Hardman weighs into the social care debate. Fantastic that the Speccie is talking about this but is this really true in 2026??
"The Prime Minister knows full well that many voters assume that social care is in fact already part of the NHS and is free at the point of access, and that as soon as politicians start talking about the sums of money involved in any reform, those voters tend to react very badly."
May have been true a decade or two ago but just about everyone now knows social care is a nightmare and could cost you your family home all your life savings and it is fucking hard to get decent people/quality care and it is bankrupting the local council.
Interesting to note 8% of NEETs are aged 16-17. I certainly remember when I was in local Government a lot of time and effort went into ensuring EVERY 16-17 age old was either in education, employment and training. Have Councils been able to continue this work given spending pressures elsewhere?
It's also worth noting a quarter of NEETs are not seeking work due to sickness and disability so again the myth about a generation of "malingers" or "scroungers" fails to survive contact with reality (along with a series of other crass generalisations).
Yes but Labour ducked the welfare reforms needed to try and get those on sickness benefit and capable of some work into the workplace
Though that depends on what they are doing. The more interesting/alarming people are the ones not on benefits- those who (as OKC suggested) are very probably doing odd cash-in-hand work/side hustles but basically not engaging with the system at all. Macroscopic system stuff like changing benefits rules or the minimum wage, aren't going to affect them, because they're not engaging with the system.
It's lazy to think that the issue is one that is solved by Whitehall or Westminster changing numbers. It's probably almost as lazy to think that changing numbers the other way is causing much harm. It's much deeper-rooted than that;
Looking at that chart, it's not about Starmer Labour. It's not about the Conservatives, either. Or Blair/Brown Labour. It's something that has been filed as "too difficult" for ages.
Hardman weighs into the social care debate. Fantastic that the Speccie is talking about this but is this really true in 2026??
"The Prime Minister knows full well that many voters assume that social care is in fact already part of the NHS and is free at the point of access, and that as soon as politicians start talking about the sums of money involved in any reform, those voters tend to react very badly."
May have been true a decade or two ago but just about everyone now knows social care is a nightmare and could cost you your family home all your life savings and it is fucking hard to get decent people/quality care and it is bankrupting the local council.
Do they? Cos I reckon if they haven't been in that situation, most people don't. Just like those who haven't moved house out of their area don't know how rare a dentist taking on NHS patients is.
Interesting to note 8% of NEETs are aged 16-17. I certainly remember when I was in local Government a lot of time and effort went into ensuring EVERY 16-17 age old was either in education, employment and training. Have Councils been able to continue this work given spending pressures elsewhere?
It's also worth noting a quarter of NEETs are not seeking work due to sickness and disability so again the myth about a generation of "malingers" or "scroungers" fails to survive contact with reality (along with a series of other crass generalisations).
Yes but Labour ducked the welfare reforms needed to try and get those on sickness benefit and capable of some work into the workplace
Though that depends on what they are doing. The more interesting/alarming people are the ones not on benefits- those who (as OKC suggested) are very probably doing odd cash-in-hand work/side hustles but basically not engaging with the system at all. Macroscopic system stuff like changing benefits rules or the minimum wage, aren't going to affect them, because they're not engaging with the system.
It's lazy to think that the issue is one that is solved by Whitehall or Westminster changing numbers. It's probably almost as lazy to think that changing numbers the other way is causing much harm. It's much deeper-rooted than that;
Looking at that chart, it's not about Starmer Labour. It's not about the Conservatives, either. Or Blair/Brown Labour. It's something that has been filed as "too difficult" for ages.
People not claiming benefits are not a problem for the taxpayer, those who are should be helped to find some work, even if on sickness benefits unless paralysed or with with a terminal illness then claimants should be assisted to find work they can do
Hardman weighs into the social care debate. Fantastic that the Speccie is talking about this but is this really true in 2026??
"The Prime Minister knows full well that many voters assume that social care is in fact already part of the NHS and is free at the point of access, and that as soon as politicians start talking about the sums of money involved in any reform, those voters tend to react very badly."
May have been true a decade or two ago but just about everyone now knows social care is a nightmare and could cost you your family home all your life savings and it is fucking hard to get decent people/quality care and it is bankrupting the local council.
If we oldies hadn’t been so selfishly concerned about paying less tax and expecting our successors to pay for our care, we would have better care for all and a better future for our children. Boomers - the selfish generation.
Interesting to note 8% of NEETs are aged 16-17. I certainly remember when I was in local Government a lot of time and effort went into ensuring EVERY 16-17 age old was either in education, employment and training. Have Councils been able to continue this work given spending pressures elsewhere?
It's also worth noting a quarter of NEETs are not seeking work due to sickness and disability so again the myth about a generation of "malingers" or "scroungers" fails to survive contact with reality (along with a series of other crass generalisations).
Yes but Labour ducked the welfare reforms needed to try and get those on sickness benefit and capable of some work into the workplace
Though that depends on what they are doing. The more interesting/alarming people are the ones not on benefits- those who (as OKC suggested) are very probably doing odd cash-in-hand work/side hustles but basically not engaging with the system at all. Macroscopic system stuff like changing benefits rules or the minimum wage, aren't going to affect them, because they're not engaging with the system.
It's lazy to think that the issue is one that is solved by Whitehall or Westminster changing numbers. It's probably almost as lazy to think that changing numbers the other way is causing much harm. It's much deeper-rooted than that;
Looking at that chart, it's not about Starmer Labour. It's not about the Conservatives, either. Or Blair/Brown Labour. It's something that has been filed as "too difficult" for ages.
People not claiming benefits are not a problem for the taxpayer, those who are should be helped to find some work, even if on sickness benefits unless paralysed or with with a terminal illness then claimants should be assisted to find work they can do
Assisting people to find work largely died out many years ago.
I'm Britain, about 930,000 Muslims will attend a mosque each week, while about 702,000 Christians will visit a church each week.
There are about 40,000 churches in Britain, while there are just under 2,000 mosques.
Thus the average weekly attendance at a mosque is 465, and at a church is 18.
I don't think that's true.
It appears true if you ask Muslims how often they go to Mosque. But if you ask the Mosques themselves what their attendence is, you get a much lower number. It turns out that lots of Muslims who only go for Eid and the like, report going every week.
It’s like people in new relationships telling their new partner they go to the STI clinic regularly when in fact they went once after a stag do in Magaluf twelve years ago.
Think I'd be more concerned if a new partner felt they needed to go to the STI clinic monthly.
On the other hand you could be fairly certain they had been treated, while someone who never goes...
A quondam girlfriend sent me off to the clap clinic which, back in the day, was down an alleyway behind Habitat on Tottenham Court Road. In general I'd be perfectly happy for every man and his dog to access my boring medical records whenever they felt the urge. But I'd draw the line at that one.
St Mary's church in Ince was demolished in 1978 due to mining subsidence. The school remained but closed due to lack of attendance due to having a thoroughly shit reputation. The derelict school is now a Mosque and community centre. So not quite as Reform would have us believe.
Shocked, I tell you, shocked.
A couple of caveats, though.
As with the "four star hotels turned into asylum facilities" thing, it's also about people's memories. Indeed, the people who go to church most tend to be least cross about churches closing. It's sad, sure, but it's also a relief to put down the burden of trying to keep an unviable church open. (Been there, done that.)
Also, the CofE did a pretty drastic reorganisation of its churches in Wigan a few years back, to try to match the number of services and buildings to the number of parishoners and resources. (Even if you can find enough money, it's a struggle to find enough clergy.) Oh, and to grow the church. https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/transforming-wigan/
Although it's got nothing to do with the government, or the Muslims, I wouldn't be shocked if there were some discontent to mine here.
But the bottom line is what it's always been. About ten percent of those who describe themselves as Church of England turn up each Sunday (see https://tswyatt.substack.com/p/half-empty-or-half-full for some fun figures). That's not enough to keep this much show on the road. For those who are really keen on Preserving England's Christian Heritage, there's a pretty obvious action to take.
No we aren't, I go to Church every Sunday and am a member of Save the Parish. We now have members on General Synod and will continue to pressure church commissioners to put more of their billions of funds and investments into parish ministry and churches and clergy
Interesting to note 8% of NEETs are aged 16-17. I certainly remember when I was in local Government a lot of time and effort went into ensuring EVERY 16-17 age old was either in education, employment and training. Have Councils been able to continue this work given spending pressures elsewhere?
It's also worth noting a quarter of NEETs are not seeking work due to sickness and disability so again the myth about a generation of "malingers" or "scroungers" fails to survive contact with reality (along with a series of other crass generalisations).
Yes but Labour ducked the welfare reforms needed to try and get those on sickness benefit and capable of some work into the workplace
Though that depends on what they are doing. The more interesting/alarming people are the ones not on benefits- those who (as OKC suggested) are very probably doing odd cash-in-hand work/side hustles but basically not engaging with the system at all. Macroscopic system stuff like changing benefits rules or the minimum wage, aren't going to affect them, because they're not engaging with the system.
It's lazy to think that the issue is one that is solved by Whitehall or Westminster changing numbers. It's probably almost as lazy to think that changing numbers the other way is causing much harm. It's much deeper-rooted than that;
Looking at that chart, it's not about Starmer Labour. It's not about the Conservatives, either. Or Blair/Brown Labour. It's something that has been filed as "too difficult" for ages.
