservatives did all we could to look after Suella’s mental health, but she was clearly very unhappy."
👀
The full statement is correscating about Braverman
Blimey, labelling her as bonkers / unstable is a bit strong... even is she is. Where are their manners?
Poorly judged, IMHO. Just let her go and say she won’t be missed. Don’t think they needed to go quite so personal.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
That is an extreme mid reading of reality. It was the obstructionist May / Hammond government that killed the Conservative Party, ably assisted by the likes of Grieve. She took their polling down to around 11% and won only 8% of the vote in the EU election.
Boris Johnson’s personal appeal briefly resurrected the brand to an extraordinary level, but when he was knifed, it did for the party for good.
The Tory wets on here don’t see to have an answer as to how they win an election. The political offering from them is becoming ever narrower. Let’s see if the ECHR pledge makes it intact to polling day.
Iran’s National Security Council said in a statement that 3,117 people had been killed, among them 427 of its security forces. Officials, including Ayatollah Khamenei, have blamed terrorist cells tied to Israel and the United States for the uprising and killings.
“This is not merely a violent protest crackdown,” said Raha Bahreini, a lawyer and an Iran researcher at Amnesty International. “It is a state-orchestrated massacre.”
Tried and tested methods. Violence works for a lot longer than we'd love to think.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Borrowing more is not possible as our credit card is maxed out
Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices
There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren
Health spending is on an inexorable upward trajectory, given an ageing population and the rising cost of diagnosis, medication and surgery. Social care cost is on an upward trajectory for related reasons, as are pension costs. The future costs of pensions could be reduced by scrapping the triple lock, but that’s avoiding some extra spending, not cutting it. At the moment, welfare spending excluding pensions is also rising, and while not all of that appears justified, even levelling off the increase would be an heroic achievement by government. Education spending isn’t easily going to be cut, given existing underfunding and the backlog of capital investment and repairs in schools. Local government is already cut to the bone and struggling to fulfil even its statutory responsibilities, with a string of councils going bankrupt. Defence spending clearly needs to increase. Aid spending has already been cut (and shouldn’t have been).
Where, Big G, are these cuts of yours going to come from?
Firstly means test the state pension so that it provides the safety net for pensioners, also consider similar in the NHS
Not paying WASPI women, reinstate the 2 child cap, incentivise all the milionaires and non doms to return with their taxes, and use AI
Now, these are controversial but what is certain we cannot go on as we are
The 'means tested state pension' is already in place - it's called Pension Credit.
Any government that took away the state pension that millions had spent years contributing to would, of course, be toast. Same for restricting the NHS. I can't help feeling that you'd be shouting as loudly as any if Labour suggested either of those two policies (remember how upset you were that some prostate drugs were not going rolled-out wholesale).
Removal of the triple lock would imo be doable, as would rolling NI into Income Tax (but that's a tax increase not a spending cut)
Of course but ultimately reality will force unpopular decisions
We hear this time and time again: "the country is broke", "spending is out of control", "we can't raise taxes and further"... I have heard it all my adult life.
But somehow the country survives, things carry on, etc., so I am not convinced we cannot soldier on much as is for the foreseeable.
Can kicking is a national sport. The time will come when we can't, but creativity abounds in doing do.
Based on recent performances, turning a failing team around etc, I think Starmer's detractors have been looking at the wrong person in Manchester... Surely time to get Carrick on that by election candidate list?
It was rather apt that North London lost to Manchester yesterday, with Starmer looking on as it happened. Because it wasn't just in the football.
I am not sure Starmer lost to Manchester even if he lost Manchester.
In political terms Manchester scored a couple of own goals before doing a "Gary Lineker" on the touchline.
Reform’s lead in the polls increasingly looks like vapour to me.
The councils are going to be soooo interesting. (Not that they’ll be reported as such, given what passes for political journalism now in the UK).
I was amazed by a conversation I just overheard in my office against the hubbub of the Braverman defection. Massive anti Trump, anti boris, anti Brexit people. Who intimated they will vote Reform at the locals because they are so aghast at the apparent corruption and ineptitude at their Tory / Lib Dem run councils.
