The government sinks to a new low yet still leads the Tories who remain in third place

FrancisUrquhart said:

So was that it, few quid for a mine in Cornwall, some new houses in Oxfordshire and a massive lengthy court battle ahead for rehash of rehash of a rehash of another runway at Heathrow.

kamski said:

Selebian said:

kamski said:

Selebian said:

StillWaters said:

Scott_xP said:

@100glitterstars

Possibly the quote of the week, the year, the century and for eternity.

"The minute we start going down that track *of looking for evidence*, I think we start to lose our way"

Kemi Badenoch

You should never look *for* evidence

You should look *at* the evidence and determine if your hypothesis is true or not.

Otherwise you are at risk of confirmation bias

That's wrong. I spend a good chunk of my work time looking for and gathering evidence. When I have it, I then look at it, carefully.

If we can never look for (or generate?) evidence then you're shutting down much of science and we're limited to systematic reviews (although the search part of that could be said to be looking for evidence) and maybe reviews of existing registries of data etc, but certainly no new data collection.

On the Badenoch quote, I'd need to see the context to have a view on that. If she'd suggesting we just do what we 'know' to be right without being troubled by evidence, it's batty, but it might be something else.

tbf I think she is being (somewhat) misquoted - 'of looking for evidence' wasn't in her answer, but was part of the question. A generous interpretation would be she is trying to say it's wrong to ignore anecdotes and individual experience just because it doesn't really (yet) count as hard evidence. Less generous is she is saying 'ignore the evidence'

Context was her claim that 'lack of social integration' was a factor in the Southport murders.

Thanks. I'd be interested to see a link to the actual exchange - if it was an interview? - that led to this.

It is a favourite approach of people with strong ideology to reject looking for/at evidence on something they hold to be true. If she's making a bit claim about the reasons for the Southport murders then it certainly would be prudent and responsible to have some evidence to support that, rather than just shit stirring for votes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njaqQig5t0Y has the exchange, you can skip the first 40 seconds

She is basically saying she doesn't need any evidence...

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

So was that it, few quid for a mine in Cornwall, some new houses in Oxfordshire and a massive lengthy court battle ahead for rehash of rehash of a rehash of another runway at Heathrow.

I wish this government - heck, any government - would start taking a JFDI attitude to infrastructure.

"We, as a nation, have decided that LHR runway 3 / EWR / Thames Crossing / whatever is a nationally critical project. Enough enquiries have been done, and enough talk; we want bids in by the end of next month, CPOs by the end of the month after, and construction to have started in six months. Make it so."

It would have people howling, but it would get things done. Sadly, it'd almost certainly also be illegal...

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

So was that it, few quid for a mine in Cornwall, some new houses in Oxfordshire and a massive lengthy court battle ahead for rehash of rehash of a rehash of another runway at Heathrow.

I wish this government - heck, any government - would start taking a JFDI attitude to infrastructure.

"We, as a nation, have decided that LHR runway 3 / EWR / Thames Crossing / whatever is a nationally critical project. Enough enquiries have been done, and enough talk; we want bids in by the end of next month, CPOs by the end of the month after, and construction to have started in six months. Make it so."

It would have people howling, but it would get things done. Sadly, it'd almost certainly also be illegal...

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

So was that it, few quid for a mine in Cornwall, some new houses in Oxfordshire and a massive lengthy court battle ahead for rehash of rehash of a rehash of another runway at Heathrow.

I wish this government - heck, any government - would start taking a JFDI attitude to infrastructure.

"We, as a nation, have decided that LHR runway 3 / EWR / Thames Crossing / whatever is a nationally critical project. Enough enquiries have been done, and enough talk; we want bids in by the end of next month, CPOs by the end of the month after, and construction to have started in six months. Make it so."

It would have people howling, but it would get things done. Sadly, it'd almost certainly also be illegal...

Stark_Dawning said:

kinabalu said:

numbertwelve said:

Foxy said:

Taz said:

Ratters said:

A lot of scepticism on here about Labour going for growth but I think they have realised:

1) They have run out of room to borrow more. Hunt and Reeves have already collectively pushed this to the limits of what could still plausibly be described as fiscally sound. Any further and you risk a debt crisis, or it becomes self-defeating as higher refinancing costs on the existing debt pile outweigh the additional spending from borrowing more.