People not claiming benefits are not a problem for the taxpayer, those who are should be helped to find some work, even if on sickness benefits unless paralysed or with with a terminal illness then claimants should be assisted to find work they can do
Assisting people to find work largely died out many years ago.
Interesting to note 8% of NEETs are aged 16-17. I certainly remember when I was in local Government a lot of time and effort went into ensuring EVERY 16-17 age old was either in education, employment and training. Have Councils been able to continue this work given spending pressures elsewhere?
It's also worth noting a quarter of NEETs are not seeking work due to sickness and disability so again the myth about a generation of "malingers" or "scroungers" fails to survive contact with reality (along with a series of other crass generalisations).
Yes but Labour ducked the welfare reforms needed to try and get those on sickness benefit and capable of some work into the workplace
Though that depends on what they are doing. The more interesting/alarming people are the ones not on benefits- those who (as OKC suggested) are very probably doing odd cash-in-hand work/side hustles but basically not engaging with the system at all. Macroscopic system stuff like changing benefits rules or the minimum wage, aren't going to affect them, because they're not engaging with the system.
It's lazy to think that the issue is one that is solved by Whitehall or Westminster changing numbers. It's probably almost as lazy to think that changing numbers the other way is causing much harm. It's much deeper-rooted than that;
Looking at that chart, it's not about Starmer Labour. It's not about the Conservatives, either. Or Blair/Brown Labour. It's something that has been filed as "too difficult" for ages.
People not claiming benefits are not a problem for the taxpayer, those who are should be helped to find some work, even if on sickness benefits unless paralysed or with with a terminal illness then claimants should be assisted to find work they can do
Assisting people to find work largely died out many years ago.
✅ Bardella 68▪️Mélenchon 32 - ✅ Le Pen 52▪️Philippe 48
✅ Le Pen 54▪️Attal 46
✅ Le Pen 67 ▪️Mélenchon 33
By 2029 not impossible on current polls we could have Farage UK PM, Bardella French President, Meloni still Italian PM and the AfD most seats in Germany while there is a Democrat President back in the White House
St Mary's church in Ince was demolished in 1978 due to mining subsidence. The school remained but closed due to lack of attendance due to having a thoroughly shit reputation. The derelict school is now a Mosque and community centre. So not quite as Reform would have us believe.
Shocked, I tell you, shocked.
A couple of caveats, though.
As with the "four star hotels turned into asylum facilities" thing, it's also about people's memories. Indeed, the people who go to church most tend to be least cross about churches closing. It's sad, sure, but it's also a relief to put down the burden of trying to keep an unviable church open. (Been there, done that.)
Also, the CofE did a pretty drastic reorganisation of its churches in Wigan a few years back, to try to match the number of services and buildings to the number of parishoners and resources. (Even if you can find enough money, it's a struggle to find enough clergy.) Oh, and to grow the church. https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/transforming-wigan/
Although it's got nothing to do with the government, or the Muslims, I wouldn't be shocked if there were some discontent to mine here.
But the bottom line is what it's always been. About ten percent of those who describe themselves as Church of England turn up each Sunday (see https://tswyatt.substack.com/p/half-empty-or-half-full for some fun figures). That's not enough to keep this much show on the road. For those who are really keen on Preserving England's Christian Heritage, there's a pretty obvious action to take.
No we aren't, I go to Church every Sunday and am a member of Save the Parish. We now have members on General Synod and will continue to pressure church commissioners to put more of their billions of funds and investments into parish ministry and churches and clergy
Although I’m no longer a practicing Christian (Church politics rather than a loss of faith), churches of all denominations, including mosques, gudwaras, etc, or, more particularly, their adherents, provide more social support than many other, better funded, organisations. They deserve our, and government, support.
He's selling so many pardons that it's depressing the market price.
Imagine how bad things would be if the US Constitution didn't codify a robust set of checks and balances.
If the Dems get control of both Hoises they need to amend the rules on Pardons PDQ so that they can go after the Trump family and associates if they have proof of grift etc. There seriously needs to be a robust limit on why and who and how many can be pardoned by a president - the latter is important as it will ensure future presidents have to think carefully about using up their tokens on people in case they need them later.
The crazy thing is that the concept of a pardon is so tied up in Monarchies of the old order that most monarchies wouldn’t have anything like these powers nor would their governments.
They would have to be utterly shameless to do so, given the pre-emptive pardons Biden handed out, including to his own family.
Nothing Biden did compares to Trump’s mass pardons, and the multiple times a hefty donation has preceded a pardon.
St Mary's church in Ince was demolished in 1978 due to mining subsidence. The school remained but closed due to lack of attendance due to having a thoroughly shit reputation. The derelict school is now a Mosque and community centre. So not quite as Reform would have us believe.
Shocked, I tell you, shocked.
A couple of caveats, though.
As with the "four star hotels turned into asylum facilities" thing, it's also about people's memories. Indeed, the people who go to church most tend to be least cross about churches closing. It's sad, sure, but it's also a relief to put down the burden of trying to keep an unviable church open. (Been there, done that.)
Also, the CofE did a pretty drastic reorganisation of its churches in Wigan a few years back, to try to match the number of services and buildings to the number of parishoners and resources. (Even if you can find enough money, it's a struggle to find enough clergy.) Oh, and to grow the church. https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/transforming-wigan/
Although it's got nothing to do with the government, or the Muslims, I wouldn't be shocked if there were some discontent to mine here.
But the bottom line is what it's always been. About ten percent of those who describe themselves as Church of England turn up each Sunday (see https://tswyatt.substack.com/p/half-empty-or-half-full for some fun figures). That's not enough to keep this much show on the road. For those who are really keen on Preserving England's Christian Heritage, there's a pretty obvious action to take.
No we aren't, I go to Church every Sunday and am a member of Save the Parish. We now have members on General Synod and will continue to pressure church commissioners to put more of their billions of funds and investments into parish ministry and churches and clergy
Historically, CoE clergy was the profession of last resort for unemployable young men. Nowadays women are muscling in, cutting off this vital lifeline, when they could just as easily become social workers. No wonder we have this problem with NEETS and a masculine identity crisis. What's an unremarkable young man supposed to do if he can't become a vicar or a soldier?
St Mary's church in Ince was demolished in 1978 due to mining subsidence. The school remained but closed due to lack of attendance due to having a thoroughly shit reputation. The derelict school is now a Mosque and community centre. So not quite as Reform would have us believe.
Shocked, I tell you, shocked.
A couple of caveats, though.
As with the "four star hotels turned into asylum facilities" thing, it's also about people's memories. Indeed, the people who go to church most tend to be least cross about churches closing. It's sad, sure, but it's also a relief to put down the burden of trying to keep an unviable church open. (Been there, done that.)
Also, the CofE did a pretty drastic reorganisation of its churches in Wigan a few years back, to try to match the number of services and buildings to the number of parishoners and resources. (Even if you can find enough money, it's a struggle to find enough clergy.) Oh, and to grow the church. https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/transforming-wigan/
Although it's got nothing to do with the government, or the Muslims, I wouldn't be shocked if there were some discontent to mine here.
But the bottom line is what it's always been. About ten percent of those who describe themselves as Church of England turn up each Sunday (see https://tswyatt.substack.com/p/half-empty-or-half-full for some fun figures). That's not enough to keep this much show on the road. For those who are really keen on Preserving England's Christian Heritage, there's a pretty obvious action to take.
No we aren't, I go to Church every Sunday and am a member of Save the Parish. We now have members on General Synod and will continue to pressure church commissioners to put more of their billions of funds and investments into parish ministry and churches and clergy
Historically, CoE clergy was the profession of last resort for unemployable young men. Nowadays women are muscling in, cutting off this vital lifeline, when they could just as easily become social workers. No wonder we have this problem with NEETS and a masculine identity crisis. What's an unremarkable young man supposed to do if he can't become a vicar or a soldier?
Follow PB like the rest of us.
Oh, sorry, I missed the word “young” in your post.
I'm Britain, about 930,000 Muslims will attend a mosque each week, while about 702,000 Christians will visit a church each week.
There are about 40,000 churches in Britain, while there are just under 2,000 mosques.
Thus the average weekly attendance at a mosque is 465, and at a church is 18.
I don't think that's true.
It appears true if you ask Muslims how often they go to Mosque. But if you ask the Mosques themselves what their attendence is, you get a much lower number. It turns out that lots of Muslims who only go for Eid and the like, report going every week.
It’s like people in new relationships telling their new partner they go to the STI clinic regularly when in fact they went once after a stag do in Magaluf twelve years ago.
Think I'd be more concerned if a new partner felt they needed to go to the STI clinic monthly.
On the other hand you could be fairly certain they had been treated, while someone who never goes...
A quondam girlfriend sent me off to the clap clinic which, back in the day, was down an alleyway behind Habitat on Tottenham Court Road. In general I'd be perfectly happy for every man and his dog to access my boring medical records whenever they felt the urge. But I'd draw the line at that one.
Can't have been that many decades ago if Heals had been halved to make space for Habitat.
