I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
A good comment was made recently - to the effect that the labour party manifesto and election campaign was devised around the central belief that the electorate don't want to think about difficult questions.
OT.Catching up on the Manchester airport fracas two things struck me. Manchester airport is possibly the worst airport in the world. It feels like it was designed by the architects who designed Wythenshawe. However that had nothing to do with the fracas.
The second was how much the unfolding drama reminded me of this 1980's commercial for the Guardian which looks very old fashioned now but won British commercial of the year
Have any of the contenders for the leadership of The Former Party of Government (AKA The Conservative Party) managed to get 10 nominees yet - with more and more MPs throwing their hats into the 1922 organised election it is possible only 1 or 2 will make the final. Then what?
Squeaky bum time for all the Tory insiders who bet on a November handover. The 1922 has stuffed things up so it could be over by August. Not many contenders and the last one might withdraw. This is what happened to David Cameron who thought he could enjoy Chequers over the summer before handing over at Conference, only for Boris to withdraw, Gove to implode, then Andrea Leadsom was forced to pull out and Theresa May had her lectern in Downing Street by July, three months ahead of schedule.
Seems unlikely there'll be a coronation at the Party Conference at this stage.
I agree one or two of those declared will fail to gain the momentum needed to be in the final four and the final four could be a final two or three by October.
The parallel with 2016 is inaccurate - that was for choosing a Prime Minister not an Opposition leader. The dynamics of those contests are always different - the Conservatives don't need a leader now or in the next couple of weeks.
The contest can still end early.
First, how many candidates will get the 10 signatures required? There are only 121 MPs, and not all of those are available (Rishi for instance, and the other would-be leaders). Say 100 MPs and seven to ten would-be contenders are named.
And what about the spondulicks? Taking part costs £50,000. Has everyone got a spare £50,000 to throw away donate to party funds?
And the final two have to put up another £150,000. So if you look like coming second, you could save some serious wedge by pulling out early, and negotiate yourself one of the Great Offices of State to do so.
Never underestimate the 1922's ability to stuff things up.
I recall that the BBC for the Tokyo Olympics had a caricatured Oriental accented voiceover for their trailers, this time they have some sub Inspector Clouseau blather. Such imagination and subtlety..
I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
A good comment was made recently - to the effect that the labour party manifesto and election campaign was devised around the central belief that the electorate don't want to think about difficult questions.
There’s no better time to tackle the too-difficult box, than in your first year with a large majority.
The last government got distracted by a pandemic and then a war, this government should be somewhat luckier.
I recall that the BBC for the Tokyo Olympics had a caricatured Oriental accented voiceover for their trailers, this time they have some sub Inspector Clouseau blather. Such imagination and subtlety..
Jenrick personally ordered the painting over of cartoons such as Mickey Mouse and The Jungle Book's Baloo because they were “too welcoming” to the children. I cannot forgive Jenrick his meanness and It's affected my betting I'm afraid. I try not to be emotional in my betting but I can't help it with this one.
If Jenrick becomes Tory leader, this will haunt him and the party. Good for Labour and the LibDems so silver lining.
Did they not factor in that there would obviously be a reduced number of private school pupils?
If you read the article, the headline is the worst case of three scenarios. Granted, even the best case falls short of Labour expectations but by nowhere near as much - the VAT measure would raise £1.15 billion rather than £1.6 billion.
No one seems to be suggesting Eton, Winchester, Harrow or Dulwich will go to the wall over this but there are a lot of smaller schools, who, as we know, would struggle to survive.
On the plus side, the reduction in private opportunities for teachers should go some way towards relieving the state school teacher retention crisis, which means the state won't have to pay them so much. I wonder if that is included in the modelling.
I'd be surprised if it's as much as half, if they break even after everything gets taken into account it will be a shock.
Regardless of whether they manage to get a billion or two extra tax take, the worst possible thing they can do at a time like this is to increase demand for any public service.
Jenrick personally ordered the painting over of cartoons such as Mickey Mouse and The Jungle Book's Baloo because they were “too welcoming” to the children. I cannot forgive Jenrick his meanness and It's affected my betting I'm afraid. I try not to be emotional in my betting but I can't help it with this one.
If Jenrick becomes Tory leader, this will haunt him and the party. Good for Labour and the LibDems so silver lining.
Jenrick is absolutely the leader the Tories need. Morality. Brains. Emotional IQ.
Well, the barrel is truly being scraped. None of the above is not an option, and it seems to me that whoever wins, they could end up losing more seats next time.
Tories for third party in the 2030s? It is beginning to look like it really could happen.
The whole party has been on transmit for a very long time, and the voters seem to have changed frequency.
Jenrick is absolutely the leader the Tories need. Morality. Brains. Emotional IQ.
Well, the barrel is truly being scraped. None of the above is not an option, and it seems to me that whoever wins, they could end up losing more seats next time.
Tories for third party in the 2030s? It is beginning to look like it really could happen.
The whole party has been on transmit for a very long time, and the voters seem to have changed frequency.
Your dispatches from Estonia are most welcome but might I suggest that you don't necessarily understand the multicultural issues in western Europe.
Jenrick personally ordered the painting over of cartoons such as Mickey Mouse and The Jungle Book's Baloo because they were “too welcoming” to the children. I cannot forgive Jenrick his meanness and It's affected my betting I'm afraid. I try not to be emotional in my betting but I can't help it with this one.
If Jenrick becomes Tory leader, this will haunt him and the party. Good for Labour and the LibDems so silver lining.
His "regret" doesn't seem to be particularly regretful according to that article.
Very much in the 'I'm sorry if people were offended' line of apology. That article says his main concern was and still is adults posing as kids. Not sure if those bearded burly '12 year olds' would be much put off by withdrawal of cartoon characters, possibly even less intimidating than the threat of Rwanda.
Have any of the contenders for the leadership of The Former Party of Government (AKA The Conservative Party) managed to get 10 nominees yet - with more and more MPs throwing their hats into the 1922 organised election it is possible only 1 or 2 will make the final. Then what?
Squeaky bum time for all the Tory insiders who bet on a November handover. The 1922 has stuffed things up so it could be over by August. Not many contenders and the last one might withdraw. This is what happened to David Cameron who thought he could enjoy Chequers over the summer before handing over at Conference, only for Boris to withdraw, Gove to implode, then Andrea Leadsom was forced to pull out and Theresa May had her lectern in Downing Street by July, three months ahead of schedule.
Seems unlikely there'll be a coronation at the Party Conference at this stage.
I agree one or two of those declared will fail to gain the momentum needed to be in the final four and the final four could be a final two or three by October.
The parallel with 2016 is inaccurate - that was for choosing a Prime Minister not an Opposition leader. The dynamics of those contests are always different - the Conservatives don't need a leader now or in the next couple of weeks.
The contest can still end early.
First, how many candidates will get the 10 signatures required? There are only 121 MPs, and not all of those are available (Rishi for instance, and the other would-be leaders). Say 100 MPs and seven to ten would-be contenders are named.
And what about the spondulicks? Taking part costs £50,000. Has everyone got a spare £50,000 to throw away donate to party funds?
And the final two have to put up another £150,000. So if you look like coming second, you could save some serious wedge by pulling out early, and negotiate yourself one of the Great Offices of State to do so.
Never underestimate the 1922's ability to stuff things up.
Just wondering on a beautiful sunny morning; can a Tory MP nominate more than one of their colleagues as Leader? Or, an even wilder thought, stand but also nominate someone else?
Jenrick is absolutely the leader the Tories need. Morality. Brains. Emotional IQ.
Well, the barrel is truly being scraped. None of the above is not an option, and it seems to me that whoever wins, they could end up losing more seats next time.
Tories for third party in the 2030s? It is beginning to look like it really could happen.
The whole party has been on transmit for a very long time, and the voters seem to have changed frequency.
Your dispatches from Estonia are most welcome but might I suggest that you don't necessarily understand the multicultural issues in western Europe.
'multicultural issues' eh? why don't you just say what you really mean
Jenrick personally ordered the painting over of cartoons such as Mickey Mouse and The Jungle Book's Baloo because they were “too welcoming” to the children. I cannot forgive Jenrick his meanness and It's affected my betting I'm afraid. I try not to be emotional in my betting but I can't help it with this one.
If Jenrick becomes Tory leader, this will haunt him and the party. Good for Labour and the LibDems so silver lining.
Of course he's regretting it: it has unsurprisingly damaged his popularity - but that choice shows where his instincts lie.
The Nasty Party reborn.