2) They have run out of room to tax meaningfully more, absent a more ambitious gross wealth tax than would probably take three years to implement.

3) They would genuinely like to improve public services. That either takes money or deep reform. The former is limited by points 1 and 2, the latter takes years to show benefits even if done well.

The only remaining variable they can pull is to improve growth. Even if it means deregulation and putting aside environmental concerns.

I appreciate they started off poorly (talking down the economy, tax rises on businesses) but it's too soon to write them off, I think.

I get the scepticism, There is alot of talk about it but nothing concrete so far.

However they can turn it around. I agree. They have the chance to and it does seem the top table in Labour does get it now. If they do start to get some growth I think they can easily convert the WNV/DK's back to Labour and win a second term.

Alot hinges on it and reforming the planning system.

I think that Keir also needs to personally concentrate on the domestic agenda, and put away his passport for a bit. That is what a Foreign Secretary is for.

Take some time to tour in places like Stoke, Middlesborough, Clacton, Merthyr, Glasgow and Leicester and talk to people on the ground. We all know that the Treasury is skint, but there are low cost changes that could make lives better.

One of the things that made Blair so impressive was his government always gave the impression of having their fingers on the pulse of the nation. It was perhaps an easier ask back then, the print media was stronger and largely supportive, the economy was in a much better state etc. But I do agree I think Starmer and Reeves need to do better on that front, try and connect more. At the moment a lot of what they say is rather esoteric to the man on the street. “Growth” as a concept is great but growth doesn’t really mean a tremendous amount to the average person.

Here I go again with this. No apologies since it's true. It was a blooper to proclaim growth as their "defining mission". The economy has been sluggish at best since the GFC and that was with QE and low interest rates propping it up. The drug has now been withdrawn, QE in reverse, rates back to the pre 08 norm. It's a tough ask to conjure good growth out of this scenario. And in any case growth over the shorter term (what they'll be judged on) is mainly dependent on global factors not what the government does or doesn't do.

So, tldr, they've chosen to be defined by something which (i) is likely to disappoint and (ii) they don't have much control over. But they don't listen to me, they've gone and said it now - "growth is our defining mission" - so they need two things. First and foremost, they need to get lucky on the global situation (since the biggest influence on our economy is the world economy). Second, they need to forget about the long term, solving our deep seated problems, all of that crap, in favour of some really effective short-termism, ie lots of initiatives paying quick dividends. Fingers crossed for both.

Interesting. When Liz Truss first arrived, there was actually some talk that with her 'Growth! Growth! Growth!' sloganizing she'd found a political elixir that could spell doom for Labour. I wonder if Labour were more mesmerized by all that they they'd care to admit.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sandpit said:

So is Rachel from accounts actually going to green-light the new Heathrow runway, or is she going to green-light some planning process?

"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"

The government equivalent of me finding a £10 down the back of the sofa and spending it on a takeaway as a way to boost GDP.

Leon said:

CharlieShark said:

On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.

What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.

Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.

When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.

Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.

More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.

The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency

Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs

THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sandpit said:

So is Rachel from accounts actually going to green-light the new Heathrow runway, or is she going to green-light some planning process?

"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"

The government equivalent of me finding a £10 down the back of the sofa and spending it on a takeaway as a way to boost GDP.

"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"

Please tell me this is a joke. Please tell me the Chancellor of the UK Exchequer did not excitedly announce this?

This isn't economics. This is cringeonomics

Stark_Dawning said:

kinabalu said:

numbertwelve said:

Foxy said:

Taz said:

Ratters said:

A lot of scepticism on here about Labour going for growth but I think they have realised:

1) They have run out of room to borrow more. Hunt and Reeves have already collectively pushed this to the limits of what could still plausibly be described as fiscally sound. Any further and you risk a debt crisis, or it becomes self-defeating as higher refinancing costs on the existing debt pile outweigh the additional spending from borrowing more.

2) They have run out of room to tax meaningfully more, absent a more ambitious gross wealth tax than would probably take three years to implement.

