I have long been an admirer of Rayner who is a far cannier politician than generally given credit for (albeit one with rather chaotic household finances).
She recognises that Mahmoods proposals are not going to get through the PLP, thereby setting up another humiliating U turn. Starmer seems unable to see the obvious.
In addition she is in line with majority opinion in the country that 5-10 years should be the line for Permanent Redidence and citizenship.
She is also right that the British sense of fairness supports applying tighter rules only to new applicants, not people who are already legally here.
Whatever the merits of Mahmoods bill, Rayner gets the politics. It is why I had her as PM at year end in the PB predictions contest.
AIUI there would still be opportunity to gain permanent residence and citizenship at current timescales but conditional on things like salary, working in public service or volunteering to speed the standard process up. That actually sounds fine to me despite being a liberal globalist.
It's not volunteering if you have to do it.
You don't have to do it. You can still live here without doing it, it just would put you on a slower path to full citizenship/residence.
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Ed Miliband lost the Labour MPs and members votes but won with the votes of the unions
Unions no longer have the vote clout they did.
Only union members with Labour membership now get to vote.
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.
Is Khan's approach to rejoin with a referendum or without?
Iran offered to give away ALL of its enriched uranium during peace talks in Geneva. The British thought it was a credible offer. Hours later, Trump started bombing Iran anyway. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034396587019895078
Almost factual
Trump didn't start bombing Iran Israel did, Trump followed... Massive distinction as Netanyahu realised his goose was cooked he took unilateral action.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayners intervention in favour of massively increasing the benefits bill by opposing Shabana Mahmood’s perfectly reasonable changes to ILR is nothing more than a naked attempt to cosy up to Union leaders, like those in Unison and Unite, who oppose the changes.
It doesn’t matter what the cost to the taxpayer is. Rayner is nuts and the changes to ILR are popular.
Labour has won the battle on immigration now she risks blowing it all up,again.
Some on the left have spotted the large parliamentary majority that Labour has and wants to use it. They have also worked out that Rainer would never be elected as PM ever so best to mount a putsch now before time runs out.
That would suggest that Ms Rayner is the best that grouping on the left can offer. It also suggests that they aren't concerned about winning the next GE. So what would they be planning to do with the ~3 years left?
I have heard from a Labour MP who normally isn't a Rayner fan (more team Starmer) and their view is Starmer's big problem is that he's ceding the battleground to Farage which isn't a good strategy, Rayner wouldn't do that, plus a Rayner led Labour would attract tactical votes from the Lib Dems and Greens in a way Starmer wouldn't.
Another question Labour MPs should be asking themselves is who do they want to shape immigration policy for the next couple of decades?
Mahmood or Reform? If Labour don't make changes, someone else will, and they will like those changes even less.
I've no interest in Labour trying to compete with Reform - if they do, I'm out.
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Ed Miliband lost the Labour MPs and members votes but won with the votes of the unions
Unions no longer have the vote clout they did.
Only union members with Labour membership now get to vote.
Indeed but as I said as well Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote too but won with Labour members. So Rayner could win via the Corbyn route if enough Labour MPs nominate her even if she lost the Labour MPs vote overall
Rayner is on manoeuvres for sure and I think the crown is hers to lose. I saw her at an event last week. She certainly has the riz that Starmer lacks. Plus an impressive back story. In government I have the impression she was focused and organised and got stuff done. In the context I saw her in she was clearly trying to sound more pro business while being unapologetic about the things she had championed, eg workers' and renters' rights, that business doesn't like. I thought she did a good job of making her case and made a good impression on the audience. I guess where I have concerns is over her intellectual firepower. I *think* I can see through how she talks and the fact she didn't go to university etc, although who knows, maybe I am at least partially infected by the British disease of classism. But I just felt that when she was questioned she didn't really give very considered or convincing arguments, the analysis was a bit superficial. Maybe that doesn't matter, political arguments are not won through appealing to policy wonk type audiences. And she can get advisors in to get to grips with the details of policy. Anyway, those are my thoughts on having seen her in person last week. Yes, but.
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.
Is Khan's approach to rejoin with a referendum or without?
Not specified, according to the BBC report. In practice I expect it would be required.
Iran offered to give away ALL of its enriched uranium during peace talks in Geneva. The British thought it was a credible offer. Hours later, Trump started bombing Iran anyway. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034396587019895078
I can see that triggering Israel, if we don’t move NOW the only justification we have for attacking Iran has gone
Iran offered to give away ALL of its enriched uranium during peace talks in Geneva. The British thought it was a credible offer. Hours later, Trump started bombing Iran anyway. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034396587019895078
Almost factual
Trump didn't start bombing Iran Israel did, Trump followed... Massive distinction as Netanyahu realised his goose was cooked he took unilateral action.
US have confirmed this.
The offer to "give away ALL of its enriched uranium" ?
(Everyone knows about the likelihood that Netanyahu precipitated the war.)
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.
I would vote more enthusiastically for a party pledging to negotiate a Swiss or Norway deal with the EU. Which is what the Brexit deal should have been in the first place. Neither country is exactly a basket case.
Rayners intervention in favour of massively increasing the benefits bill by opposing Shabana Mahmood’s perfectly reasonable changes to ILR is nothing more than a naked attempt to cosy up to Union leaders, like those in Unison and Unite, who oppose the changes.
It doesn’t matter what the cost to the taxpayer is. Rayner is nuts and the changes to ILR are popular.
Labour has won the battle on immigration now she risks blowing it all up,again.
Some on the left have spotted the large parliamentary majority that Labour has and wants to use it. They have also worked out that Rainer would never be elected as PM ever so best to mount a putsch now before time runs out.
That would suggest that Ms Rayner is the best that grouping on the left can offer. It also suggests that they aren't concerned about winning the next GE. So what would they be planning to do with the ~3 years left?
I have heard from a Labour MP who normally isn't a Rayner fan (more team Starmer) and their view is Starmer's big problem is that he's ceding the battleground to Farage which isn't a good strategy, Rayner wouldn't do that, plus a Rayner led Labour would attract tactical votes from the Lib Dems and Greens in a way Starmer wouldn't.
Another question Labour MPs should be asking themselves is who do they want to shape immigration policy for the next couple of decades?
Mahmood or Reform? If Labour don't make changes, someone else will, and they will like those changes even less.
I've no interest in Labour trying to compete with Reform - if they do, I'm out.
It's not about competing, it is about governing and choices. As I said, someone is going to change our immigration policy, and it would be far better if that is not done by either Reform or Badenoch's version of the Conservatives (although that might possibly evolve). More consideration of how we manage integration is actually a win for migrants too.
Rayners intervention in favour of massively increasing the benefits bill by opposing Shabana Mahmood’s perfectly reasonable changes to ILR is nothing more than a naked attempt to cosy up to Union leaders, like those in Unison and Unite, who oppose the changes.
It doesn’t matter what the cost to the taxpayer is. Rayner is nuts and the changes to ILR are popular.
Labour has won the battle on immigration now she risks blowing it all up,again.
Some on the left have spotted the large parliamentary majority that Labour has and wants to use it. They have also worked out that Rainer would never be elected as PM ever so best to mount a putsch now before time runs out.
That would suggest that Ms Rayner is the best that grouping on the left can offer. It also suggests that they aren't concerned about winning the next GE. So what would they be planning to do with the ~3 years left?
I have heard from a Labour MP who normally isn't a Rayner fan (more team Starmer) and their view is Starmer's big problem is that he's ceding the battleground to Farage which isn't a good strategy, Rayner wouldn't do that, plus a Rayner led Labour would attract tactical votes from the Lib Dems and Greens in a way Starmer wouldn't.
Another question Labour MPs should be asking themselves is who do they want to shape immigration policy for the next couple of decades?
Mahmood or Reform? If Labour don't make changes, someone else will, and they will like those changes even less.
Labour won’t out Reform Reform on immigration and will leak more voters to the Greens and LDs if they try. Zero chance of Labour members electing Mahmood leader too
They shouldn't try and out Reform Reform, but no-one is suggesting they do so. Acknowledging and tackling a real problem is very different to how the likes of Jenrick et al managed immigration, a load of performative and divisive claptrap to get favourable headlines on the Daily Mail and GBeebies at the expense of society.
Reasonable attention to the issue is one thing, and I'm not against selective reforms. But we'll never attract a single voter who likes Reform's approach to the issue above all other considerations.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
The Tories have the same problem. In fact every party that seriously aspires to power does ( so that lets Davey off the hook).
We think we pay a lot of tax and that public services are crap. And we do and they are. But is the answer we should pay even more tax to properly fund them or will this simply generate even more waste and feather bedding?
There are lots of examples of us being penny wise and pound foolish. But there are also lots of examples of over regulation and stifling bureaucracy. These are the real problems that PMs and Chancellors have to deal with and they are not easy.
We will hear lots of simplistic rubbish from others and, I suspect, from Rayner. But the people you have identified will not take that seriously.
What do Newcastle United and Essex girls have in commom?
Both go to Spain to get fucked.
I had a joke for you about the British Constitution, but I didn't write it down.
Was it Dicey?
A more accurate punchline would be "I wrote it down with one letter per page, threw all the pages up in the air and spent 400 odd years trying to reassemble the joke". I acknowledge that's less funny though.
