Badenoch is absolutely right on a potential Tory and Reform alliance – politicalbetting.com

Fear gets the pulse racing. Starmer… doesn’t

Edit: and first, like Kemi

U.S. steel workers are rallying to urge the government to *allow* the sale of the company to Nippon Steel.

@POTUS do right by American workers, save U.S. Steel and do the deal.
https://x.com/CNLiberalism/status/1868344396883906965

Foxy said:

I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

I see sneering done as well as you'd expect by the Left.

The Conservatives had to spend it on Covid and support for lecky bills instead.

Events.

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

I see sneering done as well as you'd expect by the Left.

The Conservatives had to spend it on Covid and support for lecky bills instead.

Events.

July 5th 2024

Worst Electoral result for 200 years for the Tories.

Events.

Nigelb said:

U.S. steel workers are rallying to urge the government to *allow* the sale of the company to Nippon Steel.

@POTUS do right by American workers, save U.S. Steel and do the deal.
https://x.com/CNLiberalism/status/1868344396883906965

I think that should very much be left in the hands of the new President to decide - at which point the steel workers are going to regret how they voted...

MarqueeMark said:

She is correct. I will not vote Conservative if they merge with Reform.

Though a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

The second option is the sensible one and will get rid of this dire government.

Though making a cabinet thereafter will be the challenge.

Good morning, everyone.

If the incumbent government continues to disappoint I might vote Conservative next time if they're lacklustre (although not if they're actviely bad). If they allied with Reform or united with them that would not be the case.

Foxy said:

I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

Good. Levelling up may have been decent politics in the short term, but it was never going to work. Shovelling yet more public money at regions with already crushingly large public sectors was never going to do anything to help them. In fact, it probably would have made things much worse, as it penalised the enterprising and successful parts of the country.

Of course Northerners are a lazy and greedy bunch, who will always vote for the party that promises them the biggest handouts, so you can see how they'd have lapped it up. But it was a socialist policy, and so would have been wasteful, counterproductive, probably corrupt and definitely ineffective.

Much better to save public money and lower taxes and debt lower than otherwise instead.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

She is correct. I will not vote Conservative if they merge with Reform.

Though a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

A pact still risks putting Farage in government, that is something I couldn't coutenance.

I wouldn't vote Tory in those circumstances even if David Cameron was my the Tory candidate in my constituency.

In all honesty I cant see the outcome of the next election hinging on whether you vote or not

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

She is correct. I will not vote Conservative if they merge with Reform.

Though a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

A pact still risks putting Farage in government, that is something I couldn't coutenance.

I wouldn't vote Tory in those circumstances even if David Cameron was my the Tory candidate in my constituency.

In all honesty I cant see the outcome of the next election hinging on whether you vote or not

That's the weakness of FPTP, under AV and other fairer voting systems every vote counts.

I am one of the few that voted Tory in 2024, so if the Tories start losing significant chunks of their 2024 base.....

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sticking a tenner on England to beat New Zealand in the third test at 120s on Betfair.

Root and Brook just need to repeat their 454 run partnership against Pakistan in October and England are home and hosed because Root and Brook are that awesome.

Fuxsake, wasn't one golden duck enough?

Foxy said:

I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

Johnson's interest in anything ended the minute they'd stopped filming him announcing it.

FPT

Nigelb said:

S Korean conservatives appear to be in denial about what their president just did.
(With the exception of a dozen of their representatives.)

https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=388558
Han Dong-hoon, once a promising figure in the conservative bloc, is now losing his influence in politics after resigning from his position as head of the ruling People Power Party (PPP) following the National Assembly's successful vote to impeach President Yoon Suk Yeol for declaring martial law earlier this month.

His critics blame him for failing to protect the party and the president by flip-flopping his stance and eventually supporting the opposition-led impeachment motion against Yoon...

it seems to be an international problem with conservatives at the moment. We could mention India, Brazil, Israel, Mexico, America...even the UK if we consider how many Tories are claiming Massive Johnson was fired for those illegal lockdown parties and conveniently forget it was for lying to the Cabinet and Parliament about the alleged possible criminal behaviour of one of his MPs.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

She is correct. I will not vote Conservative if they merge with Reform.

