Lib Dems! Winning here? – politicalbetting.com

System · June 13

Lib Dems! Winning here? – politicalbetting.com

Rishi Sunak's 'unfavourable' rating is now at its highest level everFavourable: 21% (-3 from 4-5 Jun)Unfavourable: 72% (+2)https://t.co/ziVA6BwJE6 pic.twitter.com/lkQb7ADWRf

Read the full story here

dixiedean · June 13

First.
Won here!!

Cookie · June 13

I'd say 42-49 looks at the low end of about right to me.

BatteryCorrectHorse · June 13

SKS is seeing something of a Corbyn 2017 effect.

And Rishi Sunak is seeing something of a May 2017 effect but just a lot worse. Is he the most popular PM on record yet?

BartholomewRoberts · June 13

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?

All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?

Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.

The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.

I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.

Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.

Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.

I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.

It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.

All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.

It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.

If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.

That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.

Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.

Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.

And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.

You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.

Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.

The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.

The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.

Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.

What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.

Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".

Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.

Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.

Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.

No, of course that pathetically small amount is not good enough.

An increase of 100x may be needed in some places. Villages turning into new towns with hundreds of thousands of extra homes.

We are millions of homes short of what we need. So your xenophobia at not recognising changes can piss right off.
A factor of 3 or 4 means: 3 or 4 times the *existing* number of houses.

Now look at your post and see how stupid it is.

So if it was 100 and goes to 300 you think that's "enough"?

Don't be stupid. We need millions. Going from 100 to 100,000 in many places would be a good start.
My place *was* a town to begin with! So it's made a very substantial contribution. Other places can do their share.
More xenophobia.

I'd be curious to see some data, but I'm calling bullshit. Just more xenophobic excuse making.
The level of your argument is shown by the idea that *not complaining* about the expansion of the town is xenophobic. And that complainiong about children's playgrounds being built on is xenoiphobic. And I'm not letting on where I live in case you buy up the land around it.
You are complaining about the fictitious expansion and saying "Other places can do their share" - exact quote.

As for where you're talking about its easy to figure out. You claim you had a 3x increase of population. Midlothian had the highest recorded population change between the last two censuses of a 1.16x increase.

So the answer is . . . nowhere. There is no local authority in Scotland that has tripled in size. Its in your head.

Meanwhile the people who need houses are actually real, unlike your fictional locale.
You're picking variables to try and accuse me of lying.

I wasn't talking aboiut a county but about a town. And not just over ten years either, but my lifetime. If it gets any bigger then we will end up with the sort of problems you will have when only houses are built without facilities near by. That's already a point of contention.

If this is the way you treat people who are already fairly sympathetic then I'm going to go and vote bloody LD as a result.

So sympathetic you back any excuse to prevent construction?

There is a chronic housing shortage today, not years from now, but right now. Here and now, people living in this country - both migrants, people born here, old people and young people, who need a home and there are not enough of them.

Waiting for Godot to sort out every problem prior to building houses is not a solution when the people who need the houses are already in this country today.

You need to build the houses and build the facilities. Right here, right now.

If its expanded over a lifetime, then there's been a lifetime to build new facilities too - but either way its not enough to reverse the chronic housing shortage that already exists. So sorry "build elsewhere" is not a solution, that's what every NIMBY wants, we need millions of homes and that means building everywhere. Immediately, without delays.

maxh · June 13

It'd take a very brave person to spread bet on Reform, wouldn't it?

I mean, I think they're a sell but the potential reward is tiny compared to the risk that Con really implodes and they become a viable right wing stop Labour option.

Is anyone on Reform on the spreads? I would like to raise a figurative hat to your chutzpah if so.

Heathener · June 13

"One of the best polling analysts on Twitter is the Beyond_Topline account and one theory they think is that the falling Labour share and Lib Dem increase is due to tactical voting coming to the fore which is not a problem for Labour and very bad for the Tories.”

It’s all too easy for me to latch onto this but I do think there’s something in it.

I’m a case in point. Although I really want to vote Labour in Newton Abbot, I know that my best chance of defeating the sitting MP Anne Morris is to vote LibDem, so that’s what I’m doing.

My No 1. priority is to give the tories as a big a kicking as I possibly can. The rest is secondary.

DecrepiterJohnL · June 13

The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/

Sean_F · June 13

Other than one Yougov poll, I’m not seeing a rise in the Lib Dem’s.

Starmer’s rating is rising because people see him as a winner. OTOH, people see Sunak as a loser.

BatteryCorrectHorse · June 13

Also, I do think the polling is not really showing any trouble for Labour. The 47 and 50 scores always seemed too high. Around 40-43% is where we will end up and the polls are going that direction.

TheScreamingEagles · June 13

Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520

kle4 · June 13

Labour Manifesto Part 3
Break down the barriers to opportunity

‘Review’ universal credit
‘take initial steps’ to confront poverty, protect renters from arbitrary eviction, slash fuel poverty, ban ‘exploitative’ zero hours contracts (note – is this that they are exploitative by nature, or only some are?)
Enact proposals on leasehold enfranchisement, right to manage, and commonhold.
3000 more nurseries through space in primary schools.
End VAT exemption for private schools.
6500 teachers. Will tackle retention issues (note – how?)
Excellence in leadership programme to mentor headteachers to improve schools.
Limit number of branded items of uniform and PE kit that schools can require.
Mental health professionals in every school (note – so far I think everyone has promises this, or nearly this).
Technical Excellent Colleges to provide better job opportunities.
Reform apprenticeships levy.
Public museums to increase collection loans to communities.
National music education network.
Independent Football Regulator.
Disability and ethnicity pay gap reporting.
Conversion therapy ban.
‘simplify’ gender recognition law which is intrusive, but retain need for diagnosis (note – unclear what they are doing then?)

Build an NHS fit for the future

Another ‘former conservative voter’ photo
Labour founded the NHS, it is not broken, and not due to Covid. ‘Winter crisis’ now normal (note – it is finally true, though I’m sure this was the media reporting when I was growing up too). Labour will save the NHS.
Lot of stuff about changing how the NHS works, but not all of it can have been due to Tories, so admission things were not all well?
18 weeks from referral to treatment of non urgent matters.
40k more appointments every week
‘reset’ relations with staff by moving away from Tory approach (note – no detail. In what way will you move away?)
New Hospitals Programme.
Fit for the future fund to double CT and MI scanners.
Too many not treated with respect in medicine (note – is that the Tories’ fault too?)
Thousands more midwives.
Royal college of clinical leadership.
Implement Cass review.
Thousands more GPs
Community pharmacists to have more prescribing rights.
700k more urgent detail appointments. Reform dental contract, focus on prevention (note – such an innovation!)
Social care needs reform – national care service. Fair pay agreement in adult social care. Will consult widely on it before implementing. Guarantee rights of those in residential care to see their families.
8500 new staff to treat mental health. Mental Health Act discriminates against black people.
Next generation not able to buy cigarettes.
‘work with industry on how to ensure responsible gambling’ (note – nothing of substance mentioned)

kle4 · June 13

Sean_F said:
Other than one Yougov poll, I’m not seeing a rise in the Lib Dem’s.

Starmer’s rating is rising because people see him as a winner. OTOH, people see Sunak as a loser.

It's as simple as that. And LDs are pootling along in their usual way, with Davey doing his best to get attention.

Leon · June 13

DON’T say I didn’t warn you

“Aliens May Already Live on Earth, Harvard Researchers Say”

https://www.newsweek.com/alien-life-extraterrestrial-living-earth-harvard-1912264

DecrepiterJohnL · June 13

maxh said:
It'd take a very brave person to spread bet on Reform, wouldn't it?

I mean, I think they're a sell but the potential reward is tiny compared to the risk that Con really implodes and they become a viable right wing stop Labour option.

Is anyone on Reform on the spreads? I would like to raise a figurative hat to your chutzpah if so.

Any bet on RefUK wins or loses on vote efficiency. They need to find out from the LibDems how to get lots of MPs from the same share of the vote. (Tories too, the way the polls are going!) As things are, their likely result is one if they are lucky.

SandyRentool · June 13

Sean_F said:
Other than one Yougov poll, I’m not seeing a rise in the Lib Dem’s.

Starmer’s rating is rising because people see him as a winner. OTOH, people see Sunak as a loser.

Since Farage became ReFuk leader the LDs are averaging 10% across all polls; was 9% up to that point.

Peter_the_Punter · June 13

maxh said:
It'd take a very brave person to spread bet on Reform, wouldn't it?

I mean, I think they're a sell but the potential reward is tiny compared to the risk that Con really implodes and they become a viable right wing stop Labour option.

Is anyone on Reform on the spreads? I would like to raise a figurative hat to your chutzpah if so.

Absolutely right.

I had a good look at it a week or so ago, and the risk/reward ratio is frightening.

I'm a buyer of LDs now. That's fairly low risk.

kle4 · June 13

Labour Manifesto Part 4
Serving the country

Partying in Downing Street mentioned.
SNP as bad as Tories (note – implied)
Labour transformed from party of protest (note – we’re not Corbyn anymore!)
Ethics and Integrity Commission, restrict lobbying for ex ministers.
Modernisation Committee to reform procedures and improve working practices (note – I’m 100% sure committees like this exist or have existed before)
Ban on taking up paid advisory roles for MPs.
‘Immediate modernisation’ of Lords – end hereditary peers and mandate retirement age, 80 years. Participation requirement, make removal easier. Committed to new second chamber more representative of regions and nations (note – small scale, but worthwhile start without wasting time on wholesale change right way – much vaguer on second chamber than previous manifestos)
16 year old votes.
Address inconsistencies in voter ID rules (note – not abolishing? Interesting)
Council of Nations and Regions (note - includes mayors of combined authorities, which seems a bit grand for them)
Wales and Scotland – basically they will work with both etc
NI – repeal legacy act, implement Windsor framework in full.