Painting over children's murals - nasty
Bombing children to death or orphanhood by the 10,000 to make the PM's dick look bigger - yay! Tone! New labour! Huzzah!
Can I point out that New Labour was new in 1997 and none of those people supporting the Iraq war including essentially all of the Conservative Party are around any more? Whereas Robert Jenrick the author of the luridly petty no-cartoon policy wants to be leader of the Conservative Party.
I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
And if it increased take up in private insurance it would encourage more private companies to set up clinics and hospitals increasing the national stockpile of kit that the NHs can borrow if they have backlogs.
It would also suck doctors out of the NHS, and at a greater rate than sucking patients out. The net effect would be a worsening of state health provision.
I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
A good comment was made recently - to the effect that the labour party manifesto and election campaign was devised around the central belief that the electorate don't want to think about difficult questions.
There’s no better time to tackle the too-difficult box, than in your first year with a large majority.
The last government got distracted by a pandemic and then a war, this government should be somewhat luckier.
I can speak only for housing and planning which I regard myself as having some professional authority on. So far the strategy is to say they will reverse some of what the conservatives did over the previous few years, reverting back to the previous unpopular policy, that led to lots of unpopular housing developments being allowed in largely unsuitable locations in the countryside. Labour now have lots of their own MP's in the Countryside, so they are probably going to go around the same circuit as the last government. There is nothing on trying to address the problems with no brownfield development coming forward, the massive overregulation, the impossible levels of risk that developers need to take on, etc etc. Also no answer to the deadlock caused by the combination of environmental regulation and political activism, and no signs of intent to take on the legal industrial complex that feasts on the public sector. It is all just business as usual. There is zero disruption other than rhetorical disruption. It is managerialism.
OT; Jenrick feels like he might be in the right place at the right time for this one.
To the right on culture and immigration issues? Check.
Has been on a journey? Check.
Is not Suella Braverman? Check.
Not in the previous cabinet so can portray a degree of distance from some policies? Check.
Badenoch still has to be in with a good chance but I do wonder if she might be too combative in an election where she needs to try and portray a concilatory/unifying side.
‘Jenrick’ sounds like a name Dickens rejected as not being quite good enough for one of his villains.
OT; Jenrick feels like he might be in the right place at the right time for this one.
To the right on culture and immigration issues? Check.
Has been on a journey? Check.
Is not Suella Braverman? Check.
Not in the previous cabinet so can portray a degree of distance from some policies? Check.
Badenoch still has to be in with a good chance but I do wonder if she might be too combative in an election where she needs to try and portray a concilatory/unifying side.
‘Jenrick’ sounds like a name Dickens rejected as not being quite good enough for one of his villains.
I prefer "Dodgy Bobby"as a name for him.
Strikes me as a nasty piece of work, rather like George Osborne.
Deadpool & Wolverine yesterday and this morning I wake up to the news that Robert Downey Jr is returning to the MCU as Doctor Doom in the forthcoming Avenger films.
This is the weekend for geekgasms.
It is tough to pick out the nadir here, in a film made entirely of lows, but I am going to go for a scene near the start of Deadpool & Wolverine when the film-makers opt to disrespect their audience in a way not seen since Eric Cantona kung-fu-kicked a fan in 1995.
This is just insulting. Complexity is ladled on to cover up that nothing makes sense. But millions in marketing made you buy your ticket, so the joke’s not necessarily with you but on you.
Anyone dissing Deadpool & Wolverine is worse than Max Verstappen in my eyes.
It's more of an ignorant insult to Cantona, who actually gave his audience one of the most memorable moments in the history of football.
He stuck up for the glory of the great Manchester United, and the world’s greatest country (apart from Scotland), against a no mark supporter of a no mark team in that London! He remains a hero.
Jenrick is absolutely the leader the Tories need. Morality. Brains. Emotional IQ.
Well, the barrel is truly being scraped. None of the above is not an option, and it seems to me that whoever wins, they could end up losing more seats next time.
Tories for third party in the 2030s? It is beginning to look like it really could happen.
The whole party has been on transmit for a very long time, and the voters seem to have changed frequency.
Your dispatches from Estonia are most welcome but might I suggest that you don't necessarily understand the multicultural issues in western Europe.
'multicultural issues' eh? why don't you just say what you really mean
That we now have highly segregated Muslim communities completely non-integrated in to the wider UK. The reaction to the events at Manchester Airport being a prime example. That we have seen the kind of antisemitism not witnessed since the 1930s. That we have had intimidation of MPs unparalleled in modern times. The latter to such an extent that the Speaker of parliament blocked a vote based on his concerns for MP safety, a totally unprecedented act. If anything these problems appear to be getting worse.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
It was intentional. The idiot creator, a gay guy called Thomas jolly, says he wanted to provoke and polarise people
Brilliant idea. At an Olympics opening ceremony
@Tweedledee amusingly called it the “Woke Waterloo”
I doubt that’s right but let’s hope so
Like the renaming of the Brecon Beacons. And indeed drag queen story time. So much of what the right get annoyed at is because those in minor positions of power are actively thinking "what can we do which will annoy people?"
The NHS thing at the London Olympics doesn't really fall into that category. Right wing people's reaction wasn't a furious " we are offended by the existence of the NHS" but a weary "must we really venerate this institution? It's like venerating the DVLA."
What the f##k is wrong with drag time story time?
I loved Mrs Doubtfire as a kid.
Drag has an ancient history in kids stories. Get over yourself if that bothers you.
Well, because it's done for the purpose of "what can we do to offend"?
No, it's not.
Story time is done to entertain kids.
There is nothing original, new, or offensive in drag story telling.
I suggest you don't go to a pantomime if you're so easily offended.
Jenrick is absolutely the leader the Tories need. Morality. Brains. Emotional IQ.
Well, the barrel is truly being scraped. None of the above is not an option, and it seems to me that whoever wins, they could end up losing more seats next time.
Tories for third party in the 2030s? It is beginning to look like it really could happen.
The whole party has been on transmit for a very long time, and the voters seem to have changed frequency.
Your dispatches from Estonia are most welcome but might I suggest that you don't necessarily understand the multicultural issues in western Europe.
'multicultural issues' eh? why don't you just say what you really mean
That we now have highly segregated Muslim communities completely non-integrated in to the wider UK. The reaction to the events at Manchester Airport being a prime example. That we have seen the kind of antisemitism not witnessed since the 1930s. That we have had intimidation of MPs unparalleled in modern times. The latter to such an extent that the Speaker of parliament blocked a vote based on his concerns for MP safety, a totally unprecedented act. If anything these problems appear to be getting worse.
Happy now?
Christians have intimidated and murdered more MPs in my lifetime than any other group.
You do realise the biggest threat according to the police of political violence comes from the far-right.
But you have strange views on antisemitism where you have persistently lumped any critics of Israel as Hamas/antisemites even when they aren't antisemites but have genuine concerns about the Palestinians.
I think something that isn't being commented up on about Labour finding the public finances being in a shite situation.
It looks like Labour are going for austerity over investment as a result.
I have been pointing out for years out that austerity wasn't a political choice in 2010 it was an economic necessity.
After all Labour were promising cuts deeper than Thatcher if they had won in 2010.
If that is correct then watch out for defections to the Corbyn block. A combination Gaza, fighting austerity and Corbyn will be well irresistible to many in the labour party.
OT; Jenrick feels like he might be in the right place at the right time for this one.
To the right on culture and immigration issues? Check.
Has been on a journey? Check.
Is not Suella Braverman? Check.
Not in the previous cabinet so can portray a degree of distance from some policies? Check.
Badenoch still has to be in with a good chance but I do wonder if she might be too combative in an election where she needs to try and portray a concilatory/unifying side.
‘Jenrick’ sounds like a name Dickens rejected as not being quite good enough for one of his villains.
I prefer "Dodgy Bobby"as a name for him.
Jenrick no longer has the most Tory MPs supporting him. Cleverly and Patel also have four.
Extraordinary that Israel are now threatening Lebanon for Hezbollah sending a rocket into the Golan Heights-if indeed they did. Have they forgotten that The Golan Heights are Syrian not Israeli?
I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
It might work for dental because treatment is spread across your lifetime. But dental is becoming increasingly private anyway.
It doesn't deal with the main issue on the medical side. If you can afford to deduct medical care from your income you are generally healthy enough you don't need the care. Which is the big, big problem with the American healthcare system that relies on year on year insurance funded through your workplace. To be effective medical insurance needs to be whole life, and that requires the government.