I don’t expect they’d follow with that vote at a national level. But I suppose the locals might act as a gateway drug. The level of denial on these pages has never been stronger.
Sorry to say that has the whiff of moonshine about it.
The context was an election flyer they got this weekend that impressed them to a surprising level. But believe what you want
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.
No Farage is Britain Trump. Economically Boris was a big spender and much more liberal than Trump and Farage on immigration too, indeed Boris even backed Ken Clarke for Tory leader in 2001
In 2001 Trump was a registered Democrat.
Fair point, Farage has always been a Thatcherite though so on that basis Farage is even right of Trump economically
Most western governments of all colours seem utterly addicted to over spending and transfer payments. I don’t know what’s to be done about it. Sunak was the most left wing Chancellor/PM in our history probably.
Osborne was more fiscally conservative as to an extent were Hunt and Hammond and Stride is more in that vein too
Osborne promised an austerity govt. He then went on to more than double (?) the national debt, taxed the productive parts of the economy, slashed capital spending and gave transfer payments to his core voters.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Borrowing more is not possible as our credit card is maxed out
Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices
There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren
Health spending is on an inexorable upward trajectory, given an ageing population and the rising cost of diagnosis, medication and surgery. Social care cost is on an upward trajectory for related reasons, as are pension costs. The future costs of pensions could be reduced by scrapping the triple lock, but that’s avoiding some extra spending, not cutting it. At the moment, welfare spending excluding pensions is also rising, and while not all of that appears justified, even levelling off the increase would be an heroic achievement by government. Education spending isn’t easily going to be cut, given existing underfunding and the backlog of capital investment and repairs in schools. Local government is already cut to the bone and struggling to fulfil even its statutory responsibilities, with a string of councils going bankrupt. Defence spending clearly needs to increase. Aid spending has already been cut (and shouldn’t have been).
Where, Big G, are these cuts of yours going to come from?
Firstly means test the state pension so that it provides the safety net for pensioners, also consider similar in the NHS
Not paying WASPI women, reinstate the 2 child cap, incentivise all the milionaires and non doms to return with their taxes, and use AI
Now, these are controversial but what is certain we cannot go on as we are
The 'means tested state pension' is already in place - it's called Pension Credit.
Any government that took away the state pension that millions had spent years contributing to would, of course, be toast. Same for restricting the NHS. I can't help feeling that you'd be shouting as loudly as any if Labour suggested either of those two policies (remember how upset you were that some prostate drugs were not going rolled-out wholesale).
Removal of the triple lock would imo be doable, as would rolling NI into Income Tax (but that's a tax increase not a spending cut)
Of course but ultimately reality will force unpopular decisions
We hear this time and time again: "the country is broke", "spending is out of control", "we can't raise taxes and further"... I have heard it all my adult life.
But somehow the country survives, things carry on, etc., so I am not convinced we cannot soldier on much as is for the foreseeable.
Can kicking is a national sport. The time will come when we can't, but creativity abounds in doing do.
Especially when their demographic pyramids are weighted towards the top, and their young have aversion to voting or engaging in the political process.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Borrowing more is not possible as our credit card is maxed out
Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices
There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren
Health spending is on an inexorable upward trajectory, given an ageing population and the rising cost of diagnosis, medication and surgery. Social care cost is on an upward trajectory for related reasons, as are pension costs. The future costs of pensions could be reduced by scrapping the triple lock, but that’s avoiding some extra spending, not cutting it. At the moment, welfare spending excluding pensions is also rising, and while not all of that appears justified, even levelling off the increase would be an heroic achievement by government. Education spending isn’t easily going to be cut, given existing underfunding and the backlog of capital investment and repairs in schools. Local government is already cut to the bone and struggling to fulfil even its statutory responsibilities, with a string of councils going bankrupt. Defence spending clearly needs to increase. Aid spending has already been cut (and shouldn’t have been).
