Local media stories about council tax. The Scottish government have removed the cap on what increase councils can make. Scottish government funding cuts mean councils are broke, so we’re all looking at 11% in Aberdeen and 10% in Aberdeenshire.
The narrative gap is simple: the budget will never balance as the government cuts get worse every year. Aberdeenshire alone gets £43m less than it would get if the government pittance was allocated by need - Glasgow gets the same per student as we do for transport, despite one being a city and the other being a vast rural county.
The challenge is similar to the Reeves Jenrick CV “scandals” - focus on minutiae rather than big picture. Council tax going up by 10% is awful - as are the critical cuts that still need to be made. With far far worse cuts to come next year when the SNP cap council tax rises. We need to be focused on the Big Picture, not the salacious details.
Good morning
We have had 3 years of 10% pa rises in council tax
I would politely suggest that this was an unsuccessful attempt to mute the sting of his remarks by phrasing them politely, and the Guardian should have pointed this out.
He said you can't be brown and English, how is he not racist?
Also, you can be Hindu and English. Which religions do you have to follow in order to forfeit being English according to this arse?
When I was growing up, the phrase English certainly had an ethnic connotation in a way that British did not. Kisin probably wouldn't define himself as English either. That isn't to say I agree with his definition.
Well there's some truth in that. Kisin can define himself how he likes, but he can't tell 'brown' people or Hindus that they can't be English.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
Yes. Tax rises. For the most part, at least on an intellectual level, I support taxing capital gains at the same level as income. That includes taxing real estate ownership properly. I would prefer income taxes to come down so that more people can accumulate capital and invest, if they so wish. That is the way capitalism is supposed to work after all.
I agree on some of your principles, but you've so far left Government funding broadly the same. We cannot pay for the vast metastasing state and the services and infrastructure needed for massive level of low income immigration with that.
There are countries with higher state spending and tax as a percentage of GDP than us that are worse off and less happy, and ones that are better off and happier.
“We cannot keep spending the same on the state” is deductive reasoning. It requires evidence to back it up.
But more to the point there’s an implicit non sequitur there: even if you believe strongly that the state must shrink, there is no reason to believe the best way to do it is the Musk way. Which is a classic example of day zero revolutionary practice. We must burn it all down so that we can rebuild from the ashes.
But that’s back to my original post - people like Musk have been able to bring MAGA supporters with them simply through a form of teleology that says if they do it, it must be right.
I'm just glad we do not have more important things to worry about.
I don’t care about either supposed embellishment- what does it matter?
The amount of serious shit going on out there, and the media want to focus on something which isn’t actually needed to get appointed to the job.
When I was recruiting I always assumed their were lies on the CVs I read, based on the fact that there were lies on mine! Nothing horrific, just a bit of colour to make me look more interesting and qualified, or some date juggling to hide away periods of unemployment. Maybe I was an exception, but I very much doubt it!
I'm mildly shocked - it never occurred to me to embellish my CV, or to look for lies on other people's CVs. Omissions, sure - what exactly were they doing in the 3-year gap between posts? But lies? Wouldn't that end up with getting a job one couldn't do?
I doubt that - there are many jobs which people might excel at without needing specific work experience even though that is a requirement on the application. Plenty of jobs list as requiring degrees, even as people who occupy those roles might not have them they just got the job 10-20 years ago when it was not listed as a requirement.
Out of university I applied for a job in an office, and I didn't get it and they said I didn't have office experience as I'd never worked in one before (perhaps this was just a polite way of telling me I was no good, IDK). It was just a basic admin* entry level thing without special requirements or skills, and I got a very similar job shortly afterwards with the same lack of experience and did just fine. If I'd lied and said I had experience I wouldn't have found I couldn't do the job.
*some admin jobs you really will need experienced administrators if you don't want to do more harm than good.
I would politely suggest that this was an unsuccessful attempt to mute the sting of his remarks by phrasing them politely, and the Guardian should have pointed this out.
He said you can't be brown and English, how is he not racist?
Also, you can be Hindu and English. Which religions do you have to follow in order to forfeit being English according to this arse?
When I was growing up, the phrase English certainly had an ethnic connotation in a way that British did not. Kisin probably wouldn't define himself as English either. That isn't to say I agree with his definition.
Well there's some truth in that. Kisin can define himself how he likes, but he can't tell 'brown' people or Hindus that they can't be English.
He’s importing Russian empire thinking on ethnicity and trying to apply it to a very different context.
By his logic Shirley Bassey and Tom Jones aren’t Welsh.
I think we’ll see some shifts in polling the next couple of weeks, driven by Trump, and Starmer’s upcoming visit.
I would predict something like this:
- Reform down a bit through unhelpful comparisons with Trump and Musk (and possibly the AfD) if things continue as is, or - Reform up further if Trump somehow pulls something out of the bag for Ukraine - Tories flat - Labour either up a couple of points, if Starmer manages to look statesmanlike and either hits back at Trump it remains diplomatic, or - Labour down further if Starmer bends over and kisses Trump’s arse, with LD benefiting
The number of people who would switch their vote based on perceived associations with foregin politicians is minuscule so I wouldn't expect that on its own to drive any polling shifts.
Jonny Ive on desert island discs playing the theme from Get Carter. Pure class.
Shamefully I only saw that recently. Grim. Good, but grim.
It's a classic.
Easter Egg, the assassin that shoots him at the end is in the same train carriage as him on the way North at the start
The remake is phenomenally bad
I wouldn't even bother watching the remake - I don't think it could be approved upon. Having seen it, I don't feel the need to watch it again. The same with The Long Good Friday - brilliant but a bit too gritty and ultimately depressing to be a good regular watch. The Italian Job being the opposite as a Caine film.
That’s how we rolled in the 70s young Luckyguy, 2 bar electric fires and being chucked off multi story car parks. The only bum note is that Caine’s character is supposed to be a Geordie. Mercifully he at least didn’t attempt the accent.
I would politely suggest that this was an unsuccessful attempt to mute the sting of his remarks by phrasing them politely, and the Guardian should have pointed this out.
He said you can't be brown and English, how is he not racist?
Also, you can be Hindu and English. Which religions do you have to follow in order to forfeit being English according to this arse?
He's revealed himself as a racist - as he could have made the civic nationalism or ethnicity point if he'd wanted and was very direct about rejecting the former, which he could have. He used to say some reasonably interesting things but he's gone down the rabbit hole now for quite a while as he's gotten high off online praise - when people start moaning all the time about the mainstream media or, in this case, moron industrial complex when they've said something stupid (or at least carelessly phrased), they are at the point where they are living for their online fans to lap up their words uncriticially.
The inability to ever admit to maybe at least having phrased something badly, and instead painting criticism as a conspiracy against your own obviously fine words, is a common trope of these grifters.
He's this close to using the phrase "NPC", which is the unerring mark of a total [badword]
I think we’ll see some shifts in polling the next couple of weeks, driven by Trump, and Starmer’s upcoming visit.
I would predict something like this:
- Reform down a bit through unhelpful comparisons with Trump and Musk (and possibly the AfD) if things continue as is, or - Reform up further if Trump somehow pulls something out of the bag for Ukraine - Tories flat - Labour either up a couple of points, if Starmer manages to look statesmanlike and either hits back at Trump it remains diplomatic, or - Labour down further if Starmer bends over and kisses Trump’s arse, with LD benefiting
I suspect Labour will continue to decline due to the drip drip of economic gloom which will likely be appearing over the coming months.....
I think we’ll see some shifts in polling the next couple of weeks, driven by Trump, and Starmer’s upcoming visit.
I would predict something like this:
- Reform down a bit through unhelpful comparisons with Trump and Musk (and possibly the AfD) if things continue as is, or - Reform up further if Trump somehow pulls something out of the bag for Ukraine - Tories flat - Labour either up a couple of points, if Starmer manages to look statesmanlike and either hits back at Trump it remains diplomatic, or - Labour down further if Starmer bends over and kisses Trump’s arse, with LD benefiting
The number of people who would switch their vote based on perceived associations with foregin politicians is minuscule so I wouldn't expect that on its own to drive any polling shifts.
Right. So Starmer giving a speech praising Hitler would have no effect, except winning your vote (if you have one)?
I think we’ll see some shifts in polling the next couple of weeks, driven by Trump, and Starmer’s upcoming visit.
I would predict something like this:
- Reform down a bit through unhelpful comparisons with Trump and Musk (and possibly the AfD) if things continue as is, or - Reform up further if Trump somehow pulls something out of the bag for Ukraine - Tories flat - Labour either up a couple of points, if Starmer manages to look statesmanlike and either hits back at Trump it remains diplomatic, or - Labour down further if Starmer bends over and kisses Trump’s arse, with LD benefiting
The number of people who would switch their vote based on perceived associations with foregin politicians is minuscule so I wouldn't expect that on its own to drive any polling shifts.