St Mary's church in Ince was demolished in 1978 due to mining subsidence. The school remained but closed due to lack of attendance due to having a thoroughly shit reputation. The derelict school is now a Mosque and community centre. So not quite as Reform would have us believe.
Shocked, I tell you, shocked.
A couple of caveats, though.
As with the "four star hotels turned into asylum facilities" thing, it's also about people's memories. Indeed, the people who go to church most tend to be least cross about churches closing. It's sad, sure, but it's also a relief to put down the burden of trying to keep an unviable church open. (Been there, done that.)
Also, the CofE did a pretty drastic reorganisation of its churches in Wigan a few years back, to try to match the number of services and buildings to the number of parishoners and resources. (Even if you can find enough money, it's a struggle to find enough clergy.) Oh, and to grow the church. https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/transforming-wigan/
Although it's got nothing to do with the government, or the Muslims, I wouldn't be shocked if there were some discontent to mine here.
But the bottom line is what it's always been. About ten percent of those who describe themselves as Church of England turn up each Sunday (see https://tswyatt.substack.com/p/half-empty-or-half-full for some fun figures). That's not enough to keep this much show on the road. For those who are really keen on Preserving England's Christian Heritage, there's a pretty obvious action to take.
No we aren't, I go to Church every Sunday and am a member of Save the Parish. We now have members on General Synod and will continue to pressure church commissioners to put more of their billions of funds and investments into parish ministry and churches and clergy
Historically, CoE clergy was the profession of last resort for unemployable young men. Nowadays women are muscling in, cutting off this vital lifeline, when they could just as easily become social workers. No wonder we have this problem with NEETS and a masculine identity crisis. What's an unremarkable young man supposed to do if he can't become a vicar or a soldier?
No it wasn't, it was the profession for the son of the aristocracy or landed gentry who didn't inherit the estate, become an army or navy officer or lawyer or banker. You still need a degree to become a Vicar male or female which most Neets even now don't have though we could do with a few more joining the ranks of the army especially in the current climate
✅ Bardella 68▪️Mélenchon 32 - ✅ Le Pen 52▪️Philippe 48
✅ Le Pen 54▪️Attal 46
✅ Le Pen 67 ▪️Mélenchon 33
By 2029 not impossible on current polls we could have Farage UK PM, Bardella French President, Meloni still Italian PM and the AfD most seats in Germany while there is a Democrat President back in the White House
It will make a massive difference to the respectability of supporting Farage if there is someone politically aligned with him in the Elysee, especially because some of the things he wants to do about stopping the boats will no longer be seen as inviting shame and isolation.
I'm Britain, about 930,000 Muslims will attend a mosque each week, while about 702,000 Christians will visit a church each week.
There are about 40,000 churches in Britain, while there are just under 2,000 mosques.
Thus the average weekly attendance at a mosque is 465, and at a church is 18.
I don't think that's true.
It appears true if you ask Muslims how often they go to Mosque. But if you ask the Mosques themselves what their attendence is, you get a much lower number. It turns out that lots of Muslims who only go for Eid and the like, report going every week.
It’s like people in new relationships telling their new partner they go to the STI clinic regularly when in fact they went once after a stag do in Magaluf twelve years ago.
Think I'd be more concerned if a new partner felt they needed to go to the STI clinic monthly.
On the other hand you could be fairly certain they had been treated, while someone who never goes...
A quondam girlfriend sent me off to the clap clinic which, back in the day, was down an alleyway behind Habitat on Tottenham Court Road. In general I'd be perfectly happy for every man and his dog to access my boring medical records whenever they felt the urge. But I'd draw the line at that one.
I had a full test last year and the nurse doing it looked like a porno stepmom. It was awful because she was super hot. They need to purely staff these facilities with women who look like Hattie Jaques from carry on or fun gay men, not women you might potentially try and pull on a night out. Bastards.
✅ Bardella 68▪️Mélenchon 32 - ✅ Le Pen 52▪️Philippe 48
✅ Le Pen 54▪️Attal 46
✅ Le Pen 67 ▪️Mélenchon 33
By 2029 not impossible on current polls we could have Farage UK PM, Bardella French President, Meloni still Italian PM and the AfD most seats in Germany while there is a Democrat President back in the White House
It will make a massive difference to the respectability of supporting Farage if there is someone politically aligned with him in the Elysee, especially because some of the things he wants to do about stopping the boats will no longer be seen as inviting shame and isolation.
Farage and Bardella in power would also send shockwaves across the EU, though for them to stop the boats really needs action across the Mediterranean with Meloni to control them. A President Bardella isn't going to be that bothered about them leaving France across the channel to the UK even if his mate Farage is PM
He's selling so many pardons that it's depressing the market price.
Imagine how bad things would be if the US Constitution didn't codify a robust set of checks and balances.
If the Dems get control of both Hoises they need to amend the rules on Pardons PDQ so that they can go after the Trump family and associates if they have proof of grift etc. There seriously needs to be a robust limit on why and who and how many can be pardoned by a president - the latter is important as it will ensure future presidents have to think carefully about using up their tokens on people in case they need them later.
The crazy thing is that the concept of a pardon is so tied up in Monarchies of the old order that most monarchies wouldn’t have anything like these powers nor would their governments.
They would have to be utterly shameless to do so, given the pre-emptive pardons Biden handed out, including to his own family.
Nothing Biden did compares to Trump’s mass pardons, and the multiple times a hefty donation has preceded a pardon.
Plus although Biden probably shouldn't have done those pardons it was at the same time staggeringly understandable. The risk of persecution from Trump was huge. And ok it ceded moral high ground and encouraged false equivalence justification from Trump supporters but the fact is Donald Trump needs no phony precedent arguments for doing egregious things. He just does them.
My 84 yo Mam is on the piss with Andy B in Makerfield. Reports. "Ale flowing freely. People keep saying he wasn't born in the constituency. True. But that seems to be obsessing everyone here." She reckons it will be close.
✅ Bardella 68▪️Mélenchon 32 - ✅ Le Pen 52▪️Philippe 48
✅ Le Pen 54▪️Attal 46
✅ Le Pen 67 ▪️Mélenchon 33
By 2029 not impossible on current polls we could have Farage UK PM, Bardella French President, Meloni still Italian PM and the AfD most seats in Germany while there is a Democrat President back in the White House
It will make a massive difference to the respectability of supporting Farage if there is someone politically aligned with him in the Elysee, especially because some of the things he wants to do about stopping the boats will no longer be seen as inviting shame and isolation.
The French don’t want to stop the boats. They’re happy for immigrants to fuck off to Britain
My 84 yo Mam is on the piss with Andy B in Makerfield. Reports. "Ale flowing freely. People keep saying he wasn't born in the constituency. True. But that seems to be obsessing everyone here." She reckons it will be close.
He’s obviously going to lose. Written in the stars
✅ Bardella 68▪️Mélenchon 32 - ✅ Le Pen 52▪️Philippe 48
✅ Le Pen 54▪️Attal 46
✅ Le Pen 67 ▪️Mélenchon 33
By 2029 not impossible on current polls we could have Farage UK PM, Bardella French President, Meloni still Italian PM and the AfD most seats in Germany while there is a Democrat President back in the White House
It will make a massive difference to the respectability of supporting Farage if there is someone politically aligned with him in the Elysee, especially because some of the things he wants to do about stopping the boats will no longer be seen as inviting shame and isolation.
It would make a massive difference to the respectability of supporting Farage if he would stop taking seven figure sums from non taxpayers, failing to declare it and then going into hiding in case anyone should ask about it.
My 84 yo Mam is on the piss with Andy B in Makerfield. Reports. "Ale flowing freely. People keep saying he wasn't born in the constituency. True. But that seems to be obsessing everyone here." She reckons it will be close.
He’s obviously going to lose. Written in the stars
If Restore weren't standing he probably would but Lowe may be his saviour
✅ Bardella 68▪️Mélenchon 32 - ✅ Le Pen 52▪️Philippe 48
✅ Le Pen 54▪️Attal 46
✅ Le Pen 67 ▪️Mélenchon 33
By 2029 not impossible on current polls we could have Farage UK PM, Bardella French President, Meloni still Italian PM and the AfD most seats in Germany while there is a Democrat President back in the White House
It will make a massive difference to the respectability of supporting Farage if there is someone politically aligned with him in the Elysee, especially because some of the things he wants to do about stopping the boats will no longer be seen as inviting shame and isolation.
The French don’t want to stop the boats. They’re happy for immigrants to fuck off to Britain
But they know that being able to use France as a route into Britain is a pull factor that lands them with a problem, so they have an interest in stopping the flow.
✅ Bardella 68▪️Mélenchon 32 - ✅ Le Pen 52▪️Philippe 48
✅ Le Pen 54▪️Attal 46
✅ Le Pen 67 ▪️Mélenchon 33
By 2029 not impossible on current polls we could have Farage UK PM, Bardella French President, Meloni still Italian PM and the AfD most seats in Germany while there is a Democrat President back in the White House
It will make a massive difference to the respectability of supporting Farage if there is someone politically aligned with him in the Elysee, especially because some of the things he wants to do about stopping the boats will no longer be seen as inviting shame and isolation.
The French don’t want to stop the boats. They’re happy for immigrants to fuck off to Britain
But they know that being able to use France as a route into Britain is a pull factor that lands them with a problem, so they have an interest in stopping the flow.