Where, Big G, are these cuts of yours going to come from?
Firstly means test the state pension so that it provides the safety net for pensioners, also consider similar in the NHS
Not paying WASPI women, reinstate the 2 child cap, incentivise all the milionaires and non doms to return with their taxes, and use AI
Now, these are controversial but what is certain we cannot go on as we are
The 'means tested state pension' is already in place - it's called Pension Credit.
Any government that took away the state pension that millions had spent years contributing to would, of course, be toast. Same for restricting the NHS. I can't help feeling that you'd be shouting as loudly as any if Labour suggested either of those two policies (remember how upset you were that some prostate drugs were not going rolled-out wholesale).
Removal of the triple lock would imo be doable, as would rolling NI into Income Tax (but that's a tax increase not a spending cut)
Of course but ultimately reality will force unpopular decisions
We hear this time and time again: "the country is broke", "spending is out of control", "we can't raise taxes and further"... I have heard it all my adult life.
But somehow the country survives, things carry on, etc., so I am not convinced we cannot soldier on much as is for the foreseeable.
What upsets many people is the Feast Or Famine approach - there's no money to fix potholes, but every SEND pupil must have a taxi (buses are right out). We can't build anything, but there's hundreds of millions to pay for enquiries in to what we don't build. Schools don't get (re)built, but when they do, the cost is higher per square foot that super luxury development.
It's not so much corruption as the complete absence of cost control and/or project management.
A fun one - the people administering Working council sold one of the pieces of land involved in the disaster. They did this by selling a company that owned the land. Which disguised the new owner of the land. And how much they paid for it.....
Iran’s National Security Council said in a statement that 3,117 people had been killed, among them 427 of its security forces. Officials, including Ayatollah Khamenei, have blamed terrorist cells tied to Israel and the United States for the uprising and killings.
“This is not merely a violent protest crackdown,” said Raha Bahreini, a lawyer and an Iran researcher at Amnesty International. “It is a state-orchestrated massacre.”
Tried and tested methods. Violence works for a lot longer than we'd love to think.
But we’ve all watched enough Hollywood movies to know that the virtuous guy always wins out in the end, right?
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.
No Farage is Britain Trump. Economically Boris was a big spender and much more liberal than Trump and Farage on immigration too, indeed Boris even backed Ken Clarke for Tory leader in 2001
In 2001 Trump was a registered Democrat.
Fair point, Farage has always been a Thatcherite though so on that basis Farage is even right of Trump economically
Most western governments of all colours seem utterly addicted to over spending and transfer payments. I don’t know what’s to be done about it. Sunak was the most left wing Chancellor/PM in our history probably.
Osborne was more fiscally conservative as to an extent were Hunt and Hammond and Stride is more in that vein too
Osborne promised an austerity govt. He then went on to more than double (?) the national debt, taxed the productive parts of the economy, slashed capital spending and gave transfer payments to his core voters.
Hence EdM's incoherent attack that he cut too much but also failed to cut enough as he'd promised.
(Both claims could be made, cut in the wrong areas etc, but very hard to do so in a clear way)
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Borrowing more is not possible as our credit card is maxed out
Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices
There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren
Health spending is on an inexorable upward trajectory, given an ageing population and the rising cost of diagnosis, medication and surgery. Social care cost is on an upward trajectory for related reasons, as are pension costs. The future costs of pensions could be reduced by scrapping the triple lock, but that’s avoiding some extra spending, not cutting it. At the moment, welfare spending excluding pensions is also rising, and while not all of that appears justified, even levelling off the increase would be an heroic achievement by government. Education spending isn’t easily going to be cut, given existing underfunding and the backlog of capital investment and repairs in schools. Local government is already cut to the bone and struggling to fulfil even its statutory responsibilities, with a string of councils going bankrupt. Defence spending clearly needs to increase. Aid spending has already been cut (and shouldn’t have been).
Where, Big G, are these cuts of yours going to come from?
