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

Nigelb said:

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

It's not entirely cynical.
Levelling up was never given the amount of resources needed to really shift the economic balance between north and south.
And that was very definitely implied in the politicians' promises.

Yep. I always felt it was a lot of rhetoric with a side order of pork barrel bribes seats in Northern towns with sitting Tory MPs (e.g. plan for towns).

But fundamentally the unbalanced nature of the UK economy drives a lot of the problems / challenges the country faces. As ever Dominic Cummings was pretty good on diagnosing the problem. His solutions not so much.

Jim_the_Lurker said:

Nigelb said:

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

It's not entirely cynical.
Levelling up was never given the amount of resources needed to really shift the economic balance between north and south.
And that was very definitely implied in the politicians' promises.

Yep. I always felt it was a lot of rhetoric with a side order of pork barrel bribes seats in Northern towns with sitting Tory MPs (e.g. plan for towns).

But fundamentally the unbalanced nature of the UK economy drives a lot of the problems / challenges the country faces. As ever Dominic Cummings was pretty good on diagnosing the problem. His solutions not so much.

To make it work, you need to make the south much poorer. No government will do that.

Cicero said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

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..

I’m happy to be laying Farage as next PM but if there was a market on if Farage was to ever be PM I wouldn’t be laying him.

Well then the issue becomes "if so, then when?". He is already 60 and we have a clear 5 year Parliament ahead.

The oldest PM to assume office for the first time was Palmerston who was aged 70, but who had been a key figure in Parliament and government for several decades before. The oldest PM ever was Gladstone who was 84 when he retired at the end of his fourth term.

So, if you decide to back Farage becoming PM "sometime", you need to ask yourself a) how long Farage will live in health and strength and b) how long it would take RefUk to become a party of government that would allow Farage to be PM. While obviously "Farage next PM" is a clear lay, I think "Farage PM sometime" is also probably a lay, just at much lower prices. Father Time may be a bigger enemy than Kemi here.

Reform currently have 5 seats in the House of Commons.

Isn't the major difference between the two bets the possibility of turmoil in the Labour Party shortly before the 2029 election? If the polling in late 2028 suggests Labour will be reduced to a rump and the Faragists will win the day, I would have thought it's not unlikely (~50% chance in this scenario?) Labour dump Starmer and try to do a reboot with a 'fresh' face. That would make Farage next PM a loser, even if he wins the 2029 election.

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.

You're making the same mistake as Hyufd.

There is no way back to government for the Conservatives without them winning those same Red Wall seats they won in 2019.

The Conservatives need to gain 200 seats - it is mathematically impossible to gain that number in the Shires or what Hyufd calls the 'middle class soft leaver' seats.

Not to mention that its going to be far, far easier for the Conservatives to gain Redcar and Scunthorpe than the likes of Cheltenham and Chichester.

EPG said:

Jim_the_Lurker said:

Nigelb said:

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

It's not entirely cynical.
Levelling up was never given the amount of resources needed to really shift the economic balance between north and south.
And that was very definitely implied in the politicians' promises.

Yep. I always felt it was a lot of rhetoric with a side order of pork barrel bribes seats in Northern towns with sitting Tory MPs (e.g. plan for towns).

But fundamentally the unbalanced nature of the UK economy drives a lot of the problems / challenges the country faces. As ever Dominic Cummings was pretty good on diagnosing the problem. His solutions not so much.

To make it work, you need to make the south much poorer. No government will do that.

The economy-is-a-pizza theory, as I live!

The economic theory behind “levelling up” is that the underutilised resources of the area can be bought into activity. Which offers more and faster growth - from a lower level - enabling that area to begin to catch up.

Theuniondivvie said:

Latest in the series ‘Tory Wankers Jogging’.



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

Does the back of his shirt say "By taxing the young" or similar ?

another_richard 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.

You're making the same mistake as Hyufd.

There is no way back to government for the Conservatives without them winning those same Red Wall seats they won in 2019.

The Conservatives need to gain 200 seats - it is mathematically impossible to gain that number in the Shires or what Hyufd calls the 'middle class soft leaver' seats.

Not to mention that its going to be far, far easier for the Conservatives to gain Redcar and Scunthorpe than the likes of Cheltenham and Chichester.

There is, if the Tory shire seats and Reform redwall seats combined give a majority.

The simple fact is a lot of the redwall seats which were Labour until 2019 would only ever vote Conservative under Boris, they won't vote for any other Tory but they might vote for Farage.

The Tories are better off focusing on the seats Cameron and May won which are actually comfortably over 200 seats and indeed closer to 300 seats (albeit the bluewall Remain seats are sadly lost to the LDs post Brexit for the time being unfortunately)

Jim_the_Lurker said:

Nigelb said:

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

It's not entirely cynical.
Levelling up was never given the amount of resources needed to really shift the economic balance between north and south.
And that was very definitely implied in the politicians' promises.