Britain reconnected

Unshakeable commitment to NATO
Confident outside EU, but leading nation in continent again. Make Brexit work. (note – such a 2019 slogan)
No return to single market, customs union or freedom of movement.
UK-EU security pact
Military strategic headquarters and national armaments director for stronger defence centre.
Committed to AUKUS, Ukraine, protecting Falklands.
1st mission to regrow economy. Trade strategy published, seek sector specific deals.
Immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Statehood inalienable right not in gift of neighbour (well, technically it is for everyone – if you are not recognised you are not a state)
0.7% for international aid ‘ as soon as fiscal circumstances allow’ (note – the same as the Tory pledge I believe).

Labour’s fiscal plan

Fiscal rules are non-negotiable and will apply to every decision.
Budget must move into balance.
Table of finances included - could be nonsense, I have no way of knowing
Also Green prosperity plan funded in part by windfall tax, an changes in departmental spending. Includes halving consultancy spend (note – I doubt that is easy or it’d already be done).

Change

In case you’d forgotten the theme, a final section to say stop the chaos, turn the page, start to rebuild, and that this manifesto is the plan.

Leon · June 13

TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520

What a weird election, another notable slip in the Labour VI, yet they remain miles ahead

Reform need some major new breakthrough

Heathener · June 13

TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520

Ooof that’s close to Con-Ref crossover!

numbertwelve · June 13

TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520

The move from Lab to LD indicated by another poll.

Crossover sooooo close again.

Farooq · June 13

kle4 said:
Labour Manifesto Part 3
Break down the barriers to opportunity
‘Review’ universal credit
‘take initial steps’ to confront poverty, protect renters from arbitrary eviction, slash fuel poverty, ban ‘exploitative’ zero hours contracts (note – is this that they are exploitative by nature, or only some are?)
Enact proposals on leasehold enfranchisement, right to manage, and commonhold.
3000 more nurseries through space in primary schools.
End VAT exemption for private schools.
6500 teachers. Will tackle retention issues (note – how?)
Excellence in leadership programme to mentor headteachers to improve schools.
Limit number of branded items of uniform and PE kit that schools can require.
Mental health professionals in every school (note – so far I think everyone has promises this, or nearly this).
Technical Excellent Colleges to provide better job opportunities.
Reform apprenticeships levy.
Public museums to increase collection loans to communities.
National music education network.
Independent Football Regulator.
Disability and ethnicity pay gap reporting.
Conversion therapy ban.
‘simplify’ gender recognition law which is intrusive, but retain need for diagnosis (note – unclear what they are doing then?)

Build an NHS fit for the future
Another ‘former conservative voter’ photo
Labour founded the NHS, it is not broken, and not due to Covid. ‘Winter crisis’ now normal (note – it is finally true, though I’m sure this was the media reporting when I was growing up too). Labour will save the NHS.
Lot of stuff about changing how the NHS works, but not all of it can have been due to Tories, so admission things were not all well?
18 weeks from referral to treatment of non urgent matters.
40k more appointments every week
‘reset’ relations with staff by moving away from Tory approach (note – no detail. In what way will you move away?)
New Hospitals Programme.
Fit for the future fund to double CT and MI scanners.
Too many not treated with respect in medicine (note – is that the Tories’ fault too?)
Thousands more midwives.
Royal college of clinical leadership.
Implement Cass review.
Thousands more GPs
Community pharmacists to have more prescribing rights.
700k more urgent detail appointments. Reform dental contract, focus on prevention (note – such an innovation!)
Social care needs reform – national care service. Fair pay agreement in adult social care. Will consult widely on it before implementing. Guarantee rights of those in residential care to see their families.
8500 new staff to treat mental health. Mental Health Act discriminates against black people.
Next generation not able to buy cigarettes.
‘work with industry on how to ensure responsible gambling’ (note – nothing of substance mentioned)

6500 teachers. Will tackle retention issues (note – how?)

Oh come on, that's easy and obvious. If one of them wants to quit you just say "uh EXCUSE ME that bell is for me not for you. Sit back down. I said bit back down and Darren I don't want to see you rolling your eyes."

Muesli · June 13

Is it not a bit odd that YouGov sought favourability ratings for Carla Denyer and Richard Tice (who isn't even Reform UK leader now) and not Sir Ed Davey? And Vaughan Gething but nobody else from either Wales or Scotland? Do they have a fixed list of names from the main two parties and then draw a few wildcards out of a hat?

maxh · June 13

DecrepiterJohnL said:

maxh said:
It'd take a very brave person to spread bet on Reform, wouldn't it?

I mean, I think they're a sell but the potential reward is tiny compared to the risk that Con really implodes and they become a viable right wing stop Labour option.

Is anyone on Reform on the spreads? I would like to raise a figurative hat to your chutzpah if so.
Any bet on RefUK wins or loses on vote efficiency. They need to find out from the LibDems how to get lots of MPs from the same share of the vote. (Tories too, the way the polls are going!) As things are, their likely result is one if they are lucky.

Agreed, that's why I'd sell them.

But presumably there is a percentage above which they suddenly take a whole bunch of previously safe Con seats. Very very unlikely they reach that level, I admit, but the risk/reward in the
spreads just seems... off-putting.

kle4 · June 13

TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520

Every day that passes extinction becomes more probable for the Tories. Another week of this and sub 100 will be the standard expectation.

numbertwelve · June 13

Do Reform actually have a manifesto/launch etc? Last big chance to try and cannibalise the Tory vote?

Peter_the_Punter · June 13

TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520

Now be honest, TSE, did you know that before you wrote the thread piece?

Tell the truth and shame the devil.

kle4 · June 13

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520
What a weird election, another notable slip in the Labour VI, yet they remain miles ahead

Reform need some major new breakthrough

Nah, destroying the Tories will be enough for them - any surviving Tory MPs will go full scale Farage even if there are only a few Reform MPs.

Heck, they might make him deputy leader in exchange for a formal merger.

Carnyx · June 13

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?

All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?

Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.

The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.

I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.

Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.

Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.

I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.

It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.

All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.

It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.

If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.

That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.

Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.

Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.

And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.

You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.

Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.

The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.

The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.

Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.

What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.

Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".

Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.

Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.

Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.

No, of course that pathetically small amount is not good enough.

An increase of 100x may be needed in some places. Villages turning into new towns with hundreds of thousands of extra homes.

We are millions of homes short of what we need. So your xenophobia at not recognising changes can piss right off.
A factor of 3 or 4 means: 3 or 4 times the *existing* number of houses.

Now look at your post and see how stupid it is.

So if it was 100 and goes to 300 you think that's "enough"?

Don't be stupid. We need millions. Going from 100 to 100,000 in many places would be a good start.
My place *was* a town to begin with! So it's made a very substantial contribution. Other places can do their share.
More xenophobia.

I'd be curious to see some data, but I'm calling bullshit. Just more xenophobic excuse making.
The level of your argument is shown by the idea that *not complaining* about the expansion of the town is xenophobic. And that complainiong about children's playgrounds being built on is xenoiphobic. And I'm not letting on where I live in case you buy up the land around it.
You are complaining about the fictitious expansion and saying "Other places can do their share" - exact quote.

As for where you're talking about its easy to figure out. You claim you had a 3x increase of population. Midlothian had the highest recorded population change between the last two censuses of a 1.16x increase.

So the answer is . . . nowhere. There is no local authority in Scotland that has tripled in size. Its in your head.

Meanwhile the people who need houses are actually real, unlike your fictional locale.
You're picking variables to try and accuse me of lying.

I wasn't talking aboiut a county but about a town. And not just over ten years either, but my lifetime. If it gets any bigger then we will end up with the sort of problems you will have when only houses are built without facilities near by. That's already a point of contention.

If this is the way you treat people who are already fairly sympathetic then I'm going to go and vote bloody LD as a result.
So sympathetic you back any excuse to prevent construction?

There is a chronic housing shortage today, not years from now, but right now. Here and now, people living in this country - both migrants, people born here, old people and young people, who need a home and there are not enough of them.

Waiting for Godot to sort out every problem prior to building houses is not a solution when the people who need the houses are already in this country today.

You need to build the houses and build the facilities. Right here, right now.

If its expanded over a lifetime, then there's been a lifetime to build new facilities too - but either way its not enough to reverse the chronic housing shortage that already exists. So sorry "build elsewhere" is not a solution, that's what every NIMBY wants, we need millions of homes and that means building everywhere. Immediately, without delays.

I'm not the one who has been objecting. Can't you get that into your head? But my place is now so bigt it needs a new bloody town centre or two. And you need planning for that.

And you have the discourtesy to treat me like the shit you want to see overflowing from your new estates becvause you don't believe in planning.

No wonder we get Nimbies when we have libertarians like you.

WhisperingOracle · June 13

Re; the Ultraterrestrial paper, it's quite interesting.