Firstly means test the state pension so that it provides the safety net for pensioners, also consider similar in the NHS
Not paying WASPI women, reinstate the 2 child cap, incentivise all the milionaires and non doms to return with their taxes, and use AI
Now, these are controversial but what is certain we cannot go on as we are
The 'means tested state pension' is already in place - it's called Pension Credit.
Any government that took away the state pension that millions had spent years contributing to would, of course, be toast. Same for restricting the NHS. I can't help feeling that you'd be shouting as loudly as any if Labour suggested either of those two policies (remember how upset you were that some prostate drugs were not going rolled-out wholesale).
Removal of the triple lock would imo be doable, as would rolling NI into Income Tax (but that's a tax increase not a spending cut)
Of course but ultimately reality will force unpopular decisions
We hear this time and time again: "the country is broke", "spending is out of control", "we can't raise taxes and further"... I have heard it all my adult life.
But somehow the country survives, things carry on, etc., so I am not convinced we cannot soldier on much as is for the foreseeable.
What upsets many people is the Feast Or Famine approach - there's no money to fix potholes, but every SEND pupil must have a taxi (buses are right out). We can't build anything, but there's hundreds of millions to pay for enquiries in to what we don't build. Schools don't get (re)built, but when they do, the cost is higher per square foot that super luxury development.
It's not so much corruption as the complete absence of cost control and/or project management.
A fun one - the people administering Working council sold one of the pieces of land involved in the disaster. They did this by selling a company that owned the land. Which disguised the new owner of the land. And how much they paid for it.....
If only that council had been Working, rather than Conservative, its residents would have been much better off.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.
No Farage is Britain Trump. Economically Boris was a big spender and much more liberal than Trump and Farage on immigration too, indeed Boris even backed Ken Clarke for Tory leader in 2001
In 2001 Trump was a registered Democrat.
Fair point, Farage has always been a Thatcherite though so on that basis Farage is even right of Trump economically
Most western governments of all colours seem utterly addicted to over spending and transfer payments. I don’t know what’s to be done about it. Sunak was the most left wing Chancellor/PM in our history probably.
Osborne was more fiscally conservative as to an extent were Hunt and Hammond and Stride is more in that vein too
Osborne promised an austerity govt. He then went on to more than double (?) the national debt, taxed the productive parts of the economy, slashed capital spending and gave transfer payments to his core voters.
The deficit fell from 10% in 2010 to 3% in 2016 as Osborne cut spending in all areas bar the NHS and local government (which admittedly should also have had fat cut).
He also took the lowest earners out of income tax and cut corporation tax from 28% to 20% and introduced an Employment Allowance to reduce employers NI costs
That Tory comment about Braverman's mental health is really ill judged. I don't like it and I doubt others will.
Moments after the Labour psychodrama subsides we have a Conservative/ Fascist psychodrama.
Personally, I was rather pleased that Burnham was told to get lost and get on with the job he was elected to do. I've never seen him as a Labour party leader. I am not alone in that either from what I can see.
If the Tories had done that with Boris in 2015, they would have been in a better position today.
RefUK must be close to overtaking the SNP in terms of seats in the HoC.
Give a few weeks and Reform will be back below them as people fall out with Nigel / Nigel falls out with them...
Their defections have a bit if momentum at the moment do unhappy ones will probably stick it out for now. For awhile they were one in one out.
What is in the Tories favour is if they were to draw up a list of MPs and former MPs whose performative cruelty could undermine Reform that list is being ticked off by the day. Priti Patel next? I'd forgotten Rosindell's back story. Raises eyebrows.
I don’t think pensioners should be mean-tested. However, we absolutely should tax with national insurance, and get rid of all of the various perks.
The only one I’d save is free bus travel as I suspect that’s highly conducive to good mental health.
I would have then announced the retirement of the triple lock at the end of this terms, to be replaced with some other guarantee which essentially locked pensions to GDP growth.