Yep. I always felt it was a lot of rhetoric with a side order of pork barrel bribes seats in Northern towns with sitting Tory MPs (e.g. plan for towns).

But fundamentally the unbalanced nature of the UK economy drives a lot of the problems / challenges the country faces. As ever Dominic Cummings was pretty good on diagnosing the problem. His solutions not so much.

There's been a shift in the type of unbalancing.

Previously - enough jobs in southern England, not enough jobs elsewhere.

Currently - unaffordable housing in southern England, affordable housing elsewhere.

There's also an economic imbalance based on age.

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.

Tories want to stay in ECHR, Reform don't.

Tories want universal credit, Reform want contributory welfare only.

Tories back NHS with more use of private sector and private health, Reform want a largely private health insurance funded healthcare system the main differences.

Malmesbury said:

EPG said:

Jim_the_Lurker said:

Nigelb said:

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

It's not entirely cynical.
Levelling up was never given the amount of resources needed to really shift the economic balance between north and south.
And that was very definitely implied in the politicians' promises.

Yep. I always felt it was a lot of rhetoric with a side order of pork barrel bribes seats in Northern towns with sitting Tory MPs (e.g. plan for towns).

But fundamentally the unbalanced nature of the UK economy drives a lot of the problems / challenges the country faces. As ever Dominic Cummings was pretty good on diagnosing the problem. His solutions not so much.

To make it work, you need to make the south much poorer. No government will do that.

The economy-is-a-pizza theory, as I live!

The economic theory behind “levelling up” is that the underutilised resources of the area can be bought into activity. Which offers more and faster growth - from a lower level - enabling that area to begin to catch up.

Hmm. You can definitely get "catch up" at the country level (places such as Japan post WW2, China more recently, etc, clearly show that). But at the within-country level I'm less certain. If you're a Chinese person thinking about setting up a factory or contemplating switching from an agricultural job to a factory job, obviously you're going to do it in China because "move to the US and then do it" is much trickier. But if you're in the north east of the UK and thinking about a career change or a spot of entrepreneurship then there are rather fewer barriers to moving to your local economic hotspot to do it.

Do we have good examples of where this has worked (UK or elsewhere)? Maybe I'm just unaware of the models we could be following.

another_richard 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.

You're making the same mistake as Hyufd.

There is no way back to government for the Conservatives without them winning those same Red Wall seats they won in 2019.

The Conservatives need to gain 200 seats - it is mathematically impossible to gain that number in the Shires or what Hyufd calls the 'middle class soft leaver' seats.

Not to mention that its going to be far, far easier for the Conservatives to gain Redcar and Scunthorpe than the likes of Cheltenham and Chichester.

The Tories can win without the red wall, but they need a message that resonates with a number of people they’ve pushed away from in recent years. Essentially, the professional classes, business owners, entrepreneurial folk, and strivers. But that isn’t an easy way back and it requires them to reconcile themselves, I would suggest, with a slightly more economically coherent and less purist Brexit vision which they show little signs of wanting to face up to.

It’s why the Tories are in such a mess. It’s very hard to reconcile their coalition. Labour have a similar problem on the left but they are also squatting on much of the centre ground so they’re getting away with it better, for now.

In the meantime you have a whole host of voters who are fed up with Labour, fed up with the Tories and are ready to vote for AN Other in the shape of Farage. Getting those voters back is hard. Both parties have made it even harder for themselves with their actions over the years.

HYUFD said:

another_richard 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.

You're making the same mistake as Hyufd.

There is no way back to government for the Conservatives without them winning those same Red Wall seats they won in 2019.

The Conservatives need to gain 200 seats - it is mathematically impossible to gain that number in the Shires or what Hyufd calls the 'middle class soft leaver' seats.

Not to mention that its going to be far, far easier for the Conservatives to gain Redcar and Scunthorpe than the likes of Cheltenham and Chichester.

There is, if the Tory shire seats and Reform redwall seats combined give a majority.

The simple fact is a lot of the redwall seats which were Labour until 2019 would only ever vote Conservative under Boris, they won't vote for any other Tory but they might vote for Farage.

The Tories are better off focusing on the seats Cameron and May won which are actually comfortably over 200 seats and indeed closer to 300 seats (albeit the bluewall Remain seats are sadly lost to the LDs post Brexit for the time being unfortunately)

Yet again you make the fundamental mistake in assuming a Conservative MP and a Reform MP are interchangeable.

And also again are ignoring that the electoral world has changed since 2010.

pm215 said:

Malmesbury said:

EPG said:

Jim_the_Lurker said:

Nigelb said:

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

It's not entirely cynical.
Levelling up was never given the amount of resources needed to really shift the economic balance between north and south.
And that was very definitely implied in the politicians' promises.

Yep. I always felt it was a lot of rhetoric with a side order of pork barrel bribes seats in Northern towns with sitting Tory MPs (e.g. plan for towns).

But fundamentally the unbalanced nature of the UK economy drives a lot of the problems / challenges the country faces. As ever Dominic Cummings was pretty good on diagnosing the problem. His solutions not so much.