Not sure Corbyn’s experience after Salisbury or Blair’s after Iraq would bear that out
I see Kash Patel has told FBI employees to ignore Musk.
How is Musk going to react to being publicly humiliated ?
Fire Patel.
Patel might be sending the FBI to investigate Musk.
Its going to be fun! Patel - appointed by Trump to take an axe to the FBI Musk - appointed by Trump to take an axe to the government Musk is being told to GO FASTER by Trump. Patel instructs his people to Go Slower.
Two people. Appointed to do the same thing. Directly clashing over how to do that.
Fun times!!!
Does Trump want Patel to take the axe to FBI or does he want their efforts simply redirected to the "real threats" from the "enemy within" like judges who don't agree Trump is King?
I have a film script idea in which the Russians hack into Musk's email and send a message to every CIA agent asking them what they're up to these days. Is it too credible to be exciting?
A large tactical error committed by the Biden administration was not attempting to involve Musk in his net zero initiatives. More obvious in retrospect, but deliberately snubbing him seemed wrong at the time.
The guy is a massive arse, but that shouldn't have driven policy. And of course it's now the arse who is driving policy.
People are seriously comparing Jenrick saying (on his own website) that he was joint youngest cabinet minister since WWII, when it turns out he was third youngest cabinet minister, and then corrected it - with a man who claimed on at least five separate occasions to be a solicitor (including on election leaflets), who didn't correct it. Get over yourselves.
Jenrick issue - irrelevant Reeves - damaging her integrity, but not politically fatal Reynolds - should be politically fatal
I think we’ll see some shifts in polling the next couple of weeks, driven by Trump, and Starmer’s upcoming visit.
I would predict something like this:
- Reform down a bit through unhelpful comparisons with Trump and Musk (and possibly the AfD) if things continue as is, or - Reform up further if Trump somehow pulls something out of the bag for Ukraine - Tories flat - Labour either up a couple of points, if Starmer manages to look statesmanlike and either hits back at Trump it remains diplomatic, or - Labour down further if Starmer bends over and kisses Trump’s arse, with LD benefiting
The number of people who would switch their vote based on perceived associations with foregin politicians is minuscule so I wouldn't expect that on its own to drive any polling shifts.
Not sure Corbyn’s experience after Salisbury or Blair’s after Iraq would bear that out
They were both relevant to domestic politics. The fact that it took Salisbury to impact perceptions of Corbyn bears out my point.
If Trump droned someone in Britain, then politicians who carried on defending him might suffer, but I don't think there's much chance of that.
People are seriously comparing Jenrick saying (on his own website) that he was joint youngest cabinet minister since WWII, when it turns out he was third youngest cabinet minister, and then corrected it - with a man who claimed on at least five separate occasions to be a solicitor (including on election leaflets), who didn't correct it. Get over yourselves.
Jenrick issue - irrelevant Reeves - damaging her integrity, but not politically fatal Reynolds - should be politically fatal
People are highlighting hypocrisy. Jenrick has nobody but himself to blame. If you’re going to try to make political capital from the bad behaviour records of others, you need to be sure your own record is immaculate.
As this update is being written, we might have the most important future indication of where this is heading. Today is the day of the German elections, arguably the most fateful in European history since 1945 (and I say that without hyperbole). If, for instance, the AFD, which has been openly and consistently supported by Elon Musk and JD Vance, stages a surprise and does much better than expected, it might be time to stick a fork in Europe. The AFD is pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine, and would be happy to go along with whatever Trump wants.
Right. The important word being 'if' (and what is the 'for instance' for? Maybe another for instance would be the Tierschutzpartei getting an absolute majority?). It's far more likely that the outcome results in what everyone is expecting a Union-SPD coalition, the risk being that that is not enough for a majority and we end up with a 3-way coalition again that can't get anything done.
It's the next lot of German elections due in 2029 we should worry about.
Lets say each election in Germany, France and the UK has an independent 10% chance of going for a Putinist authoritarian party over the next 3 cycles. That would make it over a 60% chance that at least one falls. I suspect it is higher than that.
The next 3 cycles is a long time, I'm kind of hoping Putin will be one way or another dead by then
Its not just Putin though is it? It is oligarchs the world over wanting to turn their existing power and wealth into full control.
...and they have the methodology to do it. On the basis that every unpleasant experience is a learning experience, Trump is giving an object lesson in how to convert a democracy to an autocracy in the Western World. Somebody should go thru this (it'll probably be Anne Applebaum) pointing out the bits.
Autocracy Inc has all sorts of examples of regimes which are not ideological bedfellows increasing collaboration as it is in their collective interest, opening up the term by openly siding with Russia (not merely trying to push for a deal, but using Russian talking points to attack Ukraine) feels like a start down that path.
Yeah I keep meaning to buy/read it but I'm stacked at the moment. The new batch of political books (Taken as Red, Get In), Gray's new one (The New Leviathans) and my quixotic purchase of "May at 10" and the tendency of reserved library books to arrive all at once, has created a big bulge in my head pipeline like a small snake eating a large hippo. But I will buy "Autocracy Inc" when headspace allows and it comes out in paperback so I can put it next to my copy of "The Twilight Of Democracy".
I see Kash Patel has told FBI employees to ignore Musk.
How is Musk going to react to being publicly humiliated ?
Fire Patel.
Patel might be sending the FBI to investigate Musk.
Its going to be fun! Patel - appointed by Trump to take an axe to the FBI Musk - appointed by Trump to take an axe to the government Musk is being told to GO FASTER by Trump. Patel instructs his people to Go Slower.
Two people. Appointed to do the same thing. Directly clashing over how to do that.
Fun times!!!
Didn't Hitler use the technique of appointing 2 people to do overlapping tasks so they would fight it out, with the most extreme solution winning out?
I think we’ll see some shifts in polling the next couple of weeks, driven by Trump, and Starmer’s upcoming visit.
I would predict something like this:
- Reform down a bit through unhelpful comparisons with Trump and Musk (and possibly the AfD) if things continue as is, or - Reform up further if Trump somehow pulls something out of the bag for Ukraine - Tories flat - Labour either up a couple of points, if Starmer manages to look statesmanlike and either hits back at Trump it remains diplomatic, or - Labour down further if Starmer bends over and kisses Trump’s arse, with LD benefiting
The number of people who would switch their vote based on perceived associations with foregin politicians is minuscule so I wouldn't expect that on its own to drive any polling shifts.
Not sure Corbyn’s experience after Salisbury or Blair’s after Iraq would bear that out
They were both relevant to domestic politics. The fact that it took Salisbury to impact perceptions of Corbyn bears out my point.
If Trump droned someone in Britain, then politicians who carried on defending him might suffer, but I don't think there's much chance of that.
That’s a telling response.
I think there remain Reform supporters for whom Russia’s victory in Ukraine would count as relevant to domestic politics.
I would politely suggest that this was an unsuccessful attempt to mute the sting of his remarks by phrasing them politely, and the Guardian should have pointed this out.
He said you can't be brown and English, how is he not racist?
Also, you can be Hindu and English. Which religions do you have to follow in order to forfeit being English according to this arse?
When I was growing up, the phrase English certainly had an ethnic connotation in a way that British did not. Kisin probably wouldn't define himself as English either. That isn't to say I agree with his definition.
Well there's some truth in that. Kisin can define himself how he likes, but he can't tell 'brown' people or Hindus that they can't be English.
I think he might have described himself as brown before, or possibly that's how his new british school acquaintances saw him.
I enjoyed his book, it was decently written and I agreed with plenty of its arguments and his story of coming to the West and how it is better than what he grew up with and should be defended more vigorously from some of the internal flagellation that we see . But he just seems to have run out of things to talk about and so just escalating, and funnily enough does down the West as much as the people he used to criticise for doing the same thing.
I would politely suggest that this was an unsuccessful attempt to mute the sting of his remarks by phrasing them politely, and the Guardian should have pointed this out.
He said you can't be brown and English, how is he not racist?
Also, you can be Hindu and English. Which religions do you have to follow in order to forfeit being English according to this arse?
When I was growing up, the phrase English certainly had an ethnic connotation in a way that British did not. Kisin probably wouldn't define himself as English either. That isn't to say I agree with his definition.
Well there's some truth in that. Kisin can define himself how he likes, but he can't tell 'brown' people or Hindus that they can't be English.
Of course he can. Just as others can point out that in doing so they find that racist.
I see Kash Patel has told FBI employees to ignore Musk.
How is Musk going to react to being publicly humiliated ?
Fire Patel.
Patel might be sending the FBI to investigate Musk.
Its going to be fun! Patel - appointed by Trump to take an axe to the FBI Musk - appointed by Trump to take an axe to the government Musk is being told to GO FASTER by Trump. Patel instructs his people to Go Slower.