The "as yet to be peer reviewed" is nevertheless a hint of amusement, a bit like Wikipedia's "Citation Needed." At the same time, we could be in for some surprises in the next few decades on this topic, though. I don't think most people have adjusted to , or are aware of the greater expert interest in the topic, at the moment.

Heathener · June 13

Thanks so much for the Apple Watch advice folks (other thread). Very much appreciated xx

El_Capitano · June 13

Beyond_Topline is very good - I've been following him for a while. Would be fascinated to learn who he is.

kle4 · June 13

Labour Manifesto Conclusion
Dense text, could have used some bullet pointing of key pledges more often. Hard to get into what is proposed sometimes. Lots of ‘will reform’ with no more detail, and lots of unnecessary fluff.

I don’t fully believe some of the stuff around housing in it, but it is more realistic and positive about it than any manifesto so far, which is good. Very little on climate, which surprised me. Punchy on foreign policy and policing.

Most of it was far too long, with a lot of caveated phrasing.

Call it a C-. Functional, but I didn’t feel like I learned much from it.

On a minor point, honestly the SDP’s rather loony manifesto was the best in relation to clear headings. Everyone else has weird, tortured chapter headings instead of just ‘Energy’ ‘Local Government’ ‘Industry’ etc.

williamglenn · June 13

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
SKS is seeing something of a Corbyn 2017 effect.

And Rishi Sunak is seeing something of a May 2017 effect but just a lot worse. Is he the most popular PM on record yet?

I don't think either of them really compare with 2017. When that election was called, May initially got a bounce and had a net positive rating of +10, and Corbyn's rating hit a record low of -42 before climbing to -14 just before the election.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/18407-theresa-may-now-almost-unpopular-pre-campaign-corb

TheScreamingEagles · June 13

Peter_the_Punter said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520
Now be honest, TSE, did you know that before you wrote the thread piece?

Tell the truth and shame the devil.

No.

I published this thread at 5.30pm and that poll came out at 5.32pm.

pigeon · June 13

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520
What a weird election, another notable slip in the Labour VI, yet they remain miles ahead

Reform need some major new breakthrough

Yes, but I doubt they'll get it. A low ceiling of support plus insufficient concentrations of strength ought to stop them from troubling the seat modellers too much, fortunately.

Carnyx · June 13

Muesli said:
Is it not a bit odd that YouGov sought favourability ratings for Carla Denyer and Richard Tice (who isn't even Reform UK leader now) and not Sir Ed Davey? And Vaughan Gething but nobody else from either Wales or Scotland? Do they have a fixed list of names from the main two parties and then draw a few wildcards out of a hat?

Possibly statistical significance issues, tbf. But you'd expect SED to feature all the same.

EPG · June 13

Shortly there will be an election, in which the Lib Dems will become the opposition.

BatteryCorrectHorse · June 13

A clear trend now of Labour/Lib Dem votes moving around. We will see Labour go up again and then down again IMHO.

kle4 · June 13

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:
Labour Manifesto Part 3
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Create 650k jobs though Green industries.
Double onshore wind, triple solar panel, quadruple offshore win.
Will get Hinkley point c ‘over the line’ new nuclear stations will play a role.
Phased and ‘responsible’ transition in north sea. Not revoke existing licences. Oil and gas for decades to come.
Will close loopholes in the windfall tax – energy profits levy extended to end of next parliament.
Great British Energy Company – partner with industry and unions to deliver clean power – 8.3bn over 5 years.
Scotland to be powerhouse of clean energy mission
Tougher energy regulation
National wealth fund invest in ports, hydrogen, industrial clusters.
British hobs bonus to incentivize firms offering good conditions in marginals (note – actually they say industrial heartlands and coastal areas)
End injustice of mineworkers pension scheme (note – highly specific – what is the injustice?)
66.bn for energy efficiency.
A lot of vague stuff on accelerating net zero.
9 new national reiver walks, 3 new national forests
Water companies in special measures (note – not nationalise though)
Ban trail hunting and puppy smuggling.
Take back our streets
Violence is high, few criminals caught. Community policing has been downgraded, trust in police down, justice grinding to a halt.
‘Thousands’ of extra officers.
Hold ‘companies and executives cashing in on knife crime’ to account (note – I have no idea who is cashing in on this?)
New recruits paid for through efficiency (note – of course!)
Specific offence for assault on shopkeepers (note – why is a new law needed for this? – seems like a gimmick)
Ban ninja swords, zombie style blades.
Early intervention through pupil referral units and youth worker sin A & E.
Fast track rape cases, specialist courts at every crown court
New powers to intervene with failing forces.
Cut trial delays by allowing associate prosecutors to work on cases.
Tories failed to get prisons built – labour will use powers to build them
Hillsborough law
Lot of vague stuff on reducing reoffending and improving collaboration etc
Any more of this and I will publish a manifesto.

Ninja swords are already banned as are a range of knives that almost never get used for hurting people. Most stabbings are undertaken with moderate sized kitchen knives. The ones where the blade is a bit bigger than the handle.

Wow, the Labour government is so effective it is already succeeding before it even takes office!

Fishing · June 13

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/

Would be better to tax winnings, with the proceeds to reduce NI or corporation tax. It is ridiculous that income from working hard is taxed very heavily while games of chance aren't. In the US, where I am at the moment, gambling winnings are taxed as normal income.

kinabalu · June 13

maxh said:
It'd take a very brave person to spread bet on Reform, wouldn't it?

I mean, I think they're a sell but the potential reward is tiny compared to the risk that Con really implodes and they become a viable right wing stop Labour option.

Is anyone on Reform on the spreads? I would like to raise a figurative hat to your chutzpah if so.

I tried to psyche myself to do the sell - it's the dead eye pro trade - but I just couldn't.

Peter_the_Punter · June 13

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520
Every day that passes extinction becomes more probable for the Tories. Another week of this and sub 100 will be the standard expectation.

The idea of Harry Worth doing PMQs is growing on me.

Foxy · June 13

numbertwelve said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520
The move from Lab to LD indicated by another poll.

Crossover sooooo close again.

Treble crossover with Tories in 4th...

Cookie · June 13

kinabalu said:

Cookie said:

MattW said:

MattW said:
Catching up on Sir Keir's speech this morning.

I still think he needs Sleeve Garters like Morpheus to contain those voluminous shirts. Where he's going he's going to need the superhero skills too, maybe.
Edit timed out. I'm sure it's superb quality, but that shirt is billowing like a tent borrowed from Lawrence of Arabia.

My pic for the day, Sir Keir:

I'm no fan of SKS, but I've no objection to his shirt wearing. I actually think he wears a shirt better than Rishi. I've no time for those tight tailored shirts Rishi wears. They look daft, and expensively daft. I had one once - it was a freebie with a suit - and I hated it. Felt far too tight. And if a tight shirt on a man Rishi's size looks daft, a tight shirt on a man my size looks unpleasant.
Further objections to shirts in general: I find it very hard to get shirts to fit. Collar size is easy, if you buy shirts in collar size - though I have a very big neck. But shirts are always too short on me - I have a long body and short legs and wide shoulders, like a Mr. Man - and most of them come untucked if I lift my arms above shoulder height.

Don't say we don't discuss the big issues on pb.com.
You also have big thighs, I believe?

FPT:
I do, and I'm mildly disturbed that my musings on my mismatched body parts are memorable enough that you can recall them. Big thighs and massive calves. But short legs and a long body. Large head and a large neck, but short arms. Like, I don't know, a T-Rex or something.
I mean, you wouldn't look at me and your eyes instantly water with the oddness of me, but finding clothes to fit is not straightforward. I have large body parts without being a large human, if that makes sense.

Stuartinromford · June 13

TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520

The only question remaining is how those shifts are distributed.

A three percent Lab to LD swing everywhere is probably bad for Rishi.

A fifteen percent swing in the right 100 or so constituencies is potentially terrifying.

And by now, the profusion of orange diamonds means that the LibDem targeting strategy ought to be literally visible from space.

BatteryCorrectHorse · June 13

Lab 506
LD 65
Con 36
SNP 14
Reform 3
Green 2

Electoral Calculus, ouch

geoffw · June 13

Fishing said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/
Would be better to tax winnings, with the proceeds to reduce NI or corporation tax. It is ridiculous that income from working hard is taxed very heavily while games of chance aren't. In the US, where I am at the moment, gambling winnings are taxed as normal income.