To make it work, you need to make the south much poorer. No government will do that.

The economy-is-a-pizza theory, as I live!

The economic theory behind “levelling up” is that the underutilised resources of the area can be bought into activity. Which offers more and faster growth - from a lower level - enabling that area to begin to catch up.

Hmm. You can definitely get "catch up" at the country level (places such as Japan post WW2, China more recently, etc, clearly show that). But at the within-country level I'm less certain. If you're a Chinese person thinking about setting up a factory or contemplating switching from an agricultural job to a factory job, obviously you're going to do it in China because "move to the US and then do it" is much trickier. But if you're in the north east of the UK and thinking about a career change or a spot of entrepreneurship then there are rather fewer barriers to moving to your local economic hotspot to do it.

Do we have good examples of where this has worked (UK or elsewhere)? Maybe I'm just unaware of the models we could be following.

Well, there's this.
https://blog.bham.ac.uk/cityredi/levelling-up-there-are-international-success-stories-the-uk-should-look-to/

Theuniondivvie said:

If you can’t dissolve the people and elect another, just dissolve the elections.

https://x.com/henryriley1/status/1868566709847949366?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Government refuses to say if next year's local council elections will go ahead

@NickFerrariLBC
asks if the 2025 elections for 21 local councils & 10 unitary authorities will go ahead

Local govt Minister Jim McMahon refuses to say

"There will be full consultation"

In a way it is nice that the government has shown some interest in local government to the point it is pushing ahead quickly with its expansion of strategic mayoral authorities and the like, but it still looks like a big old mess to me, and there are far bigger problems facing local government financing around social care and SEND to worry about, rather than the flashy, but less meaningful, and entirely arbitrary agglomeration of county areas into another bloody layer of political administration.

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

“Levelling up” didn’t happen because like everything Johnson did, it was a slogan not a policy.

It wouldn't have happened even if there were detailed plans as Covid spending blew up any opportunity to fix other problems. We didn't even get any breathing room after the pandemic ended thanks to Putin's war in Ukraine which sent energy prices through the roof and the government ending up spending tens of billions to support the economy. Starmer's plans are likewise going to be facing an uphill battle as Trump is likely to do a lot of damage to trade, and perhaps force our hand on defence spending.

If we are lucky maybe in the 2030s we might get a chance to fix some decades old problems.

Dura_Ace said:

Cicero said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

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..

I’m happy to be laying Farage as next PM but if there was a market on if Farage was to ever be PM I wouldn’t be laying him.

Well then the issue becomes "if so, then when?". He is already 60 and we have a clear 5 year Parliament ahead.

The oldest PM to assume office for the first time was Palmerston who was aged 70, but who had been a key figure in Parliament and government for several decades before. The oldest PM ever was Gladstone who was 84 when he retired at the end of his fourth term.

So, if you decide to back Farage becoming PM "sometime", you need to ask yourself a) how long Farage will live in health and strength and b) how long it would take RefUk to become a party of government that would allow Farage to be PM. While obviously "Farage next PM" is a clear lay, I think "Farage PM sometime" is also probably a lay, just at much lower prices. Father Time may be a bigger enemy than Kemi here.

Reform currently have 5 seats in the House of Commons.

This feels like Trump's going to jail/Putin's got cancer level analysis.

Well its not impossible impossible, just not very likely: how do you get from 5 seats and 14% of the vote to the kind of support that gets Farage into Number Ten in a time line where Farage is still young enough to do the job?

Even if you think Labour falls apart, for which the only evidence is the more hysterical right wing commentary, there is still plenty of competition from the Tories and the Lib Dems. We cannot now expect at GE before, say, 2029, when Farage will be 65. The odds of Farage being able to take power then are not great- he has strong personal negatives and his signature policy of Brexit is not popular these days either. But even supposing RefUk make a strong advance at the next GE, to get from 5 seats to the needed 326 seats is so unprecedented that it has to involve the total collapse of both Labour and the Tories at the same time. Again maybe the fash-curious here could see it happen, but I honestly just don´t see how. But, say, RefUk get 250 gains- more than the 211 record gain Labour just made- do the other parties just roll over and say "on you go Nige"? Again not impossible impossible, just not very likely. Farage would have to wait out another Parliament. Then he´d have to advance again at any subsequent GE. Even if the Parliament does not go full term, we are still talking potentially quite long periods of time- even in the absolute best case he is late sixties by the third GE, and again he´d have to have another historic GE result to even get close to being PM.

So I stand by laying "Farage as PM sometime" because it requires historic changes in support, the simultaneous collapse of both Labour and the Tories and the elimination of the personal and policy negatives for RefUk and all the time the clock is ticking on Farage´s age and health.

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

If you can’t dissolve the people and elect another, just dissolve the elections.

https://x.com/henryriley1/status/1868566709847949366?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Eh? Why wouldn't they go ahead?