3) They would genuinely like to improve public services. That either takes money or deep reform. The former is limited by points 1 and 2, the latter takes years to show benefits even if done well.

The only remaining variable they can pull is to improve growth. Even if it means deregulation and putting aside environmental concerns.

I appreciate they started off poorly (talking down the economy, tax rises on businesses) but it's too soon to write them off, I think.

I get the scepticism, There is alot of talk about it but nothing concrete so far.

However they can turn it around. I agree. They have the chance to and it does seem the top table in Labour does get it now. If they do start to get some growth I think they can easily convert the WNV/DK's back to Labour and win a second term.

Alot hinges on it and reforming the planning system.

I think that Keir also needs to personally concentrate on the domestic agenda, and put away his passport for a bit. That is what a Foreign Secretary is for.

Take some time to tour in places like Stoke, Middlesborough, Clacton, Merthyr, Glasgow and Leicester and talk to people on the ground. We all know that the Treasury is skint, but there are low cost changes that could make lives better.

One of the things that made Blair so impressive was his government always gave the impression of having their fingers on the pulse of the nation. It was perhaps an easier ask back then, the print media was stronger and largely supportive, the economy was in a much better state etc. But I do agree I think Starmer and Reeves need to do better on that front, try and connect more. At the moment a lot of what they say is rather esoteric to the man on the street. “Growth” as a concept is great but growth doesn’t really mean a tremendous amount to the average person.

Here I go again with this. No apologies since it's true. It was a blooper to proclaim growth as their "defining mission". The economy has been sluggish at best since the GFC and that was with QE and low interest rates propping it up. The drug has now been withdrawn, QE in reverse, rates back to the pre 08 norm. It's a tough ask to conjure good growth out of this scenario. And in any case growth over the shorter term (what they'll be judged on) is mainly dependent on global factors not what the government does or doesn't do.

So, tldr, they've chosen to be defined by something which (i) is likely to disappoint and (ii) they don't have much control over. But they don't listen to me, they've gone and said it now - "growth is our defining mission" - so they need two things. First and foremost, they need to get lucky on the global situation (since the biggest influence on our economy is the world economy). Second, they need to forget about the long term, solving our deep seated problems, all of that crap, in favour of some really effective short-termism, ie lots of initiatives paying quick dividends. Fingers crossed for both.

Interesting. When Liz Truss first arrived, there was actually some talk that with her 'Growth! Growth! Growth!' sloganizing she'd found a political elixir that could spell doom for Labour. I wonder if Labour were more mesmerized by all that they they'd care to admit.

noneoftheabove said:

FrankBooth said:

It's fun seeing people put in question to deepseek that suggest it isn't exactly politically neutral. Criticising Xi Jinping is beyond it's current scope. So much for it being intelligent.

Do the ones run by the US tech firms exhibit "politically neutral" ideas if you ask them about extreme jihad? Does politically neutral even exist as a workable concept? It is unsurprising that a Chinese one has Chinese biases, and that may make it less useful for a small subset of topics for Western audiences but it doesn't change its level of intelligence.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sandpit said:

So is Rachel from accounts actually going to green-light the new Heathrow runway, or is she going to green-light some planning process?

"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"

The government equivalent of me finding a £10 down the back of the sofa and spending it on a takeaway as a way to boost GDP.

"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"

Please tell me this is a joke. Please tell me the Chancellor of the UK Exchequer did not excitedly announce this?

This isn't economics. This is cringeonomics

I am excitedly announcing today I am in a position to help the strive for growth, with a big boost to GDP...I am off down the shop to buy a packet of biscuits.

More seriously, I am currently in the process of exploring a new start-up opportunity. The government aren't exactly making it attractive to form it in the UK.

Taz said:

Leon said:

CharlieShark said:

On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.

What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.

Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.

When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.

Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.

More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.

The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency

Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs

THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE

Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.

Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.

Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Carnyx said:

Stark_Dawning said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

How many years have we been talking about a third runway at Heathrow or expansion at Gatwick? 20 years? 30 years? And still not even close to any spades in the ground.

The second runway at Gatwick was a hot topic of conversation around those parts back in the 1980s.