And how do they deal with losings?

kle4 · June 13

biggles said:

kle4 said:
Labour Manifesto Part 2
Strong foundations
National security – Labour founded NATO. ‘Set out path’ to 2.5% GDP on defence. Mentions Skripal poisoning (note – fair to say Corbyn would not have). Martyn’s Law to strengthen security at events. Police to have powers and resources they need (Note – no detail).
Secure borders – Conservatives only offer gimmicks. Rwanda cost hundreds of millions, and won’t work. Labour will go after gangs, new border security command, funded by ending Rwanda. New security agreement with EU. Clear asylum backlog. Fast track removals to safe countries.
Economic Stability – Tory mini budget was a disaster, country paying the price. Limits to what gov can spend, tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. Chaos not over, Tories have unfunded tax cuts still.
Labour fiscal rule that current budget moves into balance, day to day costs met by revenues. Debt must be falling as share of economy by fifth year (Note – I guarantee this will not happen).
Families struggling. Energy costs will be reduced, food prices reduced. Expand childcare.. Free breakfast clubs in every primary school (note – I think everyone has promised this so far).
No NI increase, VAT increase, of basic, higher or additional income tax increase. Abolish non-dom status. Tackle tax avoidance.
Kickstart economic growth
Includes a pic of a café owner and ‘former conservative voter’.
New approach – securonomics (note – buzzwords are best words!)
New industrial strategy (note – LDs beat them to it)
National wealth fund 7.bn over 5 years
Money for ports, steel industry, gigfactories, green hydrogen
Stability through one fiscal event a year only.
25% corporation tax cap
Replace business rates – same revenue fairer way (note – what does this even mean?)
Bring railways into public ownership, new powers for local bus routes.
Short funding for R and D replaced with ten year budgets (note – if that was possible why aren’t we doing it now?)
Housing crisis – reform NPPF to restore mandatory housing targets (note – this is a good idea), strengthen presumption in favour of sustainable development. Fund additional planning officers through increasing stamp duty surcharge.
“Where necessary” Labour will use intervention powers to build houses we need (note – I don’t believe them, the first backbench rumbles will stop that).
Brownfield first, but not enough on its own (Note – my gods, this is actually a sensible point!) Release lower quality green belt land.
Widen devolution
New statutory local growth plans
Multi year funding settlements for local government.
Labour will reduce net migration – says reform the points based system to be fair (note – in what way?).
National jobs and careers service. Support disabled people into work. Work or apprenticeships for all those under 21.
Legislation on making work pay within 100 days
Minimum wage will be a living wage, but no details.
Whilst I support it, releasing “lower quality green belt” is not exactly a vote winner. That’s the first local elections lost.

I was surprised to see it in there, even caveated.

It won't last - they will have a big enough majority to note worry, but they may want to break into areas in the south they have little locals representation, off the back of winning MPs there, so they will not want to upset them with Green Belt stuff.

Cicero · June 13

Just to back up the move in the polls with a bit of anecdotal evidence.

In a Scottish seat previously held by the Lib Dems, but where they were squeezed to third in 2017/19. Now nominally marginal between SNP and Tory. Canvassing last night, previously majority Con area, now strongly Lib Dem, Tory vote collapsed.

Having fought in the area in 2019 it is pretty obvious that there has been a giant swing. Something big is coming.

Peter_the_Punter · June 13

TheScreamingEagles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520
Now be honest, TSE, did you know that before you wrote the thread piece?

Tell the truth and shame the devil.
No.

I published this thread at 5.30pm and that poll came out at 5.32pm.

OK, TSE, I'll buy it, but if you were not a lawyer I might just suspect you of fibbing.

BartholomewRoberts · June 13

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?

All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?

Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.

The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.

I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.

Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.

Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.

I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.

It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.

All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.

It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.

If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.

That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.

Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.

Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.

And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.

You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.

Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.

The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.

The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.

Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.

What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.

Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".

Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.

Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.

Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.

No, of course that pathetically small amount is not good enough.

An increase of 100x may be needed in some places. Villages turning into new towns with hundreds of thousands of extra homes.

We are millions of homes short of what we need. So your xenophobia at not recognising changes can piss right off.
A factor of 3 or 4 means: 3 or 4 times the *existing* number of houses.

Now look at your post and see how stupid it is.

So if it was 100 and goes to 300 you think that's "enough"?

Don't be stupid. We need millions. Going from 100 to 100,000 in many places would be a good start.
My place *was* a town to begin with! So it's made a very substantial contribution. Other places can do their share.
More xenophobia.

I'd be curious to see some data, but I'm calling bullshit. Just more xenophobic excuse making.
The level of your argument is shown by the idea that *not complaining* about the expansion of the town is xenophobic. And that complainiong about children's playgrounds being built on is xenoiphobic. And I'm not letting on where I live in case you buy up the land around it.
You are complaining about the fictitious expansion and saying "Other places can do their share" - exact quote.

As for where you're talking about its easy to figure out. You claim you had a 3x increase of population. Midlothian had the highest recorded population change between the last two censuses of a 1.16x increase.

So the answer is . . . nowhere. There is no local authority in Scotland that has tripled in size. Its in your head.

Meanwhile the people who need houses are actually real, unlike your fictional locale.
You're picking variables to try and accuse me of lying.

I wasn't talking aboiut a county but about a town. And not just over ten years either, but my lifetime. If it gets any bigger then we will end up with the sort of problems you will have when only houses are built without facilities near by. That's already a point of contention.

If this is the way you treat people who are already fairly sympathetic then I'm going to go and vote bloody LD as a result.
So sympathetic you back any excuse to prevent construction?

There is a chronic housing shortage today, not years from now, but right now. Here and now, people living in this country - both migrants, people born here, old people and young people, who need a home and there are not enough of them.

Waiting for Godot to sort out every problem prior to building houses is not a solution when the people who need the houses are already in this country today.

You need to build the houses and build the facilities. Right here, right now.

If its expanded over a lifetime, then there's been a lifetime to build new facilities too - but either way its not enough to reverse the chronic housing shortage that already exists. So sorry "build elsewhere" is not a solution, that's what every NIMBY wants, we need millions of homes and that means building everywhere. Immediately, without delays.
I'm not the one who has been objecting. Can't you get that into your head? But my place is now so bigt it needs a new bloody town centre or two. And you need planning for that.

And you have the discourtesy to treat me like the shit you want to see overflowing from your new estates becvause you don't believe in planning.

No wonder we get Nimbies when we have libertarians like you.

So what if its got big?

Its not big enough to resolve the housing shortage.

That's what happens when the population changes, places get bigger.

Not a single local authority has tripled in size, so you're exaggerating how big its grown anyway.

Daveyboy1961 · June 13

numbertwelve said:
Do Reform actually have a manifesto/launch etc? Last big chance to try and cannibalise the Tory vote?

I didn't think companies had manifestos, only mission statements?

viewcode · June 13

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/

Yes, I spotted that too. Authoritarian bastards. I've pretty much given up on Labour now, tbh: poundshop Conservatives with not even the excuse of greed. Nice of them to protect us from ourselves, the nanny-state shits.

Nigelb · June 13

.

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Cookie said:

MattW said:

MattW said:
Catching up on Sir Keir's speech this morning.

I still think he needs Sleeve Garters like Morpheus to contain those voluminous shirts. Where he's going he's going to need the superhero skills too, maybe.
Edit timed out. I'm sure it's superb quality, but that shirt is billowing like a tent borrowed from Lawrence of Arabia.

My pic for the day, Sir Keir:

I'm no fan of SKS, but I've no objection to his shirt wearing. I actually think he wears a shirt better than Rishi. I've no time for those tight tailored shirts Rishi wears. They look daft, and expensively daft. I had one once - it was a freebie with a suit - and I hated it. Felt far too tight. And if a tight shirt on a man Rishi's size looks daft, a tight shirt on a man my size looks unpleasant.
Further objections to shirts in general: I find it very hard to get shirts to fit. Collar size is easy, if you buy shirts in collar size - though I have a very big neck. But shirts are always too short on me - I have a long body and short legs and wide shoulders, like a Mr. Man - and most of them come untucked if I lift my arms above shoulder height.

Don't say we don't discuss the big issues on pb.com.
You also have big thighs, I believe?
FPT:
I do, and I'm mildly disturbed that my musings on my mismatched body parts are memorable enough that you can recall them. Big thighs and massive calves. But short legs and a long body. Large head and a large neck, but short arms. Like, I don't know, a T-Rex or something.
I mean, you wouldn't look at me and your eyes instantly water with the oddness of me, but finding clothes to fit is not straightforward. I have large body parts but not a large body, if that makes sense.

"..But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:.."

WhisperingOracle · June 13

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
Lab 506
LD 65
Con 36
SNP 14
Reform 3
Green 2

Electoral Calculus, ouch

I'm not sure how the Tory psychology could cope with the LD's having almost double the seats, and being the official opposition.

Perhaps a third of the remaining Tories might join them, and another lot might go to Reform, in that scenario.

Cookie · June 13

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520
Every day that passes extinction becomes more probable for the Tories. Another week of this and sub 100 will be the standard expectation.

My prediction is, I think, 70-odd*, but I'm calling the bottom for the Tories here. Tory vote to firm up from here on in.

*On which subject, mods (@TSE), can we give a bit more publicity to @Farooq's excellent prediction competition? Perhaps a thread on it? He put a lot of thought into it and I'm worried it might have got lost among the general chat, and I don't know if he's one to blow his own trumpet so might never get mentioned again. Be a shame if it petered out with only a handful of entrants.

Leon · June 13

WhisperingOracle said:
Re; the Ultraterrestrial paper, it's quite interesting.

The "as yet to be peer reviewed" is nevertheless a hint of amusement, a bit like Wikipedia's "Citation Needed." At the same time, we could be in for some surprises in the next few decades on this topic, though. I don't think most people have adjusted to , or are aware of the greater expert interest in the topic, at the moment.

It is interesting

Check this as well. A UFO seen in Tehran by multiple witnesses, and filmed

Looks very convincing so it’s either a rather clever hoax, or - the other main explanation - drones. What do you reckon?

If it is a hoax it is one of the best - with several different angles - and yet we live in an era when tech can create wildly convincing fake videos, of course

https://x.com/greatwhyteshk/status/1798071608516727270?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

Dopermean · June 13

Fishing said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/
Would be better to tax winnings, with the proceeds to reduce NI or corporation tax. It is ridiculous that income from working hard is taxed very heavily while games of chance aren't. In the US, where I am at the moment, gambling winnings are taxed as normal income.