It's a rumour around how quickly the government will want to move ahead with the next tranche of combined authority mayors, and if that is to include councils up for election this year, in which case perhaps they might be delayed to coincide with introduction of a new mayoral system in those areas.

Sounds more trouble that it is worth to me, better to just set the first mayoral terms to a lower than usual amount so they line up in future years with the local council cycles (where these are even on the same cycle, which they are not all, which makes me think the rumour is bunk).

Edit - I assume that's the basis of the rumour anywhere, that is how I came across the idea, so if there's another reason behind the idea I have no clue.

numbertwelve said:

another_richard 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.

You're making the same mistake as Hyufd.

There is no way back to government for the Conservatives without them winning those same Red Wall seats they won in 2019.

The Conservatives need to gain 200 seats - it is mathematically impossible to gain that number in the Shires or what Hyufd calls the 'middle class soft leaver' seats.

Not to mention that its going to be far, far easier for the Conservatives to gain Redcar and Scunthorpe than the likes of Cheltenham and Chichester.

The Tories can win without the red wall, but they need a message that resonates with a number of people they’ve pushed away from in recent years. Essentially, the professional classes, business owners, entrepreneurial folk, and strivers. But that isn’t an easy way back and it requires them to reconcile themselves, I would suggest, with a slightly more economically coherent and less purist Brexit vision which they show little signs of wanting to face up to.

It’s why the Tories are in such a mess. It’s very hard to reconcile their coalition. Labour have a similar problem on the left but they are also squatting on much of the centre ground so they’re getting away with it better, for now.

In the meantime you have a whole host of voters who are fed up with Labour, fed up with the Tories and are ready to vote for AN Other in the shape of Farage. Getting those voters back is hard. Both parties have made it even harder for themselves with their actions over the years.

The Conservatives cannot win a majority without the gains they made in 2019.

They need to gain 200 seats from their present position and they have no chance in many of those lost to the LibDems.

Which means that the likes of Redcar and Scunthorpe have to be won by the Conservatives to gain a majority.

In fact its likely that the Conservatives will need to gain Redcar and Scunthorpe just to have the most MPs.

The electoral geography of England has changed -- for every Wycombe (Conservative in 1997 but now likely lost permanently) they have to make a gain somewhere which was Labour in 2010.

another_richard said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Latest in the series ‘Tory Wankers Jogging’.



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

Does the back of his shirt say "By taxing the young" or similar ?

That can be presumed without needing to be stated.

You wouldn't bother to say something like 'the sun will rise in the morning' would you?

kle4 said:

I demand justice! Someone contact the historical crimes unit, this is a nation of laws.

Scientists have uncovered the aftermath of an "exceptionally violent" attack about 4,000 years ago in Somerset when at least 37 people appear to have been butchered and likely eaten.

It is the largest case of violence between humans identified in early Bronze Age England, which had been considered a peaceful time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl3jn3elz3o

If it is in Somerset then the Bishop of Bath and Wells would be the obvious first place to look for a head to roll.

HYUFD said:

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.

Tories want to stay in ECHR, Reform don't.

Tories want universal credit, Reform want contributory welfare only.

Tories back NHS with more use of private sector and private health, Reform want a largely private health insurance funded healthcare system the main differences.

I'd be curious to know how many Reform voters want "a largely private health insurance funded healthcare system".

I do agree with the header to a great extent though. It was also reflected in lots of polling around election time, which suggested Reform voters were similarly split, with at least as many likely to go to Lab/Lib/Green as to the Tories.

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

If you can’t dissolve the people and elect another, just dissolve the elections.

https://x.com/henryriley1/status/1868566709847949366?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Eh? Why wouldn't they go ahead?

The pretext is that they want to abolish all the district councils and make everywhere unitary. Terrible idea - round here the district councils work well, but the county councils is poor, so the practical outworking will be to reduce the functioning of the lot to the level of badness of the County Council. Personally I'd abolish the County and give all the powers to the Districts.

The real reason they want to do it is to avoid the likely embarrassment of coming third in their first electoral test since gaining office.

nova said:

HYUFD said:

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.

Tories want to stay in ECHR, Reform don't.

Tories want universal credit, Reform want contributory welfare only.

Tories back NHS with more use of private sector and private health, Reform want a largely private health insurance funded healthcare system the main differences.

I'd be curious to know how many Reform voters want "a largely private health insurance funded healthcare system".

I do agree with the header to a great extent though. It was also reflected in lots of polling around election time, which suggested Reform voters were similarly split, with at least as many likely to go to Lab/Lib/Green as to the Tories.

The NHS is Reform’s biggest weakness at the moment. Expect Labour to try and exploit it. If Farage is smart he will be working to neutralise it as an issue.

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

If you can’t dissolve the people and elect another, just dissolve the elections.

https://x.com/henryriley1/status/1868566709847949366?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Eh? Why wouldn't they go ahead?