Two people. Appointed to do the same thing. Directly clashing over how to do that.
Fun times!!!
Didn't Hitler use the technique of appointing 2 people to do overlapping tasks so they would fight it out, with the most extreme solution winning out?
The fraud trial of the Trump Organision revealed, even if someone disagrees with the outcome, that it was chaotically run and managed, with a lot of unspoken 'understanding' of what the boss[Trump] wanted done, and who should do them.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
The biggest problem with the moronic and hamfisted DOGE disaster is that it will kill attempts at real regulatory and governmental reform for a generation.
We are already hearing measured regulatory reform by the current U.K. government being called Trumpian, by its opponents.
I see Kash Patel has told FBI employees to ignore Musk.
How is Musk going to react to being publicly humiliated ?
Fire Patel.
Patel might be sending the FBI to investigate Musk.
Its going to be fun! Patel - appointed by Trump to take an axe to the FBI Musk - appointed by Trump to take an axe to the government Musk is being told to GO FASTER by Trump. Patel instructs his people to Go Slower.
Two people. Appointed to do the same thing. Directly clashing over how to do that.
Fun times!!!
Does Trump want Patel to take the axe to FBI or does he want their efforts simply redirected to the "real threats" from the "enemy within" like judges who don't agree Trump is King?
Having read the story it’s bullshit chaff thrown up by the Mirror with a misleading headline. They are playing games to try and protect Labour.
This wasn’t on his CV. It was on his website bio. And it wasn’t a claim about a job or a qualification - it was a statement that he was the “youngest ever Cabinet Minister”.
Of course he’s a boastful idiot but it’s not in the same league as claiming to be a solicitor when you are not.
It’s not the brightest move for Labour supporting media as it just brings up the Reeves situation again which had probably been forgotten about by the general public with the Trump/Musk lunacy taking over the airwaves.
Jenrick isn’t in a position of power or responsibility so it’s not like they are bringing down a big player with this, just highlighting that MPs can stretch the truth and the biggest stretcher by the look of things is Reeves.
And boasting of being the youngest cabinet minister is something that most people won’t give the remotest shit about, true or not, the person in charge of the Nation’s finances maybe being untruthful about the work experience they had that underlines their claim to be the right person for the job is more problematic.
You are absolutely right
But a large group of people will look at the headline and conclude that “they are all as bad as each other”.
I see Kash Patel has told FBI employees to ignore Musk.
How is Musk going to react to being publicly humiliated ?
Fire Patel.
Patel might be sending the FBI to investigate Musk.
Its going to be fun! Patel - appointed by Trump to take an axe to the FBI Musk - appointed by Trump to take an axe to the government Musk is being told to GO FASTER by Trump. Patel instructs his people to Go Slower.
Two people. Appointed to do the same thing. Directly clashing over how to do that.
Fun times!!!
If I responded to this email at my workplace, I would get remedial training on the appropriate handling of phishing emails. Except I would be fired first for sharing confidential information with third parties. And it's possible my employer might have to report a data breach to the ICO depending on what was revealed.
"The second mineral deal sent to Ukraine by the US appears to be even more extreme then the first one. In leaked documents the mineral deal now reportedly includes Ukrainian Oil and Gas exports, where Ukraine will have to contribute to a US led fund till 500 billion is reached."
I see Kash Patel has told FBI employees to ignore Musk.
How is Musk going to react to being publicly humiliated ?
Fire Patel.
Patel might be sending the FBI to investigate Musk.
Its going to be fun! Patel - appointed by Trump to take an axe to the FBI Musk - appointed by Trump to take an axe to the government Musk is being told to GO FASTER by Trump. Patel instructs his people to Go Slower.
Two people. Appointed to do the same thing. Directly clashing over how to do that.
Fun times!!!
I think you might be misunderstanding the intent behind Trump's control of the FBI.
Robert Jenrick is guilty of far worse things than lying on his CV.
I confess the only thing about him that springs immediately to mind is him ordering murals painted over because they might be deemed too welcoming for child asylum seekers.
Which was just such a dumb reasoning if it was true, since no one is making the trip over here because they've heard the asylum centre walls are quite welcoming and that's a good sign.
Jonny Ive on desert island discs playing the theme from Get Carter. Pure class.
Shamefully I only saw that recently. Grim. Good, but grim.
It's a classic.
Easter Egg, the assassin that shoots him at the end is in the same train carriage as him on the way North at the start
The remake is phenomenally bad
I wouldn't even bother watching the remake - I don't think it could be approved upon. Having seen it, I don't feel the need to watch it again. The same with The Long Good Friday - brilliant but a bit too gritty and ultimately depressing to be a good regular watch. The Italian Job being the opposite as a Caine film.
That’s how we rolled in the 70s young Luckyguy, 2 bar electric fires and being chucked off multi story car parks. The only bum note is that Caine’s character is supposed to be a Geordie. Mercifully he at least didn’t attempt the accent.
Although in the book the original setting was Scunthorpe.
I'm not sure whether northern Lincolnshire should be pleased or displeased that the film was relocated to Tyneside.
I think we’ll see some shifts in polling the next couple of weeks, driven by Trump, and Starmer’s upcoming visit.
I would predict something like this:
- Reform down a bit through unhelpful comparisons with Trump and Musk (and possibly the AfD) if things continue as is, or - Reform up further if Trump somehow pulls something out of the bag for Ukraine - Tories flat - Labour either up a couple of points, if Starmer manages to look statesmanlike and either hits back at Trump it remains diplomatic, or - Labour down further if Starmer bends over and kisses Trump’s arse, with LD benefiting
The number of people who would switch their vote based on perceived associations with foregin politicians is minuscule so I wouldn't expect that on its own to drive any polling shifts.
Given all the other drivers for Reform support at the moment, I don't think they'll be in imminent trouble for association with Trump and (by further association) Putin. Farage is no fool and knows when to take time responding and equivocate, and not enough people care enough, especially with no immediate prospect of Reform being in power, for most people to even notice.
I would politely suggest that this was an unsuccessful attempt to mute the sting of his remarks by phrasing them politely, and the Guardian should have pointed this out.
He said you can't be brown and English, how is he not racist?
Also, you can be Hindu and English. Which religions do you have to follow in order to forfeit being English according to this arse?
When I was growing up, the phrase English certainly had an ethnic connotation in a way that British did not. Kisin probably wouldn't define himself as English either. That isn't to say I agree with his definition.
Well there's some truth in that. Kisin can define himself how he likes, but he can't tell 'brown' people or Hindus that they can't be English.
Of course he can. Just as others can point out that in doing so they find that racist.
Well obviously he did in fact say it.
In this context "can't" means "can't without being racist". If you have any other problems with English comprehension I'm happy to help.
People are seriously comparing Jenrick saying (on his own website) that he was joint youngest cabinet minister since WWII, when it turns out he was third youngest cabinet minister, and then corrected it - with a man who claimed on at least five separate occasions to be a solicitor (including on election leaflets), who didn't correct it. Get over yourselves.
Jenrick issue - irrelevant Reeves - damaging her integrity, but not politically fatal Reynolds - should be politically fatal
People are highlighting hypocrisy. Jenrick has nobody but himself to blame. If you’re going to try to make political capital from the bad behaviour records of others, you need to be sure your own record is immaculate.
Get real, believing that you may be the joint youngest cabinet minister and then finding out, that's not true is not remotely like pretending you are a solicitor. It's not hypocrisy. One's a simple mistake that someone has probably mistakenly told him, or who ever wrote it, the other is shameless and illegal.
I have no idea how events will play out politically but Starmer pledging 100% support for Ukraine and affirming defence spending increases will only be credible when he lays out the increase to 2.5% then to 3% and beyond
It was suggested he was thinking that 3% should happen by 2035 and there lies his problem as it just cannot be deferred until then
Hard decisions have to be made but Starmer and Labour are not going to be able to square the circle without cutting some cherished areas
In the last 4 weeks the world has changed and I am not convinced the government have actually realised the immediacy of our defence other than fine words
I would just say Starmer has the opportunity to act as the statesman, and to be honest to all our Lib Dems colleagues on here ridiculous name calling by Ed Davey is not what is needed, cool heads are
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
Yes. Tax rises. For the most part, at least on an intellectual level, I support taxing capital gains at the same level as income. That includes taxing real estate ownership properly. I would prefer income taxes to come down so that more people can accumulate capital and invest, if they so wish. That is the way capitalism is supposed to work after all.
I agree on some of your principles, but you've so far left Government funding broadly the same. We cannot pay for the vast metastasing state and the services and infrastructure needed for massive level of low income immigration with that.
Once again - you want to cut public sector - show me, I don't know, say £20bn of savings?
I think if we invest* in productivity in a long term manner in the U.K., we can achieve considerable savings.