I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
A good comment was made recently - to the effect that the labour party manifesto and election campaign was devised around the central belief that the electorate don't want to think about difficult questions.
There’s no better time to tackle the too-difficult box, than in your first year with a large majority.
The last government got distracted by a pandemic and then a war, this government should be somewhat luckier.
I can speak only for housing and planning which I regard myself as having some professional authority on. So far the strategy is to say they will reverse some of what the conservatives did over the previous few years, reverting back to the previous unpopular policy, that led to lots of unpopular housing developments being allowed in largely unsuitable locations in the countryside. Labour now have lots of their own MP's in the Countryside, so they are probably going to go around the same circuit as the last government. There is nothing on trying to address the problems with no brownfield development coming forward, the massive overregulation, the impossible levels of risk that developers need to take on, etc etc. Also no answer to the deadlock caused by the combination of environmental regulation and political activism, and no signs of intent to take on the legal industrial complex that feasts on the public sector. It is all just business as usual. There is zero disruption other than rhetorical disruption. It is managerialism.
If lots of housing is built then good.
It won't be unpopular with those who move into the homes. And those who don't move into their homes can mind their own curtain twitching business.
And as for claims of unsuitable positions, which most saying it mean "near me", there's no such thing. We have a chronic housing shortage in the entire country so there isn't a single dawned location that is unsuitable.
Clearly beneficial to Harris is that her gender, colour and relative youth will prove attractive to women, black and younger voters who have been loosening their ties to the Democratic Party. But there is more than that going on in America — a kind of background music I heard when I predicted Harry Truman would beat Tom Dewey in 1948. At the time, experts were so confident of a Dewey victory that before the votes were tallied, the Chicago Tribune printed an edition headlined “Dewey Beats Truman”.
This time around, the message I’m getting is that what puts Harris in pole position (pun intended) is a weariness with the Sturm und Drang of the Biden-Trump decade, which makes almost any change seem better than a continuation of the politics of the recent past. And makes a not-yet 60-year-old woman in the White House seem preferable to an octogenarian veteran of the nasty politics of the past decade, reading from his 2016 playbook and unable to lower his high dudgeon sufficiently to bring women and college-educated voters to his side, despite his considerable achievements when last in power.
This aligns with Haley's prediction that the winner would be the first party to get rid of its geriatric.
I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
A good comment was made recently - to the effect that the labour party manifesto and election campaign was devised around the central belief that the electorate don't want to think about difficult questions.
There’s no better time to tackle the too-difficult box, than in your first year with a large majority.
The last government got distracted by a pandemic and then a war, this government should be somewhat luckier.
I can speak only for housing and planning which I regard myself as having some professional authority on. So far the strategy is to say they will reverse some of what the conservatives did over the previous few years, reverting back to the previous unpopular policy, that led to lots of unpopular housing developments being allowed in largely unsuitable locations in the countryside. Labour now have lots of their own MP's in the Countryside, so they are probably going to go around the same circuit as the last government. There is nothing on trying to address the problems with no brownfield development coming forward, the massive overregulation, the impossible levels of risk that developers need to take on, etc etc. Also no answer to the deadlock caused by the combination of environmental regulation and political activism, and no signs of intent to take on the legal industrial complex that feasts on the public sector. It is all just business as usual. There is zero disruption other than rhetorical disruption. It is managerialism.
I would love to be surprised on the upside, but sadly think you’re probably right. I just can’t see the government getting rid of the amount of bureaucracy required to actually fix the housing logjam, they come across as being on the side of those worried about the greater crested newts, over those who want to build houses.
Extraordinary that Israel are now threatening Lebanon for Hezbollah sending a rocket into the Golan Heights-if indeed they did. Have they forgotten that The Golan Heights are Syrian not Israeli?
Extraordinary that Israel are now threatening Lebanon for Hezbollah sending a rocket into the Golan Heights-if indeed they did. Have they forgotten that The Golan Heights are Syrian not Israeli?
Are you aware that Hezbollah have been firing barrages of rockets into Israel since October leading to tens of thousands of people leaving their homes?
I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
A good comment was made recently - to the effect that the labour party manifesto and election campaign was devised around the central belief that the electorate don't want to think about difficult questions.
There’s no better time to tackle the too-difficult box, than in your first year with a large majority.
The last government got distracted by a pandemic and then a war, this government should be somewhat luckier.
I can speak only for housing and planning which I regard myself as having some professional authority on. So far the strategy is to say they will reverse some of what the conservatives did over the previous few years, reverting back to the previous unpopular policy, that led to lots of unpopular housing developments being allowed in largely unsuitable locations in the countryside. Labour now have lots of their own MP's in the Countryside, so they are probably going to go around the same circuit as the last government. There is nothing on trying to address the problems with no brownfield development coming forward, the massive overregulation, the impossible levels of risk that developers need to take on, etc etc. Also no answer to the deadlock caused by the combination of environmental regulation and political activism, and no signs of intent to take on the legal industrial complex that feasts on the public sector. It is all just business as usual. There is zero disruption other than rhetorical disruption. It is managerialism.
This overlaps a lot with @Malmesbury s process state. And will be their downfall.
Farage noticed and will pounce in 2029 because the Tory and Libdem party parties offer more of the same we will be five years further down the cul de sac with higher unemployment and taxes and public services no better or worse than they are now.
Extraordinary that Israel are now threatening Lebanon for Hezbollah sending a rocket into the Golan Heights-if indeed they did. Have they forgotten that The Golan Heights are Syrian not Israeli?
Well it seems you forgot they annexed it in 1981.
Wot, like Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia have been annexed?
I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
A good comment was made recently - to the effect that the labour party manifesto and election campaign was devised around the central belief that the electorate don't want to think about difficult questions.
There’s no better time to tackle the too-difficult box, than in your first year with a large majority.
The last government got distracted by a pandemic and then a war, this government should be somewhat luckier.
I can speak only for housing and planning which I regard myself as having some professional authority on. So far the strategy is to say they will reverse some of what the conservatives did over the previous few years, reverting back to the previous unpopular policy, that led to lots of unpopular housing developments being allowed in largely unsuitable locations in the countryside. Labour now have lots of their own MP's in the Countryside, so they are probably going to go around the same circuit as the last government. There is nothing on trying to address the problems with no brownfield development coming forward, the massive overregulation, the impossible levels of risk that developers need to take on, etc etc. Also no answer to the deadlock caused by the combination of environmental regulation and political activism, and no signs of intent to take on the legal industrial complex that feasts on the public sector. It is all just business as usual. There is zero disruption other than rhetorical disruption. It is managerialism.
You might be right in the end. But I think there's been a change in the political assumption. From Thatcher to Blair to Cameron the assumption was rising asset prices (which is driven by supply shortage) helps you politically. Previously governments from after WW1 sold themselves on the provision of affordable decent housing. I think we're going back to that now.
I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
A good comment was made recently - to the effect that the labour party manifesto and election campaign was devised around the central belief that the electorate don't want to think about difficult questions.
Much of the private medical system is staffed by the same people who work for the NHS.
Things like MRI and XRay seem to have their own permanent staff, but for medicos….
Some Corbynites have suggested that NHS staff should be banned (somehow) from doing hours in the private system. Which would probably be a good way to get done strikes going - for quite a number the extra money is part of their life.
I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
And if it increased take up in private insurance it would encourage more private companies to set up clinics and hospitals increasing the national stockpile of kit that the NHs can borrow if they have backlogs.
It would also suck doctors out of the NHS, and at a greater rate than sucking patients out. The net effect would be a worsening of state health provision.
What is the restricted supply in the NHS? Doctors? Nurses? Beds? Imaging equipment? Managers? IT systems? Care sector? Etc.
The private sector is good for capital investment and entrepreneurial thinking. The public sector is better for long term planning and wider strategic thinking.
Private health can only help on some of those indicators above but should be used where the public sector is lacking.
Jenrick is absolutely the leader the Tories need. Morality. Brains. Emotional IQ.
Well, the barrel is truly being scraped. None of the above is not an option, and it seems to me that whoever wins, they could end up losing more seats next time.
Tories for third party in the 2030s? It is beginning to look like it really could happen.
The whole party has been on transmit for a very long time, and the voters seem to have changed frequency.
Your dispatches from Estonia are most welcome but might I suggest that you don't necessarily understand the multicultural issues in western Europe.
