“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.
As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.
The main points of the text are as follows: 1. Germany has three unsolvable problems that will likely lead to its downfall as a modern economy and nation state in the next 20 to 30 years. 2. The first problem is Germany's trade relationship with Russia and China. Germany heavily relies on Russian raw materials, especially energy, but the cost of cutting ties with Russia has led to significantly higher energy prices. Companies in the energy sector are moving out due to the inability to bring costs down. Germany has also doubled down on its trade relationship with China, despite the ethical concerns associated with authoritarian regimes. 3. The second problem is Germany's demographics. The country has been on a downward spiral for over a hundred years, and by 2030, a large portion of the skilled labor force will be retired. This will lead to a decline in workmanship and a collapse in the workforce, making it difficult for Germany to fund its own industrial buildup and consume what it produces. 4. The third problem is Germany's energy system. Germany relies on a bottomless supply of inexpensive and reliable energy, primarily from Russia. However, with the decline in trade relations with Russia, Germany now relies on liquefied natural gas from the United States and crude oil from the Middle East. The country has largely shut down nuclear power and is left with lignite coal, which contributes to high carbon emissions. 5. The combination of these three problems makes Germany's current system unsustainable. The country is likely to face the end of its ethnicity and decline as an industrial power within the next 10 to 15 years. The unresolved European debt crisis and the energy crisis further contribute to the bleak outlook for Germany. 6. Despite these challenges, Germany has shown a willingness to prioritize morals and ethics over convenience and wealth. This was evident when Germany chose to face an energy crisis rather than give in to Russia's demands during the Ukraine war. However, it remains to be seen if Germany's commitment to morals and ethics will be enough to overcome its other problems.
Lol, "the end of its ethnicity". Bollocks.
If you don't have babies, you go away. China's having the same problem. Germany is going to have to import people to make up for it, because migrants are younger and young migrants have children, unlike the locals (see the lower number of children in urban areas compared to rural, and all the various problems with young men not having sex)
Automation is supposed to reduce the need for people.
I'm pretty sure people need other people. If the only people left are insular bookish nerds who don't really need other people, I'd be talking to myself. And nobody really wants that.
By coincidence, I've just been listening to an interview with racing pundit Joss Brierley who says he moved from pro punting to punditry because he wanted that human connection.
Ross Brierley interview (part 3 because this series is always cut into 10 minute chunks for reasons I do not claim to understand). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqjfUgn7f6U
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
I was told that a number of ex-Labour Corbynites had joined the Greens and were turning it into ultra left organization with a "green" wrapper.
The Corbynite entryists are being pushed aside by the Hamas entryists these days.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
Yep - that would arguably have been less dishonest although it would have been slightly worse for the Assembly in that you'd have a less than committed member for a period.
I wonder why she didn't do that actually? This option has put her right in the crosshairs. It seems foolish. It's also brave (in a sense) when you look at it this way. And more respectful of the Assembly since she's making way for somebody who can devote themselves to it.
But foolish or not, brave or not, respectful or not, she definitely should not have stood knowing she was going to immediately resign.
OK I am dim, but can someone ELI5 what the point of Berry doing this was?
Get more votes using her higher pubic profile. Then quit the job, so the next Green on the list gets the job.
Using her coattails to get a Green into the assembly.
The problem is that Garbett was fourth on the list - they skipped over Zack Polanski, who should have been next in line.
I'm not sure Berry had that much higher a profile, however. Garbett was their Mayoral candidate, so her name was widely promoted during the campaign, and it was she who popped up on the local news. I don't think I spotted Berry being mentioned at all.
Zack Polanski, who once hypnotised a Sun journalist to make her breasts bigger, was already elected. When Berry resigned, the first person on the list who hadn't been elected got promoted to the Assembly, which was Garbett.
Ah, you are, of course, right.
I don't see the problem here, then - people were voting for the Green list, after all.
There have been 4 polls since the local elections. There is absolutely no evidence yet that they have shifted polling. No boost for the smaller parties that did well. No slump for Reform UK, as some had suggested.
Redfield and Deltapoll are the only 2 that polled after the results came in so its a little early to judge
Deltapoll @DeltapollUK 🚨New Voting Intention🚨 Labour lead narrows to seventeen points in our latest results. Con 26% (+2) Lab 43% (-1) Lib Dem 10% (+2) Reform 10% (-2) SNP 3% (-) Green 5% (-) Other 2% (-1) Fieldwork: 3rd-7th May 2024 Sample: 1,993 GB adults (Changes from 26th-29th April 2024)
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.
As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.
It isn't going to stop me from voting Green, but it shouldn't have been done, and it demonstrates poor judgement. It's a rare instance of something being both naive and cynical.
I am a little more optimistic that technology will succeed in reducing the extent of global warming where politics has largely failed.
OK I am dim, but can someone ELI5 what the point of Berry doing this was?
Get more votes using her higher pubic profile. Then quit the job, so the next Green on the list gets the job.
Using her coattails to get a Green into the assembly.
The problem is that Garbett was fourth on the list - they skipped over Zack Polanski, who should have been next in line.
I'm not sure Berry had that much higher a profile, however. Garbett was their Mayoral candidate, so her name was widely promoted during the campaign, and it was she who popped up on the local news. I don't think I spotted Berry being mentioned at all.
Zack Polanski, who once hypnotised a Sun journalist to make her breasts bigger, was already elected. When Berry resigned, the first person on the list who hadn't been elected got promoted to the Assembly, which was Garbett.
Ah, you are, of course, right.
I don't see the problem here, then - people were voting for the Green list, after all.
Well, one problem is that Zack Polanski once hypnotised a Sun journalist to make her breasts bigger. The other problem is that the list has specific names on it, with the top name being Berry's, and she cynically seems never to have had any intention of fulfilling the role.
There have been 4 polls since the local elections. There is absolutely no evidence yet that they have shifted polling. No boost for the smaller parties that did well. No slump for Reform UK, as some had suggested.
Redfield and Deltapoll are the only 2 that polled after the results came in so its a little early to judge
Deltapoll @DeltapollUK 🚨New Voting Intention🚨 Labour lead narrows to seventeen points in our latest results. Con 26% (+2) Lab 43% (-1) Lib Dem 10% (+2) Reform 10% (-2) SNP 3% (-) Green 5% (-) Other 2% (-1) Fieldwork: 3rd-7th May 2024 Sample: 1,993 GB adults (Changes from 26th-29th April 2024)
Yes, though the previous one before that was 16. Delta generally moves the lead in a 16-20 range.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
Today I announce that I have decided to join the Labour Party and that I will sit in Parliament as a Labour MP.