They were arguing about a 'third London airport' in the 1960s ...

Just build Boris Island. Seriously.

I had an idea of how to do it quicker - and make the site selection easier.

Instead of dredging an island - which limits it to a number of very shallow areas - use concrete gravity structures. Think Statfyord B.

Bit like table, with a flat top, legs and at the bottom a cellular structure for buoyancy. Since this is for shallow water, the legs will be a lot shorter than the oil platforms.

Build them in a dry dock - each one, 500 meters by 200, say. Float them out, sail them to their destination, sink in place.

CharlieShark said:

On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.

What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.

Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.

When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.

Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.

More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sadiq tweeted:

I remain opposed to a new runway at Heathrow airport because of the severe impact it will have on noise, air pollution and meeting our climate change targets.

FrancisUrquhart said:

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

So was that it, few quid for a mine in Cornwall, some new houses in Oxfordshire and a massive lengthy court battle ahead for rehash of rehash of a rehash of another runway at Heathrow.

I wish this government - heck, any government - would start taking a JFDI attitude to infrastructure.

"We, as a nation, have decided that LHR runway 3 / EWR / Thames Crossing / whatever is a nationally critical project. Enough enquiries have been done, and enough talk; we want bids in by the end of next month, CPOs by the end of the month after, and construction to have started in six months. Make it so."

It would have people howling, but it would get things done. Sadly, it'd almost certainly also be illegal...

The UK is also tied to legal climate change targets so previous attempts at green lighting it have immediately run into legal challenge based upon those grounds. I presume we will be on that merry-go-round again.

Alphabet_Soup said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Carnyx said:

Stark_Dawning said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

How many years have we been talking about a third runway at Heathrow or expansion at Gatwick? 20 years? 30 years? And still not even close to any spades in the ground.

The second runway at Gatwick was a hot topic of conversation around those parts back in the 1980s.

They were arguing about a 'third London airport' in the 1960s ...

Just build Boris Island. Seriously.

I had an idea of how to do it quicker - and make the site selection easier.

Instead of dredging an island - which limits it to a number of very shallow areas - use concrete gravity structures. Think Statfyord B.

Bit like table, with a flat top, legs and at the bottom a cellular structure for buoyancy. Since this is for shallow water, the legs will be a lot shorter than the oil platforms.

Build them in a dry dock - each one, 500 meters by 200, say. Float them out, sail them to their destination, sink in place.

Unfortunately Boris had forgotten all about his island by the time he took absolute power. Maybe he was holding it in reserve for his second term. It may take half a century to deliver and the cost would dwarf every other project, but the release of the Heathrow site and all the peripheral developments, complete with ready-built infrastructure, would be the basis of a high-rise city for the 21st century. We left Hong Kong in better shape than London.

turbotubbs said:

kamski said:

Selebian said:

kamski said:

Selebian said:

StillWaters said:

Scott_xP said:

@100glitterstars

Possibly the quote of the week, the year, the century and for eternity.

"The minute we start going down that track *of looking for evidence*, I think we start to lose our way"

Kemi Badenoch

You should never look *for* evidence

You should look *at* the evidence and determine if your hypothesis is true or not.

Otherwise you are at risk of confirmation bias

That's wrong. I spend a good chunk of my work time looking for and gathering evidence. When I have it, I then look at it, carefully.

If we can never look for (or generate?) evidence then you're shutting down much of science and we're limited to systematic reviews (although the search part of that could be said to be looking for evidence) and maybe reviews of existing registries of data etc, but certainly no new data collection.

On the Badenoch quote, I'd need to see the context to have a view on that. If she'd suggesting we just do what we 'know' to be right without being troubled by evidence, it's batty, but it might be something else.

tbf I think she is being (somewhat) misquoted - 'of looking for evidence' wasn't in her answer, but was part of the question. A generous interpretation would be she is trying to say it's wrong to ignore anecdotes and individual experience just because it doesn't really (yet) count as hard evidence. Less generous is she is saying 'ignore the evidence'

Context was her claim that 'lack of social integration' was a factor in the Southport murders.

Thanks. I'd be interested to see a link to the actual exchange - if it was an interview? - that led to this.