For example, I would look at hiring into the civil service experts on procurement negotiation - there are too many examples of poor contracting by government.
I would replace consultancies with an in house (within civil service) function. It’s job would be to work though the system, reworking processes and automating where appropriate. This kind of stuff is never finished. Bit like painting a bridge. So make it a permanent piece of the system. The deliverable is improved productivity.
I think we’ll see some shifts in polling the next couple of weeks, driven by Trump, and Starmer’s upcoming visit.
I would predict something like this:
- Reform down a bit through unhelpful comparisons with Trump and Musk (and possibly the AfD) if things continue as is, or - Reform up further if Trump somehow pulls something out of the bag for Ukraine - Tories flat - Labour either up a couple of points, if Starmer manages to look statesmanlike and either hits back at Trump it remains diplomatic, or - Labour down further if Starmer bends over and kisses Trump’s arse, with LD benefiting
The number of people who would switch their vote based on perceived associations with foregin politicians is minuscule so I wouldn't expect that on its own to drive any polling shifts.
Not sure Corbyn’s experience after Salisbury or Blair’s after Iraq would bear that out
They were both relevant to domestic politics. The fact that it took Salisbury to impact perceptions of Corbyn bears out my point.
If Trump droned someone in Britain, then politicians who carried on defending him might suffer, but I don't think there's much chance of that.
That’s a telling response.
I think there remain Reform supporters for whom Russia’s victory in Ukraine would count as relevant to domestic politics.
Blair was directly implicated in the Iraq war. He wasn't just an apologist for US policy but a participant in it.
However important it is, Ukraine just isn't the same kind of issue. There's not going to be an equivalent of Reg Keys standing against Starmer in the next election.
Robert Jenrick is guilty of far worse things than lying on his CV.
I confess the only thing about him that springs immediately to mind is him ordering murals painted over because they might be deemed too welcoming for child asylum seekers.
Which was just such a dumb reasoning if it was true, since no one is making the trip over here because they've heard the asylum centre walls are quite welcoming and that's a good sign.
He made some interesting planning decisions
Almost Trump like planning decisions (i.e. favouring mates)..
The ironic thing about Musk's mad dash to cut federal waste by firing government employees seemingly randomly is that the share of federal jobs has never been this low since WW2
I would politely suggest that this was an unsuccessful attempt to mute the sting of his remarks by phrasing them politely, and the Guardian should have pointed this out.
Forgive my ignorance, but who or what is Konstantin Kisin?
And why should anyone pay attention to him?
He is a former comedian who got some positive attention a few years ago for railing against woke culture (he refused to sign some kind of ridiculous 'no jokes about race, sexism, etc' pledge for a gig) . He has a relatively successful podcast and got some reasonable buzz as a commentator.
Has since transitioned into an online political troll. It's at that point that most people stop paying attention to such people, and then then either fade away or they become more extreme to please the fans that remain. See also Russell Brand.
I see Kash Patel has told FBI employees to ignore Musk.
How is Musk going to react to being publicly humiliated ?
Fire Patel.
Patel might be sending the FBI to investigate Musk.
Its going to be fun! Patel - appointed by Trump to take an axe to the FBI Musk - appointed by Trump to take an axe to the government Musk is being told to GO FASTER by Trump. Patel instructs his people to Go Slower.
Two people. Appointed to do the same thing. Directly clashing over how to do that.
Fun times!!!
If I responded to this email at my workplace, I would get remedial training on the appropriate handling of phishing emails. Except I would be fired first for sharing confidential information with third parties. And it's possible my employer might have to report a data breach to the ICO depending on what was revealed.
Quite.
Every employee should report it to their manager who will in turn report it up the chain of command until all the agency directors get the decision and likely tell Musk he will be ignored.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
Yes. Tax rises. For the most part, at least on an intellectual level, I support taxing capital gains at the same level as income. That includes taxing real estate ownership properly. I would prefer income taxes to come down so that more people can accumulate capital and invest, if they so wish. That is the way capitalism is supposed to work after all.
I agree on some of your principles, but you've so far left Government funding broadly the same. We cannot pay for the vast metastasing state and the services and infrastructure needed for massive level of low income immigration with that.
Once again - you want to cut public sector - show me, I don't know, say £20bn of savings?
Are you serious? £20bn can be reached without even noticing. Chagos? Great British Energy? End either the Treasury's agreement to indemnify the Bank of England for losses on its QT programme, or the QT programme itself - Bank's choice.
Working age health related benefits, currently £48bn (up from £36bn in 2019-20 ai says), that can (and must) come down by £10bn for starters.
That's without touching any departmental budgets, which must also come down massively, as well as (or perhaps instead of) winding up QUANGOs and bringing their responsibilities back into the departments.
I would politely suggest that this was an unsuccessful attempt to mute the sting of his remarks by phrasing them politely, and the Guardian should have pointed this out.
He said you can't be brown and English, how is he not racist?
Also, you can be Hindu and English. Which religions do you have to follow in order to forfeit being English according to this arse?
When I was growing up, the phrase English certainly had an ethnic connotation in a way that British did not. Kisin probably wouldn't define himself as English either. That isn't to say I agree with his definition.
Well there's some truth in that. Kisin can define himself how he likes, but he can't tell 'brown' people or Hindus that they can't be English.
Of course he can. Just as others can point out that in doing so they find that racist.
Well obviously he did in fact say it.
In this context "can't" means "can't without being racist". If you have any other problems with English comprehension I'm happy to help.
Its an important distinction. Racists often moan they can't say such things. They can but shouldn't be surprised that others find them racist.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
Yes. Tax rises. For the most part, at least on an intellectual level, I support taxing capital gains at the same level as income. That includes taxing real estate ownership properly. I would prefer income taxes to come down so that more people can accumulate capital and invest, if they so wish. That is the way capitalism is supposed to work after all.
if you tax capital gains at the rate of income tax there is no reward for risk taking.
The reward is wealth without work...
It says a lot about your mindset that you think investing / owning / running a business doesn’t involve work
I have a film script idea in which the Russians hack into Musk's email and send a message to every CIA agent asking them what they're up to these days. Is it too credible to be exciting?
Something along those lines already. Note the WH insisted the data be sent by email, and not more secure means.
I would politely suggest that this was an unsuccessful attempt to mute the sting of his remarks by phrasing them politely, and the Guardian should have pointed this out.
He said you can't be brown and English, how is he not racist?
Also, you can be Hindu and English. Which religions do you have to follow in order to forfeit being English according to this arse?
When I was growing up, the phrase English certainly had an ethnic connotation in a way that British did not. Kisin probably wouldn't define himself as English either. That isn't to say I agree with his definition.
Well there's some truth in that. Kisin can define himself how he likes, but he can't tell 'brown' people or Hindus that they can't be English.
Of course he can. Just as others can point out that in doing so they find that racist.
Well obviously he did in fact say it.
In this context "can't" means "can't without being racist". If you have any other problems with English comprehension I'm happy to help.
Its an important distinction. Racists often moan they can't say such things. They can but shouldn't be surprised that others find them racist.
I had a disagreement with a friend once about a public figure who had made some rather anti-trans comments.
Both of us disagreed with what the person had said, but my friend thought they should never have said it, whereas my take was I was glad they had felt able to be open and honest about what they thought, as better to know what people think, so it can be reacted to, than they still think it but conceal it from others.
I'm just glad we do not have more important things to worry about.
I don’t care about either supposed embellishment- what does it matter?
The amount of serious shit going on out there, and the media want to focus on something which isn’t actually needed to get appointed to the job.
When I was recruiting I always assumed their were lies on the CVs I read, based on the fact that there were lies on mine! Nothing horrific, just a bit of colour to make me look more interesting and qualified, or some date juggling to hide away periods of unemployment. Maybe I was an exception, but I very much doubt it!
I'm mildly shocked - it never occurred to me to embellish my CV, or to look for lies on other people's CVs. Omissions, sure - what exactly were they doing in the 3-year gap between posts? But lies? Wouldn't that end up with getting a job one couldn't do?
I doubt that - there are many jobs which people might excel at without needing specific work experience even though that is a requirement on the application. Plenty of jobs list as requiring degrees, even as people who occupy those roles might not have them they just got the job 10-20 years ago when it was not listed as a requirement.
Out of university I applied for a job in an office, and I didn't get it and they said I didn't have office experience as I'd never worked in one before (perhaps this was just a polite way of telling me I was no good, IDK). It was just a basic admin* entry level thing without special requirements or skills, and I got a very similar job shortly afterwards with the same lack of experience and did just fine. If I'd lied and said I had experience I wouldn't have found I couldn't do the job.
*some admin jobs you really will need experienced administrators if you don't want to do more harm than good.
It's simple competition. You were up against someone with experience when you didn't have any, so they chose the candidate with experience. If you were the only candidate but obviously capable they probably would have taken you regardless of experience. Which is maybe what happened with the second job.