SKS Lab is in for a bloodbath so let's not bother with LE2025

theProle said:

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

If you can’t dissolve the people and elect another, just dissolve the elections.

https://x.com/henryriley1/status/1868566709847949366?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Eh? Why wouldn't they go ahead?

The pretext is that they want to abolish all the district councils and make everywhere unitary. Terrible idea - round here the district councils work well, but the county councils is poor, so the practical outworking will be to reduce the functioning of the lot to the level of badness of the County Council. Personally I'd abolish the County and give all the powers to the Districts.

The real reason they want to do it is to avoid the likely embarrassment of coming third in their first electoral test since gaining office.

That 'plan' has been kicked around by at least two of the main parties, hasn't it? I don't think the Districts could support the 'hinterland' necessary for good government. Social services are but one example.

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

I demand justice! Someone contact the historical crimes unit, this is a nation of laws.

Scientists have uncovered the aftermath of an "exceptionally violent" attack about 4,000 years ago in Somerset when at least 37 people appear to have been butchered and likely eaten.

It is the largest case of violence between humans identified in early Bronze Age England, which had been considered a peaceful time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl3jn3elz3o

The error is perhaps in assuming it was a peaceful time. Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect the absence of evidence of violence in early Bronze Age doesn't outweigh humans having a violent nature when threatened.

That did seem like an odd sentence to include. I mean, there were comparitively few people around at the time, so instances of mass violence would likewise be fewer and harder for evidence to have survived, so I'd be curious of the nature of analysis and if it really was more peaceful compared to others.

Or if it was just an extension of the idea that hunter gatherer societies or isolated island communities etc did not really have violence, which I think has been largely debunked but has lived on through patronising perceptions of naiive innocent native societies.

I've just been reading the original paper which is happily open access - the Graun has a linky if the BBC doesn't. The issue is the cannibalism. Very thorough, right down to cracking open bones for the marrow. Which obviously surprises the researchers (who are in any case being very careful in their arguments).

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/dec/16/something-horrible-somerset-pit-reveals-bronze-age-cannibalism
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/darker-angels-of-our-nature-early-bronze-age-butchered-human-remains-from-charterhouse-warren-somerset-uk/93EBB135C857C7B7992FC80A4ED927AF

Edit: survival of evidence is discussed. Obvs dumping them down a pothole on Mendip helped preserve it!

Stuartinromford said:

kle4 said:

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

If you can’t dissolve the people and elect another, just dissolve the elections.

https://x.com/henryriley1/status/1868566709847949366?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Eh? Why wouldn't they go ahead?

It's a rumour around how quickly the government will want to move ahead with the next tranche of combined authority mayors, and if that is to include councils up for election this year, in which case perhaps they might be delayed to coincide with introduction of a new mayoral system in those areas.

Sounds more trouble that it is worth to me, better to just set the first mayoral terms to a lower than usual amount so they line up in future years with the local council cycles (where these are even on the same cycle, which they are not all, which makes me think the rumour is bunk).

Edit - I assume that's the basis of the rumour anywhere, that is how I came across the idea, so if there's another reason behind the idea I have no clue.

There's talk of some pretty assertive reorganisation of councils- pushing really hard on making everywhere unitary (with Mayors atop that).

Excl: Government will move to scrap district councils in its devolution white paper on Monday, sparking the biggest local government reorganisation in 50 years

https://bsky.app/profile/jenwilliamsft.bsky.social/post/3ld7km6icac2s

If a council is about to be abolished, there's some logic in not bothering with elections.

Though given how much trouble those elections are going to cause the Conservatives, and how little skin Labour have in this year of the cycle...

Ordinarily Lab would have regained many Counties including my own (Derbyshire) SKS has well and truly kneecapped his own candidates at LE2025

So may as well abolish elections Kept Hitler in power for a decade.

Dura_Ace said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Latest in the series ‘Tory Wankers Jogging’.



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

Delivering his flagship anti-immigration speech as he bounds along.

And some of them have cocks on them this size!

'And that's only the so-called kids!'

Carnyx said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

I demand justice! Someone contact the historical crimes unit, this is a nation of laws.

Scientists have uncovered the aftermath of an "exceptionally violent" attack about 4,000 years ago in Somerset when at least 37 people appear to have been butchered and likely eaten.

It is the largest case of violence between humans identified in early Bronze Age England, which had been considered a peaceful time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl3jn3elz3o

The error is perhaps in assuming it was a peaceful time. Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect the absence of evidence of violence in early Bronze Age doesn't outweigh humans having a violent nature when threatened.

That did seem like an odd sentence to include. I mean, there were comparitively few people around at the time, so instances of mass violence would likewise be fewer and harder for evidence to have survived, so I'd be curious of the nature of analysis and if it really was more peaceful compared to others.

Or if it was just an extension of the idea that hunter gatherer societies or isolated island communities etc did not really have violence, which I think has been largely debunked but has lived on through patronising perceptions of naiive innocent native societies.

I've just been reading the original paper which is happily open access - the Graun has a linky if the BBC doesn't. The issue is the cannibalism. Very thorough, right down to cracking open bones for the marrow. Which obviously surprises the researchers (who are in any case being very careful in their arguments).