If you were to tax winnings as income then surely losses should be allowed to be offset?

PedestrianRock · June 13

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
Lab 506
LD 65
Con 36
SNP 14
Reform 3
Green 2

Electoral Calculus, ouch

As Beyond Topline notes - this assumes ZERO tactical voting and still has Davey LOTO!

I’m heavily in on Lib Dem’s and Reform on the ‘Most Seats without Labour’ market - initially as a trading bet but the longer this holds the longer I’m just going to stick.

I still think it’s value even at lower prices because the Lib Dem tactical vote and their party’s ground game, as the header here suggests, is perhaps more efficient than any other party.

The_Woodpecker · June 13

Fishing said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/
Would be better to tax winnings, with the proceeds to reduce NI or corporation tax. It is ridiculous that income from working hard is taxed very heavily while games of chance aren't. In the US, where I am at the moment, gambling winnings are taxed as normal income.

And so make losses tax-deductible?

Peter_the_Punter · June 13

Cicero said:
Just to back up the move in the polls with a bit of anecdotal evidence.

In a Scottish seat previously held by the Lib Dems, but where they were squeezed to third in 2017/19. Now nominally marginal between SNP and Tory. Canvassing last night, previously majority Con area, now strongly Lib Dem, Tory vote collapsed.

Having fought in the area in 2019 it is pretty obvious that there has been a giant swing. Something big is coming.

Cicero, what were you doing in Scotland. Did you get on the wrong flight?

Nigelb · June 13

It's finally happening: Senate Democrats have opened investigation into Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner for the $2 billion they received from Saudi Arabia.
https://x.com/maddenifico/status/1801075544114544883

Only took them three years to get around to it.

BartholomewRoberts · June 13

Dopermean said:

Fishing said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/
Would be better to tax winnings, with the proceeds to reduce NI or corporation tax. It is ridiculous that income from working hard is taxed very heavily while games of chance aren't. In the US, where I am at the moment, gambling winnings are taxed as normal income.
If you were to tax winnings as income then surely losses should be allowed to be offset?

The taxman regularly doesn't allow offsets.

If you hire me to do a job and pay me a salary I pay tax on that.

If I then privately hire someone else to do a job for me and pay them for that, then they owe tax on what I paid them - but I can't offset that against my own taxes.

Flatlander · June 13

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/
Yes, I spotted that too. Authoritarian bastards. I've pretty much given up on Labour now, tbh: poundshop Conservatives with not even the excuse of greed. Nice of them to protect us from ourselves, the nanny-state shits.

There's going to be a lot of nanny-stateism and quangocracy coming.

Whatever happened to Labour's plan to allow some mega-casinos to be built?

The space for one here (created by demolishing an Odeon cinema) remains a car park to this day.

kinabalu · June 13

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Cookie said:

MattW said:

MattW said:
Catching up on Sir Keir's speech this morning.

I still think he needs Sleeve Garters like Morpheus to contain those voluminous shirts. Where he's going he's going to need the superhero skills too, maybe.
Edit timed out. I'm sure it's superb quality, but that shirt is billowing like a tent borrowed from Lawrence of Arabia.

My pic for the day, Sir Keir:

I'm no fan of SKS, but I've no objection to his shirt wearing. I actually think he wears a shirt better than Rishi. I've no time for those tight tailored shirts Rishi wears. They look daft, and expensively daft. I had one once - it was a freebie with a suit - and I hated it. Felt far too tight. And if a tight shirt on a man Rishi's size looks daft, a tight shirt on a man my size looks unpleasant.
Further objections to shirts in general: I find it very hard to get shirts to fit. Collar size is easy, if you buy shirts in collar size - though I have a very big neck. But shirts are always too short on me - I have a long body and short legs and wide shoulders, like a Mr. Man - and most of them come untucked if I lift my arms above shoulder height.

Don't say we don't discuss the big issues on pb.com.
You also have big thighs, I believe?
FPT:
I do, and I'm mildly disturbed that my musings on my mismatched body parts are memorable enough that you can recall them. Big thighs and massive calves. But short legs and a long body. Large head and a large neck, but short arms. Like, I don't know, a T-Rex or something.
I mean, you wouldn't look at me and your eyes instantly water with the oddness of me, but finding clothes to fit is not straightforward. I have large body parts without being a large human, if that makes sense.

Well that sounds like a rather compelling package.

TheScreamingEagles · June 13

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dopermean said:

Fishing said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/
Would be better to tax winnings, with the proceeds to reduce NI or corporation tax. It is ridiculous that income from working hard is taxed very heavily while games of chance aren't. In the US, where I am at the moment, gambling winnings are taxed as normal income.
If you were to tax winnings as income then surely losses should be allowed to be offset?
The taxman regularly doesn't allow offsets.

If you hire me to do a job and pay me a salary I pay tax on that.

If I then privately hire someone else to do a job for me and pay them for that, then they owe tax on what I paid them - but I can't offset that against my own taxes.

Yes they do.

PedestrianRock · June 13

We have had a few years now of by-elections where the improved efficiency of tactical voting has been remarked upon and yet some people expect it to be less so for this election, surprisingly.

The Lib Dem position as a soft Anti Labour vote AND an Anti Tory vote AND a ‘Protest, but not Farage’ vote is uniquely placed to do very well.

I have a bit of sympathy for what Leon and others said earlier - about going more vocal with the single market / Pro-EU stance to try eat into Labour more -but I think doing so would cause a net loss of seats - it might play well in the Wimbledon type areas but it would get many Tories to go elsewhere.

Let us not forget the much more realistic aim of the Lib Dems is to come 2nd this time round. If they do that then they could be in a position to be in Government in 2029. No point throwing that chance away by emboldening the Tory vote across the country at a time when it is at its weakest.

The correct move instead is to soft signal it now, as they are doing, and pivot to Rejoin (or softer Rejoin) for 2029. If you’re the opposition you can hammer Labour on it in a few years’ time, and potentially even get some defections from more discontented Labour MPs, backed up by a younger population that will probably have more of an appetite for it.

Sandpit · June 13

maxh said:
It'd take a very brave person to spread bet on Reform, wouldn't it?

I mean, I think they're a sell but the potential reward is tiny compared to the risk that Con really implodes and they become a viable right wing stop Labour option.

Is anyone on Reform on the spreads? I would like to raise a figurative hat to your chutzpah if so.

Laying Reform on the spreads is a bonkers bet. There’s so much potential downside if Sunak and the Tories implode in the next three weeks, but also if Labour and SirKeir struggle to get their message across. It’s not difficult to imagine a whole load of “Red Wall” voting Reform.

They’re most likely to get 0 or 1, but an open-ended bet against the upside at 4, no thanks.

Same with the Greens by the way.

viewcode · June 13

Leon said:

WhisperingOracle said:
Re; the Ultraterrestrial paper, it's quite interesting.

The "as yet to be peer reviewed" is nevertheless a hint of amusement, a bit like Wikipedia's "Citation Needed." At the same time, we could be in for some surprises in the next few decades on this topic, though. I don't think most people have adjusted to , or are aware of the greater expert interest in the topic, at the moment.

It is interesting

Check this as well. A UFO seen in Tehran by multiple witnesses, and filmed

Looks very convincing so it’s either a rather clever hoax, or - the other main explanation - drones. What do you reckon?

If it is a hoax it is one of the best - with several different angles - and yet we live in an era when tech can create wildly convincing fake videos, of course

https://x.com/greatwhyteshk/status/1798071608516727270?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

Yes. In an age of drones, picture-perfect CGI, deepfake tech, LLMs and multiple sock accounts, "aliens" is obviously the only logical explanation.

(facepalm)

WhisperingOracle · June 13

Leon said:

WhisperingOracle said:
Re; the Ultraterrestrial paper, it's quite interesting.

The "as yet to be peer reviewed" is nevertheless a hint of amusement, a bit like Wikipedia's "Citation Needed." At the same time, we could be in for some surprises in the next few decades on this topic, though. I don't think most people have adjusted to , or are aware of the greater expert interest in the topic, at the moment.

It is interesting

Check this as well. A UFO seen in Tehran by multiple witnesses, and filmed

Looks very convincing so it’s either a rather clever hoax, or - the other main explanation - drones. What do you reckon?

If it is a hoax it is one of the best - with several different angles - and yet we live in an era when tech can create wildly convincing fake videos, of course

https://x.com/greatwhyteshk/status/1798071608516727270?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

That's certainly more visually convincing than many I've seen, but I no longer know whether to trust any video like this , as AI film technology advances, as you're mentioning.

For that reason increasingly I think any breakthroughs here might come from verbal testimony first, not video or photography. Let's see what transpires in Congress.

Pagan2 · June 13

Dopermean said:

Fishing said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/
Would be better to tax winnings, with the proceeds to reduce NI or corporation tax. It is ridiculous that income from working hard is taxed very heavily while games of chance aren't. In the US, where I am at the moment, gambling winnings are taxed as normal income.
If you were to tax winnings as income then surely losses should be allowed to be offset?

In the us you can offset losses

pigeon · June 13

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/

There's nothing in the public health section that requires significant deployment of new money (it's mostly about regulation and commitments to prioritise some issues over others, without any details.) One obvious way to tackle obesity would be to deal with the mass closure of swimming pools and other leisure facilities by cash strapped councils, but that would require more money and if there's any mention of that I've obviously missed it.