Comments about day jobs come to mind to be honest. Talking of which…
Okay how about "Why is the British constitution like a used bottle of ketchup? They're both open source".
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.
Is Khan's approach to rejoin with a referendum or without?
Not specified, according to the BBC report. In practice I expect it would be required.
Joining the system via EEA/EFTA, like Norway, would not require a referendum as it is consonant with the referendum vote to leave the EU.
I have long been an admirer of Rayner who is a far cannier politician than generally given credit for (albeit one with rather chaotic household finances).
She recognises that Mahmoods proposals are not going to get through the PLP, thereby setting up another humiliating U turn. Starmer seems unable to see the obvious.
In addition she is in line with majority opinion in the country that 5-10 years should be the line for Permanent Redidence and citizenship.
She is also right that the British sense of fairness supports applying tighter rules only to new applicants, not people who are already legally here.
Whatever the merits of Mahmoods bill, Rayner gets the politics. It is why I had her as PM at year end in the PB predictions contest.
AIUI there would still be opportunity to gain permanent residence and citizenship at current timescales but conditional on things like salary, working in public service or volunteering to speed the standard process up. That actually sounds fine to me despite being a liberal globalist.
It's not volunteering if you have to do it.
You don't have to do it. You can still live here without doing it, it just would put you on a slower path to full citizenship/residence.
Personally I think that rapid integration is desirable, including a passport - having lots of residents without passports seems a risky half-measure.
Rayner is on manoeuvres for sure and I think the crown is hers to lose. I saw her at an event last week. She certainly has the riz that Starmer lacks. Plus an impressive back story. In government I have the impression she was focused and organised and got stuff done. In the context I saw her in she was clearly trying to sound more pro business while being unapologetic about the things she had championed, eg workers' and renters' rights, that business doesn't like. I thought she did a good job of making her case and made a good impression on the audience. I guess where I have concerns is over her intellectual firepower. I *think* I can see through how she talks and the fact she didn't go to university etc, although who knows, maybe I am at least partially infected by the British disease of classism. But I just felt that when she was questioned she didn't really give very considered or convincing arguments, the analysis was a bit superficial. Maybe that doesn't matter, political arguments are not won through appealing to policy wonk type audiences. And she can get advisors in to get to grips with the details of policy. Anyway, those are my thoughts on having seen her in person last week. Yes, but.
That's interesting.
FWIW, the impression I got from her time in government was that she didn't get stuff done. Planning reform was the single big policy which Labour could have run with immediately on taking office. It didn't require a lot of money from the Treasury, and might have made a big difference to the economy. Nothing happened for a year. Then she left office.
I have long been an admirer of Rayner who is a far cannier politician than generally given credit for (albeit one with rather chaotic household finances).
She recognises that Mahmoods proposals are not going to get through the PLP, thereby setting up another humiliating U turn. Starmer seems unable to see the obvious.
In addition she is in line with majority opinion in the country that 5-10 years should be the line for Permanent Redidence and citizenship.
She is also right that the British sense of fairness supports applying tighter rules only to new applicants, not people who are already legally here.
Whatever the merits of Mahmoods bill, Rayner gets the politics. It is why I had her as PM at year end in the PB predictions contest.
AIUI there would still be opportunity to gain permanent residence and citizenship at current timescales but conditional on things like salary, working in public service or volunteering to speed the standard process up. That actually sounds fine to me despite being a liberal globalist.
+1 - that has to be the rules, you can come here but you need to demonstrate that you pay your way before you get citizenship. Which as you say there should be £x00,000 paid in tax, NHS work or volunteering alongside the x year criteria.
And if you don't meet that criteria we should offer a discretionary renewal during which time they need to hit those criteria,
By doing that we would end up with people who actually contribute to the country..
As in a lot of things I think we should be looking to Norway on how we manage immigration and integration, and they do a lot more on the integration side. Ultimately I think that benefits immigrants, locals and government.
The idea of metaverses are horrendous. Imagine online gatekeeping means constant low level fees for every damn thing, with crypto galore.
Now we just need Meta's desire to get ID checks over all social media so they have more info to mine and sell thrown in the bin.
Meta does not want checks on social media. Meta has been successfully lobbying for device and OS-level age and/or ID checks so that it is not Zuckerberg's fault if little Tarquin sees something inappropriate on Facebook. That will be down to Steve Jobs or Bill Gates (or their successors) and even Linus Torvalds.
A Reddit researcher just exposed how Meta funneled over $2 billion through shadowy nonprofits to push age verification laws that would force Apple and Google to build surveillance infrastructure into every device—while conveniently exempting Meta’s own platforms from the same requirements. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/reddit-user-uncovers-behind-meta-154717384.html
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.
Is Khan's approach to rejoin with a referendum or without?
Not specified, according to the BBC report. In practice I expect it would be required.
Joining the system via EEA/EFTA, like Norway, would not require a referendum as it is consonant with the referendum vote to leave the EU.
We did not leave via referendum anyway but the 2019 general election Tory majority
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.
Is Khan's approach to rejoin with a referendum or without?
Not specified, according to the BBC report. In practice I expect it would be required.
The utter failure of Brexit either in practical terms, or judged by public opinion, possibly explains the shift of the Reform, and the right of the Tory party to pushing islamphobia.
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.
Is Khan's approach to rejoin with a referendum or without?
Not specified, according to the BBC report. In practice I expect it would be required.
The utter failure of Brexit either in practical terms, or judged by public opinion, possibly explains the shift of the Reform, and the right of the Tory party to pushing islamphobia.
She appears far smarter and more ruthless than Truss. Rayner has made a pitch for the leadership out of nothing in the last fortnight, and at a moment when Starmer's, albeit in the toilet, stock was rising slightly.
All those PB Tories laughing at her might regret it.
She's a street fighter and street smart too. For what it's worth I suspect she is quite a reprehensible character, but that never held Boris Johnson back.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
The trainwreck of corruption and incompetence continues in the US.
Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, has spoken with potential investors- read Gulf governments- in recent weeks about raising $5 billion or more for his investment vehicle. So Bibi has had accomplices directly within the Trump regime, though whether the Gulf Arabs now think keeping the US onside is an unalloyed benefit is certainly an open question.
The domestic backlash in the US seems surprisingly quiet for the moment, however. Yet the confirmation hearings for Markwayne Mullin are becoming a knockdown fight and the latest judicial rulings are “sub optimal” for the Administration. It does seem like there is finally some institutional pushback against the anti-constitutional “move fast, break things” approach. The direct involvement of the tech bros themselves moved on a few months back, and the momentum was slowing anyway. Now we have gone from coasting on the initial momentum to hitting the brakes. Quagmire is next, and the utterly incompetent execution of the Iranian adventure will speed up the domestic paralysis of the regime. The problem is that the worst case scenarios for the Gulf now look like wishful thinking.
Sky interview with Sharon Graham of Unite Union asks should the government look again at drilling in the North Sea ?
'Yes - I absolutely do and I think they need to open up the North Sea
We shouldn't let go of one rope before we have got hold of another'
It is economic vandalism not to take the billions of additional tax revenue from the North Sea over the next 2 decades whilst tansitioning
It is not either or but do both, and if any lesson is to be learnt from this crisis it is to develop our own oil and gas fields as are Norway
That lesson is entirely dwarfed by the primary one we should draw from this: we must with the greatest expedience possible reduce our consumption of oil and gas.
To put your lesson into perspective - OEUK, which is the O&G lobbyist, estimate that liberalising the North Sea would increase tax revenues over the next 10 years by £16 billion. And take that with a tablespoon of salt given the industry's long history of talking self-serving excrement.
Our energy support package in 2022 alone was £51 billion. The incessant focus on the North Sea is deranged and panicked whataboutery from people who cannot face the fact that those advocating for renewables over the last 20 years have been entirely vindicated by Ukraine and now Iran.
It's like complaining about water damage even as your house burns down.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
The Tories have the same problem. In fact every party that seriously aspires to power does ( so that lets Davey off the hook).
We think we pay a lot of tax and that public services are crap. And we do and they are. But is the answer we should pay even more tax to properly fund them or will this simply generate even more waste and feather bedding?
There are lots of examples of us being penny wise and pound foolish. But there are also lots of examples of over regulation and stifling bureaucracy. These are the real problems that PMs and Chancellors have to deal with and they are not easy.
We will hear lots of simplistic rubbish from others and, I suspect, from Rayner. But the people you have identified will not take that seriously.
Fully agree. Exactly how much tax should be paid by whom is of course a political question, as is how competent the state is at allocating and spending it all.
What is however beyond doubt (as Reform will discover if they govern) is that modern western societies are and are going to be high spend and therefore high tax societies. Also beyond doubt is that they are having to handle debts which are a huge percentage of GDP and could spiral out of control. Also beyond doubt that defence spending is going to rise, and also beyond doubt that the world is going to stay a dangerous and war torn place for the foreseeable future. These are the big givens.
Anyone aspiring to leadership in the UK has to be a person who is convincing and committed on the big questions and whose speeches and publications show that they have a holistic view about handling them and our place in the world. The trivialisation of stuff and the narrowing of issues into slogans is entirely displacement activity.
I doubt if Rayner is that leadership person.
Starmer (IMO) is the best available at the moment, but it is still a low bar and he is not very good
Sky interview with Sharon Graham of Unite Union asks should the government look again at drilling in the North Sea ?