Though a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

A pact still risks putting Farage in government, that is something I couldn't coutenance.

I wouldn't vote Tory in those circumstances even if David Cameron was my the Tory candidate in my constituency.

It would be good news for the Lib Dems though.

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Interesting interview and apparently the government have been sounding him out for advice. Rather amusingly, his core criticism is exactly what Big Dom banged on about.

Economist breaks down how the Treasury rules the UK | Paul Collier interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f51urcvWmsM&

I've not watched the whole hour-long video yet but right from the start, the first thing mentioned is Britain's terrible regional inequality. The government needs to prioritise development around the country rather than bulldozing London's green belt.

Yes, I think a demand-driven housebuilding programme will further entrench those inequalities as they have in Scotland.

The west-east shift, with areas around Glasgow depopulating and massive growth around Edinburgh, is demand driven. That demand exists because there is a critical mass of businesses and young people, and a thriving economy. It starts to snowball, so we now have even high house prices here than we did before.

England desperately needs 1) a plan for towns and 2) a plan for the NE to stop London soaking up all the growth.

Did you see the discussion of the Green Belts a few days ago? The English ones are absolutely enormous compared to the skinny one around Edinburgh.

I'm surprised no politician has yet proposed building on all that lovely flat bit to the north of Edinburgh.

I mean, it's open, it's undeveloped, it's got lots of road and rail links...

(This may sound like me being slightly daft. But one major problem in England is that there has been far too much development on flood plain land.)

Nigelb said:

On topic, parties are coalitions, obviously - particularly under FPTP.
The Tory and Reform coalitions overlap, but much of that overlap has already migrated, and there's a significant portion of both parties outside of that overlap.

Those that haven't yet made the jump, but might (eg Casino or Leon, to pick a couple of random examples) might well be enough to win a majority under FPTP - though very probably not a majority of the vote.

De facto merger via defection to Reform is perhaps more likely than an actual merger ?
And might actually work to Reform's advantage as the rump Tories waste their vote on an emasculated party, rather than lending it to Reform's actual competition.

I think we need to remember that the Tory membership is highly congruent with Reform, but the remaining voters are not, and neither are the Tory MPs.

It's quite likely that the Tory membership will want a pact/merger with Reform, thereby putting off the voters, while the Tory MPs oppose Reform, thereby the party falls between stools.

FPT:

ydoethur said:

Incidentally I note the Archbishop of York is under pressure now too (although if that standard was applied consistently a number of former Ofsted chiefs would not rest easily).

I was trying to work out what would happen in the event of a vacancy in both Canterbury and York. That’s not happened since the 1650s and never, as far as I know, while the hierarchy was functioning.

I presume either the Bishop of London - who is also under pressure - would be asked to take charge, or the Bench of Bishops would elect one of their number to carry out the functions of the office of Archbishop until an appointment is made.

If the latter, that has interesting betting implications depending on who they choose. Whoever it is might suddenly become favourite to be archbishop especially if, as seems possible, they picked Martyn Snow.

The situation in York province is complicated by the vacancies of Durham and Carlisle. I imagine Nick Baines as the longest serving Bishop would have to step up.

There's been some reporting this morning on R4.

There is a copy of File on Four on the Archbishop of York, here. I recommend listening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00260xs

If it were the case that he did everything he could for reasons of law, and had done everything he could to keep the offender from anything that looked like preferment, then I would reluctantly support him remaining in post.

But I don't believe - listening to the programme - that that is the case. He had the moral authority and responsibility to intervene, for example by withdrawing the offender's permission to officiate (PTO) in his Diocese. He did not take action.

Therefore imo ++York needs to stand down.

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

On topic, parties are coalitions, obviously - particularly under FPTP.
The Tory and Reform coalitions overlap, but much of that overlap has already migrated, and there's a significant portion of both parties outside of that overlap.