If Rachael had done the above in her first budget, it would have sent a powerful message to the bond markets. It would also have justified scrapping the two-child benefits cap, allowed her to do something about crippling student loan interest rates, and provided a fiscal framework to enable additional capital spending.
Instead she decided to close down private schools and chase after non-doms.
I don’t think pensioners should be mean-tested. However, we absolutely should tax with national insurance, and get rid of all of the various perks.
The only one I’d save is free bus travel as I suspect that’s highly conducive to good mental health.
I would have then announced the retirement of the triple lock at the end of this terms, to be replaced with some other guarantee which essentially locked pensions to GDP growth.
If Rachael had done the above in her first budget, it would have sent a powerful message to the bond markets. It would also have justified scrapping the two-child benefits cap, allowed her to do something about crippling student loan interest rates, and provided a fiscal framework to enable additional capital spending.
Instead she decided to close down private schools and chase after non-doms.
"means testing" with taxation is the simplest and fairest solution.
If you merge employee NI and IT and give the old tax rate to pensioners on the basic rate of tax, then you are not touching pensioners on user £50,000 a year.
It would raise money, while keeping promise about not raising tax rates. You could even reduce the rates slightly and still raise more money than before!
At the same time I would have announced a benefit rework policy - all the old age benefits additional to the pension go in the blender and come out with one shiny payment. Targeted at the poorest (tax the benefit).
Quadruple lock - pension and the personal allowance are the same. So if you want to raise the pension, you have to in law, raise the personal allowance. {Snicker}
NI should be ringfenced for JSA, the state pension and some social care
I don’t think pensioners should be mean-tested. However, we absolutely should tax with national insurance, and get rid of all of the various perks.
The only one I’d save is free bus travel as I suspect that’s highly conducive to good mental health.
I would have then announced the retirement of the triple lock at the end of this terms, to be replaced with some other guarantee which essentially locked pensions to GDP growth.
If Rachael had done the above in her first budget, it would have sent a powerful message to the bond markets. It would also have justified scrapping the two-child benefits cap, allowed her to do something about crippling student loan interest rates, and provided a fiscal framework to enable additional capital spending.
Instead she decided to close down private schools and chase after non-doms.
Rachel is interested in revenge, not good policymaking.
“At a certain age, about 86, 87, he started getting, what do they call it?” He pointed to his forehead and looked to his press secretary for the word that escaped him.
“Alzheimer’s,” Leavitt said.
“Like an Alzheimer’s thing,” Trump said. “Well, I don’t have it.
That Tory comment about Braverman's mental health is really ill judged. I don't like it and I doubt others will.
Moments after the Labour psychodrama subsides we have a Conservative/ Fascist psychodrama.
Personally, I was rather pleased that Burnham was told to get lost and get on with the job he was elected to do. I've never seen him as a Labour party leader. I am not alone in that either from what I can see.
If the Tories had done that with Boris in 2015, they would have been in a better position today.
No, they would never have got Brexit done and Corbyn might even have become PM in a hung parliament in 2019
Where has this idea that every SEND pupil must have a taxi come from? I worked at a SEND school covering a huge rural area. I mean rural, not Home Counties "rural". The vast majority (80%?) came on buses. The vast majority of the rest by their parents. A very few came by taxi, usually three or four in one, but that was usually because there weren't the numbers to make a bus full.
That Tory comment about Braverman's mental health is really ill judged. I don't like it and I doubt others will.
Moments after the Labour psychodrama subsides we have a Conservative/ Fascist psychodrama.
Personally, I was rather pleased that Burnham was told to get lost and get on with the job he was elected to do. I've never seen him as a Labour party leader. I am not alone in that either from what I can see.
If the Tories had done that with Boris in 2015, they would have been in a better position today.
I couldn't agree more. My critique of Burnham's capabilities made the remaining PB Tories very sad yesterday mind.
The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.
Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?
A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.
Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.
I’d like to think that if any senior British politician or official went live on TV to describe the blatant shooting of an innocent member of the public, filmed on video, in a way that was demonstrably totally false, they would have been hounded by public opinion and our independent media into resignation by now. Or maybe I am being complacent?