'multicultural issues' eh? why don't you just say what you really mean
That we now have highly segregated Muslim communities completely non-integrated in to the wider UK. The reaction to the events at Manchester Airport being a prime example. That we have seen the kind of antisemitism not witnessed since the 1930s. That we have had intimidation of MPs unparalleled in modern times. The latter to such an extent that the Speaker of parliament blocked a vote based on his concerns for MP safety, a totally unprecedented act. If anything these problems appear to be getting worse.
Extraordinary that Israel are now threatening Lebanon for Hezbollah sending a rocket into the Golan Heights-if indeed they did. Have they forgotten that The Golan Heights are Syrian not Israeli?
Have you forgotten that Syria is at war with Israel and does not recognise Israel as a legitimate state ?
Anyhoo, looks like Tommy Robinson is going to prison this week.
Contempt of court?
Yes.
What’s he done this time?
Telegraph: Tommy Robinson says he expects to go to jail for two years as he showed a film today that repeats a content he is under an injunction to not repeat. With a hearing on Tuesday, his effort to get himself imprisoned again seems very deliberate
Anyhoo, looks like Tommy Robinson is going to prison this week.
Contempt of court?
Yes.
What’s he done this time?
Telegraph: Tommy Robinson says he expects to go to jail for two years as he showed a film today that repeats a content he is under an injunction to not repeat. With a hearing on Tuesday, his effort to get himself imprisoned again seems very deliberate
I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
A good comment was made recently - to the effect that the labour party manifesto and election campaign was devised around the central belief that the electorate don't want to think about difficult questions.
There’s no better time to tackle the too-difficult box, than in your first year with a large majority.
The last government got distracted by a pandemic and then a war, this government should be somewhat luckier.
I can speak only for housing and planning which I regard myself as having some professional authority on. So far the strategy is to say they will reverse some of what the conservatives did over the previous few years, reverting back to the previous unpopular policy, that led to lots of unpopular housing developments being allowed in largely unsuitable locations in the countryside. Labour now have lots of their own MP's in the Countryside, so they are probably going to go around the same circuit as the last government. There is nothing on trying to address the problems with no brownfield development coming forward, the massive overregulation, the impossible levels of risk that developers need to take on, etc etc. Also no answer to the deadlock caused by the combination of environmental regulation and political activism, and no signs of intent to take on the legal industrial complex that feasts on the public sector. It is all just business as usual. There is zero disruption other than rhetorical disruption. It is managerialism.
I would love to be surprised on the upside, but sadly think you’re probably right. I just can’t see the government getting rid of the amount of bureaucracy required to actually fix the housing logjam, they come across as being on the side of those worried about the greater crested newts, over those who want to build houses.
An example of what can be done, is the way that the path for offshore wind was smoothed.
No childish “red tape bonfires” - instead, what was done was to define, fairly closely, the documentation and planning work required to get an approval.
So if you have your reports on shipwrecks, fish habitats etc all lined up then the application can move forward relatively rapidly.
I’ve seen comments from objectors that they felt swept off their feet by the rush through the process. And that it is rigged against them, by requiring challenges to be detailed, relevant and exact.
Jenrick is absolutely the leader the Tories need. Morality. Brains. Emotional IQ.
Well, the barrel is truly being scraped. None of the above is not an option, and it seems to me that whoever wins, they could end up losing more seats next time.
Tories for third party in the 2030s? It is beginning to look like it really could happen.
The whole party has been on transmit for a very long time, and the voters seem to have changed frequency.
Your dispatches from Estonia are most welcome but might I suggest that you don't necessarily understand the multicultural issues in western Europe.
'multicultural issues' eh? why don't you just say what you really mean
That we now have highly segregated Muslim communities completely non-integrated in to the wider UK. The reaction to the events at Manchester Airport being a prime example. That we have seen the kind of antisemitism not witnessed since the 1930s. That we have had intimidation of MPs unparalleled in modern times. The latter to such an extent that the Speaker of parliament blocked a vote based on his concerns for MP safety, a totally unprecedented act. If anything these problems appear to be getting worse.
I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
A good comment was made recently - to the effect that the labour party manifesto and election campaign was devised around the central belief that the electorate don't want to think about difficult questions.
There’s no better time to tackle the too-difficult box, than in your first year with a large majority.
The last government got distracted by a pandemic and then a war, this government should be somewhat luckier.
I can speak only for housing and planning which I regard myself as having some professional authority on. So far the strategy is to say they will reverse some of what the conservatives did over the previous few years, reverting back to the previous unpopular policy, that led to lots of unpopular housing developments being allowed in largely unsuitable locations in the countryside. Labour now have lots of their own MP's in the Countryside, so they are probably going to go around the same circuit as the last government. There is nothing on trying to address the problems with no brownfield development coming forward, the massive overregulation, the impossible levels of risk that developers need to take on, etc etc. Also no answer to the deadlock caused by the combination of environmental regulation and political activism, and no signs of intent to take on the legal industrial complex that feasts on the public sector. It is all just business as usual. There is zero disruption other than rhetorical disruption. It is managerialism.
Yep. The early signs from Labour are desperately bad. On almost every issue
It is exactly what we feared. More of the same inept Blairite-Tory crap, but possibly even crappier, even spendier, with even fewer ideas - and large dollops of Woke on top. Oh, and higher taxes
Jenrick is absolutely the leader the Tories need. Morality. Brains. Emotional IQ.
Well, the barrel is truly being scraped. None of the above is not an option, and it seems to me that whoever wins, they could end up losing more seats next time.
Tories for third party in the 2030s? It is beginning to look like it really could happen.
The whole party has been on transmit for a very long time, and the voters seem to have changed frequency.
Your dispatches from Estonia are most welcome but might I suggest that you don't necessarily understand the multicultural issues in western Europe.
'multicultural issues' eh? why don't you just say what you really mean
That we now have highly segregated Muslim communities completely non-integrated in to the wider UK. The reaction to the events at Manchester Airport being a prime example. That we have seen the kind of antisemitism not witnessed since the 1930s. That we have had intimidation of MPs unparalleled in modern times. The latter to such an extent that the Speaker of parliament blocked a vote based on his concerns for MP safety, a totally unprecedented act. If anything these problems appear to be getting worse.
Happy now?
Never been to Stamford Hill I take it?
No. Is it nice or something?
According to sports, the Hasidic community on Canvey Island is somewhat self-restricted. Don't know what they do about schools, though.
Mr. Eagles, recent MCU films have not exactly been winning plaudits. Still, maybe they'll do better this time.
As an aside, I watched Deadpool 2 last night. Entertaining, probably preferred the first one.
Why do grown adults watch kids’ movies, anyway?
My experience of parenthood is kids movies are great and adult movies are great. It's the young adult stuff makes you want to tear out your eyeballs
ALL the Avengers/Marvels/superhero stuff is the most unutterable dreck. It is an absolute marker of intellectual mediocrity - adults enjoying this pap. It’s aimed at 13 year olds and it shows
Whereas, as you say, actual kids movies like Pixar animations can be brilliant. Inventive, clever, witty, moving. They sneak in really adult themes to please the parents
I note that Inside Out 2 is now the highest grossing animated movie of all time
I just buy smashed oats (tesco scottish porridge oats) - link below, put them into a bowl and add boiling water, stir and a sprinkling of water on top.
Tried various other brands oats but most were a bit too tough. The tesco ones are perfect
I originally mixed in powdered milk until it got too expensive/difficult to source in the plague scare and found it made little difference to the taste.
It is basically the same as just add water pots or sachets of porridge but a tenth of the price
Clearly beneficial to Harris is that her gender, colour and relative youth will prove attractive to women, black and younger voters who have been loosening their ties to the Democratic Party. But there is more than that going on in America — a kind of background music I heard when I predicted Harry Truman would beat Tom Dewey in 1948. At the time, experts were so confident of a Dewey victory that before the votes were tallied, the Chicago Tribune printed an edition headlined “Dewey Beats Truman”.
This time around, the message I’m getting is that what puts Harris in pole position (pun intended) is a weariness with the Sturm und Drang of the Biden-Trump decade, which makes almost any change seem better than a continuation of the politics of the recent past. And makes a not-yet 60-year-old woman in the White House seem preferable to an octogenarian veteran of the nasty politics of the past decade, reading from his 2016 playbook and unable to lower his high dudgeon sufficiently to bring women and college-educated voters to his side, despite his considerable achievements when last in power.
This aligns with Haley's prediction that the winner would be the first party to get rid of its geriatric.