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/dec/16/something-horrible-somerset-pit-reveals-bronze-age-cannibalism
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/darker-angels-of-our-nature-early-bronze-age-butchered-human-remains-from-charterhouse-warren-somerset-uk/93EBB135C857C7B7992FC80A4ED927AF

Edit: survival of evidence is discussed. Obvs dumping them down a pothole on Mendip helped preserve it!

Scrapes and cuts on the bone reveal so much it seems.

Carnyx said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

I demand justice! Someone contact the historical crimes unit, this is a nation of laws.

Scientists have uncovered the aftermath of an "exceptionally violent" attack about 4,000 years ago in Somerset when at least 37 people appear to have been butchered and likely eaten.

It is the largest case of violence between humans identified in early Bronze Age England, which had been considered a peaceful time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl3jn3elz3o

The error is perhaps in assuming it was a peaceful time. Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect the absence of evidence of violence in early Bronze Age doesn't outweigh humans having a violent nature when threatened.

That did seem like an odd sentence to include. I mean, there were comparitively few people around at the time, so instances of mass violence would likewise be fewer and harder for evidence to have survived, so I'd be curious of the nature of analysis and if it really was more peaceful compared to others.

Or if it was just an extension of the idea that hunter gatherer societies or isolated island communities etc did not really have violence, which I think has been largely debunked but has lived on through patronising perceptions of naiive innocent native societies.

I've just been reading the original paper which is happily open access - the Graun has a linky if the BBC doesn't. The issue is the cannibalism. Very thorough, right down to cracking open bones for the marrow. Which obviously surprises the researchers (who are in any case being very careful in their arguments).

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/dec/16/something-horrible-somerset-pit-reveals-bronze-age-cannibalism
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/darker-angels-of-our-nature-early-bronze-age-butchered-human-remains-from-charterhouse-warren-somerset-uk/93EBB135C857C7B7992FC80A4ED927AF

Edit: survival of evidence is discussed. Obvs dumping them down a pothole on Mendip helped preserve it!

There are, on occasion, some pretty horrible goings-on in places like Papua-New Guinea.

eek said:

bigjohnowls said:

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

If you can’t dissolve the people and elect another, just dissolve the elections.

https://x.com/henryriley1/status/1868566709847949366?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Eh? Why wouldn't they go ahead?

SKS Lab is in for a bloodbath so let's not bother with LE2025

In county council seats where they don’t have many councilors.

It’s a view but reality is the 2025 elections are Tory heavy

They do have 6 seats to lose on the Court of Common Council of the City of London Corporation, but it is mostly slim pickings.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_Kingdom_local_elections

OldKingCole said:

Carnyx said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

I demand justice! Someone contact the historical crimes unit, this is a nation of laws.

Scientists have uncovered the aftermath of an "exceptionally violent" attack about 4,000 years ago in Somerset when at least 37 people appear to have been butchered and likely eaten.

It is the largest case of violence between humans identified in early Bronze Age England, which had been considered a peaceful time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl3jn3elz3o

The error is perhaps in assuming it was a peaceful time. Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect the absence of evidence of violence in early Bronze Age doesn't outweigh humans having a violent nature when threatened.

That did seem like an odd sentence to include. I mean, there were comparitively few people around at the time, so instances of mass violence would likewise be fewer and harder for evidence to have survived, so I'd be curious of the nature of analysis and if it really was more peaceful compared to others.

Or if it was just an extension of the idea that hunter gatherer societies or isolated island communities etc did not really have violence, which I think has been largely debunked but has lived on through patronising perceptions of naiive innocent native societies.

I've just been reading the original paper which is happily open access - the Graun has a linky if the BBC doesn't. The issue is the cannibalism. Very thorough, right down to cracking open bones for the marrow. Which obviously surprises the researchers (who are in any case being very careful in their arguments).

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/dec/16/something-horrible-somerset-pit-reveals-bronze-age-cannibalism
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/darker-angels-of-our-nature-early-bronze-age-butchered-human-remains-from-charterhouse-warren-somerset-uk/93EBB135C857C7B7992FC80A4ED927AF

Edit: survival of evidence is discussed. Obvs dumping them down a pothole on Mendip helped preserve it!

There are, on occasion, some pretty horrible goings-on in places like Papua-New Guinea.

And the UK!

eek said:

bigjohnowls said:

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

If you can’t dissolve the people and elect another, just dissolve the elections.

https://x.com/henryriley1/status/1868566709847949366?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Eh? Why wouldn't they go ahead?

SKS Lab is in for a bloodbath so let's not bother with LE2025

In county council seats where they don’t have many councilors.

It’s a view but reality is the 2025 elections are Tory heavy

Many Counties would normally have swung from Con to Lab

Until austerity Reeves decided to sacrifice those Candidates on the alter of being bigger bastards than the Tories to satisfy their paymaster donors

Of course SKS lost loads of Councillors in 2021 compared to Jezza in 2017.