'Yes - I absolutely do and I think they need to open up the North Sea
We shouldn't let go of one rope before we have got hold of another'
It is economic vandalism not to take the billions of additional tax revenue from the North Sea over the next 2 decades whilst tansitioning
It is not either or but do both, and if any lesson is to be learnt from this crisis it is to develop our own oil and gas fields as are Norway
That lesson is entirely dwarfed by the primary one we should draw from this: we must with the greatest expedience possible reduce our consumption of oil and gas.
To put your lesson into perspective - OEUK, which is the O&G lobbyist, estimate that liberalising the North Sea would increase tax revenues over the next 10 years by £16 billion. And take that with a tablespoon of salt given the industry's long history of talking self-serving excrement.
Our energy support package in 2022 alone was £51 billion. The incessant focus on the North Sea is deranged and panicked whataboutery from people who cannot face the fact that those advocating for renewables over the last 20 years have been entirely vindicated by Ukraine and now Iran.
It's like complaining about water damage even as your house burns down.
The only mainstream politician who gets it is Ed Miliband
Thats why he is under constant sustained attack from the Oil and Gas Lobby funded with billions, orchestrated by Tufton Street.
She appears far smarter and more ruthless than Truss. Rayner has made a pitch for the leadership out of nothing in the last fortnight, and at a moment when Starmer's, albeit in the toilet, stock was rising slightly.
All those PB Tories laughing at her might regret it.
She's a street fighter and street smart too. For what it's worth I suspect she is quite a reprehensible character, but that never held Boris Johnson back.
Morning all If she grabs the crown she has the potential to capture something with the electorate - her backstory, some of the Polanski 'hope' bros and some Reform 'break down the old guard' There are significant downside risks too An all or nothing play
Iran offered to give away ALL of its enriched uranium during peace talks in Geneva. The British thought it was a credible offer. Hours later, Trump started bombing Iran anyway. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034396587019895078
I can see that triggering Israel, if we don’t move NOW the only justification we have for attacking Iran has gone
Didn't Saddam give up all his WMD before the 2003 war, but the war was started anyway, ostensibly because the US/Britain didn't believe that he'd done so?
You can always claim that they've hidden enough for a bomb somewhere, while giving up the rest of it.
I'm no financial expert (clearly, some might say).
I'm surprised the price of Gold isn't much higher with everything going on - gold is traditionally a hedge against trouble yet seems to be dropping.
The next question is how long will it be before the big jump in Natural Gas (presumably because of the attack on Qatar) impacts UK supply and prices. I can already see the energy companies (who have gouged us all for years) seeing an excuse to raise prices yet again (we have to take the pain, they can for a change).
OIl continues to edge higher which again will feed through to the pumps and doubtless throughout the economy at some point.
It does seem however there can be an over-reaction to actual events - my reading (from the BBC) of reports from Qatar, Kuwait and elsewhere is the Iranian strikes are more of nuisance value and such fires as have bene caused are under control - that in itself may be wishful thinking but it wouldn't surprise to see prices retreat considerably as the day goes on.
Nonetheless, the last thing these volatile markets (pardon the pun) need is instability, disinformation and chaos.
As with Ukraine, I'm left wondering how this ends - there seems little sign of the regime breaking down in Tehran currently and absent ground troops, I can't see how change can be forced.
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.
Is Khan's approach to rejoin with a referendum or without?
Not specified, according to the BBC report. In practice I expect it would be required.
The utter failure of Brexit either in practical terms, or judged by public opinion, possibly explains the shift of the Reform, and the right of the Tory party to pushing islamphobia.
Brexit has given what the Leave campaigned promised - more spending on the NHS and control over immigration from the EU.
Which makes it a lot more honest that either the Remain campaign or any governments before or since.
In light of recent events my bank's prediction for the war, our reasonable worst case scenario has been updated to reasonable best case scenario
Well, Trump is a moron.
I'm somewhat heartened by Europe and Canada, Japan, Australia, and South Korea refusing to be drawn into this, though. There is a chance the fool will just announce victory and stop his aimless bombing.
I’m reminded of the scene (offstage) in Red Storm Rising where the deputy KGB chairman brings the Best Case, Middle Case and Worst case scenarios to the Big Meeting.
Then picks the one he thinks the meeting will like.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
Most people are net recipients of money from the state over the course of their life. That is the logical outcome of having a progressive tax system, decent public services and an unequal distribution of income.
In light of recent events my bank's prediction for the war, our reasonable worst case scenario has been updated to reasonable best case scenario
Well, Trump is a moron.
I'm somewhat heartened by Europe and Canada, Japan, Australia, and South Korea refusing to be drawn into this, though. There is a chance the fool will just announce victory and stop his aimless bombing.
I’m reminded of the scene (offstage) in Red Storm Rising where the deputy KGB chairman brings the Best Case, Middle Case and Worst case scenarios to the Big Meeting.
Then picks the one he thinks the meeting will like.
Which leads to WWIII
Trump is too erratic, too unreliable, too likely to veer between extremes for plans to be used.
Which means planning for a wide range of possibilities is required.
Sky interview with Sharon Graham of Unite Union asks should the government look again at drilling in the North Sea ?
'Yes - I absolutely do and I think they need to open up the North Sea
We shouldn't let go of one rope before we have got hold of another'
It is economic vandalism not to take the billions of additional tax revenue from the North Sea over the next 2 decades whilst tansitioning
It is not either or but do both, and if any lesson is to be learnt from this crisis it is to develop our own oil and gas fields as are Norway
That lesson is entirely dwarfed by the primary one we should draw from this: we must with the greatest expedience possible reduce our consumption of oil and gas.
To put your lesson into perspective - OEUK, which is the O&G lobbyist, estimate that liberalising the North Sea would increase tax revenues over the next 10 years by £16 billion. And take that with a tablespoon of salt given the industry's long history of talking self-serving excrement.
Our energy support package in 2022 alone was £51 billion. The incessant focus on the North Sea is deranged and panicked whataboutery from people who cannot face the fact that those advocating for renewables over the last 20 years have been entirely vindicated by Ukraine and now Iran.
It's like complaining about water damage even as your house burns down.
Unless my maths is wrong, that £51B could have equipped around £2.5M homes (about 10% of stock) with solar plus ~10kWh battery, which would give a combined ~25GWh of storage (current prices from Google, but done at that scale costs would surely drop further). That's over double our present grid storage, for context. If the money was focused on grid storage, then presumably far more than 25GWh of storage could be added. You could build 1.5-5 Severn barrages for that. Or an extra Hinckley point C, if that seemed value for money.
It would make a lot more sense to pursue those than use government money to fund a price bonanza for oil and gas from dodgy states (and Norway).
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.
Is Khan's approach to rejoin with a referendum or without?
Not specified, according to the BBC report. In practice I expect it would be required.
Khan has described the return to the EU as "inevitable" and argues that the mandate for rejoining should come from a general election manifesto, rather than a second referendum.
In the meantime he advocates rejoining the customs union and the single market within the current parliament, before officially rejoining the EU later after getting a mandate at a general election.
There appears no rational reason for Israel to have attacked Iran's gas facilities. Other than to chuck gasoline on the fire. Throw all the pieces up in the air.
12-D chess it isn't.
Wouldn't it starve Iran's electricity grid of fuel if the gas field was destroyed? No electricity, no weapons production, doesn't seem completely irrational.
In light of recent events my bank's prediction for the war, our reasonable worst case scenario has been updated to reasonable best case scenario
Well, Trump is a moron.
I'm somewhat heartened by Europe and Canada, Japan, Australia, and South Korea refusing to be drawn into this, though. There is a chance the fool will just announce victory and stop his aimless bombing.
I’m reminded of the scene (offstage) in Red Storm Rising where the deputy KGB chairman brings the Best Case, Middle Case and Worst case scenarios to the Big Meeting.
Then picks the one he thinks the meeting will like.
Which leads to WWIII
Trump is too erratic, too unreliable, too likely to veer between extremes for plans to be used.
Which means planning for a wide range of possibilities is required.
An advantage in keeping your enemies guessing, suboptimal for your allies let alone your own command team.
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.
Is Khan's approach to rejoin with a referendum or without?
Not specified, according to the BBC report. In practice I expect it would be required.
The utter failure of Brexit either in practical terms, or judged by public opinion, possibly explains the shift of the Reform, and the right of the Tory party to pushing islamphobia.
Brexit has given what the Leave campaigned promised - more spending on the NHS and control over immigration from the EU.
Which makes it a lot more honest that either the Remain campaign or any governments before or since.
More money for the NHS was inevitable whatever happened and will continue in line with an ageing population and rising costs. It is not a Brexit dividend.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
She's actually as is Bridget Phillipson the polar opposite of that.
She believes those in genuine need should be supported but should if they can work.
Now remind us who was it created millions of NEETS, millions on benefits without proper due diligence.
Boris Truss Sunak
One thing Rayner and Phillipson can't be accused of is sitting back and being hand fed with a silver spoon or state spoon.
Neither either flown in and out as a baby, flown in and out to do exams as a teenager, faking websites, faking American University places.
Both had unimaginablely bad childhoods
Both have massively over achieved on ability and merit
Even the Grocers daughter would be proud to associate with that.
Underestimate them at your peril.