I had this image of the MPs eating Lord Pickles, a la The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover. Presumably with a suitable condiment made by Branston
I can speak only for housing and planning which I regard myself as having some professional authority on. So far the strategy is to say they will reverse some of what the conservatives did over the previous few years, reverting back to the previous unpopular policy, that led to lots of unpopular housing developments being allowed in largely unsuitable locations in the countryside. Labour now have lots of their own MP's in the Countryside, so they are probably going to go around the same circuit as the last government. There is nothing on trying to address the problems with no brownfield development coming forward, the massive overregulation, the impossible levels of risk that developers need to take on, etc etc. Also no answer to the deadlock caused by the combination of environmental regulation and political activism, and no signs of intent to take on the legal industrial complex that feasts on the public sector. It is all just business as usual. There is zero disruption other than rhetorical disruption. It is managerialism.
I suspect I don't have your level of professional knowledge but I do possess a little.
"No brownfield development coming forward" - well, when brownfield is all you have such as in Inner East London, you have to use it and at least three significant developments in my immediate vicinity are (or are planned to be) on retail parks which have been in decline since the pandemic. These large sites can be adapted to residential development it seems. The main problem with some brownfield sites is decontamination which is a costly business.
"Massive Overregulation" - not sure what you mean. Unlike those who just want houses built, I want good quality construction which stands the test of time. I've seen too many instances of shoddy practice by developers on newbuild sites to be confident about the quality of what's being put up and I'm concerned this will lead to huge problems in the future.
"Impossible Levels of Risk" - seriously? To be blunt, I'm more interested in getting good quality homes built than I am in developers and builders turning a profit for their shareholders. That may need some radical action from an activist Government if the private sector cries foul and walks away.
"Environmental Regulation and Political Activism" - there are very few who are completely anti development. Most however want developments which recognise the infrastructural capacity of the places in which they are planned and the community aspects of new development (the provision of additional health services, schools and other utilities) need to be accepted. If a developer submits a ridiculously over-dense and inappropriate application simply to maximise their profit, they can't be surprised if locals object (as is their right).
"Legal Industrial Complex that feasts on the public sector" - interesting. Unfortunately, we've had a mantra for decades that public is bad and private is good. In my experience, the provision of public services by the private sector is mixed at best. Many private companies take on public sector work thinking it's an easy route to profit - it isn't. There is the other problem and that's the use of Consultants - they have their place but when a Council is paying north of £1500 per day to be told what they already know by an "independent expert" you do wonder. There are specialisms where advice has to be sought outside the public sector and that's fine but for too many Councils bringing in a "consultant" (often a past employee, remember, those who can, do, those who can afford to, become consultants) is an easy option.
Jenrick is absolutely the leader the Tories need. Morality. Brains. Emotional IQ.
Well, the barrel is truly being scraped. None of the above is not an option, and it seems to me that whoever wins, they could end up losing more seats next time.
Tories for third party in the 2030s? It is beginning to look like it really could happen.
The whole party has been on transmit for a very long time, and the voters seem to have changed frequency.
Your dispatches from Estonia are most welcome but might I suggest that you don't necessarily understand the multicultural issues in western Europe.
'multicultural issues' eh? why don't you just say what you really mean
That we now have highly segregated Muslim communities completely non-integrated in to the wider UK. The reaction to the events at Manchester Airport being a prime example. That we have seen the kind of antisemitism not witnessed since the 1930s. That we have had intimidation of MPs unparalleled in modern times. The latter to such an extent that the Speaker of parliament blocked a vote based on his concerns for MP safety, a totally unprecedented act. If anything these problems appear to be getting worse.
Happy now?
Never been to Stamford Hill I take it?
No. Is it nice or something?
According to sports, the Hasidic community on Canvey Island is somewhat self-restricted. Don't know what they do about schools, though.
The biggest problem Labour have coming down the tracks as far as I can see is all the consequences of the ming vase strategy coming home to roost at the budget.
They deliberately did not try to sell any policies to the electorate at the election and are now going to try and justify policies after the event. I said at the time they needed to be bolder and they weren’t. This is a risky moment for them.
I had this image of the MPs eating Lord Pickles, a la The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover. Presumably with a suitable condiment made by Branston
Very positive article in yesterday's Guardian about Kamala Harris hy Henry Porter, editor of Vanity Fair. "What I learned about Kamala Harris over our Oscars dinner"
Clearly beneficial to Harris is that her gender, colour and relative youth will prove attractive to women, black and younger voters who have been loosening their ties to the Democratic Party. But there is more than that going on in America — a kind of background music I heard when I predicted Harry Truman would beat Tom Dewey in 1948. At the time, experts were so confident of a Dewey victory that before the votes were tallied, the Chicago Tribune printed an edition headlined “Dewey Beats Truman”.
This time around, the message I’m getting is that what puts Harris in pole position (pun intended) is a weariness with the Sturm und Drang of the Biden-Trump decade, which makes almost any change seem better than a continuation of the politics of the recent past. And makes a not-yet 60-year-old woman in the White House seem preferable to an octogenarian veteran of the nasty politics of the past decade, reading from his 2016 playbook and unable to lower his high dudgeon sufficiently to bring women and college-educated voters to his side, despite his considerable achievements when last in power.
This aligns with Haley's prediction that the winner would be the first party to get rid of its geriatric.
How is he still around?
I remember reading Irwin Stelzer and David Smith’s Sunday Times columns every week for Economics A-level tutorial class in, checks notes, 1995.
Kamala Harris has virtually erased Donald Trump’s six-point lead in the race for US president, according to a new poll.
The battle for the White House is now effectively tied as Trump’s six-point lead over Joe Biden was squashed to just two points after Ms Harris took his place as election frontrunner for the Democrats, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The biggest problem Labour have coming down the tracks as far as I can see is all the consequences of the ming vase strategy coming home to roost at the budget.
They deliberately did not try to sell any policies to the electorate at the election and are now going to try and justify policies after the event. I said at the time they needed to be bolder and they weren’t. This is a risky moment for them.
Nah they got a Liam Byrne note * 1000 hall pass for the next few years.
Deadpool & Wolverine yesterday and this morning I wake up to the news that Robert Downey Jr is returning to the MCU as Doctor Doom in the forthcoming Avenger films.
This is the weekend for geekgasms.
It is tough to pick out the nadir here, in a film made entirely of lows, but I am going to go for a scene near the start of Deadpool & Wolverine when the film-makers opt to disrespect their audience in a way not seen since Eric Cantona kung-fu-kicked a fan in 1995.
This is just insulting. Complexity is ladled on to cover up that nothing makes sense. But millions in marketing made you buy your ticket, so the joke’s not necessarily with you but on you.
Anyone dissing Deadpool & Wolverine is worse than Max Verstappen in my eyes.
It is all memberberries tho. Action sequence, memberberries, action sequence, memberberries, rude words, memberberries, action sequence the end. It's a sexy version of "The Flash" without the weird lead. It'll gross like crazy but it's the film version of fracking, sucking the last remaining goodness out of a tapped-out well.
I know [REDACTED] wanted to be in a [REDACTED] film and couldn't, but that's obscure and his accent was terrible. Plus it was nice to see [REDACTED] back, presumably unstoned this time, but the emnity between him and Ryan Reynolds does bleed thru.
The biggest problem Labour have coming down the tracks as far as I can see is all the consequences of the ming vase strategy coming home to roost at the budget.
They deliberately did not try to sell any policies to the electorate at the election and are now going to try and justify policies after the event. I said at the time they needed to be bolder and they weren’t. This is a risky moment for them.
Is it really a problem for them? It’s not risky as they aren’t up for election now. If they had announced some policies then they might not have won so bigly but would still have won with a majority. So they have to do what they are going to do and always were going to do it.
They might take a hit now in their popularity but it’s at least four years until next election so they can live with it.
People will whine, people will say “we warned you” and life will go on.
More than 40 former Justice Department officials who served under both Republican and Democratic presidents have signed a letter endorsing 2024 presidential candidate Kamala Harris “The fabric of the nation, the rule of law and the future of the Democracy are at stake in this election,” the letter states.
The biggest problem Labour have coming down the tracks as far as I can see is all the consequences of the ming vase strategy coming home to roost at the budget.
They deliberately did not try to sell any policies to the electorate at the election and are now going to try and justify policies after the event. I said at the time they needed to be bolder and they weren’t. This is a risky moment for them.
Is it really a problem for them? It’s not risky as they aren’t up for election now. If they had announced some policies then they might not have won so bigly but would still have won with a majority. So they have to do what they are going to do and always were going to do it.
They might take a hit now in their popularity but it’s at least four years until next election so they can live with it.
People will whine, people will say “we warned you” and life will go on.