I think maybe you are complacent.
If they were Tory, Laura K would be offering the opportunity for said politician to unburden themselves of “their side of the story”; Chris Mason would suggest that we should wait to see how Farage does it bigger and better, while Beth Rigby and Robert Peston would just be jabbering incoherently.
The Guardian would suggest that the main issue was the tensions created in the lesbian Muslim community, while the Telegraph would suggest a conspiracy of Belgian health and safety administrators.
Yep - some former Mayor of London said of the outcry around the death of Ian Tomlinson need to be put into proportion - and not what he characterised as an “unbalanced orgy of cop bashing.” Didn’t do his career any harm.
Comments
Perhaps when the new Members Club starts, Shepherds Market will see a renaissance.
They must surely be pushing at the limit already.
er, eventually - you know, after a few years of talking about it ad nauseum"
Boris Johnson’s personal appeal briefly resurrected the brand to an extraordinary level, but when he was knifed, it did for the party for good.
The Tory wets on here don’t see to have an answer as to how they win an election. The political offering from them is becoming ever narrower. Let’s see if the ECHR pledge makes it intact to polling day.
Reform aren’t just “properly right wing Tory”, they’re a gang of spivs, chancers, and wannabe demagogues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
The councils are going to be soooo interesting.
(Not that they’ll be reported as such, given what passes for political journalism now in the UK).
In fact, he’s a twit, as most recently evidenced by his actual defection to Reform.
https://x.com/SangitaMyska/status/2015763343114391664?s=20
Short of a Reform self-implosion I don't think we'll actually know how solid Reform's lead is until a month or two before the next election.
https://x.com/offbeatzoe/status/2015762916771868846?s=20
He would have dismissed Farage and Reform as a gang of mere charlatans.
We need a forward thinking govt to look at where the jobs of the future are and plan to support the transition.
Take driving. Taxis, Trucks, vans. You could easily see the roll out of driverless taxis and Lorries.
A lorry is loaded up, set off in the early hours, gets to its destination and is unloaded. No driver needed. Also helps with traffic moving it from the day to the night. However there are many people employed driving. What do they move to ?
👀
I don’t expect they’d follow with that vote at a national level. But I suppose the locals might act as a gateway drug. The level of denial on these pages has never been stronger.
Any government that took away the state pension that millions had spent years contributing to would, of course, be toast. Same for restricting the NHS. I can't help feeling that you'd be shouting as loudly as any if Labour suggested either of those two policies (remember how upset you were that some prostate drugs were not going rolled-out wholesale).
Removal of the triple lock would imo be doable, as would rolling NI into Income Tax (but that's a tax increase not a spending cut)
Add another year and their failure to achieve anything that they promised in 2025 will start to bite them, come 2029 I suspect they will be losing the councils they control.
However, Starmer's problem is that so long as he remains guarded not to rock the boat with Trump (which is still by and large the position despite Greenland) he's hampered to the degree that he can go full tilt at Farage for being Britain's Trump. That's why Labour have confined themselves to characterising Farage as Putin's mate instead, which doesn't have quite the same impact.
So there's a double domestic political penalty for trying to stay in Trump's good books, however justified or not that policy is. It's that Starmer has firstly attracted distaste from the public for being too close to Trump, and secondly hampered his party exploiting an obvious and much needed attack line against Reform.
However, we absolutely should tax with national insurance, and get rid of all of the various perks.
The only one I’d save is free bus travel as I suspect that’s highly conducive to good mental health.
I would have then announced the retirement of the triple lock at the end of this terms, to be replaced with some other guarantee which essentially locked pensions to GDP growth.
If Rachael had done the above in her first budget, it would have sent a powerful message to the bond markets. It would also have justified scrapping the two-child benefits cap, allowed her to do something about crippling student loan interest rates, and provided a fiscal framework to enable additional capital spending.