When I was elected in 2019, the Conservative Party occupied the centre ground of British politics. The party was about building the future and making the most of the opportunities that lay ahead for our country.
Since then, many things have changed. The elected Prime Minister was ousted in a coup led by the unelected Rishi Sunak. Under Rishi Sunak, the Conservatives have become a byword for incompetence and division. The centre ground has been abandoned and key pledges of the 2019 manifesto have been ditched.
Meanwhile the Labour Party has changed out of all recognition. Since 2019, it has moved on from Jeremy Corbyn and now, under Keir Starmer, occupies the centre ground of British politics. It has accepted Brexit and its economic policies and defence policies are responsible and can be trusted.
Most significantly for me, the modern Labour Party looks to the future – to building a Britain of hope, optimism, opportunity and fairness. A Britain everyone can be part of.
I have carefully considered this decision. The change has been dramatic and cannot be ignored. For me key deciding factors have been housing and the safety and security of our borders.
From small boats to biosecurity, Rishi Sunak’s government is failing to keep our borders safe and secure. Lives are being lost in the English Channel while small boat arrivals are once again at record levels. It’s clear they have failed to keep our borders secure and cannot be trusted.
On housing, Rishi Sunak’s Government is now failing to build the homes we need. Last year saw the largest fall of new housing starts in England in a single year since the credit crunch. The manifesto committed to 300,000 homes next year – but only around half that number are now set to be built. Renters and leaseholders have been betrayed as manifesto pledges to end no fault evictions and abolish ground rents have not been delivered as promised.
The last couple of years have also seen a huge rise in homelessness, in temporary accommodation and rough sleeping - with record numbers of children now in temporary accommodation, without a secure roof over their head.
Meanwhile Labour plan to build the homes we need, help young people onto the housing ladder and care about the vulnerable and homeless. That’s why I’m honoured to have been asked to work with Keir and the team to help deliver the homes we need.
We need to move on from the broken promises of Rishi Sunak’s tired and chaotic Government. Britain needs a Government that will build a future of hope, optimism, opportunity and fairness. A Britain everyone can be part of, that will make the most of the opportunities that lie ahead. That’s why it’s time for change. Time for a Labour Government led by Keir Starmer. The General Election cannot come soon enough.
Most of us older than 2 would say that unironically. Screwing the economy of the largest country in Europe is only a benefit to Britain in the minds of those whose preferred reading matter remains Commando Comics.
The German idiocy of relying on Russian gas and abolishing nuclear has pushed their energy costs up thus destroying their industrial sector. We could, and should, have avoided that while avoiding our own native idiocy of Brexit.
At what point did I say this benefits Britain?! At no point
And I agree this is bad for Europe as a whole, what’s more it’s arguably been accelerated by Ukrainian proxies acting for America - blowing up Nordstream
But it’s not just energy. Germany is screwed because they are also reliant on mid-high level manufacturing, which China once imported in huge volumes. But now China can produce all this for itself; and so it doesn’t need German imports so much, and China can supplant Germany in OTHER export markets
I remember saying this might happen a few years back and PBers loudly pooh-poohing the notion on the basis “made in Germany” is such a good brand it cannot be replaced. It IS a good brand but if someone can do it cheaper, it will be replaced
Only partially. There are people who will buy Porsche as a brand. There are others who will buy the cheap Chinese Porscha brand.
According to Peter Zeihan (check his youtube vids) Germany is about to fall off a demographic cliff. In 10 years it won't really count as a major manufacturer. He's a lot more bullish about France.
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.
As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.
If you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.
Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
Disagree. How much work does being a list member of the London Assembly for six months really involve? She could very easily have gone light on it for that time while campaigning in Brighton. Many - most - candidates have to balance campaigning with doing their day job. In her case, that job could have been trimmed, particularly given that she has two Green colleagues who could take most of the burden.
That way, if she loses in Brighton then she can return to London for the remaining 85%+ of her term, and if she wins then she could stand down in a manner that fair-minded people would be much more likely to accept.
Today I announce that I have decided to join the Labour Party and that I will sit in Parliament as a Labour MP.
When I was elected in 2019, the Conservative Party occupied the centre ground of British politics. The party was about building the future and making the most of the opportunities that lay ahead for our country.
Since then, many things have changed. The elected Prime Minister was ousted in a coup led by the unelected Rishi Sunak. Under Rishi Sunak, the Conservatives have become a byword for incompetence and division. The centre ground has been abandoned and key pledges of the 2019 manifesto have been ditched.
Meanwhile the Labour Party has changed out of all recognition. Since 2019, it has moved on from Jeremy Corbyn and now, under Keir Starmer, occupies the centre ground of British politics. It has accepted Brexit and its economic policies and defence policies are responsible and can be trusted.
Most significantly for me, the modern Labour Party looks to the future – to building a Britain of hope, optimism, opportunity and fairness. A Britain everyone can be part of.
I have carefully considered this decision. The change has been dramatic and cannot be ignored. For me key deciding factors have been housing and the safety and security of our borders.
From small boats to biosecurity, Rishi Sunak’s government is failing to keep our borders safe and secure. Lives are being lost in the English Channel while small boat arrivals are once again at record levels. It’s clear they have failed to keep our borders secure and cannot be trusted.
On housing, Rishi Sunak’s Government is now failing to build the homes we need. Last year saw the largest fall of new housing starts in England in a single year since the credit crunch. The manifesto committed to 300,000 homes next year – but only around half that number are now set to be built. Renters and leaseholders have been betrayed as manifesto pledges to end no fault evictions and abolish ground rents have not been delivered as promised.
The last couple of years have also seen a huge rise in homelessness, in temporary accommodation and rough sleeping - with record numbers of children now in temporary accommodation, without a secure roof over their head.
Meanwhile Labour plan to build the homes we need, help young people onto the housing ladder and care about the vulnerable and homeless. That’s why I’m honoured to have been asked to work with Keir and the team to help deliver the homes we need.
We need to move on from the broken promises of Rishi Sunak’s tired and chaotic Government. Britain needs a Government that will build a future of hope, optimism, opportunity and fairness. A Britain everyone can be part of, that will make the most of the opportunities that lie ahead. That’s why it’s time for change. Time for a Labour Government led by Keir Starmer. The General Election cannot come soon enough.
Okay, so now we have one ex-Tory helping Labour with the NHS, and one ex-Tory helping Labour with Housing. So suggests there are openings for (soon to be ex-)Tories to help Labour with: Education, Law & Order, Defence, etc, etc...