The language does imply that Sunak's smoking phase out is coming back somewhere in the legislative pipeline, but the consequences of having, years in the future, 31 year olds able to buy cigarettes but 30 year olds not still haven't been thought through. Perhaps this will end with the fines for such illegal tobacco sales being made so stiff that retailers decide it is not worth the risk of selling them to anyone? I don't know - it seems to me a more effective way of stamping out the habit would be to outlaw it totally, but I suppose that Labour doesn't want to create another class C drug for policing to have to cope with...

Cicero · June 13

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cicero said:
Just to back up the move in the polls with a bit of anecdotal evidence.

In a Scottish seat previously held by the Lib Dems, but where they were squeezed to third in 2017/19. Now nominally marginal between SNP and Tory. Canvassing last night, previously majority Con area, now strongly Lib Dem, Tory vote collapsed.

Having fought in the area in 2019 it is pretty obvious that there has been a giant swing. Something big is coming.
Cicero, what were you doing in Scotland. Did you get on the wrong flight?

My family are scattered to the four winds, but Scotland was home until I left the UK altogether.

boulay · June 13

Well, Rishi might not be remembered as the best PM, not remotely the longest serving PM, not the longest serving modern day Tory PM but he might go into the history books as the very last Conservative PM. Beat that Liz and Boris.

biggles · June 13

kle4 said:
Labour Manifesto Conclusion
Dense text, could have used some bullet pointing of key pledges more often. Hard to get into what is proposed sometimes. Lots of ‘will reform’ with no more detail, and lots of unnecessary fluff.

I don’t fully believe some of the stuff around housing in it, but it is more realistic and positive about it than any manifesto so far, which is good. Very little on climate, which surprised me. Punchy on foreign policy and policing.

Most of it was far too long, with a lot of caveated phrasing.

Call it a C-. Functional, but I didn’t feel like I learned much from it.

On a minor point, honestly the SDP’s rather loony manifesto was the best in relation to clear headings. Everyone else has weird, tortured chapter headings instead of just ‘Energy’ ‘Local Government’ ‘Industry’ etc.

Can I add the observation that it’s really annoying for the Labour landing page to assume I want to read the HTML version and not present a choice (at least on my phone) unless I click “manifesto accessibility”, which is not where I would usually go for a pdf option.

Malmesbury · June 13

kle4 said:

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:
Labour Manifesto Part 3
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Create 650k jobs though Green industries.
Double onshore wind, triple solar panel, quadruple offshore win.
Will get Hinkley point c ‘over the line’ new nuclear stations will play a role.
Phased and ‘responsible’ transition in north sea. Not revoke existing licences. Oil and gas for decades to come.
Will close loopholes in the windfall tax – energy profits levy extended to end of next parliament.
Great British Energy Company – partner with industry and unions to deliver clean power – 8.3bn over 5 years.
Scotland to be powerhouse of clean energy mission
Tougher energy regulation
National wealth fund invest in ports, hydrogen, industrial clusters.
British hobs bonus to incentivize firms offering good conditions in marginals (note – actually they say industrial heartlands and coastal areas)
End injustice of mineworkers pension scheme (note – highly specific – what is the injustice?)
66.bn for energy efficiency.
A lot of vague stuff on accelerating net zero.
9 new national reiver walks, 3 new national forests
Water companies in special measures (note – not nationalise though)
Ban trail hunting and puppy smuggling.
Take back our streets
Violence is high, few criminals caught. Community policing has been downgraded, trust in police down, justice grinding to a halt.
‘Thousands’ of extra officers.
Hold ‘companies and executives cashing in on knife crime’ to account (note – I have no idea who is cashing in on this?)
New recruits paid for through efficiency (note – of course!)
Specific offence for assault on shopkeepers (note – why is a new law needed for this? – seems like a gimmick)
Ban ninja swords, zombie style blades.
Early intervention through pupil referral units and youth worker sin A & E.
Fast track rape cases, specialist courts at every crown court
New powers to intervene with failing forces.
Cut trial delays by allowing associate prosecutors to work on cases.
Tories failed to get prisons built – labour will use powers to build them
Hillsborough law
Lot of vague stuff on reducing reoffending and improving collaboration etc
Any more of this and I will publish a manifesto.

Ninja swords are already banned as are a range of knives that almost never get used for hurting people. Most stabbings are undertaken with moderate sized kitchen knives. The ones where the blade is a bit bigger than the handle.
Wow, the Labour government is so effective it is already succeeding before it even takes office!

They were banned about 57 Martial Arts Weapons Panics ago. Last millennium, IIRC.

The sensible bit was they reused the rules from the American occupation of Japan to exempt real, historic swords while condemning to the scrap heap the cheap shit.

BartholomewRoberts · June 13

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dopermean said:

Fishing said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/
Would be better to tax winnings, with the proceeds to reduce NI or corporation tax. It is ridiculous that income from working hard is taxed very heavily while games of chance aren't. In the US, where I am at the moment, gambling winnings are taxed as normal income.
If you were to tax winnings as income then surely losses should be allowed to be offset?
The taxman regularly doesn't allow offsets.

If you hire me to do a job and pay me a salary I pay tax on that.

If I then privately hire someone else to do a job for me and pay them for that, then they owe tax on what I paid them - but I can't offset that against my own taxes.
Yes they do.

What do you mean?

If I'm paid a salary via PAYE by my employer, then I hire an electrician or plumber or anyone else to do a job for me . . . then I can't offset my PAYE by the electricians taxes.

kle4 · June 13

boulay said:
Well, Rishi might not be remembered as the best PM, not remotely the longest serving PM, not the longest serving modern day Tory PM but he might go into the history books as the very last Conservative PM. Beat that Liz and Boris.

Probably needs a split with some joining Reform so the Tory nickname can live on.

MattW · June 13

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:
Labour Manifesto Part 3
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Create 650k jobs though Green industries.
Double onshore wind, triple solar panel, quadruple offshore win.
Will get Hinkley point c ‘over the line’ new nuclear stations will play a role.
Phased and ‘responsible’ transition in north sea. Not revoke existing licences. Oil and gas for decades to come.
Will close loopholes in the windfall tax – energy profits levy extended to end of next parliament.
Great British Energy Company – partner with industry and unions to deliver clean power – 8.3bn over 5 years.
Scotland to be powerhouse of clean energy mission
Tougher energy regulation
National wealth fund invest in ports, hydrogen, industrial clusters.
British hobs bonus to incentivize firms offering good conditions in marginals (note – actually they say industrial heartlands and coastal areas)
End injustice of mineworkers pension scheme (note – highly specific – what is the injustice?)
66.bn for energy efficiency.
A lot of vague stuff on accelerating net zero.
9 new national reiver walks, 3 new national forests
Water companies in special measures (note – not nationalise though)
Ban trail hunting and puppy smuggling.
Take back our streets
Violence is high, few criminals caught. Community policing has been downgraded, trust in police down, justice grinding to a halt.
‘Thousands’ of extra officers.
Hold ‘companies and executives cashing in on knife crime’ to account (note – I have no idea who is cashing in on this?)
New recruits paid for through efficiency (note – of course!)
Specific offence for assault on shopkeepers (note – why is a new law needed for this? – seems like a gimmick)
Ban ninja swords, zombie style blades.
Early intervention through pupil referral units and youth worker sin A & E.
Fast track rape cases, specialist courts at every crown court
New powers to intervene with failing forces.
Cut trial delays by allowing associate prosecutors to work on cases.
Tories failed to get prisons built – labour will use powers to build them
Hillsborough law
Lot of vague stuff on reducing reoffending and improving collaboration etc
Any more of this and I will publish a manifesto.

Ninja swords are already banned as are a range of knives that almost never get used for hurting people. Most stabbings are undertaken with moderate sized kitchen knives. The ones where the blade is a bit bigger than the handle.
Wow, the Labour government is so effective it is already succeeding before it even takes office!
They were banned about 57 Martial Arts Weapons Panics ago. Last millennium, IIRC.

The sensible bit was they reused the rules from the American occupation of Japan to exempt real, historic swords while condemning to the scrap heap the cheap shit.

I'm asking whether taking back our streets is going to include dealing with Anti-Social Parking.

What's a "hobs bonus"?

Is this a British response to Mr Chump's fit about banning of gas cookers?

The Mineworkers Pension scheme one is about assets of the Mineworkers Pension Scheme not all being used on miners' pensions in some manner. It's a very long term campaign.

Here's a local report:
https://www.chad.co.uk/news/politics/nottinghamshire-former-mineworker-welcomes-the-labour-partys-commitment-to-end-injustice-of-mineworkers-pension-scheme-4664692

Roger · June 13

Pleased to see Rayner polling so well. For me she's been the standout star of the last few weeks. She capsized the Daily Mail campaign against her and left Dacre and his nasty crew drowning in their vileness

She's feisty and real. Not what I thought of her at all a year ago and she's made Starmer look better than he sometimes deserved

williamglenn · June 13

Cicero said:
Just to back up the move in the polls with a bit of anecdotal evidence.

In a Scottish seat previously held by the Lib Dems, but where they were squeezed to third in 2017/19. Now nominally marginal between SNP and Tory. Canvassing last night, previously majority Con area, now strongly Lib Dem, Tory vote collapsed.