Anyone thinking of voting Labour , LD, Green even PC or SNP in a tight marginal who has to vote tactically to keep a very right wing Tory government or Reform out, is more likely to vote for Angela than Starmer, not less.
The Tories should fear Angela far more than Starmer she will galvanise centre left progressives in a way he can't.
The Tories only hope v Ange is to try to recapture the sane one nation Tory vote. Cleverly would worry Ange far more than Badenoch. Ange will eat her up and spit her out on debate. A political beast honed since her teens in the northern politics a bit of Barbara Castle about her.
Not polite like Keir, no fear of the mysogonist typical Tory clap trap...
Rayners intervention in favour of massively increasing the benefits bill by opposing Shabana Mahmood’s perfectly reasonable changes to ILR is nothing more than a naked attempt to cosy up to Union leaders, like those in Unison and Unite, who oppose the changes.
It doesn’t matter what the cost to the taxpayer is. Rayner is nuts and the changes to ILR are popular.
Labour has won the battle on immigration now she risks blowing it all up,again.
Some on the left have spotted the large parliamentary majority that Labour has and wants to use it. They have also worked out that Rainer would never be elected as PM ever so best to mount a putsch now before time runs out.
That would suggest that Ms Rayner is the best that grouping on the left can offer. It also suggests that they aren't concerned about winning the next GE. So what would they be planning to do with the ~3 years left?
I have heard from a Labour MP who normally isn't a Rayner fan (more team Starmer) and their view is Starmer's big problem is that he's ceding the battleground to Farage which isn't a good strategy, Rayner wouldn't do that, plus a Rayner led Labour would attract tactical votes from the Lib Dems and Greens in a way Starmer wouldn't.
Another question Labour MPs should be asking themselves is who do they want to shape immigration policy for the next couple of decades?
Mahmood or Reform? If Labour don't make changes, someone else will, and they will like those changes even less.
This is precisely the McSweeney/Starmer playbook that saw Labour lose half its votes in Gorton. I think they would be better implementing policy they think is right, rather than second guess the priors of people who won't vote for them anyway.
Rape victims to be tagged after their attacker is released
MoJ to pilot UK’s first ‘proximity tagging scheme’ to keep offenders away from victims
Rape and domestic abuse victims will be tracked to prevent them ever coming into contact with their attackers under Britain’s biggest-ever expansion of tagging.
The Ministry of Justice is to pilot the UK’s first deployment of “proximity tagging”, which enables probation officers to know 24/7 if an offender comes within a pre-set distance of a victim of domestic abuse, stalking or sexual assault.
The victim will have a GPS locator in their phone while the offender will be tagged so that probation or police officers can intervene if the abuser approaches their location.
The £5m pilot, expected to be launched later this year, is part of an expansion of tagging by Labour to protect the public as it increases the use of community punishments as an alternative to prison.
Under Sir Keir Starmer’s sentencing reforms, criminals will be freed as little as a third of the way through their sentence if they demonstrate good behaviour and participate in work, training, education and rehabilitation schemes.
From September, when the new sentencing system kicks in, Lord Timpson, the prisons minister, said there would be a “presumption” that every offender leaving jail will be tagged as soon as they leave the prison gates. At present, they are only tagged when the contractor Serco attends their home after their release.
A couple of comments on Rayner from this Labour Party member:
1. Ange is hugely popular among members, more so than any other contender (with the theoretical exception of Burnham) to succeed Starmer.
2. But that popularity doesn't necessarily extend to wanting her to be leader, because many of us, and many/most Labour MPs, have serious doubts about her suitability as leader/PM. Deputy Leader was just right for her. It would be very risky to give her the top job.
There appears no rational reason for Israel to have attacked Iran's gas facilities. Other than to chuck gasoline on the fire. Throw all the pieces up in the air.
12-D chess it isn't.
Wouldn't it starve Iran's electricity grid of fuel if the gas field was destroyed? No electricity, no weapons production, doesn't seem completely irrational.
No hospitals, power in homes or domestic industrial production either. Still, the Basenji and the IRGC will have their good old fashioned bullets to repress any popular uprising that these rsoles are pretending they want.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
Most people are net recipients of money from the state over the course of their life. That is the logical outcome of having a progressive tax system, decent public services and an unequal distribution of income.
Which leads to people thinking that more money from the government is always the answer.
And people thinking that they shouldn't only be net recipients of money from the state when they are under 20 and over 60 but also the forty years in between.
Which leads to £100bn of tax receipts being used to pay the debt on all the money the government has borrowed.
Finally it results in the country going the way of Greece or Argentina.
One of the things that makes me wary about the more enthusiastic predictions about AI is just how enthusiastic about it Zuckerberg has become. He's capable of wasting even more money on AI then he did on the metaverse.
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.
Is Khan's approach to rejoin with a referendum or without?
Not specified, according to the BBC report. In practice I expect it would be required.
The utter failure of Brexit either in practical terms, or judged by public opinion, possibly explains the shift of the Reform, and the right of the Tory party to pushing islamphobia.
Yeah, move onto the next scapegoat.
It's effectively following the Trump playbook again.
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.
Is Khan's approach to rejoin with a referendum or without?
Not specified, according to the BBC report. In practice I expect it would be required.
The utter failure of Brexit either in practical terms, or judged by public opinion, possibly explains the shift of the Reform, and the right of the Tory party to pushing islamphobia.
Brexit has given what the Leave campaigned promised - more spending on the NHS and control over immigration from the EU.
Which makes it a lot more honest that either the Remain campaign or any governments before or since.
You can keep arguing about it as much as you like. The public has, by a very large majority, judged it a failure.
Sky interview with Sharon Graham of Unite Union asks should the government look again at drilling in the North Sea ?
'Yes - I absolutely do and I think they need to open up the North Sea
We shouldn't let go of one rope before we have got hold of another'
It is economic vandalism not to take the billions of additional tax revenue from the North Sea over the next 2 decades whilst tansitioning
It is not either or but do both, and if any lesson is to be learnt from this crisis it is to develop our own oil and gas fields as are Norway
That lesson is entirely dwarfed by the primary one we should draw from this: we must with the greatest expedience possible reduce our consumption of oil and gas.
To put your lesson into perspective - OEUK, which is the O&G lobbyist, estimate that liberalising the North Sea would increase tax revenues over the next 10 years by £16 billion. And take that with a tablespoon of salt given the industry's long history of talking self-serving excrement.
Our energy support package in 2022 alone was £51 billion. The incessant focus on the North Sea is deranged and panicked whataboutery from people who cannot face the fact that those advocating for renewables over the last 20 years have been entirely vindicated by Ukraine and now Iran.
It's like complaining about water damage even as your house burns down.
The only mainstream politician who gets it is Ed Miliband
Thats why he is under constant sustained attack from the Oil and Gas Lobby funded with billions, orchestrated by Tufton Street.
Miliband has done next to nothing to fix any of this. The course of the current government is almost indistinguishable from the last one. And MRD applies to the O&G lobby and Russian/Iranian bots on social media.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
Most people are net recipients of money from the state over the course of their life. That is the logical outcome of having a progressive tax system, decent public services and an unequal distribution of income.
Exactly so. To achieve flatter taxes and more equitable contributions to the State's finances requires that there is a more equitable distribution of income.
There appears no rational reason for Israel to have attacked Iran's gas facilities. Other than to chuck gasoline on the fire. Throw all the pieces up in the air.
12-D chess it isn't.
Wouldn't it starve Iran's electricity grid of fuel if the gas field was destroyed? No electricity, no weapons production, doesn't seem completely irrational.
No domestic economy; no fertiliser production; no desalination etc. The aim of the war was argued by its proponents to be either regime change, or preventing Iran getting nuclear weapons. The complete immiseration, and possible starvation of the population wasn't supposed to be the motivation.
Reminder: there's no gas to be fracked in Britain or the rest of Europe, and there's no oil or gas left in the North Sea. That's why we cannot give licenses to companies looking for reserves there and have to tax their profits at 78%.
@MattW I saw you and Flatlander discussing head torches. I've always used Alpkit ones as cheap and cheerful - it's the one bit of kit I'm guaranteed to lose on a regular basis.
Rape victims to be tagged after their attacker is released
MoJ to pilot UK’s first ‘proximity tagging scheme’ to keep offenders away from victims
Rape and domestic abuse victims will be tracked to prevent them ever coming into contact with their attackers under Britain’s biggest-ever expansion of tagging.
The Ministry of Justice is to pilot the UK’s first deployment of “proximity tagging”, which enables probation officers to know 24/7 if an offender comes within a pre-set distance of a victim of domestic abuse, stalking or sexual assault.
The victim will have a GPS locator in their phone while the offender will be tagged so that probation or police officers can intervene if the abuser approaches their location.
The £5m pilot, expected to be launched later this year, is part of an expansion of tagging by Labour to protect the public as it increases the use of community punishments as an alternative to prison.
Under Sir Keir Starmer’s sentencing reforms, criminals will be freed as little as a third of the way through their sentence if they demonstrate good behaviour and participate in work, training, education and rehabilitation schemes.
From September, when the new sentencing system kicks in, Lord Timpson, the prisons minister, said there would be a “presumption” that every offender leaving jail will be tagged as soon as they leave the prison gates. At present, they are only tagged when the contractor Serco attends their home after their release.