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
Hm. They certainly talk about it more. Meanwhile governments of both red and blue over the past 30 years have been, in my view, astonishingly successful at decarbonising Britain. Other mainstream governments elsewhere have also been successful. Actually doing practical stuff which works while not crashing the country into the rocks is hard to do – much harder than campaigning. I think the mainstream which has gradually brought this about has a much greater claim to being on the side of good.
She's the MP who inherited the seat of Dover from her disgraced then husband who was convicted of sexual assault.
I had discounted the stories being put about of further defectors to Labour, because normally defections aren't publicised until they happen.
Makes you wonder how many other Tory MPs might be considering jumping ship.
2 MPs in two weeks does feel like the drip drip of a damn waiting to burst... how many more can Sunak survive either to hold on the the PM spot or before he feels the need to call a GE.
I do find it interesting that in her speech she does point to 2019 the Tories being more centrist when it comes to spending and infrastructure. This may be my personal hobby horse, but I do think the Johnsonite position of "levelling up" and promising (if not delivering) on investing in public services and infrastructure played a bigger role in his win then people give credit for. Brexit is, for intent and purposes, "sorted" - and the Tories can't crow about it because it hasn't provided any real positives. What Johnson's aims could have crowed about was ending austerity and reinvesting in communities needed (again, I don't believe he would have done it, but he would still have crowed). By putting the Treasuries own man in charge (after a brief stint of libertarian nightmare) we saw that rowed back. And the Tories have nothing to point to that will win them back voters.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
Might be useful if they ever actually decide to do something with the local authority housebuilding idea. She at least understands the existing system, even if coming at it from the other side.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
Disagree. How much work does being a list member of the London Assembly for six months really involve? She could very easily have gone light on it for that time while campaigning in Brighton. Many - most - candidates have to balance campaigning with doing their day job. In her case, that job could have been trimmed, particularly given that she has two Green colleagues who could take most of the burden.
That way, if she loses in Brighton then she can return to London for the remaining 85%+ of her term, and if she wins then she could stand down in a manner that fair-minded people would be much more likely to accept.
The 'Assembly as back up' option, yes. She'd get a salary too then. I do wonder why she didn't go that route? All this seems to have achieved is bad personal PR and a gift to Labour of attack lines for the GE.
She's the MP who inherited the seat of Dover from her disgraced then husband who was convicted of sexual assault.
I had discounted the stories being put about of further defectors to Labour, because normally defections aren't publicised until they happen.
Makes you wonder how many other Tory MPs might be considering jumping ship.
2 MPs in two weeks does feel like the drip drip of a damn waiting to burst... how many more can Sunak survive either to hold on the the PM spot or before he feels the need to call a GE.
I do find it interesting that in her speech she does point to 2019 the Tories being more centrist when it comes to spending and infrastructure. This may be my personal hobby horse, but I do think the Johnsonite position of "levelling up" and promising (if not delivering) on investing in public services and infrastructure played a bigger role in his win then people give credit for. Brexit is, for intent and purposes, "sorted" - and the Tories can't crow about it because it hasn't provided any real positives. What Johnson's aims could have crowed about was ending austerity and reinvesting in communities needed (again, I don't believe he would have done it, but he would still have crowed). By putting the Treasuries own man in charge (after a brief stint of libertarian nightmare) we saw that rowed back. And the Tories have nothing to point to that will win them back voters.
In 2019 Boris coupled Brexit with the popular bits of Corbynism. He ran against Cameron/Osborne austerity. Trouble is, Boris may or may not have believed in it but delivery depended on Dominic Cummings who planted Rishi as Chancellor, and Rishi believed none of this, brought in a lot of Vote Leave second-raters (see Partygate) and then got himself ousted over TwiX wars with Carrie.
She's the MP who inherited the seat of Dover from her disgraced then husband who was convicted of sexual assault.
I had discounted the stories being put about of further defectors to Labour, because normally defections aren't publicised until they happen.
Makes you wonder how many other Tory MPs might be considering jumping ship.
It's one thing for them to jump ship; it's quite another for her to jump ship in that direction. At least Bridgen to Reclaim (briefly) and Anderson to Reform makes sense.
Had I been Starmer or the Lab Chief Whip, I think there'd have been mileage in refusing her - though obviously you wouldn't want to publicise that for risk of putting off MPs you would accept. Still, expect grumbling from the Lab left on who doesn't have the Labour whip and who now does.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
I don't think this is correct. Large developments have to include a range of property sizes (something that isn't always popular with those buying the larger houses.)
There are times when gift horses really should have their gobs inspected (particulary when lots of crap has previously come out of them).
Very poorly judged stunt by Starmer, to do it at PMQs is really going for the 'big signing' vibe. She's no Labourite and his party knows it
For 99% of the country, they will just see the Tories jumping ship.
You might get some complaints from the Labour Left but that's just another opportunity for Starmer to show he's moved to the centre.
I don't think the public care though, how often do defections affect anything? It's not like people who have stuck this far with Tory are going to have an epiphany because of Natalie Elphicke. It will affect party mood at WM of course, in some varying ways
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
We can't avoid building on the green belt; it's part of the problem. Indeed, the whole planning system designed to tickle Nimbys fancies and price small developers out is a major part of the crisis. Anyone who rejects that isn't serious about the problem.
And no, it doesn't really matter which houses are built; what matters is how many are built. It's nothing more than supply and demand. If enough are built, 3-4 bed houses won't go for £400k, they'll go for £250k - and because there's more supply there, it'd ease demand for smaller houses, which would drop in line.
The state does not need to plan what should be built; it just needs to get out of the way and let it be built, other than in ensuring that the infrastructure goes in alongside to support the growth.
I've come to this a little late, so apologies if this has been covered, but as a former member of the Green Party my thoughts my be useful.
It's been handled badly, even several Greens I know are annoyed, but is it more than clumsiness? I'm not convinced it is any more than that, Sian had already clearly signalled her intentions wrt Brighton. I'm not sure how far out the Assembly list had to be put together (internally, not for nominations), but given the way the party operates, it's quite possible that there are some rules that sitting AMs have to be at the top of the list in sneiority order, and that everyone just assumed that if Sian got the Brighton nomination, she'd just step down for the next Green - because that's how the list system works.
Carrying on from that, I';m not sure how this will cut through - as far as voters in London are concerned they voted for three Green assembly members and that's what they got. So, one was called Sian, and now they have Zoe instead. Big deal. AIUI, Sian didn't take any significant part in the campaign, whereas Zoe did, so it's not a case of riding coattails for more votes - Zoe earned it more than Sian did!