It is a favourite approach of people with strong ideology to reject looking for/at evidence on something they hold to be true. If she's making a bit claim about the reasons for the Southport murders then it certainly would be prudent and responsible to have some evidence to support that, rather than just shit stirring for votes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njaqQig5t0Y has the exchange, you can skip the first 40 seconds

She is basically saying she doesn't need any evidence...

Two things - the guy who introduces it kills it the "Tory Friendly" show, so he is not an unbiased source. She has extrapolated from her background to the killers and is relating her experience to his.
If you were a 1st generation muslim growing up in the UK would you feel that your experiences give you an idea of what other 1st generation muslims experience? Thats what she is saying.

Its a bit clumsy, but frankly we have an information vacuum about this person and his family, so its inevitable that the vacuum gets filled.

Foss said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

Latest YouGov from Germany:

https://x.com/wahlen_de/status/1884480924743512145

Union: 29% (+1)
AfD: 23% (+4)
SPD: 15% (-4)
GRÜNE: 13% (-2)
BSW: 6%
LINKE: 5% (+1)
FDP: 3% (-1)
Sonstige: 5% (-1)

Union and AfD then would be comfortably over 50% but at the moment it still looks like the Union will only deal with the SPD and Greens not the AfD when forming a new government (plus the FDP but they look like they will fail to reach the threshold for seats this time)

The Economist has an article where it estimates likely seat counts and the viability of various coalitions off of the back of those numbers.

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

CharlieShark said:

On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.

What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.

Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.

When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.

Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.

More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.

The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency

Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs

THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE

Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.

Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.

Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.

Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this

So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me

I have no doubt their intentions are good and their delivery will be mired by legal campaigns like the one from the crank I posted a twitter thread about the other day who stymies any development with legal objections.

But they have a big enough majority to smash through any objections. They've got 400 MPs FFS. We've also had endless inquiries and endless surveys and no more needs to be done, on that front

This is why it is such a good test of their real intent. There is nothing stopping them saying Action This Day - and seeing it done. They have the power to force this through. I'm not remotely optimistic but I am prepared to give them this one last chance

"Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan"

A plan he repeatedly denied had anything to do with him or his policies during the actual campaign.

Selebian said:

kinabalu said:

Moaning churlish PB Tories.

We need more grumpy Reform enthusiasts on here. Then we can go on and on about Remoaners

viewcode said:

I just remembered a line from Yes Minister about the role of NATO: "Keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down". We've failed all three...

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

CharlieShark said:

On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.

What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.

Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.

When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.

Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.

More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.

The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency

Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs

THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE

Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.

Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.

Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.

Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this

So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

CharlieShark said:

On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.

What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.

Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.

When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.

Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.

More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.

The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency

Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs

THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE

Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.

Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.

Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.

Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this

So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me

I have no doubt their intentions are good and their delivery will be mired by legal campaigns like the one from the crank I posted a twitter thread about the other day who stymies any development with legal objections.

But they have a big enough majority to smash through any objections. They've got 400 MPs FFS. We've also had endless inquiries and endless surveys and no more needs to be done, on that front

This is why it is such a good test of their real intent. There is nothing stopping them saying Action This Day - and seeing it done. They have the power to force this through. I'm not remotely optimistic but I am prepared to give them this one last chance

"Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan"

A plan he repeatedly denied had anything to do with him or his policies during the actual campaign.

Carnyx said:

Andy_JS said:

Heathrow should have had 3 or 4 runways about 60 years ago, so people today can't really complain about it. They shouldn't have put it off for so long.

60 years ago? It had six!

kinabalu said:

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

CharlieShark said:

On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.

What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.

Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.

When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.

Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.

More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.

The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency

Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs

THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE

Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.

Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.

Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.

Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this

So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me

I have no doubt their intentions are good and their delivery will be mired by legal campaigns like the one from the crank I posted a twitter thread about the other day who stymies any development with legal objections.

But they have a big enough majority to smash through any objections. They've got 400 MPs FFS. We've also had endless inquiries and endless surveys and no more needs to be done, on that front

This is why it is such a good test of their real intent. There is nothing stopping them saying Action This Day - and seeing it done. They have the power to force this through. I'm not remotely optimistic but I am prepared to give them this one last chance

"Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan"

A plan he repeatedly denied had anything to do with him or his policies during the actual campaign.