I wonder what the Chinese are thinking with regard to Iran?
While they have large stocks of oil and gas, together with supplies from Russia, and can therefore wait things out for a while, they remain heavily reliant on oil and gas from the Gulf beyond the short term. If it starts to look at any point as though like US is taking control of the region, I can't imagine they'll take that lying down. I'd expect China to start throwing its rather substantial weight behind Iran if, say, the US were to try to take control of the Straits of Hormuz.
There appears no rational reason for Israel to have attacked Iran's gas facilities. Other than to chuck gasoline on the fire. Throw all the pieces up in the air.
12-D chess it isn't.
Wouldn't it starve Iran's electricity grid of fuel if the gas field was destroyed? No electricity, no weapons production, doesn't seem completely irrational.
No domestic economy; no fertiliser production; no desalination etc. The aim of the war was argued by its proponents to be either regime change, or preventing Iran getting nuclear weapons. The complete immiseration, and possible starvation of the population wasn't supposed to be the motivation.
Sure, you can argue that it crosses the boundary of targeting civilian infrastructure instead of military infrastructure and should be avoided, but there are military advantages, and so I don't think it is irrational, as stated.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
Most people are net recipients of money from the state over the course of their life. That is the logical outcome of having a progressive tax system, decent public services and an unequal distribution of income.
Exactly so. To achieve flatter taxes and more equitable contributions to the State's finances requires that there is a more equitable distribution of income.
That's right. As long as some people are earning more than 10x the median income they have to accept they will be making an outsized contribution to the government coffers. It constantly amazes me that some of these people object to this.
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.
Is Khan's approach to rejoin with a referendum or without?
Not specified, according to the BBC report. In practice I expect it would be required.
The utter failure of Brexit either in practical terms, or judged by public opinion, possibly explains the shift of the Reform, and the right of the Tory party to pushing islamphobia.
There's a correlation between Brexiteer and Islamophobe in our political class. Not 1-1 but quite strong.
I wonder what the Chinese are thinking with regard to Iran?
While they have large stocks of oil and gas, together with supplies from Russia, and can therefore wait things out for a while, they remain heavily reliant on oil and gas from the Gulf beyond the short term. If it starts to look at any point as though like US is taking control of the region, I can't imagine they'll take that lying down. I'd expect China to start throwing its rather substantial weight behind Iran if, say, the US were to try to take control of the Straits of Hormuz.
You'd have to look at the numbers to work out what their alternatives might be. A combination of buying more supplies from Russia, expanding coal use, and continuing the renewables acceleration, might be enough for them to do without Gulf supplies.
Since the US seems to be uninterested in supporting Ukraine, the safer option for China might be to increase support for Russia to secure Russian hydrocarbons from Ukrainian attack. That would then leave India and Europe as being most exposed to the drop in supplies from the Gulf.
There appears no rational reason for Israel to have attacked Iran's gas facilities. Other than to chuck gasoline on the fire. Throw all the pieces up in the air.
12-D chess it isn't.
Wouldn't it starve Iran's electricity grid of fuel if the gas field was destroyed? No electricity, no weapons production, doesn't seem completely irrational.
No domestic economy; no fertiliser production; no desalination etc. The aim of the war was argued by its proponents to be either regime change, or preventing Iran getting nuclear weapons. The complete immiseration, and possible starvation of the population wasn't supposed to be the motivation.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to view the actions of the US and Israel as anything other than naked and indefensible aggression. We really shouldn't be playing any role in supporting their actions.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
She's actually as is Bridget Phillipson the polar opposite of that.
She believes those in genuine need should be supported but should if they can work.
Now remind us who was it created millions of NEETS, millions on benefits without proper due diligence.
Boris Truss Sunak
One thing Rayner and Phillipson can't be accused of is sitting back and being hand fed with a silver spoon or state spoon.
Neither either flown in and out as a baby, flown in and out to do exams as a teenager, faking websites, faking American University places.
Both had unimaginablely bad childhoods
Both have massively over achieved on ability and merit
Even the Grocers daughter would be proud to associate with that.
Underestimate them at your peril.
Anyone thinking of voting Labour , LD, Green even PC or SNP in a tight marginal who has to vote tactically to keep a very right wing Tory government or Reform out, is more likely to vote for Angela than Starmer, not less.
The Tories should fear Angela far more than Starmer she will galvanise centre left progressives in a way he can't.
The Tories only hope v Ange is to try to recapture the sane one nation Tory vote. Cleverly would worry Ange far more than Badenoch. Ange will eat her up and spit her out on debate. A political beast honed since her teens in the northern politics a bit of Barbara Castle about her.
Not polite like Keir, no fear of the mysogonist typical Tory clap trap...
The Tories biggest nightmare.
In your imagination
Rayner would be a disaster for the country economically as labour lurches left and the bond markets run away
I simply care too much about our Country to let Rayner lose on it, though her closeness to Sharon Graham and Unite most certainly would see the North Sea oil and gas fields open up
Kemi v Ange as you put it would be a contrast in styles and Kemi would win the economy, defence and immigration hands down
There appears no rational reason for Israel to have attacked Iran's gas facilities. Other than to chuck gasoline on the fire. Throw all the pieces up in the air.
12-D chess it isn't.
Wouldn't it starve Iran's electricity grid of fuel if the gas field was destroyed? No electricity, no weapons production, doesn't seem completely irrational.
No domestic economy; no fertiliser production; no desalination etc. The aim of the war was argued by its proponents to be either regime change, or preventing Iran getting nuclear weapons. The complete immiseration, and possible starvation of the population wasn't supposed to be the motivation.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to view the actions of the US and Israel as anything other than naked and indefensible aggression. We really shouldn't be playing any role in supporting their actions.
Israel is salting the Earth, as unfortunately seems to be its default position towards its neighbours now. It is a rogue state.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
Most people are net recipients of money from the state over the course of their life. That is the logical outcome of having a progressive tax system, decent public services and an unequal distribution of income.
Exactly so. To achieve flatter taxes and more equitable contributions to the State's finances requires that there is a more equitable distribution of income.
That's right. As long as some people are earning more than 10x the median income they have to accept they will be making an outsized contribution to the government coffers. It constantly amazes me that some of these people object to this.
They would be making an outsized contribution even with a flat tax.
Rape victims to be tagged after their attacker is released
MoJ to pilot UK’s first ‘proximity tagging scheme’ to keep offenders away from victims
Rape and domestic abuse victims will be tracked to prevent them ever coming into contact with their attackers under Britain’s biggest-ever expansion of tagging.
The Ministry of Justice is to pilot the UK’s first deployment of “proximity tagging”, which enables probation officers to know 24/7 if an offender comes within a pre-set distance of a victim of domestic abuse, stalking or sexual assault.
The victim will have a GPS locator in their phone while the offender will be tagged so that probation or police officers can intervene if the abuser approaches their location.
The £5m pilot, expected to be launched later this year, is part of an expansion of tagging by Labour to protect the public as it increases the use of community punishments as an alternative to prison.
Under Sir Keir Starmer’s sentencing reforms, criminals will be freed as little as a third of the way through their sentence if they demonstrate good behaviour and participate in work, training, education and rehabilitation schemes.
From September, when the new sentencing system kicks in, Lord Timpson, the prisons minister, said there would be a “presumption” that every offender leaving jail will be tagged as soon as they leave the prison gates. At present, they are only tagged when the contractor Serco attends their home after their release.
Reminder: there's no gas to be fracked in Britain or the rest of Europe, and there's no oil or gas left in the North Sea. That's why we cannot give licenses to companies looking for reserves there and have to tax their profits at 78%.
Entirely moot point as it all ran out 7 years ago.
There appears no rational reason for Israel to have attacked Iran's gas facilities. Other than to chuck gasoline on the fire. Throw all the pieces up in the air.
12-D chess it isn't.
Wouldn't it starve Iran's electricity grid of fuel if the gas field was destroyed? No electricity, no weapons production, doesn't seem completely irrational.
No domestic economy; no fertiliser production; no desalination etc. The aim of the war was argued by its proponents to be either regime change, or preventing Iran getting nuclear weapons. The complete immiseration, and possible starvation of the population wasn't supposed to be the motivation.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to view the actions of the US and Israel as anything other than naked and indefensible aggression. We really shouldn't be playing any role in supporting their actions.
Israel is salting the Earth, as unfortunately seems to be its default position towards its neighbours now. It is a rogue state.
It's a good thing that Starmer has kept us out of it by not asking for any details when US planes take off from British bases to bomb targets in Iran.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
She's actually as is Bridget Phillipson the polar opposite of that.
She believes those in genuine need should be supported but should if they can work.
Now remind us who was it created millions of NEETS, millions on benefits without proper due diligence.
Boris Truss Sunak
One thing Rayner and Phillipson can't be accused of is sitting back and being hand fed with a silver spoon or state spoon.
Neither either flown in and out as a baby, flown in and out to do exams as a teenager, faking websites, faking American University places.
Both had unimaginablely bad childhoods
Both have massively over achieved on ability and merit
Even the Grocers daughter would be proud to associate with that.
Underestimate them at your peril.
Anyone thinking of voting Labour , LD, Green even PC or SNP in a tight marginal who has to vote tactically to keep a very right wing Tory government or Reform out, is more likely to vote for Angela than Starmer, not less.