It might have some small impact in Brighton, not least if the Argus - which has always had a pro-Labour, anti-Green agenda, not leeast because their politics editor (not sure if he's still in place) was the father of a Labour councillor - pushes it, but I think that Gaza is likely to be more of an impactful issue for many leftie voters, plus the current Labour administration are not covering themselves in glory by closing primary schools,rolling back some popular Green initiatives, and reneging on promises to undo some unpopoular Green actions (because Labour actually like them, and because they're hard to undo).
Also, speaking to lefty friends in Brighton, of which I have a lot, there's really strong feeling even among the more Labour-leaning ones that they like supporting a Green voice in parliament, Not just Caroline, but any Green voice. So I think there are Labour voters (not members, just voters) who will back a Green locally because they see it as important.
The current Labour candidate in Dover might be a tiny bit pissed off if he has to make way for the floor crosser.
She's not standing, which is why Starmer agreed to it I guess.
If that’s been confirmed, good. Because I think Labour have to be careful not to take on too many failed politicians from the Tory side. They’re selling renewal not a repository for useless MPs trying to save their own skins.
Monty Panesar has withdrawn his candidacy for WPB. George should have thought a bit harder on that one
Is he too woke like Corbyn?
My guess is that he's realised he doesn't fully understand what Galloway's lot stand for, and what the implications of all that are.
"Writing for The Telegraph, Mr Panesar had said his aspiration was “to one day become Prime Minister”. He listed a number of political causes he was passionate about, including investing in the NHS, introducing a wealth tax and curbing illegal migration. But in an interview with Times Radio the day after he was unveiled, Mr Panesar appeared to become confused about the role of Nato and suggested leaving the security alliance could help to curb illegal migration.
Mr Galloway’s party has pledged to leave Nato, a defensive military pact between 32 western countries in which the UK plays a leading role, and objected to its support for Ukraine following Russia’s illegal invasion in 2022. But Mr Panesar incorrectly suggested Nato’s work instead relates to immigration policy and said: “I think the reason they’re saying that, the reason our party is saying it is because we don’t really have control on our borders.”
If Starmer can attract defections without having to offer the defectors nomination as a Labour Parliamentary seat, then that's a major coup for him. Blair gifted St Helens South to Shaun Woodward, for example.
There are times when gift horses really should have their gobs inspected (particulary when lots of crap has previously come out of them).
Very poorly judged stunt by Starmer, to do it at PMQs is really going for the 'big signing' vibe. She's no Labourite and his party knows it
For 99% of the country, they will just see the Tories jumping ship.
You might get some complaints from the Labour Left but that's just another opportunity for Starmer to show he's moved to the centre.
I don't think the public care though, how often do defections affect anything? It's not like people who have stuck this far with Tory are going to have an epiphany because of Natalie Elphicke. It will affect party mood at WM of course, in some varying ways
You're right it affects the mood, and that matters. But I think you're wrong about the impact on swing voters. A Conservative MP joining Labour is something that alleviates doubts that a formerly Tory voter may have about it being the right thing for them.
You also refer to, "people who have stuck this far with Tory". Those people aren't really the issue. The people who are the issue is those who voted Tory in 2019. Based on polls, Starmer doesn't need MORE switchers - he primarily needs the people who voted Tory in 2019 but are currently saying "Labour" to pollsters, maybe with low certainty but still, to be reinforced in that.
This is a brilliant resource. So much detail, excellent graphics (keep scrolling once you've selected an LA!)
I wonder if there is enough data to do it by constituency? I'll have a dig around later.
(Edit: my other observation is it would be great to be able to filter out London in this kind of thing. The capital distorts everything and means you can't see other trends.)
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
We can't avoid building on the green belt; it's part of the problem. Indeed, the whole planning system designed to tickle Nimbys fancies and price small developers out is a major part of the crisis. Anyone who rejects that isn't serious about the problem.
And no, it doesn't really matter which houses are built; what matters is how many are built. It's nothing more than supply and demand. If enough are built, 3-4 bed houses won't go for £400k, they'll go for £250k - and because there's more supply there, it'd ease demand for smaller houses, which would drop in line.
The state does not need to plan what should be built; it just needs to get out of the way and let it be built, other than in ensuring that the infrastructure goes in alongside to support the growth.
Agree with the first two paragraphs; I'm not convinced that the third makes sense.
There are times when gift horses really should have their gobs inspected (particulary when lots of crap has previously come out of them).
Very poorly judged stunt by Starmer, to do it at PMQs is really going for the 'big signing' vibe. She's no Labourite and his party knows it
One of many mistakes made by Swinson in 2019 was to accept any defector. While it did emphasise the chos of that parliament it seriously unbalanced the party.
The dilution is much greater for this turncoat, but she really is going to add nothing to Labour.
There are times when gift horses really should have their gobs inspected (particulary when lots of crap has previously come out of them).
Very poorly judged stunt by Starmer, to do it at PMQs is really going for the 'big signing' vibe. She's no Labourite and his party knows it
For 99% of the country, they will just see the Tories jumping ship.
You might get some complaints from the Labour Left but that's just another opportunity for Starmer to show he's moved to the centre.
I don't think the public care though, how often do defections affect anything? It's not like people who have stuck this far with Tory are going to have an epiphany because of Natalie Elphicke. It will affect party mood at WM of course, in some varying ways
You're right it affects the mood, and that matters. But I think you're wrong about the impact on swing voters. A Conservative MP joining Labour is something that alleviates doubts that a formerly Tory voter may have about it being the right thing for them.
You also refer to, "people who have stuck this far with Tory". Those people aren't really the issue. The people who are the issue is those who voted Tory in 2019. Based on polls, Starmer doesn't need MORE switchers - he primarily needs the people who voted Tory in 2019 but are currently saying "Labour" to pollsters, maybe with low certainty but still, to be reinforced in that.
Yes but he also has a problem on the left and is a Stop the boats, Labour love the brexits defection going to be a bigger boon than the 'yeah, not my party anymore' reaction leftwards?
Parents of children with severe milk and peanut allergies have told how their lives have been changed by a pioneering clinical trial at University Hospital Southampton.
The Natasha Trial uses daily doses of everyday food products, taken under medical supervision. This can train the bodies of children and young people to tolerate an allergen.
The approach is known as oral immunotherapy (OIT). It is hoped this will allow children with food allergies to live without the fear of a potentially fatal reaction.
The three-year trial is funded by The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation. It is led by researchers at the University of Southampton, UHS and Imperial College London.
Natasha Ednan-Laperouse died aged 15 from a severe food allergic reaction.