When I was unemployed a few years ago I applied for a number of minimum wage service jobs that I would have enjoyed and was different from what I was doing previously. The problem was, with few formal requirements there was a lot more competition and I didn't stand out. It was easier to get a professional job where I had the required skills.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
The biggest problem with the moronic and hamfisted DOGE disaster is that it will kill attempts at real regulatory and governmental reform for a generation.
We are already hearing measured regulatory reform by the current U.K. government being called Trumpian, by its opponents.
I don't agree. Critique of the daily DOGE pratfalls (and of the Trump programme in general) has a limited shelf life because eventually, albeit with hiccoughs and false starts, they seem to work. Take Ukraine - we are utterly outraged by Trump’s Ukraine policy currently. But what if he brings peace in Ukraine, energy prices fall, the US enjoys a fat return off Ukraine's minerals... Who looks stupid then?
That Trumpian cricitism is all these people have. They should welcome reform by the current Government - it's not going to be so pleasant from the next one.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
The biggest problem with the moronic and hamfisted DOGE disaster is that it will kill attempts at real regulatory and governmental reform for a generation.
We are already hearing measured regulatory reform by the current U.K. government being called Trumpian, by its opponents.
That would be an unfortunate result.
Even in the more hectic world of the USA the Musk approach surely cannot be the most effective way to achieve the desired result, if one thinks the result is good?
Spamming emails that everyone will be fired if they don't respond with bullet points of what they did in the last week is just plain dumb in terms of what positive info you get versus the negative blowback. There have to be better ways to shrink the state, which these actions might make more difficult, not easier.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
Yes. Tax rises. For the most part, at least on an intellectual level, I support taxing capital gains at the same level as income. That includes taxing real estate ownership properly. I would prefer income taxes to come down so that more people can accumulate capital and invest, if they so wish. That is the way capitalism is supposed to work after all.
I agree on some of your principles, but you've so far left Government funding broadly the same. We cannot pay for the vast metastasing state and the services and infrastructure needed for massive level of low income immigration with that.
Once again - you want to cut public sector - show me, I don't know, say £20bn of savings?
I think if we invest* in productivity in a long term manner in the U.K., we can achieve considerable savings.
For example, I would look at hiring into the civil service experts on procurement negotiation - there are too many examples of poor contracting by government.
I would replace consultancies with an in house (within civil service) function. It’s job would be to work though the system, reworking processes and automating where appropriate. This kind of stuff is never finished. Bit like painting a bridge. So make it a permanent piece of the system. The deliverable is improved productivity.
*real investment, not consultants, or pay rises.
That would very likely work - but much of the payoff wouldn't be over a parliament. Which ministry would you start with, if you were able to do only one ?
I don't think this is quite the same, Jenrick did open himself to challenge on his bios with his attacks on Reynolds' CV but all he said was he was the youngest Cabinet Minister. That didn't turn out to be quite true eg Hague was younger but it doesn't really relate to his skills and experience.
If I were Jenrick I would just keep my head down and focus on my Shadow Justice brief and holding Labour to account in that area. Then hope Badenoch loses the next general election with a high Reform vote, probably with some form of Labour and LD government following, so he can say 'told you so' and be in prime position to be next Conservative leader with a clear aim to shift further right on issues like immigration and leaving the ECHR to cut back Reform
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
The biggest problem with the moronic and hamfisted DOGE disaster is that it will kill attempts at real regulatory and governmental reform for a generation.
We are already hearing measured regulatory reform by the current U.K. government being called Trumpian, by its opponents.
I don't agree. Critique of the daily DOGE pratfalls (and of the Trump programme in general) has a limited shelf life because eventually, albeit with hiccoughs and false starts, they seem to work. Take Ukraine - we are utterly outraged by Trump’s Ukraine policy currently. But what if he brings peace in Ukraine, energy prices fall, the US enjoys a fat return off Ukraine's minerals... Who looks stupid then?
That Trumpian cricitism is all these people have. They should welcome reform by the current Government - it's not going to be so pleasant from the next one.
But your response seems to accept that the pratfalls is the only way to attempt what is being attempted. Is there not a means of crtiticism of the methods, without undermining the goal? Sure, many people will be opposed to the goal in principal, but as you note there will be hiccoughs and false starts, and whilst that can be minor it can be major too, and it might achieve less than it otherwise would.
It just seems to be overly forgiving of a potentially incompetent approach, on the basis the heart is in the right place, and I don't think we tend to extend that kind of forgiveness to opponents, and there is still reasonable grounds to separate out criticism of the goal - which is political choice - and execution.
Having read the story it’s bullshit chaff thrown up by the Mirror with a misleading headline. They are playing games to try and protect Labour.
This wasn’t on his CV. It was on his website bio. And it wasn’t a claim about a job or a qualification - it was a statement that he was the “youngest ever Cabinet Minister”.
Of course he’s a boastful idiot but it’s not in the same league as claiming to be a solicitor when you are not.
The complaint about Reeves was about her website bio too, not an actual CV.
Just bullshit chaff, then. Good to sort that out.
If Reeves isn't to be fired for doing a crap job, then this stuff is irrelevant.
Serious question is Reeves doing a crap job? Specifically is she doing a worse job than other Chancellors of the Exchequer? I don't think she is even nearly Kwarteng bad. The comparisons I think are Hunt and Sunak.
She’s made a number of really important fuck ups*
- talking the economy down and destroying confidence - Increasing the cost of employment - undermining the case for tax rises by making up a “black hole” while being perceived to throw money at her pet projects - Messing up the politics of cancelling the winter fuel allowance
And the latest I heard this morning - cancelling the VAT rebate for repairs to churches under the listed places of worship scheme with an immediate cap of £25,000 for outstanding claims. While it’s reasonable (although I would disagree) to not want to spend money it is unfair to not allow an exemption for projects *that have already started work*. For example Radio 4 had a case this morning - Wilberforce’s church in Clapham - where they had been fundraising for a £7m rebuild and expansion for 5 years, have just torn down and started the foundations and have suddenly been told they need to find another £1m in taxes…
* Amusingly autocorrect changed this to “fuck iOS”
I'm just glad we do not have more important things to worry about.
I don’t care about either supposed embellishment- what does it matter?
The amount of serious shit going on out there, and the media want to focus on something which isn’t actually needed to get appointed to the job.
When I was recruiting I always assumed their were lies on the CVs I read, based on the fact that there were lies on mine! Nothing horrific, just a bit of colour to make me look more interesting and qualified, or some date juggling to hide away periods of unemployment. Maybe I was an exception, but I very much doubt it!
I'm mildly shocked - it never occurred to me to embellish my CV, or to look for lies on other people's CVs. Omissions, sure - what exactly were they doing in the 3-year gap between posts? But lies? Wouldn't that end up with getting a job one couldn't do?
I doubt that - there are many jobs which people might excel at without needing specific work experience even though that is a requirement on the application. Plenty of jobs list as requiring degrees, even as people who occupy those roles might not have them they just got the job 10-20 years ago when it was not listed as a requirement.
Out of university I applied for a job in an office, and I didn't get it and they said I didn't have office experience as I'd never worked in one before (perhaps this was just a polite way of telling me I was no good, IDK). It was just a basic admin* entry level thing without special requirements or skills, and I got a very similar job shortly afterwards with the same lack of experience and did just fine. If I'd lied and said I had experience I wouldn't have found I couldn't do the job.
*some admin jobs you really will need experienced administrators if you don't want to do more harm than good.
It's simple competition. You were up against someone with experience when you didn't have any, so they chose the candidate with experience. If you were the only candidate but obviously capable they probably would have taken you regardless of experience. Which is maybe what happened with the second job.
When I was unemployed a few years ago I applied for a number of minimum wage service jobs that I would have enjoyed and was different from what I was doing previously. The problem was, with few formal requirements there was a lot more competition and I didn't stand out. It was easier to get a professional job where I had the required skills.
I recall being told once that during a recession restaurant servers and the like will become noticably more attractive, on the basis that as an average attractive people do better than others, and if lots of people are out of work and looking for such customer focused work the out of work attractive people will get more of the positions than the also out of work less attractive people.
I don't think this is quite the same, Jenrick did open himself to challenge on his bios with his attacks on Reynolds' CV but all he said was he was the youngest Cabinet Minister. That didn't turn out to be quite true eg Hague was younger but it doesn't really relate to his skills and experience.
If I were Jenrick I would just keep my head down and focus on my Shadow Justice brief and holding Labour to account in that area. Then hope Badenoch loses the next general election with a high Reform vote, probably with some form of Labour and LD government following, so he can say 'told you so' and be in prime position to be next Conservative leader with a clear aim to shift further right on issues like immigration and the ECHR to cut back Reform
Quite.