Yes it is.
It doesn’t mean they’ll lose the next election as a result. But it will be the first big test of whether they can navigate a politically tricky sell and on whom the blame falls.
The biggest problem Labour have coming down the tracks as far as I can see is all the consequences of the ming vase strategy coming home to roost at the budget.
They deliberately did not try to sell any policies to the electorate at the election and are now going to try and justify policies after the event. I said at the time they needed to be bolder and they weren’t. This is a risky moment for them.
Nah they got a Liam Byrne note * 1000 hall pass for the next few years.
Besides, the political opposition is currently at its weakest.
Elections can do two things. One is to give a mandate for the future, the other is to pass judgement on the past. The second is way more important. If (and it's a non-trivial if) Labour can point to real improvements by May 2028, anything bad they do now won't matter.
The biggest problem Labour have coming down the tracks as far as I can see is all the consequences of the ming vase strategy coming home to roost at the budget.
They deliberately did not try to sell any policies to the electorate at the election and are now going to try and justify policies after the event. I said at the time they needed to be bolder and they weren’t. This is a risky moment for them.
Nah they got a Liam Byrne note * 1000 hall pass for the next few years.
Yes, but of course we were all aware in 2010 that the Tories were going to reduce spending. That was one of the central planks of the election campaign.
The point I am making is Labour didn’t tell us much at all of what they were going to do, preferring to be all things to all people. That might have won them an election, but it might cause them more headaches in government.
The biggest problem Labour have coming down the tracks as far as I can see is all the consequences of the ming vase strategy coming home to roost at the budget.
They deliberately did not try to sell any policies to the electorate at the election and are now going to try and justify policies after the event. I said at the time they needed to be bolder and they weren’t. This is a risky moment for them.
Is it really a problem for them? It’s not risky as they aren’t up for election now. If they had announced some policies then they might not have won so bigly but would still have won with a majority. So they have to do what they are going to do and always were going to do it.
They might take a hit now in their popularity but it’s at least four years until next election so they can live with it.
People will whine, people will say “we warned you” and life will go on.
Yes it is.
It doesn’t mean they’ll lose the next election as a result. But it will be the first big test of whether they can navigate a politically tricky sell and on whom the blame falls.
Especially given that almost every union in the public sector is angling for above-inflation pay awards, and their own party’s activists see priorities in such areas as increasing benefits to large families.
I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
And if it increased take up in private insurance it would encourage more private companies to set up clinics and hospitals increasing the national stockpile of kit that the NHs can borrow if they have backlogs.
It would also suck doctors out of the NHS, and at a greater rate than sucking patients out. The net effect would be a worsening of state health provision.
What is the restricted supply in the NHS? Doctors? Nurses? Beds? Imaging equipment? Managers? IT systems? Care sector? Etc.
The private sector is good for capital investment and entrepreneurial thinking. The public sector is better for long term planning and wider strategic thinking.
Private health can only help on some of those indicators above but should be used where the public sector is lacking.
Yeah, that's fair enough. My point was really to highlight that the effects of changes to private provision, in both healthcare and education, are subject to rather more variables than the simplistic analyses made in some of the comments here take into account.
Mum got four years for renting a safehouse for Just Stop Oil
The family of Louise Lancaster, who was sentenced this month for her role in the M25 protests, say they are shocked at the punishment but back her fight against climate change
I can speak only for housing and planning which I regard myself as having some professional authority on. So far the strategy is to say they will reverse some of what the conservatives did over the previous few years, reverting back to the previous unpopular policy, that led to lots of unpopular housing developments being allowed in largely unsuitable locations in the countryside. Labour now have lots of their own MP's in the Countryside, so they are probably going to go around the same circuit as the last government. There is nothing on trying to address the problems with no brownfield development coming forward, the massive overregulation, the impossible levels of risk that developers need to take on, etc etc. Also no answer to the deadlock caused by the combination of environmental regulation and political activism, and no signs of intent to take on the legal industrial complex that feasts on the public sector. It is all just business as usual. There is zero disruption other than rhetorical disruption. It is managerialism.
I suspect I don't have your level of professional knowledge but I do possess a little.
"No brownfield development coming forward" - well, when brownfield is all you have such as in Inner East London, you have to use it and at least three significant developments in my immediate vicinity are (or are planned to be) on retail parks which have been in decline since the pandemic. These large sites can be adapted to residential development it seems. The main problem with some brownfield sites is decontamination which is a costly business.
"Massive Overregulation" - not sure what you mean. Unlike those who just want houses built, I want good quality construction which stands the test of time. I've seen too many instances of shoddy practice by developers on newbuild sites to be confident about the quality of what's being put up and I'm concerned this will lead to huge problems in the future.
"Impossible Levels of Risk" - seriously? To be blunt, I'm more interested in getting good quality homes built than I am in developers and builders turning a profit for their shareholders. That may need some radical action from an activist Government if the private sector cries foul and walks away.
"Environmental Regulation and Political Activism" - there are very few who are completely anti development. Most however want developments which recognise the infrastructural capacity of the places in which they are planned and the community aspects of new development (the provision of additional health services, schools and other utilities) need to be accepted. If a developer submits a ridiculously over-dense and inappropriate application simply to maximise their profit, they can't be surprised if locals object (as is their right).
"Legal Industrial Complex that feasts on the public sector" - interesting. Unfortunately, we've had a mantra for decades that public is bad and private is good. In my experience, the provision of public services by the private sector is mixed at best. Many private companies take on public sector work thinking it's an easy route to profit - it isn't. There is the other problem and that's the use of Consultants - they have their place but when a Council is paying north of £1500 per day to be told what they already know by an "independent expert" you do wonder. There are specialisms where advice has to be sought outside the public sector and that's fine but for too many Councils bringing in a "consultant" (often a past employee, remember, those who can, do, those who can afford to, become consultants) is an easy option.
The definition of a Brownfields site is a bit suspect. They are building a new village on the site of the Rugby/Daventry radio station. Hectares of green fields with the odd concrete base that used to hold the Radio Masts and their supporting cables. We could see them from my daughters window.
More than 40 former Justice Department officials who served under both Republican and Democratic presidents have signed a letter endorsing 2024 presidential candidate Kamala Harris “The fabric of the nation, the rule of law and the future of the Democracy are at stake in this election,” the letter states.
Seems to be a fair amount of chatter about Vance being dumped but surely the delegates have voted at the convention?
I don't think he can be "dropped" formally, but if he stands down he can be replaced by a vote of the Republican National Committee. It's fairly unlikely, if Trump gave him a whiskey and a revolver, that Vance wouldn't step outside. It would clearly be humiliating for him, but it isn't really credible for him to carry on without Trump's support.
Sunset Times front page reporting that Labour might scrap HS2 between Euston and Old Oak to help pay for hotels for illegal immigrants and inflation busting public sector rises £20 billion gap in finances the Tories left
Hopefully that's just a start to scrapping the whole misbegotten project. Building an absurdly expensive railway from somewhere near central Birmingham without any real links to a desolate part of west London is the biggest waste of money since the London Olympics. It may have made sense at £30 billion, it's crazy at £70 billion or £100 billion or whatever the current guess is - by far the most expensive rail line in the world per mile I think. Unless of course the idea is to show the rest of the world that we can do disastrously overrunning white elephants with no coherent business case.
We should leave that honour to the Californians and spend our money on something more useful, like Crossrail 2, the Bakerloo Line extension, or even, shock, giving taxpayers a break.
The birmingham branch is just a nice to have bolt on.
The core route is Euston to Lichfield.
The main (unspoken) reason it is being built is to provide an extra pair pf tracks between Euston and Lichfield to allow more commuter trains to run between Euston and Rugby due to three huge new towns being built on the route (Hemel, MK and Northampton), also to fit some more goods trains on it.
(Compare the number of trains per hour in Rush Hour stopping at Northampton and Bedford and you get the picture and start to understand why commuter train overcrowding is epic on that line (to the extent that large numbers of people drive from places like Northampton and Daventry down the M1 to Flitwick and Harlington instead)
However, for it to work it needs to go to Euston. Terminating it at Wormwood Scrubs Parkway turns the whole thing into a white elephant, unless your nearest and dearest are incarcerated there, in which case it is quite handy.
You know they already double-tracked this route about 10 or 15 years ago, causing huge disruption?