The £2.5 million Natasha Trial is the first major study to be funded by Natasha’s Foundation, set up by her parents Nadim and Tanya.
So far, a total of 139 children, aged 2 to 23 years, have started treatment on the trial.
It is being run at five hospitals, including UHS. Four other sites are expected to join later.
Hasan Arshad is a Professor of Allergy and Clinical Immunology at the University of Southampton and Head of the Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology Service at UHS. He is Chief Investigator of the trial.
He said: “We must wait until the trial is complete for the full picture, but we are very pleased with the results we are seeing so far.”
Thomas Farmer from Ashurst, New Forest, was diagnosed with a severe peanut allergy when he was aged one.
When he joined the Natasha Trial in March 2023, he could not tolerate even half a peanut.
By January 2024, he was eating 6 peanuts a day – a dose he will keep in his diet...
The only London Assembly poll was done by YouGov on 24-30 April. They were somewhat out:
Party : Party list vote share : YouGov poll LAB : 38 : 43 CON : 26 : 21 GRN : 12 : 12 LB : 9 : 11 REF : 6 : 8
5% too high on Labour, 5% too low on the Tories.
26 points for the Tories in London suggests ~31-33 points nationally which is much better than what the polls suggest currently and implies they'll get beaten but not an absolute drubbing as is currently expected. Labour majority of ~60.
There are times when gift horses really should have their gobs inspected (particulary when lots of crap has previously come out of them).
Very poorly judged stunt by Starmer, to do it at PMQs is really going for the 'big signing' vibe. She's no Labourite and his party knows it
One of many mistakes made by Swinson in 2019 was to accept any defector. While it did emphasise the chos of that parliament it seriously unbalanced the party.
The dilution is much greater for this turncoat, but she really is going to add nothing to Labour.
I have been told the LDs actually turned down 1 or 2 at the time.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
We can't avoid building on the green belt; it's part of the problem. Indeed, the whole planning system designed to tickle Nimbys fancies and price small developers out is a major part of the crisis. Anyone who rejects that isn't serious about the problem.
And no, it doesn't really matter which houses are built; what matters is how many are built. It's nothing more than supply and demand. If enough are built, 3-4 bed houses won't go for £400k, they'll go for £250k - and because there's more supply there, it'd ease demand for smaller houses, which would drop in line.
The state does not need to plan what should be built; it just needs to get out of the way and let it be built, other than in ensuring that the infrastructure goes in alongside to support the growth.
But the number of dwellings in England & Wales grew faster than the population (and the number of households) between 2011 and 2021. Despite what the first week of an economics degree might tell you, increased supply is not driving down prices.
And it does matter what type of housing is built - you can house more people more cheaply, and provide more efficient public services, with medium or high density.
That excellent ONS link posted by Carlotta proves that housing pressure is centred in a few economically productive parts of E&W. Elsewhere costs are not rising particularly fast. The housing crisis is a symptom of a lack of levelling up and the huge increase in landlordism under the Tories. A 28% increase in the number of people renting from 2011-2021.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 15m Natalie Elphicke is one of the most right-wing MPs on the Tory benches. Good luck selling the Braverman “Labour are a party of hard-left maniacs” line…
Uncle Monty has decided not to stand for George Galloways Workers Party
But after a series of disastrous media interviews, he has said he will no longer contest the seat and instead will “take some time to mature and find my political feet”.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
We can't avoid building on the green belt; it's part of the problem. Indeed, the whole planning system designed to tickle Nimbys fancies and price small developers out is a major part of the crisis. Anyone who rejects that isn't serious about the problem.
And no, it doesn't really matter which houses are built; what matters is how many are built. It's nothing more than supply and demand. If enough are built, 3-4 bed houses won't go for £400k, they'll go for £250k - and because there's more supply there, it'd ease demand for smaller houses, which would drop in line.
The state does not need to plan what should be built; it just needs to get out of the way and let it be built, other than in ensuring that the infrastructure goes in alongside to support the growth.
Your second paragraph is wrong - as someone who worked for a local council and housing association for 3 years, that isn't how it works any more. Housing developer profits are protected in legislation - so if they think the house price will fall they will make a bigger house or fewer of them. And councils cannot block them from doing so. We cannot build our way out of this problem when the problem is with housing being commodified rather than treated as a human need. Landlords or asset managers will just buy up the houses and rent them at high rents - knowing that other landlords have a vested interest in rents staying high. This is why we have a housing crisis and you're increasingly seeing people, like Andy Burnham (who has never been on the very left of the Labour party), accept the reality that council houses that stay in council hands are what are needed most.
While the thread is on the Greens, 2019 was the first GE where the Greens received more votes than UKIP/The Farage Publicity Party, since UKIP was founded in the 90s.
What odds would people suggest on the Greens receiving more votes in the next election than Reform UK?
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
"we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt".
Judging the Greens on their actions not words that should instead be "never on the Green belt", which stymies any serious attempt to tackle the housing crisis.
The effect of limiting the supply of land by avoiding Green belt development is to push up land prices dramatically, and that pushes up the subsidies you need to build genuine affordable housing too.
In addition, if you limit housing development to affordable housing only, you'll also end up with less affordable housing, because you lose funding earmarked for social housing. That is, you lose the opportunity to secure funds from developers to ensure that a share of new developments are in the form affordable social housing using s106 agreements.
Sea temperatures set record levels every single day in the last year.
It is highly depressing. Seriously starting to find it difficult to look at the children in my family and not feel heartbroken about what the future holds for them.
She's the MP who inherited the seat of Dover from her disgraced then husband who was convicted of sexual assault.
I had discounted the stories being put about of further defectors to Labour, because normally defections aren't publicised until they happen.
Makes you wonder how many other Tory MPs might be considering jumping ship.
Is she standing again?
Good question.
Labour already have a candidate in Dover, which has been a bellwether seat in recent times (Lab 2005, Con since 2010) - so do they run Elphicke there and watch her possibly fail to overturn her own 12,000 majority, or find her a much safer seat as a vote of thanks?
Monty Panesar has withdrawn his candidacy for WPB. George should have thought a bit harder on that one
Is he too woke like Corbyn?
My guess is that he's realised he doesn't fully understand what Galloway's lot stand for, and what the implications of all that are.
"Writing for The Telegraph, Mr Panesar had said his aspiration was “to one day become Prime Minister”. He listed a number of political causes he was passionate about, including investing in the NHS, introducing a wealth tax and curbing illegal migration. But in an interview with Times Radio the day after he was unveiled, Mr Panesar appeared to become confused about the role of Nato and suggested leaving the security alliance could help to curb illegal migration.