Having fought in the area in 2019 it is pretty obvious that there has been a giant swing. Something big is coming.

The relative weakness of Reform in Scotland must help the Lib Dems a lot because they are the only real option for unionist ex-Tories who don't like Labour.

kyf_100 · June 13

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dopermean said:

Fishing said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/
Would be better to tax winnings, with the proceeds to reduce NI or corporation tax. It is ridiculous that income from working hard is taxed very heavily while games of chance aren't. In the US, where I am at the moment, gambling winnings are taxed as normal income.
If you were to tax winnings as income then surely losses should be allowed to be offset?
The taxman regularly doesn't allow offsets.

If you hire me to do a job and pay me a salary I pay tax on that.

If I then privately hire someone else to do a job for me and pay them for that, then they owe tax on what I paid them - but I can't offset that against my own taxes.
Yes they do.
What do you mean?

If I'm paid a salary via PAYE by my employer, then I hire an electrician or plumber or anyone else to do a job for me . . . then I can't offset my PAYE by the electricians taxes.

I know people who have set up ltd companies to manage their own weddings to ensure things are tax deductible...

TheScreamingEagles · June 13

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dopermean said:

Fishing said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/
Would be better to tax winnings, with the proceeds to reduce NI or corporation tax. It is ridiculous that income from working hard is taxed very heavily while games of chance aren't. In the US, where I am at the moment, gambling winnings are taxed as normal income.
If you were to tax winnings as income then surely losses should be allowed to be offset?
The taxman regularly doesn't allow offsets.

If you hire me to do a job and pay me a salary I pay tax on that.

If I then privately hire someone else to do a job for me and pay them for that, then they owe tax on what I paid them - but I can't offset that against my own taxes.
Yes they do.
What do you mean?

If I'm paid a salary via PAYE by my employer, then I hire an electrician or plumber or anyone else to do a job for me . . . then I can't offset my PAYE by the electricians taxes.

Companies can offset their profits against losses incurred in the previous years.

On a personal level I can offset any cap gains losses against future gains.

There are other examples.

Leon · June 13

viewcode said:

Leon said:

WhisperingOracle said:
Re; the Ultraterrestrial paper, it's quite interesting.

The "as yet to be peer reviewed" is nevertheless a hint of amusement, a bit like Wikipedia's "Citation Needed." At the same time, we could be in for some surprises in the next few decades on this topic, though. I don't think most people have adjusted to , or are aware of the greater expert interest in the topic, at the moment.

It is interesting

Check this as well. A UFO seen in Tehran by multiple witnesses, and filmed

Looks very convincing so it’s either a rather clever hoax, or - the other main explanation - drones. What do you reckon?

If it is a hoax it is one of the best - with several different angles - and yet we live in an era when tech can create wildly convincing fake videos, of course

https://x.com/greatwhyteshk/status/1798071608516727270?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg
Yes. In an age of drones, picture-perfect CGI, deepfake tech, LLMs and multiple sock accounts, "aliens" is obviously the only logical explanation.

(facepalm)

And of course I never actually mentioned aliens

I offered two explanations: hoax, or drones (with an implied third explanation: modern CGI)

It is you that leaps in and Brexit-comments: “aliens!!! You said aliens!!!!”

Sean_F · June 13

boulay said:
Well, Rishi might not be remembered as the best PM, not remotely the longest serving PM, not the longest serving modern day Tory PM but he might go into the history books as the very last Conservative PM. Beat that Liz and Boris.

I think he’d be proud of that achievement.

BartholomewRoberts · June 13

kyf_100 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dopermean said:

Fishing said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/
Would be better to tax winnings, with the proceeds to reduce NI or corporation tax. It is ridiculous that income from working hard is taxed very heavily while games of chance aren't. In the US, where I am at the moment, gambling winnings are taxed as normal income.
If you were to tax winnings as income then surely losses should be allowed to be offset?
The taxman regularly doesn't allow offsets.

If you hire me to do a job and pay me a salary I pay tax on that.

If I then privately hire someone else to do a job for me and pay them for that, then they owe tax on what I paid them - but I can't offset that against my own taxes.
Yes they do.
What do you mean?

If I'm paid a salary via PAYE by my employer, then I hire an electrician or plumber or anyone else to do a job for me . . . then I can't offset my PAYE by the electricians taxes.
I know people who have set up ltd companies to manage their own weddings to ensure things are tax deductible...

Indeed, that's precisely my point.

HMRC gives different rules to Ltd companies and individuals.

Firms are often allowed to offset things that individuals are not. So the concept of HMRC refusing to allow an offset to individuals is not a unique one.

Malmesbury · June 13

MattW said:

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:
Labour Manifesto Part 3
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Create 650k jobs though Green industries.
Double onshore wind, triple solar panel, quadruple offshore win.
Will get Hinkley point c ‘over the line’ new nuclear stations will play a role.
Phased and ‘responsible’ transition in north sea. Not revoke existing licences. Oil and gas for decades to come.
Will close loopholes in the windfall tax – energy profits levy extended to end of next parliament.
Great British Energy Company – partner with industry and unions to deliver clean power – 8.3bn over 5 years.
Scotland to be powerhouse of clean energy mission
Tougher energy regulation
National wealth fund invest in ports, hydrogen, industrial clusters.
British hobs bonus to incentivize firms offering good conditions in marginals (note – actually they say industrial heartlands and coastal areas)
End injustice of mineworkers pension scheme (note – highly specific – what is the injustice?)
66.bn for energy efficiency.
A lot of vague stuff on accelerating net zero.
9 new national reiver walks, 3 new national forests
Water companies in special measures (note – not nationalise though)
Ban trail hunting and puppy smuggling.
Take back our streets
Violence is high, few criminals caught. Community policing has been downgraded, trust in police down, justice grinding to a halt.
‘Thousands’ of extra officers.
Hold ‘companies and executives cashing in on knife crime’ to account (note – I have no idea who is cashing in on this?)
New recruits paid for through efficiency (note – of course!)
Specific offence for assault on shopkeepers (note – why is a new law needed for this? – seems like a gimmick)
Ban ninja swords, zombie style blades.
Early intervention through pupil referral units and youth worker sin A & E.
Fast track rape cases, specialist courts at every crown court
New powers to intervene with failing forces.
Cut trial delays by allowing associate prosecutors to work on cases.
Tories failed to get prisons built – labour will use powers to build them
Hillsborough law
Lot of vague stuff on reducing reoffending and improving collaboration etc
Any more of this and I will publish a manifesto.

Ninja swords are already banned as are a range of knives that almost never get used for hurting people. Most stabbings are undertaken with moderate sized kitchen knives. The ones where the blade is a bit bigger than the handle.
Wow, the Labour government is so effective it is already succeeding before it even takes office!
They were banned about 57 Martial Arts Weapons Panics ago. Last millennium, IIRC.

The sensible bit was they reused the rules from the American occupation of Japan to exempt real, historic swords while condemning to the scrap heap the cheap shit.
I'm asking whether taking back our streets is going to include dealing with Anti-Social Parking.

That's in my manifesto.

Getting the Boyes rifle back into production is a key deliverable for that.

Stuartinromford · June 13

Here's another one:

New poll

@BMGResearch for @theipaper

Labour 41%
Conservatives 21%
Reform 14%
Lib Dems 12%
Greens 6%

Little movement in last week - Tories need something to turn up...

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1801296925775233292

Lab -1, Con -2, Ref -2, LD+3

kle4 · June 13

williamglenn said:

Cicero said:
Just to back up the move in the polls with a bit of anecdotal evidence.

In a Scottish seat previously held by the Lib Dems, but where they were squeezed to third in 2017/19. Now nominally marginal between SNP and Tory. Canvassing last night, previously majority Con area, now strongly Lib Dem, Tory vote collapsed.

Having fought in the area in 2019 it is pretty obvious that there has been a giant swing. Something big is coming.
The relative weakness of Reform in Scotland must help the Lib Dems a lot because they are the only real option for unionist ex-Tories who don't like Labour.

I am looking forward to Scotland a lot, to see if the Tories can remarkably hold on despite terrible results due to being the current main Unionist option in several seats, or of Cicero is right and we get another massive switcharound.

There's been so much churn in the last 10 years in Scotland, the voters may have broken out of the habits of sticking with one party and are truly judging things on an election by election basis.

Good for them.

DecrepiterJohnL · June 13

Fishing said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/
Would be better to tax winnings, with the proceeds to reduce NI or corporation tax. It is ridiculous that income from working hard is taxed very heavily while games of chance aren't. In the US, where I am at the moment, gambling winnings are taxed as normal income.

We used to tax bets, and you could pay on staking or have it deducted from your winnings. We switched to the current model around 20 years ago iirc and there is no clamour to change back. It is not untaxed but the tax is hidden as a 15 per cent levy on turnover. We have never applied income tax because IR/HMRC fears tax refunds to losers.

General Betting Duty, Pool Betting Duty and Remote Gaming Duty
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/general-betting-duty-pool-betting-duty-and-remote-gaming-duty

BartholomewRoberts · June 13

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dopermean said:

Fishing said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/
Would be better to tax winnings, with the proceeds to reduce NI or corporation tax. It is ridiculous that income from working hard is taxed very heavily while games of chance aren't. In the US, where I am at the moment, gambling winnings are taxed as normal income.
If you were to tax winnings as income then surely losses should be allowed to be offset?
The taxman regularly doesn't allow offsets.