Those that haven't yet made the jump, but might (eg Casino or Leon, to pick a couple of random examples) might well be enough to win a majority under FPTP - though very probably not a majority of the vote.

De facto merger via defection to Reform is perhaps more likely than an actual merger ?
And might actually work to Reform's advantage as the rump Tories waste their vote on an emasculated party, rather than lending it to Reform's actual competition.

I think we need to remember that the Tory membership is highly congruent with Reform, but the remaining voters are not, and neither are the Tory MPs.

"Remaining" voters, wouldn't be congruent with Reform, would they?

Good morning everyone.

MattW said:

FPT:

ydoethur said:

Incidentally I note the Archbishop of York is under pressure now too (although if that standard was applied consistently a number of former Ofsted chiefs would not rest easily).

I was trying to work out what would happen in the event of a vacancy in both Canterbury and York. That’s not happened since the 1650s and never, as far as I know, while the hierarchy was functioning.

I presume either the Bishop of London - who is also under pressure - would be asked to take charge, or the Bench of Bishops would elect one of their number to carry out the functions of the office of Archbishop until an appointment is made.

If the latter, that has interesting betting implications depending on who they choose. Whoever it is might suddenly become favourite to be archbishop especially if, as seems possible, they picked Martyn Snow.

The situation in York province is complicated by the vacancies of Durham and Carlisle. I imagine Nick Baines as the longest serving Bishop would have to step up.

There's been some reporting this morning on R4.

There is a copy of File on Four on the Archbishop of York, here. I recommend listening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00260xs

If it were the case that he did everything he could for reasons of law, and had done everything he could to keep the offender from anything that looked like preferment, then I would reluctantly support him remaining in post.

But I don't believe - listening to the programme - that that is the case. He had the moral authority and responsibility to intervene, for example by withdrawing the offender's permission to officiate (PTO) in his Diocese. He did not take action.

Therefore imo ++York needs to stand down.

There is however the issue that if the standards Helen is setting are not exactly achievable. As I said in the previous thread had she been in charge in 2013-15 I have sufficient evidence about the diocese education department that would force her to stand down because of the very argument you are making...

There is a problem here and it is not unique to the Tories. FPTP means that you need a broad coalition to gain power. If you don't have it, you get hammered.

This is often uncomfortable. A lot of people in the Tory party winced for years at the open racism of some of their number but bit their tongues. In Labour, the pretense that the upper middle class pseudo intellectuals who run the show had anything in common with where the bulk of their support came from is stretched to breaking point. In the US, for the Dems, it has actually broken.

I agree with @TSE and indeed Kemi that I am not interested in a coalition with Reform nor am I interested in voting for such a coalition. But there is a price to pay for that attitude. And it may be opposition, just as Labour endured in the 80s and early 90s when the SDP took away an element of their "natural" support.

MarqueeMark said:

She is correct. I will not vote Conservative if they merge with Reform.

Though a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

I would be very sad to see a Conservative Party that essentially gave up on the Midlands - the bedrock of Thatcher's majorities - and ceded it to the likes of Reform.

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

Good. Levelling up may have been decent politics in the short term, but it was never going to work. Shovelling yet more public money at regions with already crushingly large public sectors was never going to do anything to help them. In fact, it probably would have made things much worse, as it penalised the enterprising and successful parts of the country.

Of course Northerners are a lazy and greedy bunch, who will always vote for the party that promises them the biggest handouts, so you can see how they'd have lapped it up. But it was a socialist policy, and so would have been wasteful, counterproductive, probably corrupt and definitely ineffective.

Much better to save public money and lower taxes and debt lower than otherwise instead.

Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Interesting interview and apparently the government have been sounding him out for advice. Rather amusingly, his core criticism is exactly what Big Dom banged on about.

Economist breaks down how the Treasury rules the UK | Paul Collier interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f51urcvWmsM&

I've not watched the whole hour-long video yet but right from the start, the first thing mentioned is Britain's terrible regional inequality. The government needs to prioritise development around the country rather than bulldozing London's green belt.