Not really being part of Europe is the pull factor, as you will see if you go to Italy and watch the police there but migrants on the train north...
✅ Bardella 68▪️Mélenchon 32 - ✅ Le Pen 52▪️Philippe 48
✅ Le Pen 54▪️Attal 46
✅ Le Pen 67 ▪️Mélenchon 33
By 2029 not impossible on current polls we could have Farage UK PM, Bardella French President, Meloni still Italian PM and the AfD most seats in Germany while there is a Democrat President back in the White House
It will make a massive difference to the respectability of supporting Farage if there is someone politically aligned with him in the Elysee, especially because some of the things he wants to do about stopping the boats will no longer be seen as inviting shame and isolation.
The French don’t want to stop the boats. They’re happy for immigrants to fuck off to Britain
But they know that being able to use France as a route into Britain is a pull factor that lands them with a problem, so they have an interest in stopping the flow.
The French authorities could stop the crossings in a matter of weeks if they wanted to, so they obviously have zero "interest in stopping the flow".
Bordello will be no more enthusiastic about it than any of the other French politicians of the last ten years.
✅ Bardella 68▪️Mélenchon 32 - ✅ Le Pen 52▪️Philippe 48
✅ Le Pen 54▪️Attal 46
✅ Le Pen 67 ▪️Mélenchon 33
By 2029 not impossible on current polls we could have Farage UK PM, Bardella French President, Meloni still Italian PM and the AfD most seats in Germany while there is a Democrat President back in the White House
It will make a massive difference to the respectability of supporting Farage if there is someone politically aligned with him in the Elysee, especially because some of the things he wants to do about stopping the boats will no longer be seen as inviting shame and isolation.
The French don’t want to stop the boats. They’re happy for immigrants to fuck off to Britain
But they know that being able to use France as a route into Britain is a pull factor that lands them with a problem, so they have an interest in stopping the flow.
Not really being part of Europe is the pull factor, as you will see if you go to Italy and watch the police there but migrants on the train north...
Yes, but for the ones in Calais being in Europe isn't enough, otherwise they wouldn't be paying people to smuggle them across the channel.
Evening all. Rather a tough fortnight here - hospital appointments, the start of treatment and a house purchase that is up in the air. That being said, “Come what come may, Time and the hour runs through the roughest day.”
Just caught Newsnight for the first time in ages. Two observations. First, they need to use Lucy Hockings more. A measured and sensible conversation on Russia/Ukraine/NATO, etc and on Tony Blair. Everybody had time to speak. No arguments or interruptions. Hockings was knowledgeable and respectful of both the guests and the audience.
Second, I was quietly impressed by Emily Thornberry. I appreciate that she isn’t everybody’s cup of tea but she struck the right tone on all topics, was across her brief (and others), didn’t interrupt and acknowledged that the thrust of Blair’s argument was largely correct. Broad victory but shallow support. Policies need a bit of depth and flavour. Much more of a Parliamentarian than people perhaps realise.
@SecScottBessent: "A nation that cannot manufacture, mine, ship, or refine its needs gradually cedes its strength and sovereignty to others. That is a dangerous dependency for any country; it is an unacceptable one for the United States of America."
✅ Bardella 68▪️Mélenchon 32 - ✅ Le Pen 52▪️Philippe 48
✅ Le Pen 54▪️Attal 46
✅ Le Pen 67 ▪️Mélenchon 33
By 2029 not impossible on current polls we could have Farage UK PM, Bardella French President, Meloni still Italian PM and the AfD most seats in Germany while there is a Democrat President back in the White House
It will make a massive difference to the respectability of supporting Farage if there is someone politically aligned with him in the Elysee, especially because some of the things he wants to do about stopping the boats will no longer be seen as inviting shame and isolation.
The French don’t want to stop the boats. They’re happy for immigrants to fuck off to Britain
But they know that being able to use France as a route into Britain is a pull factor that lands them with a problem, so they have an interest in stopping the flow.
The French authorities could stop the crossings in a matter of weeks if they wanted to, so they obviously have zero "interest in stopping the flow".
Bordello will be no more enthusiastic about it than any of the other French politicians of the last ten years.
They could and they should. An interesting thing last weekend was where about a thousand young immigrant kids used their free rail they get in France to help them descended on La Baule and went full Croydon. The French people who matter will be somewhat annoyed having a fave holiday destination sullied by having undesirables there so it might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and they try and pen them down south for everyone’s benefit.
Edit to add, reading all the local French chat groups, it has swung their vote to RN. One weekend.
Fun Boy Three - The Lunatics Have Taken Over The Asylum
Hadn't thought of it since it was actually in the charts. But it felt quite appropriate given what was going on. So ... well done google?
I only found out last year that Our Lips are Sealed was co-written by Jane Wiedlin which is why the Go-Go’s also performed it
When Terry Hall died Jane Wiedlin confirmed that she and Terry had embarked upon an affair when the Gogos supported ( I think it was) the Specials (rather than the FBT). And the song was about that affair. The Gogos video is great.
Fun Boy Three - The Lunatics Have Taken Over The Asylum
Hadn't thought of it since it was actually in the charts. But it felt quite appropriate given what was going on. So ... well done google?
I only found out last year that Our Lips are Sealed was co-written by Jane Wiedlin which is why the Go-Go’s also performed it
When Terry Hall died Jane Wiedlin confirmed that she and Terry had embarked upon an affair when the Gogos supported ( I think it was) the Specials (rather than the FBT). And the song was about that affair. The Gogos video is great.
Rush Hour by Jane Wiedlin is an absolute guilty pleasure. Reminds me of being early teens glued to. MTV.
Fun Boy Three - The Lunatics Have Taken Over The Asylum
Hadn't thought of it since it was actually in the charts. But it felt quite appropriate given what was going on. So ... well done google?
I only found out last year that Our Lips are Sealed was co-written by Jane Wiedlin which is why the Go-Go’s also performed it
When Terry Hall died Jane Wiedlin confirmed that she and Terry had embarked upon an affair when the Gogos supported ( I think it was) the Specials (rather than the FBT). And the song was about that affair. The Gogos video is great.
Rush Hour by Jane Wiedlin is an absolute guilty pleasure. Reminds me of being early teens glued to. MTV.
She also had a cameo in a guilty pleasure film “Clue” where she is the singing telegram who gets shot. It was a beautifully timed scene “I, am, the singing telegram, bang”.
@SecScottBessent: "A nation that cannot manufacture, mine, ship, or refine its needs gradually cedes its strength and sovereignty to others. That is a dangerous dependency for any country; it is an unacceptable one for the United States of America."
The richest countries in the world, though, are the ones who are least balanced. Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland: none of them are rich in natural resources. All recognised that if someone else can mine cheaper than you, then you're best of leaving the mining to them.
@SecScottBessent: "A nation that cannot manufacture, mine, ship, or refine its needs gradually cedes its strength and sovereignty to others. That is a dangerous dependency for any country; it is an unacceptable one for the United States of America."
The richest countries in the world, though, are the ones who are least balanced. Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland: none of them are rich in natural resources. All recognised that if someone else can mine cheaper than you, then you're best of leaving the mining to them.
Auturky is a rapid way to the poorhouse.
Switzerland is different in having massive skilled industries. It’s not just finance, it’s the old Ali pine valley villages that made the watch industry where there was nothing to do in certain seasons so they all made tiny parts of things and it gradually coalesced or conglomerated. You drive through the country and there are millions of factories.. it’s also tediously democratic.
He's selling so many pardons that it's depressing the market price.
Imagine how bad things would be if the US Constitution didn't codify a robust set of checks and balances.
If the Dems get control of both Hoises they need to amend the rules on Pardons PDQ so that they can go after the Trump family and associates if they have proof of grift etc. There seriously needs to be a robust limit on why and who and how many can be pardoned by a president - the latter is important as it will ensure future presidents have to think carefully about using up their tokens on people in case they need them later.
The crazy thing is that the concept of a pardon is so tied up in Monarchies of the old order that most monarchies wouldn’t have anything like these powers nor would their governments.
Can't see current SCOTUS allowing cancelling of pardons, some of them will probably be holding one signed by Trump by '28. Dems might have to start by impeaching most of the SCOTUS.
Procedurally you can do it like this: 1. Add a bunch of justices (just needs a trifecta, lower hurdle than impeaching the existing justices) 2. Newly enlarged SCOTUS rules that Donald Trump was ineligible for the presidency because he participated in insurrection, so the second Trump presidency never happened, and it appears that President Vance had a singularly unproductive 4 years in office and never got around to signing any pardons.
@SecScottBessent: "A nation that cannot manufacture, mine, ship, or refine its needs gradually cedes its strength and sovereignty to others. That is a dangerous dependency for any country; it is an unacceptable one for the United States of America."
The richest countries in the world, though, are the ones who are least balanced. Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland: none of them are rich in natural resources. All recognised that if someone else can mine cheaper than you, then you're best of leaving the mining to them.
Auturky is a rapid way to the poorhouse.
They all can only be rich thanks to conditions created by larger powers. That option doesn’t exist for big players like the US.