Clearly beneficial to Harris is that her gender, colour and relative youth will prove attractive to women, black and younger voters who have been loosening their ties to the Democratic Party. But there is more than that going on in America — a kind of background music I heard when I predicted Harry Truman would beat Tom Dewey in 1948. At the time, experts were so confident of a Dewey victory that before the votes were tallied, the Chicago Tribune printed an edition headlined “Dewey Beats Truman”.
This time around, the message I’m getting is that what puts Harris in pole position (pun intended) is a weariness with the Sturm und Drang of the Biden-Trump decade, which makes almost any change seem better than a continuation of the politics of the recent past. And makes a not-yet 60-year-old woman in the White House seem preferable to an octogenarian veteran of the nasty politics of the past decade, reading from his 2016 playbook and unable to lower his high dudgeon sufficiently to bring women and college-educated voters to his side, despite his considerable achievements when last in power.
This aligns with Haley's prediction that the winner would be the first party to get rid of its geriatric.
How is he still around?
I remember reading Irwin Stelzer and David Smith’s Sunday Times columns every week for Economics A-level tutorial class in, checks notes, 1995.
What I like about Stelzer is that he responds to the comments on his articles.
I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
Labour are going to suffer from the fact that all their shitehouse social democratic ideas have already been put into place by Cameron, May, Boris and Sunak. There is no pent up demand for social democracy (or money to pay for it) in the system.
The biggest problem Labour have coming down the tracks as far as I can see is all the consequences of the ming vase strategy coming home to roost at the budget.
They deliberately did not try to sell any policies to the electorate at the election and are now going to try and justify policies after the event. I said at the time they needed to be bolder and they weren’t. This is a risky moment for them.
Nah they got a Liam Byrne note * 1000 hall pass for the next few years.
Besides, the political opposition is currently at its weakest.
Elections can do two things. One is to give a mandate for the future, the other is to pass judgement on the past. The second is way more important. If (and it's a non-trivial if) Labour can point to real improvements by May 2028, anything bad they do now won't matter.
But all the signs indicate they have zero ideas and zero energy. And they will thus achieve nothing, indeed, in areas like asylum and immigration they might be far worse (incredibly)
So what happens now - the first 100 days - really IS important. Not pivotal - but important
Remember starmer got that majority with just 34% of the vote. Less than Corbyn. He could easily lose the next GE on that basis, despite all those MPs
I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
And if it increased take up in private insurance it would encourage more private companies to set up clinics and hospitals increasing the national stockpile of kit that the NHs can borrow if they have backlogs.
Careful, you're reading like the Reform manifesto.
The biggest problem Labour have coming down the tracks as far as I can see is all the consequences of the ming vase strategy coming home to roost at the budget.
They deliberately did not try to sell any policies to the electorate at the election and are now going to try and justify policies after the event. I said at the time they needed to be bolder and they weren’t. This is a risky moment for them.
Nah they got a Liam Byrne note * 1000 hall pass for the next few years.
Besides, the political opposition is currently at its weakest.
Elections can do two things. One is to give a mandate for the future, the other is to pass judgement on the past. The second is way more important. If (and it's a non-trivial if) Labour can point to real improvements by May 2028, anything bad they do now won't matter.
Real improvements might be difficult.
Real improvements which are accepted as such and not immediately taken for granted would be even more so.
More than 40 former Justice Department officials who served under both Republican and Democratic presidents have signed a letter endorsing 2024 presidential candidate Kamala Harris “The fabric of the nation, the rule of law and the future of the Democracy are at stake in this election,” the letter states.
Seems to be a fair amount of chatter about Vance being dumped but surely the delegates have voted at the convention?
I don't think he can be "dropped" formally, but if he stands down he can be replaced by a vote of the Republican National Committee. It's fairly unlikely, if Trump gave him a whiskey and a revolver, that Vance wouldn't step outside. It would clearly be humiliating for him, but it isn't really credible for him to carry on without Trump's support.
Thanks.
I have collected my winnings on him being veep nominee as BF rules are all about the convention delegate vote, so I'm not financially invested in this one, other than a wild crazy odds bet that somehow Vance ends up as President after the November GE.
I am coming to the conclusion that if Labour are serious about fixing the health service, the quickest way to do that would be to make private dental/medical care tax deductable, as in just about every other country in the world, which would reduce demand on the NHS significantly
They won't for dogma reasons of course, and wouldn't even if it increased the tax taken as we are seeing with private schools
And if it increased take up in private insurance it would encourage more private companies to set up clinics and hospitals increasing the national stockpile of kit that the NHs can borrow if they have backlogs.
Careful, you're reading like the Reform manifesto.
The private sector can't even keep up with the current demand for dentistry. Over a 3 month wait just to see the hygienist at my current practice.
Alberto Costa MP for South Leicestershire told BBC Radio Leicester "I've just been re-elected and I promise the people of South Leicestershire this, I will ensure that the Conservative Party reflects and goes forward in the right direction and if that means I stand for leadership, I will do so "
Rumours locally are that he has decided not to stand as Theresa Coffey lost her seat and can't stand with him on a joint ticket.
Sunset Times front page reporting that Labour might scrap HS2 between Euston and Old Oak to help pay for hotels for illegal immigrants and inflation busting public sector rises £20 billion gap in finances the Tories left
Hopefully that's just a start to scrapping the whole misbegotten project. Building an absurdly expensive railway from somewhere near central Birmingham without any real links to a desolate part of west London is the biggest waste of money since the London Olympics. It may have made sense at £30 billion, it's crazy at £70 billion or £100 billion or whatever the current guess is - by far the most expensive rail line in the world per mile I think. Unless of course the idea is to show the rest of the world that we can do disastrously overrunning white elephants with no coherent business case.
We should leave that honour to the Californians and spend our money on something more useful, like Crossrail 2, the Bakerloo Line extension, or even, shock, giving taxpayers a break.
The birmingham branch is just a nice to have bolt on.
The core route is Euston to Lichfield.
The main (unspoken) reason it is being built is to provide an extra pair pf tracks between Euston and Lichfield to allow more commuter trains to run between Euston and Rugby due to three huge new towns being built on the route (Hemel, MK and Northampton), also to fit some more goods trains on it.
(Compare the number of trains per hour in Rush Hour stopping at Northampton and Bedford and you get the picture and start to understand why commuter train overcrowding is epic on that line (to the extent that large numbers of people drive from places like Northampton and Daventry down the M1 to Flitwick and Harlington instead)
However, for it to work it needs to go to Euston. Terminating it at Wormwood Scrubs Parkway turns the whole thing into a white elephant, unless your nearest and dearest are incarcerated there, in which case it is quite handy.
You know they already double-tracked this route about 10 or 15 years ago, causing huge disruption?
They four tracked (not two Tracked) Tamworth to Armitage (Between Lichfield and Rugely a few years back. Yes it was very disruptive.
That is why the project to add two more tracks between Lichfield and Euston is doing so on a new alignment. Having decided on a new alignment it makes sense to build the new infrastructure (which will be there for hundreds of years) to the highest possible spec. Hence High Speed 2.
The bit from Lichfield to Crewe will almost certainly be built too because crashing six tracks into non grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel is silly.
The rest of the project was pork barrel railways thuough.
Comments
First, how many candidates will get the 10 signatures required? There are only 121 MPs, and not all of those are available (Rishi for instance, and the other would-be leaders). Say 100 MPs and seven to ten would-be contenders are named.
And what about the spondulicks? Taking part costs £50,000. Has everyone got a spare £50,000 to
throw awaydonate to party funds?And the final two have to put up another £150,000. So if you look like coming second, you could save some serious wedge by pulling out early, and negotiate yourself one of the Great Offices of State to do so.
Never underestimate the 1922's ability to stuff things up.
The last government got distracted by a pandemic and then a war, this government should be somewhat luckier.
Bombing children to death or orphanhood by the 10,000 to make the PM's dick look bigger - yay! Tone! New labour! Huzzah!
Tories for third party in the 2030s? It is beginning to look like it really could happen.
The whole party has been on transmit for a very long time, and the voters seem to have changed frequency.
The Rt Honourable Lord Pickles
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/conservative-friends-israel-lobby-group-free-trips/
Or, an even wilder thought, stand but also nominate someone else?
Or are those activities expressly forbidden?
It looks like Labour are going for austerity over investment as a result.
I have been pointing out for years out that austerity wasn't a political choice in 2010 it was an economic necessity.
After all Labour were promising cuts deeper than Thatcher if they had won in 2010.
Happy now?
Story time is done to entertain kids.
There is nothing original, new, or offensive in drag story telling.
I suggest you don't go to a pantomime if you're so easily offended.
You do realise the biggest threat according to the police of political violence comes from the far-right.