I feel most men on the Clapham Omnibus given a summary of this:
"He's criticised Reeves for exaggerating on her CV, but it turns out his own website bio says that he was the youngest ever cabinet minister but someone else actually was."
Would return a blank look.
So if I were him I'd ignore it and keep buggering on. I don't think the Tories have enough active MPs (or even active Shadow Cabinet members) for him to stop expanding his brief - he's one of the few Tories actually doing anything.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
The biggest problem with the moronic and hamfisted DOGE disaster is that it will kill attempts at real regulatory and governmental reform for a generation.
We are already hearing measured regulatory reform by the current U.K. government being called Trumpian, by its opponents.
That would be an unfortunate result.
Even in the more hectic world of the USA the Musk approach surely cannot be the most effective way to achieve the desired result, if one thinks the result is good?
Spamming emails that everyone will be fired if they don't respond with bullet points of what they did in the last week is just plain dumb in terms of what positive info you get versus the negative blowback. There have to be better ways to shrink the state, which these actions might make more difficult, not easier.
The basic point is that Musk's DOGE takeover is not about reform - if it were about reform then the Republicans could've gone through Congress with majorities and a chastened Democrat party with at least some members willing to vote for substantial reforms. You'd be going through methodically looking for real waste or things that maybe the state shouldn't do and making those cuts.
Rather it's a gutting and a takeover. It's about making sure the state struggles to function as it should because it's in perpetual chaos so Musk and others can pick over the carcass.
DOGE's actions have already arguably set back American scientific programmes back years if not decades (the UK should absolutely be offering visas to American scientists btw).
Now I wonder why tech bros are relaxed and even gleeful about that, given their own financial bets on what could pick up the pieces?
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
Yes. Tax rises. For the most part, at least on an intellectual level, I support taxing capital gains at the same level as income. That includes taxing real estate ownership properly. I would prefer income taxes to come down so that more people can accumulate capital and invest, if they so wish. That is the way capitalism is supposed to work after all.
I agree on some of your principles, but you've so far left Government funding broadly the same. We cannot pay for the vast metastasing state and the services and infrastructure needed for massive level of low income immigration with that.
Once again - you want to cut public sector - show me, I don't know, say £20bn of savings?
Are you serious? £20bn can be reached without even noticing. Chagos? Great British Energy? End either the Treasury's agreement to indemnify the Bank of England for losses on its QT programme, or the QT programme itself - Bank's choice.
Working age health related benefits, currently £48bn (up from £36bn in 2019-20 ai says), that can (and must) come down by £10bn for starters.
That's without touching any departmental budgets, which must also come down massively, as well as (or perhaps instead of) winding up QUANGOs and bringing their responsibilities back into the departments.
How does moving non-departmental public bodies around necessarily save cash? If a task needs doing, then we need to employ someone to do it. Maybe some savings in centralising HR etc. but most of them use central services anyway.
Taking work out of government requires the much harder process of getting rid of the worst performers, and using fewer, better, staff to do more; as well as deciding to stop doing some things at all.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
Yes. Tax rises. For the most part, at least on an intellectual level, I support taxing capital gains at the same level as income. That includes taxing real estate ownership properly. I would prefer income taxes to come down so that more people can accumulate capital and invest, if they so wish. That is the way capitalism is supposed to work after all.
I agree on some of your principles, but you've so far left Government funding broadly the same. We cannot pay for the vast metastasing state and the services and infrastructure needed for massive level of low income immigration with that.
Once again - you want to cut public sector - show me, I don't know, say £20bn of savings?
Are you serious? £20bn can be reached without even noticing. Chagos? Great British Energy? End either the Treasury's agreement to indemnify the Bank of England for losses on its QT programme, or the QT programme itself - Bank's choice.
Working age health related benefits, currently £48bn (up from £36bn in 2019-20 ai says), that can (and must) come down by £10bn for starters.
That's without touching any departmental budgets, which must also come down massively, as well as (or perhaps instead of) winding up QUANGOs and bringing their responsibilities back into the departments.
Arguing the opposing argument, also known as presenting a counterargument, strengthens your overall argument by demonstrating that you have considered all sides of an issue, are well-informed, and can effectively address potential objections, ultimately making your position more credible and persuasive to your audience. I’m putting the charge at the Trump administration and Musk, and ALL their cheerleaders, as being being incapable of presenting counter arguments to their own thinking - which is why they will deliver abysmal government from their opportunity with power, and a lasting legacy owning this emoji: 💩
Can you the answer the following questions?
“What have Quango’s ever done for us?”
“What has state taxing and spending and intervening before breakfast, before lunch, before tea and before dinner, ever done for us?”
I’ll spare you the “the Arguments for the Chagos Deal” ask because I don’t think you are capable of it, you are probably not even aware how many NATO allies failed to back us over Chagos and how isolated US and UK were.
As this update is being written, we might have the most important future indication of where this is heading. Today is the day of the German elections, arguably the most fateful in European history since 1945 (and I say that without hyperbole). If, for instance, the AFD, which has been openly and consistently supported by Elon Musk and JD Vance, stages a surprise and does much better than expected, it might be time to stick a fork in Europe. The AFD is pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine, and would be happy to go along with whatever Trump wants.
And if they get 20% that leaves 80% who didn’t vote for them . Of more concern to Europe should be elections in France in 2027 .
20% seems to be about the AfD ceiling, not far off what Jean Marie Le Pen got.
Marine Le Pen however is far sharper, as is Bardella. They have already taken the RN to over 30% and first in the first round of the legislative election and Marine got 41% in the 2nd round of the last presidential election.
Their aim is for Le Pen to be next French President and Bardella next PM for which they need to get over 50% in the 2nd round.
Hence they have distanced themselves from the AfD and Bardella cancelled a CPAC speech after Bannon's salute
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
The biggest problem with the moronic and hamfisted DOGE disaster is that it will kill attempts at real regulatory and governmental reform for a generation.
We are already hearing measured regulatory reform by the current U.K. government being called Trumpian, by its opponents.
I don't agree. Critique of the daily DOGE pratfalls (and of the Trump programme in general) has a limited shelf life because eventually, albeit with hiccoughs and false starts, they seem to work. Take Ukraine - we are utterly outraged by Trump’s Ukraine policy currently. But what if he brings peace in Ukraine, energy prices fall, the US enjoys a fat return off Ukraine's minerals... Who looks stupid then?
That Trumpian cricitism is all these people have. They should welcome reform by the current Government - it's not going to be so pleasant from the next one.
But your response seems to accept that the pratfalls is the only way to attempt what is being attempted. Is there not a means of crtiticism of the methods, without undermining the goal? Sure, many people will be opposed to the goal in principal, but as you note there will be hiccoughs and false starts, and whilst that can be minor it can be major too, and it might achieve less than it otherwise would.
It just seems to be overly forgiving of a potentially incompetent approach, on the basis the heart is in the right place, and I don't think we tend to extend that kind of forgiveness to opponents, and there is still reasonable grounds to separate out criticism of the goal - which is political choice - and execution.
Don't forget, we are on a limited diet of DOGE disasters. We are not going to hear about when it does well and finds savings.
I certainly wouldn't do DOGE the US way, but I would do it with equal determination. The pushback is going to be huge. The incoming Government will have to have their entire programme drafted and ready from the get-go.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
Yes. Tax rises. For the most part, at least on an intellectual level, I support taxing capital gains at the same level as income. That includes taxing real estate ownership properly. I would prefer income taxes to come down so that more people can accumulate capital and invest, if they so wish. That is the way capitalism is supposed to work after all.
I agree on some of your principles, but you've so far left Government funding broadly the same. We cannot pay for the vast metastasing state and the services and infrastructure needed for massive level of low income immigration with that.
Once again - you want to cut public sector - show me, I don't know, say £20bn of savings?
Are you serious? £20bn can be reached without even noticing. Chagos? Great British Energy? End either the Treasury's agreement to indemnify the Bank of England for losses on its QT programme, or the QT programme itself - Bank's choice.
Working age health related benefits, currently £48bn (up from £36bn in 2019-20 ai says), that can (and must) come down by £10bn for starters.
That's without touching any departmental budgets, which must also come down massively, as well as (or perhaps instead of) winding up QUANGOs and bringing their responsibilities back into the departments.
£20bn a year was the request - Chagos is £x0m a year so not even 1%.
Great British Energy again - a long term figure which when broken down ain't much per year.
So basically your idea is cut working age benefits - hope you have very comprehensive health insurance because a lot of people don't..
And btw £36bn in 2019 is the equivalent to £45bn today - so the increase is really only £3bn over 6 years or 6.5%. Given the impact of Covid on long term health alongside the large increases in house rental prices that really is remarkably small.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
The biggest problem with the moronic and hamfisted DOGE disaster is that it will kill attempts at real regulatory and governmental reform for a generation.