@SecScottBessent: "A nation that cannot manufacture, mine, ship, or refine its needs gradually cedes its strength and sovereignty to others. That is a dangerous dependency for any country; it is an unacceptable one for the United States of America."
The richest countries in the world, though, are the ones who are least balanced. Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland: none of them are rich in natural resources. All recognised that if someone else can mine cheaper than you, then you're best of leaving the mining to them.
Auturky is a rapid way to the poorhouse.
They all can only be rich thanks to conditions created by larger powers. That option doesn’t exist for big players like the US.
@SecScottBessent: "A nation that cannot manufacture, mine, ship, or refine its needs gradually cedes its strength and sovereignty to others. That is a dangerous dependency for any country; it is an unacceptable one for the United States of America."
The richest countries in the world, though, are the ones who are least balanced. Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland: none of them are rich in natural resources. All recognised that if someone else can mine cheaper than you, then you're best of leaving the mining to them.
Auturky is a rapid way to the poorhouse.
They all can only be rich thanks to conditions created by larger powers. That option doesn’t exist for big players like the US.
That's an assertion without evidence.
It's a logical inference from your point about autarky. They are small and rely heavily on trade, which relies heavily on a benign environment. If ships didn't have free passage through the straits of Malacca, Singapore's business model wouldn't work.
@SecScottBessent: "A nation that cannot manufacture, mine, ship, or refine its needs gradually cedes its strength and sovereignty to others. That is a dangerous dependency for any country; it is an unacceptable one for the United States of America."
The richest countries in the world, though, are the ones who are least balanced. Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland: none of them are rich in natural resources. All recognised that if someone else can mine cheaper than you, then you're best of leaving the mining to them.
Auturky is a rapid way to the poorhouse.
They all can only be rich thanks to conditions created by larger powers. That option doesn’t exist for big players like the US.
That's an assertion without evidence.
It's a logical inference from your point about autarky. They are small and rely heavily on trade, which relies heavily on a benign environment. If ships didn't have free passage through the straits of Malacca, Singapore's business model wouldn't work.
You know which other country is ideally placed to prosper from a strait that is a major shipping lane? It will be ironic if the American war has demonstrated to Iran it can have a prosperous future through peaceful trading and not depend on oil.
Hardman weighs into the social care debate. Fantastic that the Speccie is talking about this but is this really true in 2026??
"The Prime Minister knows full well that many voters assume that social care is in fact already part of the NHS and is free at the point of access, and that as soon as politicians start talking about the sums of money involved in any reform, those voters tend to react very badly."
May have been true a decade or two ago but just about everyone now knows social care is a nightmare and could cost you your family home all your life savings and it is fucking hard to get decent people/quality care and it is bankrupting the local council.
Until they're actually faced with it, I seriously doubt that's true.
@SecScottBessent: "A nation that cannot manufacture, mine, ship, or refine its needs gradually cedes its strength and sovereignty to others. That is a dangerous dependency for any country; it is an unacceptable one for the United States of America."
The richest countries in the world, though, are the ones who are least balanced. Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland: none of them are rich in natural resources. All recognised that if someone else can mine cheaper than you, then you're best of leaving the mining to them.
Auturky is a rapid way to the poorhouse.
They all can only be rich thanks to conditions created by larger powers. That option doesn’t exist for big players like the US.
That's an assertion without evidence.
It's a logical inference from your point about autarky. They are small and rely heavily on trade, which relies heavily on a benign environment. If ships didn't have free passage through the straits of Malacca, Singapore's business model wouldn't work.
You know which other country is ideally placed to prosper from a strait that is a major shipping lane? It will be ironic if the American war has demonstrated to Iran it can have a prosperous future through peaceful trading and not depend on oil.
The Swiss got started out on their path to wealth by robbing people, and later charging people for, travelling across the Alps, after all; it’s a proven model….
@SecScottBessent: "A nation that cannot manufacture, mine, ship, or refine its needs gradually cedes its strength and sovereignty to others. That is a dangerous dependency for any country; it is an unacceptable one for the United States of America."
The richest countries in the world, though, are the ones who are least balanced. Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland: none of them are rich in natural resources. All recognised that if someone else can mine cheaper than you, then you're best of leaving the mining to them.
Auturky is a rapid way to the poorhouse.
You can't really look at it from either side in absolute terms. As with most of these arguments neither side is absolutely right or wrong.
Note what's happened with rare earths, and other strategic materials like titanium. Everyone followed your advice, only to find that they're in a serious strategic bind when China restricts supplies. (And even in purely price terms it can be a costly decision, with raw materials prices rising hundreds of percent.)
I'd make a similar observation about strategic industries like chip manufacturing. Europe has taken your Ricardian approach, leaving it at a serious disadvantage, and hollowing out its ability to compete in the future. (Also true of the west v China for manufacturing in general.)
And again, ceding pricing power to a handful of manufacturers has seen huge price escalation in high end chips this year.
Pragmatism can include spending resources on insurance against such events. It's not a straightforward calculation.
Interesting to note 8% of NEETs are aged 16-17. I certainly remember when I was in local Government a lot of time and effort went into ensuring EVERY 16-17 age old was either in education, employment and training. Have Councils been able to continue this work given spending pressures elsewhere?
It's also worth noting a quarter of NEETs are not seeking work due to sickness and disability so again the myth about a generation of "malingers" or "scroungers" fails to survive contact with reality (along with a series of other crass generalisations).
Yes but Labour ducked the welfare reforms needed to try and get those on sickness benefit and capable of some work into the workplace
Though that depends on what they are doing. The more interesting/alarming people are the ones not on benefits- those who (as OKC suggested) are very probably doing odd cash-in-hand work/side hustles but basically not engaging with the system at all. Macroscopic system stuff like changing benefits rules or the minimum wage, aren't going to affect them, because they're not engaging with the system.
It's lazy to think that the issue is one that is solved by Whitehall or Westminster changing numbers. It's probably almost as lazy to think that changing numbers the other way is causing much harm. It's much deeper-rooted than that;
Looking at that chart, it's not about Starmer Labour. It's not about the Conservatives, either. Or Blair/Brown Labour. It's something that has been filed as "too difficult" for ages.
People not claiming benefits are not a problem for the taxpayer, those who are should be helped to find some work, even if on sickness benefits unless paralysed or with with a terminal illness then claimants should be assisted to find work they can do
Assisting people to find work largely died out many years ago.
Fun Boy Three - The Lunatics Have Taken Over The Asylum
Hadn't thought of it since it was actually in the charts. But it felt quite appropriate given what was going on. So ... well done google?
I only found out last year that Our Lips are Sealed was co-written by Jane Wiedlin which is why the Go-Go’s also performed it
When Terry Hall died Jane Wiedlin confirmed that she and Terry had embarked upon an affair when the Gogos supported ( I think it was) the Specials (rather than the FBT). And the song was about that affair. The Gogos video is great.
Rush Hour by Jane Wiedlin is an absolute guilty pleasure. Reminds me of being early teens glued to. MTV.
She also had a cameo in a guilty pleasure film “Clue” where she is the singing telegram who gets shot. It was a beautifully timed scene “I, am, the singing telegram, bang”.
@SecScottBessent: "A nation that cannot manufacture, mine, ship, or refine its needs gradually cedes its strength and sovereignty to others. That is a dangerous dependency for any country; it is an unacceptable one for the United States of America."
He's gone native, as they say. From the pinnacle of globalism to autarky in a short space of time.
From the front page of iWeekend. I think it’s a BMG poll.
» Labour under Burnham would win 20 per cent of votes at the next election - two points more than under Starmer, but still three behind Reform, » Labour supporters appear less keen to oust Starmer, with those wanting him replaced falling five points to 37 per cent, while support for him staying rose two points to 48 per cent.
My holiday is due to finish on Wednesday so if it can hang on a few days yet that would be great. Have to say it’s been plenty warm enough and we have not regretted our decision not to go abroad.
My holiday is due to finish on Wednesday so if it can hang on a few days yet that would be great. Have to say it’s been plenty warm enough and we have not regretted our decision not to go abroad.
Northamptonshire an interesting and not obvious choice. Glad you are enjoying it.
I'm Britain, about 930,000 Muslims will attend a mosque each week, while about 702,000 Christians will visit a church each week.
There are about 40,000 churches in Britain, while there are just under 2,000 mosques.
Thus the average weekly attendance at a mosque is 465, and at a church is 18.
I don't think that's true.
It appears true if you ask Muslims how often they go to Mosque. But if you ask the Mosques themselves what their attendence is, you get a much lower number. It turns out that lots of Muslims who only go for Eid and the like, report going every week.
It’s like people in new relationships telling their new partner they go to the STI clinic regularly when in fact they went once after a stag do in Magaluf twelve years ago.
Think I'd be more concerned if a new partner felt they needed to go to the STI clinic monthly.
We obviously move in different social groups.
My potential partners are more concerned with arthritis.
Today's cover: The California Post endorses Steve Hilton for governor
I did enjoy this comment: "No way I ever want a Tory as governor of CA let along any political office. Didn't our founders fight against them?"
No, the founders of California fought against the Mexicans and various Indian tribes and also pipped the Mormons under Sam Brannan at the post ("Not that blasted rag again", Brannan is said to have exclaimed as he sailed into San Francisco Bay and saw the Stars and Stripes already flying).