The Tories should fear Angela far more than Starmer she will galvanise centre left progressives in a way he can't.
The Tories only hope v Ange is to try to recapture the sane one nation Tory vote. Cleverly would worry Ange far more than Badenoch. Ange will eat her up and spit her out on debate. A political beast honed since her teens in the northern politics a bit of Barbara Castle about her.
Not polite like Keir, no fear of the mysogonist typical Tory clap trap...
The Tories biggest nightmare.
In your imagination
Rayner would be a disaster for the country economically as labour lurches left and the bond markets run away
I simply care too much about our Country to let Rayner lose on it, though her closeness to Sharon Graham and Unite most certainly would see the North Sea oil and gas fields open up
Kemi v Ange as you put it would be a contrast in styles and Kemi would win the economy, defence and immigration hands down
Kemi
The woman who sat in Cabinet whilst
Boris, Truss, destroyed the economy
Boris, Truss Sunak allowed illegal immigrantion run wold.
Boris, Truss, Sunak following Cameron and May hollowing out all of our Armed Forces and slashing defence spending.
Kemi who voted for Brexit
Kemi who would right now have us at War welcoming body bags at Brize Norton
I wonder about the guys who have to transcribe this stuff for him (he clearly couldn't type this many words). What does it do to them ?
This is unhinged.
The President of the United States went on a late-night rant, making clear he believes the Supreme Court justices he appointed owe him their loyalty and should always rule in his favor.
The President of the United States is openly attacking the independence of the judiciary, the very institution that stands between every American and unchecked executive power.
Courts don’t work for the President. They work for the Constitution. And a president attacking the judiciary for doing its job is telling you he believes he is above the law. https://x.com/RepMikeLevin/status/2034438168196317266
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
Most people are net recipients of money from the state over the course of their life. That is the logical outcome of having a progressive tax system, decent public services and an unequal distribution of income.
Exactly so. To achieve flatter taxes and more equitable contributions to the State's finances requires that there is a more equitable distribution of income.
That's right. As long as some people are earning more than 10x the median income they have to accept they will be making an outsized contribution to the government coffers. It constantly amazes me that some of these people object to this.
Particularly as that outsized contribution pays for the healthcare of their staff, the roads their goods move around on, the courts that enforce contracts....
Reminder: there's no gas to be fracked in Britain or the rest of Europe, and there's no oil or gas left in the North Sea. That's why we cannot give licenses to companies looking for reserves there and have to tax their profits at 78%.
Entirely moot point as it all ran out 7 years ago.
We spoke to Dr Aled Jones, director of the Global Resource Observatory that produced the research. “The BBC headline was a bit misleading”, he says.
The UK would only run out if it stopped – or was prevented from – importing any oil, gas or coal, and if it somehow became too expensive to exploit the UK’s remaining reserves.
Kevin Hollinrake on Ferrari this morning talking up prospects of 'some successes but also a tough night' May 7th. Mentions Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Croydon and Solihull as where they are hopeful of success so that tells us where the focus will be for them.
It's right that Rayner is the fav for Next PM because she's popular with Labour members, the vibe has moved against Streeting, she's female, and it's now clear she wants it. However I wouldn't back her at current prices. Three main reasons: (1) Yes, she's popular with members but not necessarily to replace SKS as PM. Eg I like her but she wouldn't be my first choice. (2) She isn't that popular with MPs. This is important both for getting on the ballot and to add credence to a candidacy. (3) I think the market overrates the chance of a PM change this year. It might happen but I'd say there's at least an equal chance it won't, and a contest next year or beyond could look very different compared to one this summer.
I have long been an admirer of Rayner who is a far cannier politician than generally given credit for (albeit one with rather chaotic household finances).
She recognises that Mahmoods proposals are not going to get through the PLP, thereby setting up another humiliating U turn. Starmer seems unable to see the obvious.
In addition she is in line with majority opinion in the country that 5-10 years should be the line for Permanent Redidence and citizenship.
She is also right that the British sense of fairness supports applying tighter rules only to new applicants, not people who are already legally here.
Whatever the merits of Mahmoods bill, Rayner gets the politics. It is why I had her as PM at year end in the PB predictions contest.
AIUI there would still be opportunity to gain permanent residence and citizenship at current timescales but conditional on things like salary, working in public service or volunteering to speed the standard process up. That actually sounds fine to me despite being a liberal globalist.
It's not volunteering if you have to do it.
You don't have to do it. You can still live here without doing it, it just would put you on a slower path to full citizenship/residence.
I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays
No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs
I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.
She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes
Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.
Is Khan's approach to rejoin with a referendum or without?
Not specified, according to the BBC report. In practice I expect it would be required.
The utter failure of Brexit either in practical terms, or judged by public opinion, possibly explains the shift of the Reform, and the right of the Tory party to pushing islamphobia.
Brexit has given what the Leave campaigned promised - more spending on the NHS and control over immigration from the EU.
Which makes it a lot more honest that either the Remain campaign or any governments before or since.
You can keep arguing about it as much as you like. The public has, by a very large majority, judged it a failure.
The public will judge every government strategy a failure.
Because what the public wants is a multitude of contradictory, mutually exclusive things at zero cost to themselves and which also results in a continual standard of living rise of about 5% per year.
Reminder: there's no gas to be fracked in Britain or the rest of Europe, and there's no oil or gas left in the North Sea. That's why we cannot give licenses to companies looking for reserves there and have to tax their profits at 78%.
Entirely moot point as it all ran out 7 years ago.
Can you think of any reason why that would have been in the news in 2014, @Theuniondivvie?
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
Most people are net recipients of money from the state over the course of their life. That is the logical outcome of having a progressive tax system, decent public services and an unequal distribution of income.
Exactly so. To achieve flatter taxes and more equitable contributions to the State's finances requires that there is a more equitable distribution of income.
That's right. As long as some people are earning more than 10x the median income they have to accept they will be making an outsized contribution to the government coffers. It constantly amazes me that some of these people object to this.
They would be making an outsized contribution even with a flat tax.
That's true, the rich pay more partly because of tax progressivity but also just by dint of being so bloody minted.
With the current hike in gas prices likely to increase our energy bills, now is the time for the government to decouple electricity prices from gas prices. If they do that they will reduce the slump in popularity with the voting public that they will otherwise suffer. Of course, there will be those on the extreme right who will criticise the risk to energy company profits. Anyone other than Starmer will ignore them. Starmer may be too feart.
It's right that Rayner is the fav for Next PM because she's popular with Labour members, the vibe has moved against Streeting, she's female, and it's now clear she wants it. However I wouldn't back her at current prices. Three main reasons: (1) Yes, she's popular with members but not necessarily to replace SKS as PM. Eg I like her but she wouldn't be my first choice. (2) She isn't that popular with MPs. This is important both for getting on the ballot and to add credence to a candidacy. (3) I think the market overrates the chance of a PM change this year. It might happen but I'd say there's at least an equal chance it won't, and a contest next year or beyond could look very different compared to one this summer.
One other thing.
The clock is ticking for Rayner, Burnham and Streeting. They're the leading heavyweights now (ha!), but quite possibly won't be in 2027/8.
If they, or their "friends" really want the job, they need a vacancy sooner rather than later.
“Although President Donald Trump says he has ‘destroyed 100% of Iran’s Military Capability’, the 0% that remains is playing havoc with the global economy.” -The Economist
It's right that Rayner is the fav for Next PM because she's popular with Labour members, the vibe has moved against Streeting, she's female, and it's now clear she wants it. However I wouldn't back her at current prices. Three main reasons: (1) Yes, she's popular with members but not necessarily to replace SKS as PM. Eg I like her but she wouldn't be my first choice. (2) She isn't that popular with MPs. This is important both for getting on the ballot and to add credence to a candidacy. (3) I think the market overrates the chance of a PM change this year. It might happen but I'd say there's at least an equal chance it won't, and a contest next year or beyond could look very different compared to one this summer.
Labour member's need to learn the lesson of Truss, because they would see the same outcome if Rayner became PM
“Although President Donald Trump says he has ‘destroyed 100% of Iran’s Military Capability’, the 0% that remains is playing havoc with the global economy.” -The Economist
Rayners intervention in favour of massively increasing the benefits bill by opposing Shabana Mahmood’s perfectly reasonable changes to ILR is nothing more than a naked attempt to cosy up to Union leaders, like those in Unison and Unite, who oppose the changes.
It doesn’t matter what the cost to the taxpayer is. Rayner is nuts and the changes to ILR are popular.
Labour has won the battle on immigration now she risks blowing it all up,again.
Some on the left have spotted the large parliamentary majority that Labour has and wants to use it. They have also worked out that Rainer would never be elected as PM ever so best to mount a putsch now before time runs out.
That would suggest that Ms Rayner is the best that grouping on the left can offer. It also suggests that they aren't concerned about winning the next GE. So what would they be planning to do with the ~3 years left?
I have heard from a Labour MP who normally isn't a Rayner fan (more team Starmer) and their view is Starmer's big problem is that he's ceding the battleground to Farage which isn't a good strategy, Rayner wouldn't do that, plus a Rayner led Labour would attract tactical votes from the Lib Dems and Greens in a way Starmer wouldn't.