Mr Galloway’s party has pledged to leave Nato, a defensive military pact between 32 western countries in which the UK plays a leading role, and objected to its support for Ukraine following Russia’s illegal invasion in 2022. But Mr Panesar incorrectly suggested Nato’s work instead relates to immigration policy and said: “I think the reason they’re saying that, the reason our party is saying it is because we don’t really have control on our borders.”
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
I was told that a number of ex-Labour Corbynites had joined the Greens and were turning it into ultra left organization with a "green" wrapper.
The Corbynite entryists are being pushed aside by the Hamas entryists these days.
While the thread is on the Greens, 2019 was the first GE where the Greens received more votes than UKIP/The Farage Publicity Party, since UKIP was founded in the 90s.
What odds would people suggest on the Greens receiving more votes in the next election than Reform UK?
It would be an interesting market for a bookie to set up. Personally, I think RefUK will underperform their polling significantly, but will finish narrowly ahead of the Greens in overall vote (even treating the Scottish Greens as the same party as English/Welsh Greens).
There are times when gift horses really should have their gobs inspected (particulary when lots of crap has previously come out of them).
Very poorly judged stunt by Starmer, to do it at PMQs is really going for the 'big signing' vibe. She's no Labourite and his party knows it
For 99% of the country, they will just see the Tories jumping ship.
You might get some complaints from the Labour Left but that's just another opportunity for Starmer to show he's moved to the centre.
I don't think the public care though, how often do defections affect anything? It's not like people who have stuck this far with Tory are going to have an epiphany because of Natalie Elphicke. It will affect party mood at WM of course, in some varying ways
You're right it affects the mood, and that matters. But I think you're wrong about the impact on swing voters. A Conservative MP joining Labour is something that alleviates doubts that a formerly Tory voter may have about it being the right thing for them.
You also refer to, "people who have stuck this far with Tory". Those people aren't really the issue. The people who are the issue is those who voted Tory in 2019. Based on polls, Starmer doesn't need MORE switchers - he primarily needs the people who voted Tory in 2019 but are currently saying "Labour" to pollsters, maybe with low certainty but still, to be reinforced in that.
Yes but he also has a problem on the left and is a Stop the boats, Labour love the brexits defection going to be a bigger boon than the 'yeah, not my party anymore' reaction leftwards?
Yes because in a seat where Lab are competing with Con - which is most of them - a vote gained from Con is worth two lost to the rag tag and bobtails.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
We can't avoid building on the green belt; it's part of the problem. Indeed, the whole planning system designed to tickle Nimbys fancies and price small developers out is a major part of the crisis. Anyone who rejects that isn't serious about the problem.
And no, it doesn't really matter which houses are built; what matters is how many are built. It's nothing more than supply and demand. If enough are built, 3-4 bed houses won't go for £400k, they'll go for £250k - and because there's more supply there, it'd ease demand for smaller houses, which would drop in line.
The state does not need to plan what should be built; it just needs to get out of the way and let it be built, other than in ensuring that the infrastructure goes in alongside to support the growth.
Your second paragraph is wrong - as someone who worked for a local council and housing association for 3 years, that isn't how it works any more. Housing developer profits are protected in legislation - so if they think the house price will fall they will make a bigger house or fewer of them. And councils cannot block them from doing so. We cannot build our way out of this problem when the problem is with housing being commodified rather than treated as a human need. Landlords or asset managers will just buy up the houses and rent them at high rents - knowing that other landlords have a vested interest in rents staying high. This is why we have a housing crisis and you're increasingly seeing people, like Andy Burnham (who has never been on the very left of the Labour party), accept the reality that council houses that stay in council hands are what are needed most.
If supply exceeds demand, the prices will fall. And no, "Landlords or asset managers" can't do much about that, apart from trying to stockpile empty housing. And trying to corner a market like that doesn't work. See the Hunt brothers
The problem is the stack of interests to prevent more housing being built. Which includes many Greens.
Dan Shafer @DanRShafer Haley is getting more than 120,000 votes in Indiana's Republican presidential primary. It was one thing to see this in the immediate wake of ending her campaign, but it's been more than two months now. Seems like kind of a big deal!
Matt McDermott @mattmfm · 9h If Joe Biden were losing 1 in 4 voters in every primary, it would be the top headline across America. There is a massive protest vote against Trump, and it should be the top headline.
Sea temperatures set record levels every single day in the last year.
It is highly depressing. Seriously starting to find it difficult to look at the children in my family and not feel heartbroken about what the future holds for them.
What do you think it holds for them? Serious question. We have challenges around climate change, but we are also good at solving them. Crop yields continue to increase. Population growth (the biggest contributor to climate change is too many humans) is going into reverse across the developed world. We are learning how to do without fossil fuels. Someone asked what the government(s) of the UK had done since 2010 - well look at how much renewable power we have now.
Its not enough yet, but there is a path. 2.5 degrees is a challenge, but the challenge is more about how we deal with human society.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
"we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt".
Judging the Greens on their actions not words that should instead be "never on the Green belt", which stymies any serious attempt to tackle the housing crisis.
The effect of limiting the supply of land by avoiding Green belt development is to push up land prices dramatically, and that pushes up the subsidies you need to build genuine affordable housing too.
In addition, if you limit housing development to affordable housing only, you'll also end up with less affordable housing, because you lose funding earmarked for social housing. That is, you lose the opportunity to secure funds from developers to ensure that a share of new developments are in the form affordable social housing using s106 agreements.
That's why I wouldn't depend on private developers and s106 agreements and just have councils build more council homes. And there are some areas where the Greens have accepted we have to build on the green belt; like where I live. St Albans is 80% designated green belt - we have to build on some of it and the greens here have, reluctantly, accepted that. We just ask that the council prioritise the green belt land with the least ecological value.
Comments
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.
As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqjfUgn7f6U
I wonder why she didn't do that actually? This option has put her right in the crosshairs. It seems foolish. It's also brave (in a sense) when you look at it this way. And more respectful of the Assembly since she's making way for somebody who can devote themselves to it.
But foolish or not, brave or not, respectful or not, she definitely should not have stood knowing she was going to immediately resign.
I don't see the problem here, then - people were voting for the Green list, after all.
@DeltapollUK
🚨New Voting Intention🚨
Labour lead narrows to seventeen points in our latest results.