The British Conservatives (as they were by then) never controlled California.
So the commenter shows the usual American knowledge of their own history - none whatsoever.
From the front page of iWeekend. I think it’s a BMG poll.
» Labour under Burnham would win 20 per cent of votes at the next election - two points more than under Starmer, but still three behind Reform, » Labour supporters appear less keen to oust Starmer, with those wanting him replaced falling five points to 37 per cent, while support for him staying rose two points to 48 per cent.
Does anyone know the full details?
I've tried getting a gift link but the site is not playing. I cannot even log in with a different browser. Sorry.
From the front page of iWeekend. I think it’s a BMG poll.
» Labour under Burnham would win 20 per cent of votes at the next election - two points more than under Starmer, but still three behind Reform, » Labour supporters appear less keen to oust Starmer, with those wanting him replaced falling five points to 37 per cent, while support for him staying rose two points to 48 per cent.
Does anyone know the full details?
I've tried getting a gift link but the site is not playing. I cannot even log in with a different browser. Sorry.
From the front page of iWeekend. I think it’s a BMG poll.
» Labour under Burnham would win 20 per cent of votes at the next election - two points more than under Starmer, but still three behind Reform, » Labour supporters appear less keen to oust Starmer, with those wanting him replaced falling five points to 37 per cent, while support for him staying rose two points to 48 per cent.
Does anyone know the full details?
Burnham surge faded before he's even got to the start line? Given the cry was for a strong decisive leader with a purpose and a plan that is no surprise but i'd expected him to make it into no 10 before being sussed as a massive disappointment. Money on Ed M as the only one with a plan and strong sense of purpose or Starmer to see off a deflated Burnham?
And bless them all, but a small number of people funding and maintaining churches for a much larger group of very occasional worshippers is a tough ask. Christianity sometimes is about tough asks, but there are limits.
It's a similar dynamic to pubs, corner shops and all the other things in communities. If we don't use them regularly then we can't be too shocked if they become unviable.
From the front page of iWeekend. I think it’s a BMG poll.
» Labour under Burnham would win 20 per cent of votes at the next election - two points more than under Starmer, but still three behind Reform, » Labour supporters appear less keen to oust Starmer, with those wanting him replaced falling five points to 37 per cent, while support for him staying rose two points to 48 per cent.
Does anyone know the full details?
Burnham surge faded before he's even got to the start line? Given the cry was for a strong decisive leader with a purpose and a plan that is no surprise but i'd expected him to make it into no 10 before being sussed as a massive disappointment. Money on Ed M as the only one with a plan and strong sense of purpose or Starmer to see off a deflated Burnham?
Since Makerfield was called, the narrative for Labour seems to "you don't know what you're doing" - regardless of who leads them.
They must be really grateful that Farage is hiding from the £5m bung story - and Reform have picked a complete dog of a candidate. But winning with Burnham doesn't appear much of a win at all.
And then there's the Ghost of Labour Past, with the undead Blair to rattle some chains.
From the front page of iWeekend. I think it’s a BMG poll.
» Labour under Burnham would win 20 per cent of votes at the next election - two points more than under Starmer, but still three behind Reform, » Labour supporters appear less keen to oust Starmer, with those wanting him replaced falling five points to 37 per cent, while support for him staying rose two points to 48 per cent.
Does anyone know the full details?
I've tried getting a gift link but the site is not playing. I cannot even log in with a different browser. Sorry.
From the front page of iWeekend. I think it’s a BMG poll.
» Labour under Burnham would win 20 per cent of votes at the next election - two points more than under Starmer, but still three behind Reform, » Labour supporters appear less keen to oust Starmer, with those wanting him replaced falling five points to 37 per cent, while support for him staying rose two points to 48 per cent.
Does anyone know the full details?
I've tried getting a gift link but the site is not playing. I cannot even log in with a different browser. Sorry.
And bless them all, but a small number of people funding and maintaining churches for a much larger group of very occasional worshippers is a tough ask. Christianity sometimes is about tough asks, but there are limits.
It's a similar dynamic to pubs, corner shops and all the other things in communities. If we don't use them regularly then we can't be too shocked if they become unviable.
The population of England is about 59 million. The number of people attending Church of England on Sundays is about 581,000 (2024 figures). Conveniently that is approx 1% of the population.
I live in Cumbria which has literally hundreds of villages with populations between 100-700, each with their own church. Do the maths on the basis of 1%. On the ground things are slightly better than that but it gives the general picture.
What is extraordinary is how few have actually shut up shop, and how many keep going cheerfully with a tiny band of volunteers.
Fun Boy Three - The Lunatics Have Taken Over The Asylum
Hadn't thought of it since it was actually in the charts. But it felt quite appropriate given what was going on. So ... well done google?
I only found out last year that Our Lips are Sealed was co-written by Jane Wiedlin which is why the Go-Go’s also performed it
When Terry Hall died Jane Wiedlin confirmed that she and Terry had embarked upon an affair when the Gogos supported ( I think it was) the Specials (rather than the FBT). And the song was about that affair. The Gogos video is great.
Rush Hour by Jane Wiedlin is an absolute guilty pleasure. Reminds me of being early teens glued to. MTV.
She also had a cameo in a guilty pleasure film “Clue” where she is the singing telegram who gets shot. It was a beautifully timed scene “I, am, the singing telegram, bang”.
If memory serves, one of the two, rather poignant, scenes in films involving singing telegrams. The other is in "Brazil".
My holiday is due to finish on Wednesday so if it can hang on a few days yet that would be great. Have to say it’s been plenty warm enough and we have not regretted our decision not to go abroad.
Today's cover: The California Post endorses Steve Hilton for governor
I did enjoy this comment: "No way I ever want a Tory as governor of CA let along any political office. Didn't our founders fight against them?"
No, the founders of California fought against the Mexicans and various Indian tribes and also pipped the Mormons under Sam Brannan at the post ("Not that blasted rag again", Brannan is said to have exclaimed as he sailed into San Francisco Bay and saw the Stars and Stripes already flying).
The British Conservatives (as they were by then) never controlled California.
So the commenter shows the usual American knowledge of their own history - none whatsoever.
Today's cover: The California Post endorses Steve Hilton for governor
I did enjoy this comment: "No way I ever want a Tory as governor of CA let along any political office. Didn't our founders fight against them?"
No, the founders of California fought against the Mexicans and various Indian tribes and also pipped the Mormons under Sam Brannan at the post ("Not that blasted rag again", Brannan is said to have exclaimed as he sailed into San Francisco Bay and saw the Stars and Stripes already flying).
The British Conservatives (as they were by then) never controlled California.
So the commenter shows the usual American knowledge of their own history - none whatsoever.
If you look at a map of the United States as it expanded, it is noticeable that when California became a state it was not contiguous to the other states: the lands in between were still territories. People in California at the time used to say things like "he came from the States" or "back in the States"
Today's cover: The California Post endorses Steve Hilton for governor
I did enjoy this comment: "No way I ever want a Tory as governor of CA let along any political office. Didn't our founders fight against them?"
No, the founders of California fought against the Mexicans and various Indian tribes and also pipped the Mormons under Sam Brannan at the post ("Not that blasted rag again", Brannan is said to have exclaimed as he sailed into San Francisco Bay and saw the Stars and Stripes already flying).
The British Conservatives (as they were by then) never controlled California.
So the commenter shows the usual American knowledge of their own history - none whatsoever.
If you look at a map of the United States as it expanded, it is noticeable that when California became a state it was not contiguous to the other states: the lands in between were still territories. People in California at the time used to say things like "he came from the States" or "back in the States"
Territories were only allowed to be States when the white settlers formed a majority over the indigenous peoples.
The uk would be mad to effectively destroy the vast rich of historical , architectural and cultural treasure in churches . They are simply unique in the world . Then again I think the Uk is mad at the moment (chagos WTF!) so I doubt will have a plan to really support church buildings
From the front page of iWeekend. I think it’s a BMG poll.
» Labour under Burnham would win 20 per cent of votes at the next election - two points more than under Starmer, but still three behind Reform, » Labour supporters appear less keen to oust Starmer, with those wanting him replaced falling five points to 37 per cent, while support for him staying rose two points to 48 per cent.
Does anyone know the full details?
Burnham surge faded before he's even got to the start line? Given the cry was for a strong decisive leader with a purpose and a plan that is no surprise but i'd expected him to make it into no 10 before being sussed as a massive disappointment. Money on Ed M as the only one with a plan and strong sense of purpose or Starmer to see off a deflated Burnham?
Since Makerfield was called, the narrative for Labour seems to "you don't know what you're doing" - regardless of who leads them.
They must be really grateful that Farage is hiding from the £5m bung story - and Reform have picked a complete dog of a candidate. But winning with Burnham doesn't appear much of a win at all.
And then there's the Ghost of Labour Past, with the undead Blair to rattle some chains.
I don't think anyone knows what is going to happen.
We can see from the extraordinary promotion of Restore that Labour are spending extraordinary amounts of money on their campaign.