So the low point of 2021 seemed impossible not to recover in 2025.

SKS has managed it though.

Northern_Al said:

I don't imagine the combined forces of Reform and Conservative will have an overall majority in 2028/9, but if they do it would be the most hilarious coalition of chaos ever. The idea that Farage and his mates, in conjunction with the Tories, could form any sort of stable government is for the birds.

In a sense it is hard to say. Neither Reform nor the Tories have presented anything like a credible set of principles, policies, direction, use of power and competence demonstration. In particular, how each would successfully depart significantly from the current lot in power.

Until then NOTA is going to do quite well, and the current 3 and bit way split between unconvinced voters carries on.

kle4 said:

I demand justice! Someone contact the historical crimes unit, this is a nation of laws.

Scientists have uncovered the aftermath of an "exceptionally violent" attack about 4,000 years ago in Somerset when at least 37 people appear to have been butchered and likely eaten.

It is the largest case of violence between humans identified in early Bronze Age England, which had been considered a peaceful time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl3jn3elz3o

Were we a nation, and were there laws here, 4000 years ago ?

Mesopotamia, sure.
But even then, only just.

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

OldKingCole said:

Carnyx said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

I demand justice! Someone contact the historical crimes unit, this is a nation of laws.

Scientists have uncovered the aftermath of an "exceptionally violent" attack about 4,000 years ago in Somerset when at least 37 people appear to have been butchered and likely eaten.

It is the largest case of violence between humans identified in early Bronze Age England, which had been considered a peaceful time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl3jn3elz3o

The error is perhaps in assuming it was a peaceful time. Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect the absence of evidence of violence in early Bronze Age doesn't outweigh humans having a violent nature when threatened.

That did seem like an odd sentence to include. I mean, there were comparitively few people around at the time, so instances of mass violence would likewise be fewer and harder for evidence to have survived, so I'd be curious of the nature of analysis and if it really was more peaceful compared to others.

Or if it was just an extension of the idea that hunter gatherer societies or isolated island communities etc did not really have violence, which I think has been largely debunked but has lived on through patronising perceptions of naiive innocent native societies.

I've just been reading the original paper which is happily open access - the Graun has a linky if the BBC doesn't. The issue is the cannibalism. Very thorough, right down to cracking open bones for the marrow. Which obviously surprises the researchers (who are in any case being very careful in their arguments).

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/dec/16/something-horrible-somerset-pit-reveals-bronze-age-cannibalism
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/darker-angels-of-our-nature-early-bronze-age-butchered-human-remains-from-charterhouse-warren-somerset-uk/93EBB135C857C7B7992FC80A4ED927AF

Edit: survival of evidence is discussed. Obvs dumping them down a pothole on Mendip helped preserve it!

There are, on occasion, some pretty horrible goings-on in places like Papua-New Guinea.

And the UK!

Obligatory Scottish angle.

'Alexander "Sawney" Bean (sometimes also given as Sandy Bane, etc.) is a legendary figure, said to have been the head of a 45-member clan in Scotland in the 16th century that murdered and cannibalised over 1,000 people in 25 years. According to the legend, Bean and his clan members were eventually caught by a search party sent by King James VI, and were executed for their heinous crimes.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawney_Bean

Sharp eyed PBers may spot a PB regular in the Wiki piece before he hit the big time of obsessing about drones and Woke on here.

Indeed, to both. I see the PBer in question is credited with a publication in the Fortean Times, debunking the story.

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

I demand justice! Someone contact the historical crimes unit, this is a nation of laws.

Scientists have uncovered the aftermath of an "exceptionally violent" attack about 4,000 years ago in Somerset when at least 37 people appear to have been butchered and likely eaten.

It is the largest case of violence between humans identified in early Bronze Age England, which had been considered a peaceful time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl3jn3elz3o

Were we a nation, and were there laws here, 4000 years ago ?

Mesopotamia, sure.
But even then, only just.

Judging and apologising for the past is all the rage thesedays, I want to extend that all the way back if we can.

numbertwelve said:

The only benefit to not holding elections in 2025 for the government, IMHO, is to avoid potential further momentum for Reform.

Otherwise I really cannot see Labour being too bothered. I hardly think they’ll have a stellar performance, but they will be flattered by the current composition of the seats in play.

2026 is the big test.

Yes, I cannot see many positives for the government in delaying matters, particularly since the combined authorities they will want to create will not have their constituent councils line up their current elections, so there are better ways to align them with a new mayoral system.

Carnyx said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

I demand justice! Someone contact the historical crimes unit, this is a nation of laws.

Scientists have uncovered the aftermath of an "exceptionally violent" attack about 4,000 years ago in Somerset when at least 37 people appear to have been butchered and likely eaten.

It is the largest case of violence between humans identified in early Bronze Age England, which had been considered a peaceful time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl3jn3elz3o

Were we a nation, and were there laws here, 4000 years ago ?