Yes, I think a demand-driven housebuilding programme will further entrench those inequalities as they have in Scotland.

The west-east shift, with areas around Glasgow depopulating and massive growth around Edinburgh, is demand driven. That demand exists because there is a critical mass of businesses and young people, and a thriving economy. It starts to snowball, so we now have even high house prices here than we did before.

England desperately needs 1) a plan for towns and 2) a plan for the NE to stop London soaking up all the growth.

Did you see the discussion of the Green Belts a few days ago? The English ones are absolutely enormous compared to the skinny one around Edinburgh.

I'm surprised no politician has yet proposed building on all that lovely flat bit to the north of Edinburgh.

I mean, it's open, it's undeveloped, it's got lots of road and rail links...

(This may sound like me being slightly daft. But one major problem in England is that there has been far too much development on flood plain land.)

The local rivers tend to flow in ravines and valleys cut into the postglacial crap but with some stepped terraces to form riverside haughland in the valley bottoms. So flooding doesn't mean the same thing as in say Oxford or Tewkesbury unless one is silly enough to buy a house on a haugh (which does flood), or on the former postglacial lakes around Edinburfgh, ditto - an example of the latter being I think Murrayfield stadium. Thoujgh there are the seaside developments eg on the reclaimed land in the docks.

I see SEPA have now helpfully provided flood maps of future prospects as a new layer on their fllod risk maps: for those who are interested the button is at the botton of this page: https://map.sepa.org.uk/floodmaps/FloodRisk/PostCode

On a domestic note, a very early start means I have already made some jam this morning, which unusually for me has come out just about right.

Chuckeberries work for jam. Now to make some more for last minute Christmas Hampers.

Have a good day, everyone.

I agree with Luke Tryl's analysis pretty much word for word here. I find it exasperating that it needs saying.

On MattW's note, surely chuckleberries come from the Roald Dahl universe?

Pro_Rata said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Interesting interview and apparently the government have been sounding him out for advice. Rather amusingly, his core criticism is exactly what Big Dom banged on about.

Economist breaks down how the Treasury rules the UK | Paul Collier interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f51urcvWmsM&

I've not watched the whole hour-long video yet but right from the start, the first thing mentioned is Britain's terrible regional inequality. The government needs to prioritise development around the country rather than bulldozing London's green belt.

Yes, I think a demand-driven housebuilding programme will further entrench those inequalities as they have in Scotland.

The west-east shift, with areas around Glasgow depopulating and massive growth around Edinburgh, is demand driven. That demand exists because there is a critical mass of businesses and young people, and a thriving economy. It starts to snowball, so we now have even high house prices here than we did before.

England desperately needs 1) a plan for towns and 2) a plan for the NE to stop London soaking up all the growth.

Did you see the discussion of the Green Belts a few days ago? The English ones are absolutely enormous compared to the skinny one around Edinburgh.

I'm surprised no politician has yet proposed building on all that lovely flat bit to the north of Edinburgh.

I mean, it's open, it's undeveloped, it's got lots of road and rail links...

(This may sound like me being slightly daft. But one major problem in England is that there has been far too much development on flood plain land.)

In the manner of the proposed Southend-on-Sea southern by-pass, you mean? (note Sunil's contribution btl)

https://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/m13/

...

StillWaters said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

Good. Levelling up may have been decent politics in the short term, but it was never going to work. Shovelling yet more public money at regions with already crushingly large public sectors was never going to do anything to help them. In fact, it probably would have made things much worse, as it penalised the enterprising and successful parts of the country.

Of course Northerners are a lazy and greedy bunch, who will always vote for the party that promises them the biggest handouts, so you can see how they'd have lapped it up. But it was a socialist policy, and so would have been wasteful, counterproductive, probably corrupt and definitely ineffective.

Much better to save public money and lower taxes and debt lower than otherwise instead.

Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

I thought it was about winning votes up north with false promises?

noneoftheabove said:

StillWaters said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

Good. Levelling up may have been decent politics in the short term, but it was never going to work. Shovelling yet more public money at regions with already crushingly large public sectors was never going to do anything to help them. In fact, it probably would have made things much worse, as it penalised the enterprising and successful parts of the country.

Of course Northerners are a lazy and greedy bunch, who will always vote for the party that promises them the biggest handouts, so you can see how they'd have lapped it up. But it was a socialist policy, and so would have been wasteful, counterproductive, probably corrupt and definitely ineffective.

Much better to save public money and lower taxes and debt lower than otherwise instead.

Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

I thought it was about winning votes up north with false promises?

Well, that didn't work out too well in July did it?

Promise "Levelling Up" and to crack down on immigration, then doing the complete opposite is why the Tories are no longer trusted.

Reform don't want to be tainted by association.

I disagree with the consensus. Yes if the parties merged today and there was an election tomorrow it would play out as per the header and posters.

But over time, as we have seen with the Republicans in the US, voters can come round to positions they themselves would have seen as absurd, and not "them", a decade earlier.

noneoftheabove said:

I disagree with the consensus. Yes if the parties merged today and there was an election tomorrow it would play out as per the header and posters.

But over time, as we have seen with the Republicans in the US, voters can come round to positions they themselves would have seen as absurd, and not "them", a decade earlier.

That works if Reform merge into the Tories but Farage isn't going to do that.

Needs a lot more ERA fitting, judging by Ukraine's experience with it.

Taiwan has received its first batch of 38 x M1A2T Abrams tanks from the U.S., part of a total order of 108

This marks Taiwan’s first new tank delivery since the M60A3 tanks in 1994.
https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/1868568437401804836

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

She is correct. I will not vote Conservative if they merge with Reform.

Though a pact not to stand against each other might just be OK. Tories get a clear run at the Shires, Reform at the Red Wall.

A pact still risks putting Farage in government, that is something I couldn't coutenance.

I wouldn't vote Tory in those circumstances even if David Cameron was my the Tory candidate in my constituency.

In all honesty I cant see the outcome of the next election hinging on whether you vote or not

That's the weakness of FPTP, under AV and other fairer voting systems every vote counts.

I am one of the few that voted Tory in 2024, so if the Tories start losing significant chunks of their 2024 base.....

I havent voted for anyone one in the last 2 elections, however this government is so crap I will get off my arse and vote against them next time round.

In all honesty I can't see the outcome of the next election hinging on whether you vote or not.

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

I disagree with the consensus. Yes if the parties merged today and there was an election tomorrow it would play out as per the header and posters.

But over time, as we have seen with the Republicans in the US, voters can come round to positions they themselves would have seen as absurd, and not "them", a decade earlier.

That works if Reform merge into the Tories but Farage isn't going to do that.

Why not? It has been his stated and long term ambition for over a decade. Of course he will, if the time and circumstance is right.

Agree:
Amongst the solid tips (Laying Farage not to be PM) I can sense the general direction of the broad right of UK politics heading toward Reform/changing the Tories to a more Reform like direction which seems to be being dismissed (tepid analysis pace Dura-Ace) here..

Scott_xP said:

StillWaters said:

Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

And the Tories showed their commitment to this by (check notes) "cancelling HS2"

Reinvested in Network North, which ended up being used to fund fixing potholes in Peckham.....

Scott_xP said:

StillWaters said:

Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

And the Tories showed their commitment to this by (check notes) "cancelling HS2"

What makes you think I’m a Tory?

noneoftheabove said:

StillWaters said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

Good. Levelling up may have been decent politics in the short term, but it was never going to work. Shovelling yet more public money at regions with already crushingly large public sectors was never going to do anything to help them. In fact, it probably would have made things much worse, as it penalised the enterprising and successful parts of the country.

Of course Northerners are a lazy and greedy bunch, who will always vote for the party that promises them the biggest handouts, so you can see how they'd have lapped it up. But it was a socialist policy, and so would have been wasteful, counterproductive, probably corrupt and definitely ineffective.