We are already hearing measured regulatory reform by the current U.K. government being called Trumpian, by its opponents.
That would be an unfortunate result.
Even in the more hectic world of the USA the Musk approach surely cannot be the most effective way to achieve the desired result, if one thinks the result is good?
Spamming emails that everyone will be fired if they don't respond with bullet points of what they did in the last week is just plain dumb in terms of what positive info you get versus the negative blowback. There have to be better ways to shrink the state, which these actions might make more difficult, not easier.
The basic point is that Musk's DOGE takeover is not about reform - if it were about reform then the Republicans could've gone through Congress with majorities and a chastened Democrat party with at least some members willing to vote for substantial reforms. You'd be going through methodically looking for real waste or things that maybe the state shouldn't do and making those cuts.
Rather it's a gutting and a takeover. It's about making sure the state struggles to function as it should because it's in perpetual chaos so Musk and others can pick over the carcass.
DOGE's actions have already arguably set back American scientific programmes back years if not decades (the UK should absolutely be offering visas to American scientists btw).
Now I wonder why tech bros are relaxed and even gleeful about that, given their own financial bets on what could pick up the pieces?
It's also something of a smokescreen for the far more substantial cuts (sacking the entire federal workforce wouldn't pay for more than a fraction of the planned tax cut renewal due this year), which will be in Medicaid and social security.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
Yes. Tax rises. For the most part, at least on an intellectual level, I support taxing capital gains at the same level as income. That includes taxing real estate ownership properly. I would prefer income taxes to come down so that more people can accumulate capital and invest, if they so wish. That is the way capitalism is supposed to work after all.
I agree on some of your principles, but you've so far left Government funding broadly the same. We cannot pay for the vast metastasing state and the services and infrastructure needed for massive level of low income immigration with that.
Once again - you want to cut public sector - show me, I don't know, say £20bn of savings?
Are you serious? £20bn can be reached without even noticing. Chagos? Great British Energy? End either the Treasury's agreement to indemnify the Bank of England for losses on its QT programme, or the QT programme itself - Bank's choice.
Working age health related benefits, currently £48bn (up from £36bn in 2019-20 ai says), that can (and must) come down by £10bn for starters.
That's without touching any departmental budgets, which must also come down massively, as well as (or perhaps instead of) winding up QUANGOs and bringing their responsibilities back into the departments.
How does moving non-departmental public bodies around necessarily save cash? If a task needs doing, then we need to employ someone to do it. Maybe some savings in centralising HR etc. but most of them use central services anyway.
Taking work out of government requires the much harder process of getting rid of the worst performers, and using fewer, better, staff to do more; as well as deciding to stop doing some things at all.
Because you wouldn't increase departmental headcount.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
The biggest problem with the moronic and hamfisted DOGE disaster is that it will kill attempts at real regulatory and governmental reform for a generation.
We are already hearing measured regulatory reform by the current U.K. government being called Trumpian, by its opponents.
I don't agree. Critique of the daily DOGE pratfalls (and of the Trump programme in general) has a limited shelf life because eventually, albeit with hiccoughs and false starts, they seem to work. Take Ukraine - we are utterly outraged by Trump’s Ukraine policy currently. But what if he brings peace in Ukraine, energy prices fall, the US enjoys a fat return off Ukraine's minerals... Who looks stupid then?
That Trumpian cricitism is all these people have. They should welcome reform by the current Government - it's not going to be so pleasant from the next one.
Geopolitics doesn’t work like that
He might have made transactionally a good deal, but he would have undermined Europe’s security, rewarded an invasion of a peaceful neighbouring state and trashed America’s reputation while fatally undermining the Western Alliance.
The costs may not be immediately obvious to you but the damage is immense
Jonny Ive on desert island discs playing the theme from Get Carter. Pure class.
Shamefully I only saw that recently. Grim. Good, but grim.
It's a classic.
Easter Egg, the assassin that shoots him at the end is in the same train carriage as him on the way North at the start
The remake is phenomenally bad
I wouldn't even bother watching the remake - I don't think it could be approved upon. Having seen it, I don't feel the need to watch it again. The same with The Long Good Friday - brilliant but a bit too gritty and ultimately depressing to be a good regular watch. The Italian Job being the opposite as a Caine film.
That’s how we rolled in the 70s young Luckyguy, 2 bar electric fires and being chucked off multi story car parks. The only bum note is that Caine’s character is supposed to be a Geordie. Mercifully he at least didn’t attempt the accent.
Where was Sean Connery to do the Geordie accent when we needed him?
Having read the story it’s bullshit chaff thrown up by the Mirror with a misleading headline. They are playing games to try and protect Labour.
This wasn’t on his CV. It was on his website bio. And it wasn’t a claim about a job or a qualification - it was a statement that he was the “youngest ever Cabinet Minister”.
Of course he’s a boastful idiot but it’s not in the same league as claiming to be a solicitor when you are not.
The complaint about Reeves was about her website bio too, not an actual CV.
Just bullshit chaff, then. Good to sort that out.
If Reeves isn't to be fired for doing a crap job, then this stuff is irrelevant.
Serious question is Reeves doing a crap job? Specifically is she doing a worse job than other Chancellors of the Exchequer? I don't think she is even nearly Kwarteng bad. The comparisons I think are Hunt and Sunak.
She’s made a number of really important fuck ups*
- talking the economy down and destroying confidence - Increasing the cost of employment - undermining the case for tax rises by making up a “black hole” while being perceived to throw money at her pet projects - Messing up the politics of cancelling the winter fuel allowance
And the latest I heard this morning - cancelling the VAT rebate for repairs to churches under the listed places of worship scheme with an immediate cap of £25,000 for outstanding claims. While it’s reasonable (although I would disagree) to not want to spend money it is unfair to not allow an exemption for projects *that have already started work*. For example Radio 4 had a case this morning - Wilberforce’s church in Clapham - where they had been fundraising for a £7m rebuild and expansion for 5 years, have just torn down and started the foundations and have suddenly been told they need to find another £1m in taxes…
* Amusingly autocorrect changed this to “fuck iOS”
Amongst all the noise the actual data is horrendous. Last week the Government raised £4,5bn less in taxes than planned. In essence the Government bet it could raise taxes without shrinking the tax base and lost. Note this is before the big hit in April from the Rachel Reeves budget. The only thing she has got right is that the previous Tory Government left a big mess.
The petty tax rises such as the Church VAT wont make a dent in the deficit. The only real option is massive cuts to welfare or watch inflation take off. Whilst Liz Truss budget was a car crash this one is a slow motion train wreck. This budget could do potentially more long term harm before it is reversed.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
Labour has increased taxes on business owners and farmers and the Labour left will demand higher taxes on business and the wealthy before more spending cuts
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
The biggest problem with the moronic and hamfisted DOGE disaster is that it will kill attempts at real regulatory and governmental reform for a generation.
We are already hearing measured regulatory reform by the current U.K. government being called Trumpian, by its opponents.
I don't agree. Critique of the daily DOGE pratfalls (and of the Trump programme in general) has a limited shelf life because eventually, albeit with hiccoughs and false starts, they seem to work. Take Ukraine - we are utterly outraged by Trump’s Ukraine policy currently. But what if he brings peace in Ukraine, energy prices fall, the US enjoys a fat return off Ukraine's minerals... Who looks stupid then?
That Trumpian cricitism is all these people have. They should welcome reform by the current Government - it's not going to be so pleasant from the next one.
But your response seems to accept that the pratfalls is the only way to attempt what is being attempted. Is there not a means of crtiticism of the methods, without undermining the goal? Sure, many people will be opposed to the goal in principal, but as you note there will be hiccoughs and false starts, and whilst that can be minor it can be major too, and it might achieve less than it otherwise would.
It just seems to be overly forgiving of a potentially incompetent approach, on the basis the heart is in the right place, and I don't think we tend to extend that kind of forgiveness to opponents, and there is still reasonable grounds to separate out criticism of the goal - which is political choice - and execution.
Don't forget, we are on a limited diet of DOGE disasters. We are not going to hear about when it does well and finds savings.
I certainly wouldn't do DOGE the US way, but I would do it with equal determination. The pushback is going to be huge. The incoming Government will have to have their entire programme drafted and ready from the get-go.
There has been at least some attempt to identify the supposed savings DOGE have made, though I suppose the argument will be whether in itself that is good, as there is bound to be some grain disposed of alongside the chaff. Are they threshing government or just burning it down I suppose?
Milei in Argentina seems to have gotten some recognition and praise for his actions (up til accidentally promoting a crypto scam anyway).
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
The biggest problem with the moronic and hamfisted DOGE disaster is that it will kill attempts at real regulatory and governmental reform for a generation.
We are already hearing measured regulatory reform by the current U.K. government being called Trumpian, by its opponents.