I find a difficulty with Burnham which other posters don't seem to have. He is very much a Londoner's view of a Northerner. Up here in Cumbria Manchester is no more northern to us than Birmingham. It is very much the South as far as we can see and tainted with being near Liverpool. But setting that aside his harsh Scouse accent makes most people in the whole of the north west look at his Mancunian credentials and ask "Who are you kidding, apart from the London journalists ?"
The analogy with Derek Hatton is a good one but at least he never denied he was a Scouser. The word "git" is not a nice one but it is a true north-west word to describe a particular person and for me it fits Hatton and Burnham to a tee. If Starmer has fallen to the Monkees classic "I'm a Believer" then Burnham must beware of their Third No. 1, sold in this country as "Alternate Title" because the true American name was deemed unacceptable in the UK, Randy Scouse Git, referencing I believe John Lennon.
From the front page of iWeekend. I think it’s a BMG poll.
» Labour under Burnham would win 20 per cent of votes at the next election - two points more than under Starmer, but still three behind Reform, » Labour supporters appear less keen to oust Starmer, with those wanting him replaced falling five points to 37 per cent, while support for him staying rose two points to 48 per cent.
Does anyone know the full details?
Burnham surge faded before he's even got to the start line? Given the cry was for a strong decisive leader with a purpose and a plan that is no surprise but i'd expected him to make it into no 10 before being sussed as a massive disappointment. Money on Ed M as the only one with a plan and strong sense of purpose or Starmer to see off a deflated Burnham?
Since Makerfield was called, the narrative for Labour seems to "you don't know what you're doing" - regardless of who leads them.
They must be really grateful that Farage is hiding from the £5m bung story - and Reform have picked a complete dog of a candidate. But winning with Burnham doesn't appear much of a win at all.
And then there's the Ghost of Labour Past, with the undead Blair to rattle some chains.
I don't think anyone knows what is going to happen.
We can see from the extraordinary promotion of Restore that Labour are spending extraordinary amounts of money on their campaign.
I find a difficulty with Burnham which other posters don't seem to have. He is very much a Londoner's view of a Northerner. Up here in Cumbria Manchester is no more northern to us than Birmingham. It is very much the South as far as we can see and tainted with being near Liverpool. But setting that aside his harsh Scouse accent makes most people in the whole of the north west look at his Mancunian credentials and ask "Who are you kidding, apart from the London journalists ?"
The analogy with Derek Hatton is a good one but at least he never denied he was a Scouser. The word "git" is not a nice one but it is a true north-west word to describe a particular person and for me it fits Hatton and Burnham to a tee. If Starmer has fallen to the Monkees classic "I'm a Believer" then Burnham must beware of their Third No. 1, sold in this country as "Alternate Title" because the true American name was deemed unacceptable in the UK, Randy Scouse Git, referencing I believe John Lennon.
Viewed through the deepest blue spectacles!
Burnham got 63.4% of the vote in the most recent GM Mayoral election, which suggests that Greater Mancunians do not see him as an interloper.
Today's cover: The California Post endorses Steve Hilton for governor
I did enjoy this comment: "No way I ever want a Tory as governor of CA let along any political office. Didn't our founders fight against them?"
No, the founders of California fought against the Mexicans and various Indian tribes and also pipped the Mormons under Sam Brannan at the post ("Not that blasted rag again", Brannan is said to have exclaimed as he sailed into San Francisco Bay and saw the Stars and Stripes already flying).
The British Conservatives (as they were by then) never controlled California.
So the commenter shows the usual American knowledge of their own history - none whatsoever.
If you look at a map of the United States as it expanded, it is noticeable that when California became a state it was not contiguous to the other states: the lands in between were still territories. People in California at the time used to say things like "he came from the States" or "back in the States"
Territories were only allowed to be States when the white settlers formed a majority over the indigenous peoples.
The uk would be mad to effectively destroy the vast rich of historical , architectural and cultural treasure in churches . They are simply unique in the world . Then again I think the Uk is mad at the moment (chagos WTF!) so I doubt will have a plan to really support church buildings
I do not think anyone is proposing to "effectively destroy" churches, but there are many which are barely used, and often of little architectural or historical interest.
It is hard to see why a largely secular public should fund them.
From the front page of iWeekend. I think it’s a BMG poll.
» Labour under Burnham would win 20 per cent of votes at the next election - two points more than under Starmer, but still three behind Reform, » Labour supporters appear less keen to oust Starmer, with those wanting him replaced falling five points to 37 per cent, while support for him staying rose two points to 48 per cent.
Does anyone know the full details?
Burnham surge faded before he's even got to the start line? Given the cry was for a strong decisive leader with a purpose and a plan that is no surprise but i'd expected him to make it into no 10 before being sussed as a massive disappointment. Money on Ed M as the only one with a plan and strong sense of purpose or Starmer to see off a deflated Burnham?
Since Makerfield was called, the narrative for Labour seems to "you don't know what you're doing" - regardless of who leads them.
They must be really grateful that Farage is hiding from the £5m bung story - and Reform have picked a complete dog of a candidate. But winning with Burnham doesn't appear much of a win at all.
And then there's the Ghost of Labour Past, with the undead Blair to rattle some chains.
I don't think anyone knows what is going to happen.
We can see from the extraordinary promotion of Restore that Labour are spending extraordinary amounts of money on their campaign.
I find a difficulty with Burnham which other posters don't seem to have. He is very much a Londoner's view of a Northerner. Up here in Cumbria Manchester is no more northern to us than Birmingham. It is very much the South as far as we can see and tainted with being near Liverpool. But setting that aside his harsh Scouse accent makes most people in the whole of the north west look at his Mancunian credentials and ask "Who are you kidding, apart from the London journalists ?"
The analogy with Derek Hatton is a good one but at least he never denied he was a Scouser. The word "git" is not a nice one but it is a true north-west word to describe a particular person and for me it fits Hatton and Burnham to a tee. If Starmer has fallen to the Monkees classic "I'm a Believer" then Burnham must beware of their Third No. 1, sold in this country as "Alternate Title" because the true American name was deemed unacceptable in the UK, Randy Scouse Git, referencing I believe John Lennon.
Andy Burnham left Liverpool aged one, so he hadn't developed a pronounced Scouse accent by then! His family moved shortly after he was born to Culcheth near Warrington, about halfway between Liverpool and Manchester and about a 10 minute drive from Makerfield.
He doesn't have a harsh scouse accent! Perhaps only a Cumbrian would say that.
@SecScottBessent: "A nation that cannot manufacture, mine, ship, or refine its needs gradually cedes its strength and sovereignty to others. That is a dangerous dependency for any country; it is an unacceptable one for the United States of America."
The richest countries in the world, though, are the ones who are least balanced. Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland: none of them are rich in natural resources. All recognised that if someone else can mine cheaper than you, then you're best of leaving the mining to them.
Auturky is a rapid way to the poorhouse.
Yes, but you need to be able to do enough of various somethings, well enough, that you can pay your way. You can't just give up on doing anything in the belief that you can trade for everything and borrow money to pay for it.
Britain doesn't do enough, well enough, to pay its way, so it has to choose a few industries, with good long-term prospects, and work out how to grow them in Britain so that they can make money exporting. Financial services alone is not enough.
You don't need to try to do everything, but you do need to do something.
And bless them all, but a small number of people funding and maintaining churches for a much larger group of very occasional worshippers is a tough ask. Christianity sometimes is about tough asks, but there are limits.
It's a similar dynamic to pubs, corner shops and all the other things in communities. If we don't use them regularly then we can't be too shocked if they become unviable.
The population of England is about 59 million. The number of people attending Church of England on Sundays is about 581,000 (2024 figures). Conveniently that is approx 1% of the population.
I live in Cumbria which has literally hundreds of villages with populations between 100-700, each with their own church. Do the maths on the basis of 1%. On the ground things are slightly better than that but it gives the general picture.
What is extraordinary is how few have actually shut up shop, and how many keep going cheerfully with a tiny band of volunteers.
Church attendance tends to be higher as a percentage of the population in rural areas where the community is more likely to be retired or farmers. Churches are also bigger parts of the community, normally linked to the local primary school, the main provider of weddings and funerals and obviously baptisms and holding events like concerts.
Indeed some small villages which no longer have a shop or in some cases even a school still have a church
The uk would be mad to effectively destroy the vast rich of historical , architectural and cultural treasure in churches . They are simply unique in the world . Then again I think the Uk is mad at the moment (chagos WTF!) so I doubt will have a plan to really support church buildings
The Tories, LDs and Reform have all committed to restore VAT relief on church repairs. In France the state helps fund Roman Catholic grade listed churches
From the front page of iWeekend. I think it’s a BMG poll.
» Labour under Burnham would win 20 per cent of votes at the next election - two points more than under Starmer, but still three behind Reform, » Labour supporters appear less keen to oust Starmer, with those wanting him replaced falling five points to 37 per cent, while support for him staying rose two points to 48 per cent.
Does anyone know the full details?
Burnham surge faded before he's even got to the start line? Given the cry was for a strong decisive leader with a purpose and a plan that is no surprise but i'd expected him to make it into no 10 before being sussed as a massive disappointment. Money on Ed M as the only one with a plan and strong sense of purpose or Starmer to see off a deflated Burnham?
Since Makerfield was called, the narrative for Labour seems to "you don't know what you're doing" - regardless of who leads them.