Not from the LDs it wouldn’t, some of them would now prefer the Tories to Rayner led Labour though they would virtually all tactically vote for Starmer led Labour over Reform
With the current hike in gas prices likely to increase our energy bills, now is the time for the government to decouple electricity prices from gas prices. If they do that they will reduce the slump in popularity with the voting public that they will otherwise suffer. Of course, there will be those on the extreme right who will criticise the risk to energy company profits. Anyone other than Starmer will ignore them. Starmer may be too feart.
Can you explain how the government would decouple electricity prices from gas prices?
I don't know all the details, so my simplistic understanding is that you can only do so by not using gas to generate the marginal unit of electricity needed to supply the grid. Now, if you had regional pricing, that happy state of affairs would sometimes exist in the north of the country, and instead electricity would become more expensive in the south, where gas is a greater part of the mix.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
Most people are net recipients of money from the state over the course of their life. That is the logical outcome of having a progressive tax system, decent public services and an unequal distribution of income.
Which leads to people thinking that more money from the government is always the answer.
And people thinking that they shouldn't only be net recipients of money from the state when they are under 20 and over 60 but also the forty years in between.
Which leads to £100bn of tax receipts being used to pay the debt on all the money the government has borrowed.
Finally it results in the country going the way of Greece or Argentina.
I agree with you up to a point but only up to a point.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
The Tories have the same problem. In fact every party that seriously aspires to power does ( so that lets Davey off the hook).
We think we pay a lot of tax and that public services are crap. And we do and they are. But is the answer we should pay even more tax to properly fund them or will this simply generate even more waste and feather bedding?
There are lots of examples of us being penny wise and pound foolish. But there are also lots of examples of over regulation and stifling bureaucracy. These are the real problems that PMs and Chancellors have to deal with and they are not easy.
We will hear lots of simplistic rubbish from others and, I suspect, from Rayner. But the people you have identified will not take that seriously.
We need a wholesale rethink of how we do stuff. It is nonsensical to simply throw cash at public services which are bonfires - the cash burns and all the is delivered to the actual front line service is ash.
My problem with all the parties is that there seems to be a lack of imagination - to accept the status quo is broken, and to propose a reset.
Ideology is the problem - when politicians shout at the evils of the opposition they miss the failures of their own thinking. John Major's speech yesterday highlighted this beautifully - we need solutions which combine elements from all sides because the mainstream parties are all in it to advance society whatever abuse they may hurl at the opposition.
With the current hike in gas prices likely to increase our energy bills, now is the time for the government to decouple electricity prices from gas prices. If they do that they will reduce the slump in popularity with the voting public that they will otherwise suffer. Of course, there will be those on the extreme right who will criticise the risk to energy company profits. Anyone other than Starmer will ignore them. Starmer may be too feart.
Can you explain how the government would decouple electricity prices from gas prices?
I don't know all the details, so my simplistic understanding is that you can only do so by not using gas to generate the marginal unit of electricity needed to supply the grid. Now, if you had regional pricing, that happy state of affairs would sometimes exist in the north of the country, and instead electricity would become more expensive in the south, where gas is a greater part of the mix.
We could do what the French did in the 80s, and build thirty or forty nuclear power stations. Job done sometime in the next decade, completely decoupled from gas, if we were serious about it.
A couple of comments on Rayner from this Labour Party member:
1. Ange is hugely popular among members, more so than any other contender (with the theoretical exception of Burnham) to succeed Starmer.
2. But that popularity doesn't necessarily extend to wanting her to be leader, because many of us, and many/most Labour MPs, have serious doubts about her suitability as leader/PM. Deputy Leader was just right for her. It would be very risky to give her the top job.
I agree with you, I too have my doubts as discussed previously, but I reckon she will get the job in the summer. She is a gamble but I think people will be ready to roll the dice by then. She is not Liz Truss, however much people on the right might want her to be.
Reminder: there's no gas to be fracked in Britain or the rest of Europe, and there's no oil or gas left in the North Sea. That's why we cannot give licenses to companies looking for reserves there and have to tax their profits at 78%.
Entirely moot point as it all ran out 7 years ago.
We spoke to Dr Aled Jones, director of the Global Resource Observatory that produced the research. “The BBC headline was a bit misleading”, he says.
The UK would only run out if it stopped – or was prevented from – importing any oil, gas or coal, and if it somehow became too expensive to exploit the UK’s remaining reserves.
In light of recent events my bank's prediction for the war, our reasonable worst case scenario has been updated to reasonable best case scenario
Well, Trump is a moron.
I'm somewhat heartened by Europe and Canada, Japan, Australia, and South Korea refusing to be drawn into this, though. There is a chance the fool will just announce victory and stop his aimless bombing.
I’m reminded of the scene (offstage) in Red Storm Rising where the deputy KGB chairman brings the Best Case, Middle Case and Worst case scenarios to the Big Meeting.
Then picks the one he thinks the meeting will like.
Which leads to WWIII
Trump is too erratic, too unreliable, too likely to veer between extremes for plans to be used.
Which means planning for a wide range of possibilities is required.
I could easily see some of his toadies having a bagful of plans to meet Trump’s mood-of-the-moment.
Comments
Only union members with Labour membership now get to vote.
Trump didn't start bombing Iran Israel did, Trump followed... Massive distinction as Netanyahu realised his goose was cooked he took unilateral action.
US have confirmed this.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
lost the Labour MPs vote too but
won with Labour members. So
Rayner could win via the Corbyn
route if enough Labour MPs
nominate her even if she lost the
Labour MPs vote overall
I guess where I have concerns is over her intellectual firepower. I *think* I can see through how she talks and the fact she didn't go to university etc, although who knows, maybe I am at least partially infected by the British disease of classism. But I just felt that when she was questioned she didn't really give very considered or convincing arguments, the analysis was a bit superficial. Maybe that doesn't matter, political arguments are not won through appealing to policy wonk type audiences. And she can get advisors in to get to grips with the details of policy.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on having seen her in person last week. Yes, but.
(Everyone knows about the likelihood that Netanyahu precipitated the war.)
We think we pay a lot of tax and that public services are crap. And we do and they are. But is the answer we should pay even more tax to properly fund them or will this simply generate even more waste and feather bedding?
There are lots of examples of us being penny wise and pound foolish. But there are also lots of examples of over regulation and stifling bureaucracy. These are the real problems that PMs and Chancellors have to deal with and they are not easy.
We will hear lots of simplistic rubbish from others and, I suspect, from Rayner. But the people you have identified will not take that seriously.
FWIW, the impression I got from her time in government was that she didn't get stuff done. Planning reform was the single big policy which Labour could have run with immediately on taking office. It didn't require a lot of money from the Treasury, and might have made a big difference to the economy.
Nothing happened for a year. Then she left office.
A Reddit researcher just exposed how Meta funneled over $2 billion through shadowy nonprofits to push age verification laws that would force Apple and Google to build surveillance infrastructure into every device—while conveniently exempting Meta’s own platforms from the same requirements.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/reddit-user-uncovers-behind-meta-154717384.html
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69ba84f46b1db9df335fcb04/Green_Book_chapter_Covid_14a_17_3_26.pdf
This gas price chart, does not look too good.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/uk-natural-gas.
Edited - for the correct chart.
All those PB Tories laughing at her might regret it.
She's a street fighter and street smart too. For what it's worth I suspect she is quite a reprehensible character, but that never held Boris Johnson back.
Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, has spoken with potential investors- read Gulf governments- in recent weeks about raising $5 billion or more for his investment vehicle. So Bibi has had accomplices directly within the Trump regime, though whether the Gulf Arabs now think keeping the US onside is an unalloyed benefit is certainly an open question.
The domestic backlash in the US seems surprisingly quiet for the moment, however. Yet the confirmation hearings for Markwayne Mullin are becoming a knockdown fight and the latest judicial rulings are “sub optimal” for the Administration. It does seem like there is finally some institutional pushback against the anti-constitutional “move fast, break things” approach. The direct involvement of the tech bros themselves moved on a few months back, and the momentum was slowing anyway. Now we have gone from coasting on the initial momentum to hitting the brakes. Quagmire is next, and the utterly incompetent execution of the Iranian adventure will speed up the domestic paralysis of the regime. The problem is that the worst case scenarios for the Gulf now look like wishful thinking.
To put your lesson into perspective - OEUK, which is the O&G lobbyist, estimate that liberalising the North Sea would increase tax revenues over the next 10 years by £16 billion. And take that with a tablespoon of salt given the industry's long history of talking self-serving excrement.
Our energy support package in 2022 alone was £51 billion. The incessant focus on the North Sea is deranged and panicked whataboutery from people who cannot face the fact that those advocating for renewables over the last 20 years have been entirely vindicated by Ukraine and now Iran.
It's like complaining about water damage even as your house burns down.
I wouldn't panic yet.
What is however beyond doubt (as Reform will discover if they govern) is that modern western societies are and are going to be high spend and therefore high tax societies. Also beyond doubt is that they are having to handle debts which are a huge percentage of GDP and could spiral out of control. Also beyond doubt that defence spending is going to rise, and also beyond doubt that the world is going to stay a dangerous and war torn place for the foreseeable future. These are the big givens.
Anyone aspiring to leadership in the UK has to be a person who is convincing and committed on the big questions and whose speeches and publications show that they have a holistic view about handling them and our place in the world. The trivialisation of stuff and the narrowing of issues into slogans is entirely displacement activity.