But you have strange views on antisemitism where you have persistently lumped any critics of Israel as Hamas/antisemites even when they aren't antisemites but have genuine concerns about the Palestinians.
It doesn't deal with the main issue on the medical side. If you can afford to deduct medical care from your income you are generally healthy enough you don't need the care. Which is the big, big problem with the American healthcare system that relies on year on year insurance funded through your workplace. To be effective medical insurance needs to be whole life, and that requires the government.
It won't be unpopular with those who move into the homes. And those who don't move into their homes can mind their own curtain twitching business.
And as for claims of unsuitable positions, which most saying it mean "near me", there's no such thing. We have a chronic housing shortage in the entire country so there isn't a single dawned location that is unsuitable.
Clearly beneficial to Harris is that her gender, colour and relative youth will prove attractive to women, black and younger voters who have been loosening their ties to the Democratic Party. But there is more than that going on in America — a kind of background music I heard when I predicted Harry Truman would beat Tom Dewey in 1948. At the time, experts were so confident of a Dewey victory that before the votes were tallied, the Chicago Tribune printed an edition headlined “Dewey Beats Truman”.
This time around, the message I’m getting is that what puts Harris in pole position (pun intended) is a weariness with the Sturm und Drang of the Biden-Trump decade, which makes almost any change seem better than a continuation of the politics of the recent past. And makes a not-yet 60-year-old woman in the White House seem preferable to an octogenarian veteran of the nasty politics of the past decade, reading from his 2016 playbook and unable to lower his high dudgeon sufficiently to bring women and college-educated voters to his side, despite his considerable achievements when last in power.
This aligns with Haley's prediction that the winner would be the first party to get rid of its geriatric.
SNP is home to 'culture of hate' and is 'profoundly depressing' to voters, says former MP Joanna Cherry
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13677247/SNP-home-culture-hate-profoundly-depressing-voters-says-former-MP.html
Farage noticed and will pounce in 2029 because the Tory and Libdem party parties offer more of the same we will be five years further down the cul de sac with higher unemployment and taxes and public services no better or worse than they are now.
Things like MRI and XRay seem to have their own permanent staff, but for medicos….
Some Corbynites have suggested that NHS staff should be banned (somehow) from doing hours in the private system. Which would probably be a good way to get done strikes going - for quite a number the extra money is part of their life.
The private sector is good for capital investment and entrepreneurial thinking. The public sector is better for long term planning and wider strategic thinking.
Private health can only help on some of those indicators above but should be used where the public sector is lacking.
https://x.com/sundersays/status/1817272170747150482
hopefully that works don't have a twitter acc rn
No childish “red tape bonfires” - instead, what was done was to define, fairly closely, the documentation and planning work required to get an approval.
So if you have your reports on shipwrecks, fish habitats etc all lined up then the application can move forward relatively rapidly.
I’ve seen comments from objectors that they felt swept off their feet by the rush through the process. And that it is rigged against them, by requiring challenges to be detailed, relevant and exact.
It is exactly what we feared. More of the same inept Blairite-Tory crap, but possibly even crappier, even
spendier, with even fewer ideas - and large dollops of Woke on top. Oh, and higher taxes
That’s Starmer’s Labour
In Scotland overall there was a 15.9% SNP to Lab swing but in Edinburgh SW 23.4% swing from the SNP to Lab.
Deadpool & Wolverine sees the merc with a mouth repeatedly fist somebody. No really, and that's one of the more family friendly scenes.
Whereas, as you say, actual kids movies like Pixar animations can be brilliant. Inventive, clever, witty, moving. They sneak in really adult themes to please the parents
I note that Inside Out 2 is now the highest grossing animated movie of all time
"No brownfield development coming forward" - well, when brownfield is all you have such as in Inner East London, you have to use it and at least three significant developments in my immediate vicinity are (or are planned to be) on retail parks which have been in decline since the pandemic. These large sites can be adapted to residential development it seems. The main problem with some brownfield sites is decontamination which is a costly business.
"Massive Overregulation" - not sure what you mean. Unlike those who just want houses built, I want good quality construction which stands the test of time. I've seen too many instances of shoddy practice by developers on newbuild sites to be confident about the quality of what's being put up and I'm concerned this will lead to huge problems in the future.
"Impossible Levels of Risk" - seriously? To be blunt, I'm more interested in getting good quality homes built than I am in developers and builders turning a profit for their shareholders. That may need some radical action from an activist Government if the private sector cries foul and walks away.
"Environmental Regulation and Political Activism" - there are very few who are completely anti development. Most however want developments which recognise the infrastructural capacity of the places in which they are planned and the community aspects of new development (the provision of additional health services, schools and other utilities) need to be accepted. If a developer submits a ridiculously over-dense and inappropriate application simply to maximise their profit, they can't be surprised if locals object (as is their right).
"Legal Industrial Complex that feasts on the public sector" - interesting. Unfortunately, we've had a mantra for decades that public is bad and private is good. In my experience, the provision of public services by the private sector is mixed at best. Many private companies take on public sector work thinking it's an easy route to profit - it isn't. There is the other problem and that's the use of Consultants - they have their place but when a Council is paying north of £1500 per day to be told what they already know by an "independent expert" you do wonder. There are specialisms where advice has to be sought outside the public sector and that's fine but for too many Councils bringing in a "consultant" (often a past employee, remember, those who can, do, those who can afford to, become consultants) is an easy option.
They deliberately did not try to sell any policies to the electorate at the election and are now going to try and justify policies after the event. I said at the time they needed to be bolder and they weren’t. This is a risky moment for them.
I remember reading Irwin Stelzer and David Smith’s Sunday Times columns every week for Economics A-level tutorial class in, checks notes, 1995.
The battle for the White House is now effectively tied as Trump’s six-point lead over Joe Biden was squashed to just two points after Ms Harris took his place as election frontrunner for the Democrats, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Telegrap
Seems to be a fair amount of chatter about Vance being dumped but surely the delegates have voted at the convention?
I know [REDACTED] wanted to be in a [REDACTED] film and couldn't, but that's obscure and his accent was terrible. Plus it was nice to see [REDACTED] back, presumably unstoned this time, but the emnity between him and Ryan Reynolds does bleed thru.
I'm going to over-analyse this...
They might take a hit now in their popularity but it’s at least four years until next election so they can live with it.
People will whine, people will say “we warned you” and life will go on.
@RpsAgainstTrump
More than 40 former Justice Department officials who served under both Republican and Democratic presidents have signed a letter endorsing 2024 presidential candidate Kamala Harris
“The fabric of the nation, the rule of law and the future of the Democracy are at stake in this election,” the letter states.
https://yahoo.com/news/former-doj-officials-publicly-back-005529391.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
(it wasn't austerity (cutting spending) it was increasing spending in some areas below inflation).
It doesn’t mean they’ll lose the next election as a result. But it will be the first big test of whether they can navigate a politically tricky sell and on whom the blame falls.
Elections can do two things. One is to give a mandate for the future, the other is to pass judgement on the past. The second is way more important. If (and it's a non-trivial if) Labour can point to real improvements by May 2028, anything bad they do now won't matter.
The point I am making is Labour didn’t tell us much at all of what they were going to do, preferring to be all things to all people. That might have won them an election, but it might cause them more headaches in government.
Mum got four years for renting a safehouse for Just Stop Oil
The family of Louise Lancaster, who was sentenced this month for her role in the M25 protests, say they are shocked at the punishment but back her fight against climate change
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/environment/article/mum-safehouse-just-stop-oil-jso-c8q2vb8q8
So what happens now - the first 100 days - really IS important. Not pivotal - but important
Remember starmer got that majority with just 34% of the vote. Less than Corbyn. He could easily lose the next GE on that basis, despite all those MPs
Real improvements which are accepted as such and not immediately taken for granted would be even more so.
I have collected my winnings on him being veep nominee as BF rules are all about the convention delegate vote, so I'm not financially invested in this one, other than a wild crazy odds bet that somehow Vance ends up as President after the November GE.
Rumours locally are that he has decided not to stand as Theresa Coffey lost her seat and can't stand with him on a joint ticket.
That is why the project to add two more tracks between Lichfield and Euston is doing so on a new alignment. Having decided on a new alignment it makes sense to build the new infrastructure (which will be there for hundreds of years) to the highest possible spec. Hence High Speed 2.
The bit from Lichfield to Crewe will almost certainly be built too because crashing six tracks into non grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel is silly.
The rest of the project was pork barrel railways thuough.