His "plan" is simply to dominate the news and titillate himself.

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

CharlieShark said:

On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.

What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.

Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.

When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.

Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.

More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.

The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency

Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs

THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE

Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.

Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.

Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.

Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this

So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me

I have no doubt their intentions are good and their delivery will be mired by legal campaigns like the one from the crank I posted a twitter thread about the other day who stymies any development with legal objections.

But they have a big enough majority to smash through any objections. They've got 400 MPs FFS. We've also had endless inquiries and endless surveys and no more needs to be done, on that front

This is why it is such a good test of their real intent. There is nothing stopping them saying Action This Day - and seeing it done. They have the power to force this through. I'm not remotely optimistic but I am prepared to give them this one last chance

"Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan"

A plan he repeatedly denied had anything to do with him or his policies during the actual campaign.

His "plan" is simply to dominate the news and titillate himself.

It really really isn't the case. This is a retarded take, even by your standards

Fishing said:

viewcode said:

I just remembered a line from Yes Minister about the role of NATO: "Keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down". We've failed all three...

Not sure I agree.

The Americans are still in NATO, the Russians never took West Berlin that I remember and the Germans are doing an excellent job of keeping themselves down at the moment with one incompetent, failing coalition after another.

viewcode said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

noneoftheabove said:

CarlottaVance said:

kamski said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Some clarification on Trump's EOs:

There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.

For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.

And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.

I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.

https://x.com/fem_mb/status/1884517315925999806

Favourite stat from yesterday was that the order to remove men from women’s prisons affects 15% of people held in federal women’s prisons.

Which, if true, must have been horrific for the actual women held there.

It doesn't take a lot of googling to debunk it.

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp

So there are 10k female prisoners and 1.5k transgender female prisoners.

So it would be close to true if all transgender females were in womens prisons.

But it is very rare that they are:

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/transgender-women-are-nearly-always-incarcerated-men-s-putting-many-n1142436

So why is your favourite stat something that is obviously untrue but re-enforces your priors.....

The original source was The NY Times.

https://x.com/alexberenson/status/1882836921363448148

Yes it could be read that not all of them are currently in the women’s prison.

The exact quote is “15% of women in prison are transgender” rather than “15% of people in women’s prison are transgender”.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24520773-peters-responses-to-judiciary-committee-2022/?q=female&mode=document#document/p6

"As of October 24, 2023, there are 10 transgender women housed in BOP female facilities"

Good. Then it shouldn't be a problem to safely accommodate them in the male prison estate.

Any idea how many are in State Prisons (which is 88% of the US prison population)?

I can understand concerns about them being in womens prisons but of course it is a problem to keep them safe in male prisons, especially ones as lawless as the US system.

"Of the 10 transgender women at Chino who spoke to NBC News during a weekend visit last year, nine said they’d been sexually assaulted behind bars."

In a society as litigious as the US it amazes me that the awful violence in the prison system is allowed to continue. I would have thought prisoners would have a strong case against the prison authorities in terms of a failure of their duty of care. Perhaps there is some kind of law preventing this from happening - which would be pretty shameful but not unsurprising.

Prisons are places where rights are removed by definition. The US is very efficient to this, to the point of providing enforced labour (ie defacto slavery). IIUC some of the people battling the fires in LA were enforced prisoners.

viewcode said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

noneoftheabove said:

CarlottaVance said:

kamski said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Some clarification on Trump's EOs:

There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.

For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.

And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.

I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.

https://x.com/fem_mb/status/1884517315925999806

Favourite stat from yesterday was that the order to remove men from women’s prisons affects 15% of people held in federal women’s prisons.

Which, if true, must have been horrific for the actual women held there.

It doesn't take a lot of googling to debunk it.

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp

So there are 10k female prisoners and 1.5k transgender female prisoners.

So it would be close to true if all transgender females were in womens prisons.

But it is very rare that they are:

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/transgender-women-are-nearly-always-incarcerated-men-s-putting-many-n1142436

So why is your favourite stat something that is obviously untrue but re-enforces your priors.....