Mesopotamia, sure.
But even then, only just.

Judging and apologising for the past is all the rage thesedays, I want to extend that all the way back if we can.

Justice for the Neanderthals!

When it comes to justice, it must be for all Homos or none.

kle4 said:

OldKingCole said:

theProle said:

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

If you can’t dissolve the people and elect another, just dissolve the elections.

https://x.com/henryriley1/status/1868566709847949366?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Eh? Why wouldn't they go ahead?

The pretext is that they want to abolish all the district councils and make everywhere unitary. Terrible idea - round here the district councils work well, but the county councils is poor, so the practical outworking will be to reduce the functioning of the lot to the level of badness of the County Council. Personally I'd abolish the County and give all the powers to the Districts.

The real reason they want to do it is to avoid the likely embarrassment of coming third in their first electoral test since gaining office.

That 'plan' has been kicked around by at least two of the main parties, hasn't it? I don't think the Districts could support the 'hinterland' necessary for good government. Social services are but one example.

Since the last Labour government through the Coalition and the Tory governments that followed unitarisation has been moving forward, the Starmer government is just accelerating things alongisde its combined authority plans. People might say their district is good and the county bad, but it's not like its inevitable that is so across the country (nor even that unitaries will all be good at governing), but the cost savings are potentially enormous and with local government as it is it just makes sense.

Will require stronger town and parish councils though as abolishing district councils to create unitaries just reduces local links to your local council otherwise which is less likely to be based in your nearest town but a town or city over the other side of the county

algarkirk said:

kle4 said:

I demand justice! Someone contact the historical crimes unit, this is a nation of laws.

Scientists have uncovered the aftermath of an "exceptionally violent" attack about 4,000 years ago in Somerset when at least 37 people appear to have been butchered and likely eaten.

It is the largest case of violence between humans identified in early Bronze Age England, which had been considered a peaceful time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl3jn3elz3o

If it is in Somerset then the Bishop of Bath and Wells would be the obvious first place to look for a head to roll.

4000 years ago was pre Christ let alone pre C of E

Nigelb said:

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

It's not entirely cynical.
Levelling up was never given the amount of resources needed to really shift the
economic balance between north and south.
And that was very definitely implied in the politicians' promises.

Although we did face other challenges in 2019/20/21

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.)

What odds would you have got on that one?

numbertwelve said:

The only benefit to not holding elections in 2025 for the government, IMHO, is to avoid potential further momentum for Reform.

Otherwise I really cannot see Labour being too bothered. I hardly think they’ll have a stellar performance, but they will be flattered by the current composition of the seats in play.

2026 is the big test.

We are only getting a White Paper today. It will only go into law some point in 2025. If reports are correct, existing local authorities to be merged will be consulted on who they merge with. The new authorities will take a while to organize. I would suggest that the chances of everything being ready for elections next May is virtually nil.

HYUFD said:

algarkirk said:

kle4 said:

I demand justice! Someone contact the historical crimes unit, this is a nation of laws.

Scientists have uncovered the aftermath of an "exceptionally violent" attack about 4,000 years ago in Somerset when at least 37 people appear to have been butchered and likely eaten.

It is the largest case of violence between humans identified in early Bronze Age England, which had been considered a peaceful time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl3jn3elz3o

If it is in Somerset then the Bishop of Bath and Wells would be the obvious first place to look for a head to roll.

4000 years ago was pre Christ let alone pre C of E

I thought he only appeared on earth in Roman Palestine. He and his father had been around before, just hadn't manifested themselves.

kle4 said:

I demand justice! Someone contact the historical crimes unit, this is a nation of laws.

Scientists have uncovered the aftermath of an "exceptionally violent" attack about 4,000 years ago in Somerset when at least 37 people appear to have been butchered and likely eaten.

It is the largest case of violence between humans identified in early Bronze Age England, which had been considered a peaceful time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl3jn3elz3o

Who considered it a peaceful time?

The law of the jungle applied.

Shecorns88 said:

The usual weasel words from Duncan Smith on China.

The utter hypocrite sat on Government for 14 years whilst Prince Andrew was being courted by Chinese spies and did nothing.

Now He blames Starmer just for suggestions we should do trade with China.

Similar bullcrap from Tugenhadt who sat in Government whilst numerous Tories set up rogue Companies to corruptly bid for PPE contracts at hugely inflated prices from ah China.

Add Mr Opportunist the MP for Mar A Lago... He wants to name the Chinese spy yet wants £400m off a South African runt who mass produces badged Cars using Chinese parts in China.

You really couldn't make this up from these weasel spineless opportunists.

SKS is right to be circmspect but he is also 100% right to seek up to open up Chinese markets to boost growth and knowledge.

Shutting the doors totally won't stop a single spy, it will merely be a gross case of cutting off your nose, ears, eyes, tongue etc to spite your face


Thank God we have serious people back in Government not these idiotic imbeciles.

Fascinating post.

Truly fascinating.