If you hire me to do a job and pay me a salary I pay tax on that.

If I then privately hire someone else to do a job for me and pay them for that, then they owe tax on what I paid them - but I can't offset that against my own taxes.
Yes they do.
What do you mean?

If I'm paid a salary via PAYE by my employer, then I hire an electrician or plumber or anyone else to do a job for me . . . then I can't offset my PAYE by the electricians taxes.
Companies can offset their profits against losses incurred in the previous years.

On a personal level I can offset any cap gains losses against future gains.

There are other examples.

But you've just proven my point.

On a commercial basis firms can offset some stuff that individuals can't.

And on an individual basis you are allowed some offsets but not others.

Which matches what I said about the taxman regularly doesn't allow offsets. Which != the taxman never allows offsets.

There are times offsets are permitted, and there are other times they're not. Its not like they're absolutely always permitted, or absolutely never are.

Cicero · June 13

Stuartinromford said:
Here's another one:

New poll

@BMGResearch for @theipaper

Labour 41%
Conservatives 21%
Reform 14%
Lib Dems 12%
Greens 6%

Little movement in last week - Tories need something to turn up...

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1801296925775233292

Lab -1, Con -2, Ref -2, LD+3

More Lib Dem momentum. Looks like its a thing now.

DecrepiterJohnL · June 13

Reform UK's Lee Anderson caught parking his car in disabled space
The ex-Tory, now standing for Nigel Farage's party, was snapped getting into his silver BMW X5, which had been parked in a disabled space in a car park in Sutton-in-Ashfield
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/reform-uks-lee-anderson-caught-33025627

WhisperingOracle · June 13

Stuartinromford said:
Here's another one:

New poll

@BMGResearch for @theipaper

Labour 41%
Conservatives 21%
Reform 14%
Lib Dems 12%
Greens 6%

Little movement in last week - Tories need something to turn up...

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1801296925775233292

Lab -1, Con -2, Ref -2, LD+3

The polls are beginning to herd.

And so the election is beginning to look a bit more snoozey again.

kle4 · June 13

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Reform UK's Lee Anderson caught parking his car in disabled space
The ex-Tory, now standing for Nigel Farage's party, was snapped getting into his silver BMW X5, which had been parked in a disabled space in a car park in Sutton-in-Ashfield
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/reform-uks-lee-anderson-caught-33025627

Disabled parking spaces are woke, no doubt.

kle4 · June 13

biggles said:

kle4 said:
Labour Manifesto Conclusion
Dense text, could have used some bullet pointing of key pledges more often. Hard to get into what is proposed sometimes. Lots of ‘will reform’ with no more detail, and lots of unnecessary fluff.

I don’t fully believe some of the stuff around housing in it, but it is more realistic and positive about it than any manifesto so far, which is good. Very little on climate, which surprised me. Punchy on foreign policy and policing.

Most of it was far too long, with a lot of caveated phrasing.

Call it a C-. Functional, but I didn’t feel like I learned much from it.

On a minor point, honestly the SDP’s rather loony manifesto was the best in relation to clear headings. Everyone else has weird, tortured chapter headings instead of just ‘Energy’ ‘Local Government’ ‘Industry’ etc.
Can I add the observation that it’s really annoying for the Labour landing page to assume I want to read the HTML version and not present a choice (at least on my phone) unless I click “manifesto accessibility”, which is not where I would usually go for a pdf option.

It's doubly strange as my understanding is pdfs are deemed not very accessible thesedays, though I don't know the reason.

biggles · June 13

Malmesbury said:

MattW said:

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:
Labour Manifesto Part 3
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Create 650k jobs though Green industries.
Double onshore wind, triple solar panel, quadruple offshore win.
Will get Hinkley point c ‘over the line’ new nuclear stations will play a role.
Phased and ‘responsible’ transition in north sea. Not revoke existing licences. Oil and gas for decades to come.
Will close loopholes in the windfall tax – energy profits levy extended to end of next parliament.
Great British Energy Company – partner with industry and unions to deliver clean power – 8.3bn over 5 years.
Scotland to be powerhouse of clean energy mission
Tougher energy regulation
National wealth fund invest in ports, hydrogen, industrial clusters.
British hobs bonus to incentivize firms offering good conditions in marginals (note – actually they say industrial heartlands and coastal areas)
End injustice of mineworkers pension scheme (note – highly specific – what is the injustice?)
66.bn for energy efficiency.
A lot of vague stuff on accelerating net zero.
9 new national reiver walks, 3 new national forests
Water companies in special measures (note – not nationalise though)
Ban trail hunting and puppy smuggling.
Take back our streets
Violence is high, few criminals caught. Community policing has been downgraded, trust in police down, justice grinding to a halt.
‘Thousands’ of extra officers.
Hold ‘companies and executives cashing in on knife crime’ to account (note – I have no idea who is cashing in on this?)
New recruits paid for through efficiency (note – of course!)
Specific offence for assault on shopkeepers (note – why is a new law needed for this? – seems like a gimmick)
Ban ninja swords, zombie style blades.
Early intervention through pupil referral units and youth worker sin A & E.
Fast track rape cases, specialist courts at every crown court
New powers to intervene with failing forces.
Cut trial delays by allowing associate prosecutors to work on cases.
Tories failed to get prisons built – labour will use powers to build them
Hillsborough law
Lot of vague stuff on reducing reoffending and improving collaboration etc
Any more of this and I will publish a manifesto.

Ninja swords are already banned as are a range of knives that almost never get used for hurting people. Most stabbings are undertaken with moderate sized kitchen knives. The ones where the blade is a bit bigger than the handle.
Wow, the Labour government is so effective it is already succeeding before it even takes office!
They were banned about 57 Martial Arts Weapons Panics ago. Last millennium, IIRC.

The sensible bit was they reused the rules from the American occupation of Japan to exempt real, historic swords while condemning to the scrap heap the cheap shit.
I'm asking whether taking back our streets is going to include dealing with Anti-Social Parking.
That's in my manifesto.

Getting the Boyes rifle back into production is a key deliverable for that.

Have I explained my winning manifesto promise on here before? Every one who is a decent sort (enjoys Test Cricket, knows their beer, can make a decent fry up - those sorts of criteria) gets a Glock 19 with a standard 15 round magazine through the post.

Those 15 are freebies and you can use them as you wish, but if you can justify the use of a round you get posted a replacement.

Justifications might include “he was standing on the wrong side of the escalator” or “he had his top button done up with no tie”. All the serious offences.

kle4 · June 13

WhisperingOracle said:

Stuartinromford said:
Here's another one:

New poll

@BMGResearch for @theipaper

Labour 41%
Conservatives 21%
Reform 14%
Lib Dems 12%
Greens 6%

Little movement in last week - Tories need something to turn up...

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1801296925775233292

Lab -1, Con -2, Ref -2, LD+3
The polls are beginning to herd.

And so the election is beginning to look a bit more snoozey again.

When wasn't it?

There's interest in how big the majority, and how bad the Tories, so it is exciting in that sense, but the outcome is as clear cut as you can get.

Leon · June 13

WhisperingOracle said:

Leon said:

WhisperingOracle said:
Re; the Ultraterrestrial paper, it's quite interesting.

The "as yet to be peer reviewed" is nevertheless a hint of amusement, a bit like Wikipedia's "Citation Needed." At the same time, we could be in for some surprises in the next few decades on this topic, though. I don't think most people have adjusted to , or are aware of the greater expert interest in the topic, at the moment.

It is interesting

Check this as well. A UFO seen in Tehran by multiple witnesses, and filmed

Looks very convincing so it’s either a rather clever hoax, or - the other main explanation - drones. What do you reckon?

If it is a hoax it is one of the best - with several different angles - and yet we live in an era when tech can create wildly convincing fake videos, of course

https://x.com/greatwhyteshk/status/1798071608516727270?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg
That's certainly more visually convincing than many I've seen, but I no longer know whether to trust any video like this , as AI film technology advances, as you're mentioning.

For that reason increasingly I think any breakthroughs here might come from verbal testimony first, not video or photography. Let's see what transpires in Congress.

There’s a very astute comment under that tweet from a Spanish guy. Who points out that such is the state of video fakery (superb) even if we now get the most compelling footage in history people will dismiss it as fake, indeed they are MORE likely to dismiss it as fake the better it is

So we are now past the moment when any piece of video or photo evidence, no matter how good, will do “the job”

And also many people are inclined to dismiss anything anyway, as we see

That’s got me thinking - what next? This evolution leaves us with eye witness testimony, but that is all too easily dismissed as “he’s a loony” - or we may get very senior people saying “yes we have evidence” but that can likewise be dismissed as psy-ops, contagion, mass hallucination

The conclusion is that we will now never have evidence for UFOs that convinces anyone, and indeed we will never have clinching evidence of anything - anything at all - ever again - and everyone can live in denial of anything they choose. It’s going to be mad. We will all live in our own tiny bubble of personal reality, no objective reality will exist, not any more

The wet market hypothesis was arguably an early test run of this: post truth reality

noneoftheabove · June 13

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
Lab 506
LD 65
Con 36
SNP 14
Reform 3
Green 2

Electoral Calculus, ouch

Very unrealistic, the Greens only ever win the 1 seat.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

Lib Dems! Winning here? – politicalbetting.com

Comments