Con 26% (+2)
Lab 43% (-1)
Lib Dem 10% (+2)
Reform 10% (-2)
SNP 3% (-)
Green 5% (-)
Other 2% (-1)
Fieldwork: 3rd-7th May 2024
Sample: 1,993 GB adults
(Changes from 26th-29th April 2024)
I am a little more optimistic that technology will succeed in reducing the extent of global warming where politics has largely failed.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
https://x.com/antoguerrera/status/1788162412043993115
Today I announce that I have decided to join the Labour Party and that I will sit in Parliament as a Labour MP.
When I was elected in 2019, the Conservative Party occupied the centre ground of British politics. The party was about building the future and making the most of the opportunities that lay ahead for our country.
Since then, many things have changed. The elected Prime Minister was ousted in a coup led by the unelected Rishi Sunak. Under Rishi Sunak, the Conservatives have become a byword for incompetence and division. The centre ground has been abandoned and key pledges of the 2019 manifesto have been ditched.
Meanwhile the Labour Party has changed out of all recognition. Since 2019, it has moved on from Jeremy Corbyn and now, under Keir Starmer, occupies the centre ground of British politics. It has accepted Brexit and its economic policies and defence policies are responsible and can be trusted.
Most significantly for me, the modern Labour Party looks to the future – to building a Britain of hope, optimism, opportunity and fairness. A Britain everyone can be part of.
I have carefully considered this decision. The change has been dramatic and cannot be ignored. For me key deciding factors have been housing and the safety and security of our borders.
From small boats to biosecurity, Rishi Sunak’s government is failing to keep our borders safe and secure. Lives are being lost in the English Channel while small boat arrivals are once again at record levels. It’s clear they have failed to keep our borders secure and cannot be trusted.
On housing, Rishi Sunak’s Government is now failing to build the homes we need. Last year saw the largest fall of new housing starts in England in a single year since the credit crunch. The manifesto committed to 300,000 homes next year – but only around half that number are now set to be built. Renters and leaseholders have been betrayed as manifesto pledges to end no fault evictions and abolish ground rents have not been delivered as promised.
The last couple of years have also seen a huge rise in homelessness, in temporary accommodation and rough sleeping - with record numbers of children now in temporary accommodation, without a secure roof over their head.
Meanwhile Labour plan to build the homes we need, help young people onto the housing ladder and care about the vulnerable and homeless. That’s why I’m honoured to have been asked to work with Keir and the team to help deliver the homes we need.
We need to move on from the broken promises of Rishi Sunak’s tired and chaotic Government. Britain needs a Government that will build a future of hope, optimism, opportunity and fairness. A Britain everyone can be part of, that will make the most of the opportunities that lie ahead. That’s why it’s time for change. Time for a Labour Government led by Keir Starmer. The General Election cannot come soon enough.
Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.
Popcorn time again.
I had discounted the stories being put about of further defectors to Labour, because normally defections aren't publicised until they happen.
Makes you wonder how many other Tory MPs might be considering jumping ship.
ETA a couple of hours earlier and we could have had a double-header on south coast contempt for voters.
Remember when she had to grovel to Marcus Rashford on Twitter. Proper LOL.
That way, if she loses in Brighton then she can return to London for the remaining 85%+ of her term, and if she wins then she could stand down in a manner that fair-minded people would be much more likely to accept.
Meanwhile governments of both red and blue over the past 30 years have been, in my view, astonishingly successful at decarbonising Britain. Other mainstream governments elsewhere have also been successful. Actually doing practical stuff which works while not crashing the country into the rocks is hard to do – much harder than campaigning.
I think the mainstream which has gradually brought this about has a much greater claim to being on the side of good.
I do find it interesting that in her speech she does point to 2019 the Tories being more centrist when it comes to spending and infrastructure. This may be my personal hobby horse, but I do think the Johnsonite position of "levelling up" and promising (if not delivering) on investing in public services and infrastructure played a bigger role in his win then people give credit for. Brexit is, for intent and purposes, "sorted" - and the Tories can't crow about it because it hasn't provided any real positives. What Johnson's aims could have crowed about was ending austerity and reinvesting in communities needed (again, I don't believe he would have done it, but he would still have crowed). By putting the Treasuries own man in charge (after a brief stint of libertarian nightmare) we saw that rowed back. And the Tories have nothing to point to that will win them back voters.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
She's no Labourite and his party knows it
She at least understands the existing system, even if coming at it from the other side.
Or it's a sign that they intend to bin it.
You might get some complaints from the Labour Left but that's just another opportunity for Starmer to show he's moved to the centre.
Lol
Had I been Starmer or the Lab Chief Whip, I think there'd have been mileage in refusing her - though obviously you wouldn't want to publicise that for risk of putting off MPs you would accept. Still, expect grumbling from the Lab left on who doesn't have the Labour whip and who now does.
Anyways, a quick swatch of her Wiki.
'In July 2020, she sold the story of her divorce to The Sun tabloid newspaper for £25,000'
Edit: hah, just beaten to it!
And no, it doesn't really matter which houses are built; what matters is how many are built. It's nothing more than supply and demand. If enough are built, 3-4 bed houses won't go for £400k, they'll go for £250k - and because there's more supply there, it'd ease demand for smaller houses, which would drop in line.
The state does not need to plan what should be built; it just needs to get out of the way and let it be built, other than in ensuring that the infrastructure goes in alongside to support the growth.
It's been handled badly, even several Greens I know are annoyed, but is it more than clumsiness? I'm not convinced it is any more than that, Sian had already clearly signalled her intentions wrt Brighton. I'm not sure how far out the Assembly list had to be put together (internally, not for nominations), but given the way the party operates, it's quite possible that there are some rules that sitting AMs have to be at the top of the list in sneiority order, and that everyone just assumed that if Sian got the Brighton nomination, she'd just step down for the next Green - because that's how the list system works.
Carrying on from that, I';m not sure how this will cut through - as far as voters in London are concerned they voted for three Green assembly members and that's what they got. So, one was called Sian, and now they have Zoe instead. Big deal. AIUI, Sian didn't take any significant part in the campaign, whereas Zoe did, so it's not a case of riding coattails for more votes - Zoe earned it more than Sian did!
It might have some small impact in Brighton, not least if the Argus - which has always had a pro-Labour, anti-Green agenda, not leeast because their politics editor (not sure if he's still in place) was the father of a Labour councillor - pushes it, but I think that Gaza is likely to be more of an impactful issue for many leftie voters, plus the current Labour administration are not covering themselves in glory by closing primary schools,rolling back some popular Green initiatives, and reneging on promises to undo some unpopoular Green actions (because Labour actually like them, and because they're hard to undo).