Instead she decided to close down private schools and chase after non-doms.
https://x.com/i/status/2015780412723745102
But somehow the country survives, things carry on, etc., so I am not convinced we cannot soldier on much as is for the foreseeable.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/25/world/middleeast/iran-how-crackdown-was-done.html?unlocked_article_code=1.HFA.Jlmq.9igCspaiul7V&smid=url-share
As more information emerges from Iran, the death toll has hit at least 5,200 people, including 56 children, according to the Washington-based Human Rights Activists News Agency. Iran Human Rights, a Norway-based group that also monitors the situation in Iran, has confirmed at least 3,400 killed. Both organizations say that the numbers could prove two or three times as large as verification continues.
Iran’s National Security Council said in a statement that 3,117 people had been killed, among them 427 of its security forces. Officials, including Ayatollah Khamenei, have blamed terrorist cells tied to Israel and the United States for the uprising and killings.
“This is not merely a violent protest crackdown,” said Raha Bahreini, a lawyer and an Iran researcher at Amnesty International. “It is a state-orchestrated massacre.”
Simon Marks was wondering on LBC earlier whether Trump is rowing back in order to sack some of his people who have been peddling the most egregious lies to the media. One can only hope that he is right.
Where it shouldn’t go is into a space where it peddles the more reactionary, grievance based politics of the figures in Reform. There are genuine, serious and legitimate concerns that the electorate have about the way the country is being run. They won’t be fixed by what Reform peddle.
I recognise Rayner in the header, but not quite the other fellow.
Is it one of the Number 10 communications and strategy team?
@TSE can you help?
started getting, what do they call it?” He pointed to his forehead and looked to his press secretary for the word that escaped him.
“Alzheimer’s,” Leavitt said.
“Like an Alzheimer’s thing,” Trump said. “Well, I don’t have it.
https://bsky.app/profile/rodger.bsky.social/post/3mddfbqhur22a
If they were Tory, Laura K would be offering the opportunity for said politician to unburden themselves of “their side of the story”; Chris Mason would suggest that we should wait to see how Farage does it bigger and better, while Beth Rigby and Robert Peston would just be jabbering incoherently.
The Guardian would suggest that the main issue was the tensions created in the lesbian Muslim community, while the Telegraph would suggest a conspiracy of Belgian health and safety administrators.
If you merge employee NI and IT and give the old tax rate to pensioners on the basic rate of tax, then you are not touching pensioners on user £50,000 a year.
It would raise money, while keeping promise about not raising tax rates. You could even reduce the rates slightly and still raise more money than before!
At the same time I would have announced a benefit rework policy - all the old age benefits additional to the pension go in the blender and come out with one shiny payment. Targeted at the poorest (tax the benefit).
Quadruple lock - pension and the personal allowance are the same. So if you want to raise the pension, you have to in law, raise the personal allowance. {Snicker}
In political terms Manchester scored a couple of own goals before doing a "Gary Lineker" on the touchline.
https://youtu.be/qvBf4FLL678?si=4OiL0HouSl7dGN6l
It's not so much corruption as the complete absence of cost control and/or project management.
A fun one - the people administering Working council sold one of the pieces of land involved in the disaster. They did this by selling a company that owned the land. Which disguised the new owner of the land. And how much they paid for it.....
(Both claims could be made, cut in the wrong areas etc, but very hard to do so in a clear way)
He also took the lowest earners out of income tax and cut corporation tax from 28% to 20% and introduced an Employment Allowance to reduce employers NI costs
If the Tories had done that with Boris in 2015, they would have been in a better position today.
I worked at a SEND school covering a huge rural area. I mean rural, not Home Counties "rural".
The vast majority (80%?) came on buses. The vast majority of the rest by their parents.
A very few came by taxi, usually three or four in one, but that was usually because there weren't the numbers to make a bus full.
There's a path to 30% there (albeit a very narrow one) if they play their cards right.
Otherwise, they really will be down to sub 60 seats.
Now granted it was Braverman and Jenrick who invited them in and organised housing for the illegal immigrants but I can't see Nigel saying that...