Much better to save public money and lower taxes and debt lower than otherwise instead.

Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

I thought it was about winning votes
up north with false promises?

Some of us focus on doing stuff that needs to be done not making cynical comments from the sidelines

MattW said:

FPT:

ydoethur said:

Incidentally I note the Archbishop of York is under pressure now too (although if that standard was applied consistently a number of former Ofsted chiefs would not rest easily).

I was trying to work out what would happen in the event of a vacancy in both Canterbury and York. That’s not happened since the 1650s and never, as far as I know, while the hierarchy was functioning.

I presume either the Bishop of London - who is also under pressure - would be asked to take charge, or the Bench of Bishops would elect one of their number to carry out the functions of the office of Archbishop until an appointment is made.

If the latter, that has interesting betting implications depending on who they choose. Whoever it is might suddenly become favourite to be archbishop especially if, as seems possible, they picked Martyn Snow.

The situation in York province is complicated by the vacancies of Durham and Carlisle. I imagine Nick Baines as the longest serving Bishop would have to step up.

There's been some reporting this morning on R4.

There is a copy of File on Four on the Archbishop of York, here. I recommend listening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00260xs

If it were the case that he did everything he could for reasons of law, and had done everything he could to keep the offender from anything that looked like preferment, then I would reluctantly support him remaining in post.

But I don't believe - listening to the programme - that that is the case. He had the moral authority and responsibility to intervene, for example by withdrawing the offender's permission to officiate (PTO) in his Diocese. He did not take action.

Therefore imo ++York needs to stand down.

I have no views - don't know enough - on the Cottrell/Tudor thing. However, a bishop can only act in ways that are lawful. So, for example a permission to officiate could not be removed because there wasn't one in the first place. Tudor was an office holder continuously from 1997-2024. He could only be removed under the Discipline Measure, which in the end he was, having been suspended from office since 2019.

The recent judgment of the Tribunal (a public document), useful for some chronology and facts is here:

https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/determination-on-penalty-the-revd-david-tudor-29-october-2024-4130-4263-1764-v.1.pdf

It's quite incredible that North Korea has now invaded Europe.

And Europe's reaction is a mere shoulder-shrug and "meh!"

(And yes, I think 'invasion' is the correct word, given the reported number of troops, and the fact they're officially sanctioned by the NK government.)

StillWaters said:

noneoftheabove said:

StillWaters said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

I see that the "Levelling Up" was done as well as we would expect under the Tories:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/16/tories-only-spent-a-quarter-of-money-allocated-to-levelling-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

No wonder they lost the Red Wall.

Good. Levelling up may have been decent politics in the short term, but it was never going to work. Shovelling yet more public money at regions with already crushingly large public sectors was never going to do anything to help them. In fact, it probably would have made things much worse, as it penalised the enterprising and successful parts of the country.

Of course Northerners are a lazy and greedy bunch, who will always vote for the party that promises them the biggest handouts, so you can see how they'd have lapped it up. But it was a socialist policy, and so would have been wasteful, counterproductive, probably corrupt and definitely ineffective.

Much better to save public money and lower taxes and debt lower than otherwise instead.

Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

I thought it was about winning votes
up north with false promises?

Some of us focus on doing stuff that needs to be done not making cynical comments from the sidelines

I normally vote for the election losers so am comfortable enough in the snidelands. Maybe I'm too cynical but even Tory insiders say they scapped HS2 simply to give Sunak a personal boost because he was a bit gloomy. Why should I take such politicians seriously?

noneoftheabove said:

Scott_xP said:

StillWaters said:

Levelling up (which I have been involved with since before it was called levelling up) isn’t a handout. It’s about utilising fantastic resources in the regions (which are unknown or underexploited) or putting in place the infrastructure and investments needed to make a location economically attractive

And the Tories showed their commitment to this by (check notes) "cancelling HS2"

Reinvested in Network North, which ended up being used to fund fixing potholes in Peckham.....