Also, speaking to lefty friends in Brighton, of which I have a lot, there's really strong feeling even among the more Labour-leaning ones that they like supporting a Green voice in parliament, Not just Caroline, but any Green voice. So I think there are Labour voters (not members, just voters) who will back a Green locally because they see it as important.
"Writing for The Telegraph, Mr Panesar had said his aspiration was “to one day become Prime Minister”. He listed a number of political causes he was passionate about, including investing in the NHS, introducing a wealth tax and curbing illegal migration. But in an interview with Times Radio the day after he was unveiled, Mr Panesar appeared
to become confused about the role of Nato and suggested leaving the security alliance could help to curb illegal migration.
Mr Galloway’s party has pledged to leave Nato, a defensive military pact between 32 western countries in which the UK plays a leading role, and objected to its support for Ukraine following Russia’s illegal invasion in 2022.
But Mr Panesar incorrectly suggested Nato’s work instead relates to immigration policy and said: “I think the reason they’re saying that, the reason our party is saying it is because we don’t really have control on our borders.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/08/monty-panesar-withdraws-candidate-george-galloway-election/
Natalie Elphicke MP to Labour?
Have I got her wrong * - I thought she was of the Mad Nad / Esther McVey stripe? I thought she has been very "STOP THE BOATS !!!".
*It's quite possible; Dover is even more in the back of beyond than places like Guildford and London.
You also refer to, "people who have stuck this far with Tory". Those people aren't really the issue. The people who are the issue is those who voted Tory in 2019. Based on polls, Starmer doesn't need MORE switchers - he primarily needs the people who voted Tory in 2019 but are currently saying "Labour" to pollsters, maybe with low certainty but still, to be reinforced in that.
I wonder if there is enough data to do it by constituency? I'll have a dig around later.
(Edit: my other observation is it would be great to be able to filter out London in this kind of thing. The capital distorts everything and means you can't see other trends.)
Oh this is going to be immense fun on both sides
https://twitter.com/Aku_700/status/1788168971390431618
Ankush sharma
@Aku_700
There are some Conservative MPs who I think could feel somewhat at home within the Labour Party.
And then there's Natalie Elphicke.
But will she even try to contest as a Labour candidate or just stand down?
The dilution is much greater for this turncoat, but she really is going to add nothing to Labour.
Pioneering Natasha Trial transforms lives of children with food allergies
https://www.uhs.nhs.uk/whats-new/news/pioneering-natasha-trial-transforms-lives-of-children-with-food-allergies
Parents of children with severe milk and peanut allergies have told how their lives have been changed by a pioneering clinical trial at University Hospital Southampton.
The Natasha Trial uses daily doses of everyday food products, taken under medical supervision. This can train the bodies of children and young people to tolerate an allergen.
The approach is known as oral immunotherapy (OIT). It is hoped this will allow children with food allergies to live without the fear of a potentially fatal reaction.
The three-year trial is funded by The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation. It is led by researchers at the University of Southampton, UHS and Imperial College London.
Natasha Ednan-Laperouse died aged 15 from a severe food allergic reaction.
The £2.5 million Natasha Trial is the first major study to be funded by Natasha’s Foundation, set up by her parents Nadim and Tanya.
So far, a total of 139 children, aged 2 to 23 years, have started treatment on the trial.
It is being run at five hospitals, including UHS. Four other sites are expected to join later.
Hasan Arshad is a Professor of Allergy and Clinical Immunology at the University of Southampton and Head of the Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology Service at UHS. He is Chief Investigator of the trial.
He said: “We must wait until the trial is complete for the full picture, but we are very pleased with the results we are seeing so far.”
Thomas Farmer from Ashurst, New Forest, was diagnosed with a severe peanut allergy when he was aged one.
When he joined the Natasha Trial in March 2023, he could not tolerate even half a peanut.
By January 2024, he was eating 6 peanuts a day – a dose he will keep in his diet...
And it does matter what type of housing is built - you can house more people more cheaply, and provide more efficient public services, with medium or high density.
That excellent ONS link posted by Carlotta proves that housing pressure is centred in a few economically productive parts of E&W. Elsewhere costs are not rising particularly fast. The housing crisis is a symptom of a lack of levelling up and the huge increase in landlordism under the Tories. A 28% increase in the number of people renting from 2011-2021.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
15m
Natalie Elphicke is one of the most right-wing MPs on the Tory benches. Good luck selling the Braverman “Labour are a party of hard-left maniacs” line…
Exclusive: Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results for humanity, poll of hundreds of scientists finds
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature
Sea temperatures set record levels every single day in the last year.
But after a series of disastrous media interviews, he has said he will no longer contest the seat and instead will “take some time to mature and find my political feet”.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/monty-panesar-quits-as-george-galloway-s-workers-party-candidate-after-just-one-week/ar-BB1m1IFB?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=2e8359a6dae54a0488e5c2431130a1ea&ei=14
What odds would people suggest on the Greens receiving more votes in the next election than Reform UK?
Judging the Greens on their actions not words that should instead be "never on the Green belt", which stymies any serious attempt to tackle the housing crisis.
The effect of limiting the supply of land by avoiding Green belt development is to push up land prices dramatically, and that pushes up the subsidies you need to build genuine affordable housing too.
In addition, if you limit housing development to affordable housing only, you'll also end up with less affordable housing, because you lose funding earmarked for social housing. That is, you lose the opportunity to secure funds from developers to ensure that a share of new developments are in the form affordable social housing using s106 agreements.
Labour already have a candidate in Dover, which has been a bellwether seat in recent times (Lab 2005, Con since 2010) - so do they run Elphicke there and watch her possibly fail to overturn her own 12,000 majority, or find her a much safer seat as a vote of thanks?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
..Labour will retain their existing candidate in Dover and Deal at the general election and Natalie Elphicke will stand down, we’re told...
Seat in the Lords ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzTDgjHmmu8
The problem is the stack of interests to prevent more housing being built. Which includes many Greens.
Dan Shafer
@DanRShafer
Haley is getting more than 120,000 votes in Indiana's Republican presidential primary. It was one thing to see this in the immediate wake of ending her campaign, but it's been more than two months now. Seems like kind of a big deal!
Matt McDermott
@mattmfm
·
9h
If Joe Biden were losing 1 in 4 voters in every primary, it would be the top headline across America. There is a massive protest vote against Trump, and it should be the top headline.
https://twitter.com/DanRShafer/status/1788038963149627562
We have a couple of new contenders for cynical politician to consider: Elphick and Starmer.
Its not enough yet, but there is a path. 2.5 degrees is a challenge, but the challenge is more about how we deal with human society.