The original source was The NY Times.

https://x.com/alexberenson/status/1882836921363448148

Yes it could be read that not all of them are currently in the women’s prison.

The exact quote is “15% of women in prison are transgender” rather than “15% of people in women’s prison are transgender”.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24520773-peters-responses-to-judiciary-committee-2022/?q=female&mode=document#document/p6

"As of October 24, 2023, there are 10 transgender women housed in BOP female facilities"

Good. Then it shouldn't be a problem to safely accommodate them in the male prison estate.

Any idea how many are in State Prisons (which is 88% of the US prison population)?

I can understand concerns about them being in womens prisons but of course it is a problem to keep them safe in male prisons, especially ones as lawless as the US system.

"Of the 10 transgender women at Chino who spoke to NBC News during a weekend visit last year, nine said they’d been sexually assaulted behind bars."

In a society as litigious as the US it amazes me that the awful violence in the prison system is allowed to continue. I would have thought prisoners would have a strong case against the prison authorities in terms of a failure of their duty of care. Perhaps there is some kind of law preventing this from happening - which would be pretty shameful but not unsurprising.

Prisons are places where rights are removed by definition. The US is very efficient to this, to the point of providing enforced labour (ie defacto slavery). IIUC some of the people battling the fires in LA were enforced prisoners.

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

OpenAI says Chinese rivals using its work for their AI apps
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vm1m8wpr9o

And it definitely didn't cost $5m to train.

There’s still a suggestion/rumour that the whole thing is being run by some hedge fund that was shorting Nvidia, and there’s nothing actually behind it that’s original work rather than copying the Western efforts.

kinabalu said:

Moaning churlish PB Tories.

Leon said:

What’s happened to me. I used to do drugs and be bad

Now I have become the sort of person that buys artisanal handwoven throws

It’s from Kachin. $105

Mexicanpete said:

Badenoch absolutely dreadful at PMQs. Starmer actually (unusually) answered her first question, so she asked it twice more. Time for Honest Bob?

Davy was effective.

GIN1138 said:

Mexicanpete said:

Badenoch absolutely dreadful at PMQs. Starmer actually (unusually) answered her first question, so she asked it twice more. Time for Honest Bob?

Davy was effective.

I thought she did rather well?

Taz said:

Leon said:

CharlieShark said:

On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.

What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.

Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.

When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.

Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.

More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.

The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency

Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs

THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE

Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.

Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.

Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.

bondegezou said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

CharlieShark said:

On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.

What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.

Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.

When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.

Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.

More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.

The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency

Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs

THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE

Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.

Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.

Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.

Comparing Trump and Starmer like this seems a little disingenuous when Starmer had mere hours between being elected and becoming Prime Minister, whereas the US system has a 2-month transitional period!

Meanwhile, Trump’s hitting the ground running has produced complete chaos in federal services with unclear rules and badly worded directives. There have also been vast numbers of legal challenges, unsurprising given how much Trump has sought to trample over laws. If all you care about is headlines and owning the libs, he’s done well, but in terms of actual good governance, it’s been a disaster.

Mexicanpete said:

GIN1138 said:

Mexicanpete said:

Badenoch absolutely dreadful at PMQs. Starmer actually (unusually) answered her first question, so she asked it twice more. Time for Honest Bob?

Davy was effective.

I thought she did rather well?

It was one of her worst in my opinion. Jenrick must be plotting.

Starmer is useless at PMQs both as LOTO and PM, but he betters Badenoch (she seems poorly prepared) in a way he seldom did with Sunak.

glw said:

.

Barnesian said:

Did I hear that right?
Rachel says a third runway at Heathrow would increase GDP by 0.043% by 2050? Staggering.

It was 0.43%, which is about £10 billion. But still not a vast difference in the grand scheme of things over a period of 25 years.

If it was only 0.043% that wouldn't even make the hassle worth the while.

kinabalu said:

BlancheLivermore said:

kinabalu said:

Moaning churlish PB Tories.

Moans man who mainly moans about moaning more than many or most moaners moan

Not me. If I was constantly moaning and churlish just because my preferred political party wasn't in office I'd have had a grim life indeed.