And yet the potholes of Peckham endure.

Stuartinromford said:

What's still missing from Badenoch's comments is any sense of why the Conservatives oppose Reform, beyond the electoral dynamics.

What are the proposals of Reform that are bad policies that should be opposed by good Conservatives? Until they can come up with a few examples, the battle on the right is going to continue to be rather one-sided.

Trying to box Reform in as a bargain basement version of the Conservatives for bargain basement places isn't going to work.

The greatest unmet need from the Tories right now is different. There is no difficulty in the modern political climate in being against things. Usually for opposition that's fine and enough, because we have a reasonable idea of what the opposition thinks.

But now we have no idea. Because the 'standard model' is in trouble; by which I mean we appear not to be able to manage and pay for the universal post war settlement of the social democratic welfare state. There is neither the money nor the competence. So far both Tories and Labour have exactly the same difficulties.

The fear must be that the parties will stick to the old solution of obtaining power by attacking those in power and other parties too, but without a seriously explained programme of their own WRT tax, spend, borrowing, competence, and so on.

JosiasJessop said:

It's quite incredible that North Korea has now invaded Europe.

And Europe's reaction is a mere shoulder-shrug and "meh!"

(And yes, I think 'invasion' is the correct word, given the reported number of troops, and the fact they're officially sanctioned by the NK government.)

Wait until you hear about the time Europe, including the UK, invaded North Korea.

54% of Labour voters satisfied with SKS as PM.

27% of all voters satisfied.

Ruh roh

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's quite incredible that North Korea has now invaded Europe.

And Europe's reaction is a mere shoulder-shrug and "meh!"

(And yes, I think 'invasion' is the correct word, given the reported number of troops, and the fact they're officially sanctioned by the NK government.)

Wait until you hear about the time Europe, including the UK, invaded North Korea.

It was however Seoul-ly in response to Kim's aggression.

Admittedly that twat MacArthur then got a bit carried away.

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's quite incredible that North Korea has now invaded Europe.

And Europe's reaction is a mere shoulder-shrug and "meh!"

(And yes, I think 'invasion' is the correct word, given the reported number of troops, and the fact they're officially sanctioned by the NK government.)

Wait until you hear about the time Europe, including the UK, invaded North Korea.

Morris Dancer-esque levels of history comprehension! That was in response to the North invading South a few months earlier!

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

54% of Labour voters satisfied with SKS as PM.

27% of all voters satisfied.

Ruh roh

While I generally agree with your scooby doo response, 54% is more than I would've expected.

Latest in the series ‘Tory Wankers Jogging’.



https://x.com/otto_english/status/1868429763213480367?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Eabhal said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Interesting interview and apparently the government have been sounding him out for advice. Rather amusingly, his core criticism is exactly what Big Dom banged on about.

Economist breaks down how the Treasury rules the UK | Paul Collier interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f51urcvWmsM&

I've not watched the whole hour-long video yet but right from the start, the first thing mentioned is Britain's terrible regional inequality. The government needs to prioritise development around the country rather than bulldozing London's green belt.

Yes, I think a demand-driven housebuilding programme will further entrench those inequalities as they have in Scotland.

The west-east shift, with areas around Glasgow depopulating and massive growth around Edinburgh, is demand driven. That demand exists because there is a critical mass of businesses and young people, and a thriving economy. It starts to snowball, so we now have even high house prices here than we did before.

England desperately needs 1) a plan for towns and 2) a plan for the NE to stop London soaking up all the growth.

Like what? If there was an obvious way to produce more growth in areas of the country that are underperforming then some government since the 1980s would have done it already. It's clear that massive regional inequality is a bad thing, and we definitely shouldn't be investing in London exclusively and starving Manchester of resources, for example. But where an area does not already have a critical mass of business and economic activity I find it hard to see that government activity can create one. Answers on a postcard, but in the meantime I think providing enough housing to the areas that *are* at critical mass that we don't constrict them is better than doing nothing and hoping that growth will thus somehow happen elsewhere instead.