I doubt if Rayner is that leadership person.
Starmer (IMO) is the best available at the moment, but it is still a low bar and he is not very good
Thats why he is under constant sustained attack from the Oil and Gas Lobby funded with billions, orchestrated by Tufton Street.
If she grabs the crown she has the potential to capture something with the electorate - her backstory, some of the Polanski 'hope' bros and some Reform 'break down the old guard'
There are significant downside risks too
An all or nothing play
You can always claim that they've hidden enough for a bomb somewhere, while giving up the rest of it.
I'm surprised the price of Gold isn't much higher with everything going on - gold is traditionally a hedge against trouble yet seems to be dropping.
The next question is how long will it be before the big jump in Natural Gas (presumably because of the attack on Qatar) impacts UK supply and prices. I can already see the energy companies (who have gouged us all for years) seeing an excuse to raise prices yet again (we have to take the pain, they can for a change).
OIl continues to edge higher which again will feed through to the pumps and doubtless throughout the economy at some point.
It does seem however there can be an over-reaction to actual events - my reading (from the BBC) of reports from Qatar, Kuwait and elsewhere is the Iranian strikes are more of nuisance value and such fires as have bene caused are under control - that in itself may be wishful thinking but it wouldn't surprise to see prices retreat considerably as the day goes on.
Nonetheless, the last thing these volatile markets (pardon the pun) need is instability, disinformation and chaos.
As with Ukraine, I'm left wondering how this ends - there seems little sign of the regime breaking down in Tehran currently and absent ground troops, I can't see how change can be forced.
Which makes it a lot more honest that either the Remain campaign or any governments before or since.
Rising where the deputy KGB chairman brings the Best Case, Middle Case and Worst case scenarios to the Big Meeting.
Then picks the one he thinks the meeting will like.
Which leads to WWIII
Which means planning for a wide range of possibilities is required.
It would make a lot more sense to pursue those than use government money to fund a price bonanza for oil and gas from dodgy states (and Norway).
In the meantime he advocates rejoining the customs union and the single market within the current parliament, before officially rejoining the EU later after getting a mandate at a general election.
She believes those in genuine need should be supported but should if they can work.
Now remind us who was it created millions of NEETS, millions on benefits without proper due diligence.
Boris
Truss
Sunak
One thing Rayner and Phillipson can't be accused of is sitting back and being hand fed with a silver spoon or state spoon.
Neither either flown in and out as a baby, flown in and out to do exams as a teenager, faking websites, faking American University places.
Both had unimaginablely bad childhoods
Both have massively over achieved on ability and merit
Even the Grocers daughter would be proud to associate with that.
Underestimate them at your peril.
Anyone thinking of voting Labour , LD, Green even PC or SNP in a tight marginal who has to vote tactically to keep a very right wing Tory government or Reform out, is more likely to vote for Angela than Starmer, not less.
The Tories should fear Angela far more than Starmer she will galvanise centre left progressives in a way he can't.
The Tories only hope v Ange is to try to recapture the sane one nation Tory vote. Cleverly would worry Ange far more than Badenoch. Ange will eat her up and spit her out on debate. A political beast honed since her teens in the northern politics a bit of Barbara Castle about her.
Not polite like Keir, no fear of the mysogonist typical Tory clap trap...
The Tories biggest nightmare.
MoJ to pilot UK’s first ‘proximity tagging scheme’ to keep offenders away from victims
Rape and domestic abuse victims will be tracked to prevent them ever coming into contact with their attackers under Britain’s biggest-ever expansion of tagging.
The Ministry of Justice is to pilot the UK’s first deployment of “proximity tagging”, which enables probation officers to know 24/7 if an offender comes within a pre-set distance of a victim of domestic abuse, stalking or sexual assault.
The victim will have a GPS locator in their phone while the offender will be tagged so that probation or police officers can intervene if the abuser approaches their location.
The £5m pilot, expected to be launched later this year, is part of an expansion of tagging by Labour to protect the public as it increases the use of community punishments as an alternative to prison.
Under Sir Keir Starmer’s sentencing reforms, criminals will be freed as little as a third of the way through their sentence if they demonstrate good behaviour and participate in work, training, education and rehabilitation schemes.
From September, when the new sentencing system kicks in, Lord Timpson, the prisons minister, said there would be a “presumption” that every offender leaving jail will be tagged as soon as they leave the prison gates. At present, they are only tagged when the contractor Serco attends their home after their release.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/19/rapists-and-victims-to-be-tracked-on-gps/
1. Ange is hugely popular among members, more so than any other contender (with the theoretical exception of Burnham) to succeed Starmer.
2. But that popularity doesn't necessarily extend to wanting her to be leader, because many of us, and many/most Labour MPs, have serious doubts about her suitability as leader/PM. Deputy Leader was just right for her. It would be very risky to give her the top job.
And people thinking that they shouldn't only be net recipients of money from the state when they are under 20 and over 60 but also the forty years in between.
Which leads to £100bn of tax receipts being used to pay the debt on all the money the government has borrowed.
Finally it results in the country going the way of Greece or Argentina.
The public has, by a very large majority, judged it a failure.
The aim of the war was argued by its proponents to be either regime change, or preventing Iran getting nuclear weapons. The complete immiseration, and possible starvation of the population wasn't supposed to be the motivation.
https://x.com/s8mb/status/2034563890764218461
Reminder: there's no gas to be fracked in Britain or the rest of Europe, and there's no oil or gas left in the North Sea. That's why we cannot give licenses to companies looking for reserves there and have to tax their profits at 78%.
How long until one of the abusers manages to get hold of their victim's tracking data?
What a fecking nightmare.
While they have large stocks of oil and gas, together with supplies from Russia, and can therefore wait things out for a while, they remain heavily reliant on oil and gas from the Gulf beyond the short term. If it starts to look at any point as though like US is taking control of the region, I can't imagine they'll take that lying down. I'd expect China to start throwing its rather substantial weight behind Iran if, say, the US were to try to take control of the Straits of Hormuz.
Since the US seems to be uninterested in supporting Ukraine, the safer option for China might be to increase support for Russia to secure Russian hydrocarbons from Ukrainian attack. That would then leave India and Europe as being most exposed to the drop in supplies from the Gulf.
Rayner would be a disaster for the country economically as labour lurches left and the bond markets run away
I simply care too much about our Country to let Rayner lose on it, though her closeness to Sharon Graham and Unite most certainly would see the North Sea oil and gas fields open up
Kemi v Ange as you put it would be a contrast in styles and Kemi would win the economy, defence and immigration hands down
Poland is moving to join the Global Combat Air Programme, a next gen 6th generation multi role fighter initiative led by Italy, Japan, and the UK.
Official talks are underway with Italian and Japanese aviation industries, signaling a major leap for the Polish Air Force.
https://x.com/Defence_Index/status/2034518157302571092
The woman who sat in Cabinet whilst
Boris, Truss, destroyed the economy
Boris, Truss Sunak allowed illegal immigrantion run wold.
Boris, Truss, Sunak following Cameron and May hollowing out all of our Armed Forces and slashing defence spending.
Kemi who voted for Brexit
Kemi who would right now have us at War welcoming body bags at Brize Norton
Bring it on
Bring it on
What does it do to them ?
This is unhinged.
The President of the United States went on a late-night rant, making clear he believes the Supreme Court justices he appointed owe him their loyalty and should always rule in his favor.
The President of the United States is openly attacking the independence of the judiciary, the very institution that stands between every American and unchecked executive power.
Courts don’t work for the President. They work for the Constitution. And a president attacking the judiciary for doing its job is telling you he believes he is above the law.
https://x.com/RepMikeLevin/status/2034438168196317266
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-why-the-uk-will-not-run-out-of-oil-coal-or-gas-in-five-years/
We spoke to Dr Aled Jones, director of the Global Resource Observatory that produced the research. “The BBC headline was a bit misleading”, he says.
The UK would only run out if it stopped – or was prevented from – importing any oil, gas or coal, and if it somehow became too expensive to exploit the UK’s remaining reserves.
Mentions Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Croydon and Solihull as where they are hopeful of success so that tells us where the focus will be for them.
"Would you like to know more?"
Because what the public wants is a multitude of contradictory, mutually exclusive things at zero cost to themselves and which also results in a continual standard of living rise of about 5% per year.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snp-not-serious-tackling-sexual-36889201
The clock is ticking for Rayner, Burnham and Streeting. They're the leading heavyweights now (ha!), but quite possibly won't be in 2027/8.
If they, or their "friends" really want the job, they need a vacancy sooner rather than later.
-The Economist
I don't know all the details, so my simplistic understanding is that you can only do so by not using gas to generate the marginal unit of electricity needed to supply the grid. Now, if you had regional pricing, that happy state of affairs would sometimes exist in the north of the country, and instead electricity would become more expensive in the south, where gas is a greater part of the mix.
My problem with all the parties is that there seems to be a lack of imagination - to accept the status quo is broken, and to propose a reset.
Ideology is the problem - when politicians shout at the evils of the opposition they miss the failures of their own thinking. John Major's speech yesterday highlighted this beautifully - we need solutions which combine elements from all sides because the mainstream parties are all in it to advance society whatever abuse they may hurl at the opposition.
Job done sometime in the next decade, completely decoupled from gas, if we were serious about it.
“Peter & Jane nuke Iran”