They must be really grateful that Farage is hiding from the £5m bung story - and Reform have picked a complete dog of a candidate. But winning with Burnham doesn't appear much of a win at all.
And then there's the Ghost of Labour Past, with the undead Blair to rattle some chains.
I don't think anyone knows what is going to happen.
We can see from the extraordinary promotion of Restore that Labour are spending extraordinary amounts of money on their campaign.
I find a difficulty with Burnham which other posters don't seem to have. He is very much a Londoner's view of a Northerner. Up here in Cumbria Manchester is no more northern to us than Birmingham. It is very much the South as far as we can see and tainted with being near Liverpool. But setting that aside his harsh Scouse accent makes most people in the whole of the north west look at his Mancunian credentials and ask "Who are you kidding, apart from the London journalists ?"
The analogy with Derek Hatton is a good one but at least he never denied he was a Scouser. The word "git" is not a nice one but it is a true north-west word to describe a particular person and for me it fits Hatton and Burnham to a tee. If Starmer has fallen to the Monkees classic "I'm a Believer" then Burnham must beware of their Third No. 1, sold in this country as "Alternate Title" because the true American name was deemed unacceptable in the UK, Randy Scouse Git, referencing I believe John Lennon.
Comments
Significant development on $1.8 billion fund:
Federal court responds favorably to motion by 35 former federal judges.
Their motion asked court reopen the case to see whether a fraud was perpetrated on the court to effectuate the "settlement."
https://bsky.app/profile/rgoodlaw.bsky.social/post/3mmzgp5rwzc2x
"The Prime Minister knows full well that many voters assume that social care is in fact already part of the NHS and is free at the point of access, and that as soon as politicians start talking about the sums of money involved in any reform, those voters tend to react very badly."
https://spectator.com/article/dont-bet-on-the-next-labour-leader-solving-the-social-care-crisis/
Really?
Where is this stat?
May have been true a decade or two ago but just about everyone now knows social care is a nightmare and could cost you your family home all your life savings and it is fucking hard to get decent people/quality care and it is bankrupting the local council.
It's lazy to think that the issue is one that is solved by Whitehall or Westminster changing numbers. It's probably almost as lazy to think that changing numbers the other way is causing much harm. It's much deeper-rooted than that;
https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/neet-statistics-annual-brief/2025#section-trends-in-neet-rates-by-age
Looking at that chart, it's not about Starmer Labour. It's not about the Conservatives, either. Or Blair/Brown Labour. It's something that has been filed as "too difficult" for ages.
Cos I reckon if they haven't been in that situation, most people don't.
Just like those who haven't moved house out of their area don't know how rare a dentist taking on NHS patients is.
https://x.com/clement_mci/status/2060278670258765935
✅ Bardella 54▪️Philippe 46
✅ Bardella 57▪️Attal 43
✅ Bardella 68▪️Mélenchon 32
-
✅ Le Pen 52▪️Philippe 48
✅ Le Pen 54▪️Attal 46
✅ Le Pen 67 ▪️Mélenchon 33
Oh, sorry, I missed the word “young” in your post.
Today's cover: The California Post endorses Steve Hilton for governor
Reports.
"Ale flowing freely. People keep saying he wasn't born in the constituency. True. But that seems to be obsessing everyone here."
She reckons it will be close.
Bordello will be no more enthusiastic about it than any of the other French politicians of the last ten years.
Time and the hour runs through the roughest day.”
Just caught Newsnight for the first time in ages. Two observations. First, they need to use Lucy Hockings more. A measured and sensible conversation on Russia/Ukraine/NATO, etc and on Tony Blair. Everybody had time to speak. No arguments or interruptions. Hockings was knowledgeable and respectful of both the guests and the audience.
Second, I was quietly impressed by Emily Thornberry. I appreciate that she isn’t everybody’s cup of tea but she struck the right tone on all topics, was across her brief (and others), didn’t interrupt and acknowledged that the thrust of Blair’s argument was largely correct. Broad victory but shallow support. Policies need a bit of depth and flavour. Much more of a Parliamentarian than people perhaps realise.
Anyway… night all.
@SecScottBessent: "A nation that cannot manufacture, mine, ship, or refine its needs gradually cedes its strength and sovereignty to others. That is a dangerous dependency for any country; it is an unacceptable one for the United States of America."
Edit to add, reading all the local French chat groups, it has swung their vote to RN. One weekend.
I’m afraid on this Blair is completely wrong.
In a decade, you'll never know he had been President. His every vestige removed.
Even his kids will change their names...
Auturky is a rapid way to the poorhouse.
1. Add a bunch of justices (just needs a trifecta, lower hurdle than impeaching the existing justices)
2. Newly enlarged SCOTUS rules that Donald Trump was ineligible for the presidency because he participated in insurrection, so the second Trump presidency never happened, and it appears that President Vance had a singularly unproductive 4 years in office and never got around to signing any pardons.
As with most of these arguments neither side is absolutely right or wrong.
Note what's happened with rare earths, and other strategic materials like titanium. Everyone followed your advice, only to find that they're in a serious strategic bind when China restricts supplies.
(And even in purely price terms it can be a costly decision, with raw materials prices rising hundreds of percent.)
I'd make a similar observation about strategic industries like chip manufacturing.
Europe has taken your Ricardian approach, leaving it at a serious disadvantage, and hollowing out its ability to compete in the future. (Also true of the west v China for manufacturing in general.)
And again, ceding pricing power to a handful of manufacturers has seen huge price escalation in high end chips this year.
Pragmatism can include spending resources on insurance against such events. It's not a straightforward calculation.
» Labour under Burnham would win 20 per cent of votes at the next election - two points
more than under Starmer, but still three behind Reform,
» Labour supporters appear less keen to oust Starmer, with those wanting him replaced
falling five points to 37 per cent, while support for him staying rose two points to 48 per cent.
Does anyone know the full details?
Steady as she goes.
But how many do christenings, carols, weddings, funerals at church etc. on top?
I'd expect UK cultural Christian count to be comfortably into the millions.
"No way I ever want a Tory as governor of CA let along any political office. Didn't our founders fight against them?"
The British Conservatives (as they were by then) never controlled California.
So the commenter shows the usual American knowledge of their own history - none whatsoever.
ETA here is the paywalled link. You might be able to put up with adverts.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/burnham-pm-beat-farage-general-election-poll-4440400
Given the cry was for a strong decisive leader with a purpose and a plan that is no surprise but i'd expected him to make it into no 10 before being sussed as a massive disappointment.
Money on Ed M as the only one with a plan and strong sense of purpose or Starmer to see off a deflated Burnham?
I think Burnham may well struggle to win Makerfield despite being favourite
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2025-10/statisticsformission2024.pdf
And bless them all, but a small number of people funding and maintaining churches for a much larger group of very occasional worshippers is a tough ask. Christianity sometimes is about tough asks, but there are limits.
It's a similar dynamic to pubs, corner shops and all the other things in communities. If we don't use them regularly then we can't be too shocked if they become unviable.
They must be really grateful that Farage is hiding from the £5m bung story - and Reform have picked a complete dog of a candidate. But winning with Burnham doesn't appear much of a win at all.
And then there's the Ghost of Labour Past, with the undead Blair to rattle some chains.
Conveniently that is approx 1% of the population.
I live in Cumbria which has literally hundreds of villages with populations between 100-700, each with their own church. Do the maths on the basis of 1%. On the ground things are slightly better than that but it gives the general picture.
What is extraordinary is how few have actually shut up shop, and how many keep going cheerfully with a tiny band of volunteers.
Usual PB reading comprehension ...
We can see from the extraordinary promotion of Restore that Labour are spending extraordinary amounts of money on their campaign.
I find a difficulty with Burnham which other posters don't seem to have. He is very much a Londoner's view of a Northerner. Up here in Cumbria Manchester is no more northern to us than Birmingham. It is very much the South as far as we can see and tainted with being near Liverpool. But setting that aside his harsh Scouse accent makes most people in the whole of the north west look at his Mancunian credentials and ask "Who are you kidding, apart from the London journalists ?"
The analogy with Derek Hatton is a good one but at least he never denied he was a Scouser. The word "git" is not a nice one but it is a true north-west word to describe a particular person and for me it fits Hatton and Burnham to a tee. If Starmer has fallen to the Monkees classic "I'm a Believer" then Burnham must beware of their Third No. 1, sold in this country as "Alternate Title" because the true American name was deemed unacceptable in the UK, Randy Scouse Git, referencing I believe John Lennon.
Trump bought stock in the UFC’s parent company while promoting fights set to take place at the White House on his birthday, HuffPost has learned
https://x.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/2060405635930304920
NEW THREAD
Burnham got 63.4% of the vote in the most recent GM Mayoral election, which suggests that Greater Mancunians do not see him as an interloper.
It is hard to see why a largely secular public should fund them.
He doesn't have a harsh scouse accent!
Perhaps only a Cumbrian would say that.
Britain doesn't do enough, well enough, to pay its way, so it has to choose a few industries, with good long-term prospects, and work out how to grow them in Britain so that they can make money exporting. Financial services alone is not enough.
You don't need to try to do everything, but you do need to do something.
Indeed some small villages which no longer have a shop or in some cases even a school still have a church