I don't agree. Critique of the daily DOGE pratfalls (and of the Trump programme in general) has a limited shelf life because eventually, albeit with hiccoughs and false starts, they seem to work. Take Ukraine - we are utterly outraged by Trump’s Ukraine policy currently. But what if he brings peace in Ukraine, energy prices fall, the US enjoys a fat return off Ukraine's minerals... Who looks stupid then?
That Trumpian cricitism is all these people have. They should welcome reform by the current Government - it's not going to be so pleasant from the next one.
Geopolitics doesn’t work like that
He might have made transactionally a good deal, but he would have undermined Europe’s security, rewarded an invasion of a peaceful neighbouring state and trashed America’s reputation while fatally undermining the Western Alliance.
The costs may not be immediately obvious to you but the damage is immense
You have a very naive idea of what the Western alliance is and who it serves. Trump is merely refreshingly honest in his America first doctrine.
I don't think this is quite the same, Jenrick did open himself to challenge on his bios with his attacks on Reynolds' CV but all he said was he was the youngest Cabinet Minister. That didn't turn out to be quite true eg Hague was younger but it doesn't really relate to his skills and experience.
If I were Jenrick I would just keep my head down and focus on my Shadow Justice brief and holding Labour to account in that area. Then hope Badenoch loses the next general election with a high Reform vote, probably with some form of Labour and LD government following, so he can say 'told you so' and be in prime position to be next Conservative leader with a clear aim to shift further right on issues like immigration and the ECHR to cut back Reform
Quite.
I feel most men on the Clapham Omnibus given a summary of this:
"He's criticised Reeves for exaggerating on her CV, but it turns out his own website bio says that he was the youngest ever cabinet minister but someone else actually was."
Would return a blank look.
So if I were him I'd ignore it and keep buggering on. I don't think the Tories have enough active MPs (or even active Shadow Cabinet members) for him to stop expanding his brief - he's one of the few Tories actually doing anything.
Correcting the false claim that he was the youngest cabinet minister since WW2, nothing to see. If he'd doubled down Trump-style and insisted not only was he the youngest but the most popular, good-looking, and best at sport it would be different.
Though I do wonder about someone making that boast, true or false. "I was the joint youngest cabinet minister" makes me think "haven't you got anything else going for you?"
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
The biggest problem with the moronic and hamfisted DOGE disaster is that it will kill attempts at real regulatory and governmental reform for a generation.
We are already hearing measured regulatory reform by the current U.K. government being called Trumpian, by its opponents.
I don't agree. Critique of the daily DOGE pratfalls (and of the Trump programme in general) has a limited shelf life because eventually, albeit with hiccoughs and false starts, they seem to work. Take Ukraine - we are utterly outraged by Trump’s Ukraine policy currently. But what if he brings peace in Ukraine, energy prices fall, the US enjoys a fat return off Ukraine's minerals... Who looks stupid then?
That Trumpian cricitism is all these people have. They should welcome reform by the current Government - it's not going to be so pleasant from the next one.
Geopolitics doesn’t work like that
He might have made transactionally a good deal, but he would have undermined Europe’s security, rewarded an invasion of a peaceful neighbouring state and trashed America’s reputation while fatally undermining the Western Alliance.
The costs may not be immediately obvious to you but the damage is immense
This is also the problem when people talk about any money sent to Ukraine as having been wasted.
I don't think this is quite the same, Jenrick did open himself to challenge on his bios with his attacks on Reynolds' CV but all he said was he was the youngest Cabinet Minister. That didn't turn out to be quite true eg Hague was younger but it doesn't really relate to his skills and experience.
If I were Jenrick I would just keep my head down and focus on my Shadow Justice brief and holding Labour to account in that area. Then hope Badenoch loses the next general election with a high Reform vote, probably with some form of Labour and LD government following, so he can say 'told you so' and be in prime position to be next Conservative leader with a clear aim to shift further right on issues like immigration and the ECHR to cut back Reform
Quite.
I feel most men on the Clapham Omnibus given a summary of this:
"He's criticised Reeves for exaggerating on her CV, but it turns out his own website bio says that he was the youngest ever cabinet minister but someone else actually was."
Would return a blank look.
So if I were him I'd ignore it and keep buggering on. I don't think the Tories have enough active MPs (or even active Shadow Cabinet members) for him to stop expanding his brief - he's one of the few Tories actually doing anything.
Whilst I agree completely with @HYUFD analysis above I don't agree with what you said re the person on the Clapham omnibus because the person on the Clapham omnibus would not hear what you typed (even though it is accurate). What they hear is 'Both of them lied on their CVs, so they are as bad as one another'. I know that is not true, but it is what they will hear.
I would politely suggest that this was an unsuccessful attempt to mute the sting of his remarks by phrasing them politely, and the Guardian should have pointed this out.
He said you can't be brown and English, how is he not racist?
Also, you can be Hindu and English. Which religions do you have to follow in order to forfeit being English according to this arse?
Any religion not Church of England presumably and on his definition unless most of your ancestry is Anglo Saxon and/or Norman you aren't properly English?
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
The biggest problem with the moronic and hamfisted DOGE disaster is that it will kill attempts at real regulatory and governmental reform for a generation.
We are already hearing measured regulatory reform by the current U.K. government being called Trumpian, by its opponents.
I don't agree. Critique of the daily DOGE pratfalls (and of the Trump programme in general) has a limited shelf life because eventually, albeit with hiccoughs and false starts, they seem to work. Take Ukraine - we are utterly outraged by Trump’s Ukraine policy currently. But what if he brings peace in Ukraine, energy prices fall, the US enjoys a fat return off Ukraine's minerals... Who looks stupid then?
That Trumpian cricitism is all these people have. They should welcome reform by the current Government - it's not going to be so pleasant from the next one.
Geopolitics doesn’t work like that
He might have made transactionally a good deal, but he would have undermined Europe’s security, rewarded an invasion of a peaceful neighbouring state and trashed America’s reputation while fatally undermining the Western Alliance.
The costs may not be immediately obvious to you but the damage is immense
You have a very naive idea of what the Western alliance is and who it serves. Trump is merely refreshingly honest in his America first doctrine.
You might want to read the Atlantic charter. Massive difference between a partnership for democracy and anything Trump says.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
Yes. Tax rises. For the most part, at least on an intellectual level, I support taxing capital gains at the same level as income. That includes taxing real estate ownership properly. I would prefer income taxes to come down so that more people can accumulate capital and invest, if they so wish. That is the way capitalism is supposed to work after all.
I agree on some of your principles, but you've so far left Government funding broadly the same. We cannot pay for the vast metastasing state and the services and infrastructure needed for massive level of low income immigration with that.
Once again - you want to cut public sector - show me, I don't know, say £20bn of savings?
I think if we invest* in productivity in a long term manner in the U.K., we can achieve considerable savings.
For example, I would look at hiring into the civil service experts on procurement negotiation - there are too many examples of poor contracting by government.
I would replace consultancies with an in house (within civil service) function. It’s job would be to work though the system, reworking processes and automating where appropriate. This kind of stuff is never finished. Bit like painting a bridge. So make it a permanent piece of the system. The deliverable is improved productivity.
*real investment, not consultants, or pay rises.
That would very likely work - but much of the payoff wouldn't be over a parliament. Which ministry would you start with, if you were able to do only one ?
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
Yes. Tax rises. For the most part, at least on an intellectual level, I support taxing capital gains at the same level as income. That includes taxing real estate ownership properly. I would prefer income taxes to come down so that more people can accumulate capital and invest, if they so wish. That is the way capitalism is supposed to work after all.
I agree on some of your principles, but you've so far left Government funding broadly the same. We cannot pay for the vast metastasing state and the services and infrastructure needed for massive level of low income immigration with that.
Once again - you want to cut public sector - show me, I don't know, say £20bn of savings?
I think if we invest* in productivity in a long term manner in the U.K., we can achieve considerable savings.
For example, I would look at hiring into the civil service experts on procurement negotiation - there are too many examples of poor contracting by government.
I would replace consultancies with an in house (within civil service) function. It’s job would be to work though the system, reworking processes and automating where appropriate. This kind of stuff is never finished. Bit like painting a bridge. So make it a permanent piece of the system. The deliverable is improved productivity.
*real investment, not consultants, or pay rises.
That would very likely work - but much of the payoff wouldn't be over a parliament. Which ministry would you start with, if you were able to do only one ?
The DfE.
Just as I log on, somebody takes the words out of my mouth...
I was at a party in Edinburgh last night. There was a fair bit of political talk. One of the people I was speaking to was a former chair of a school trust in London. He spoke very highly of Gove's reforms in education and we lamented the self satisfied smugness of the Scottish system where we have no new ideas, are unwilling to experiment and spend our time on self-congratulation as standards fall ever further.
This led to a more general discussion about the role of a Gove in bringing new ideas and thinking into each area he was given responsibility for. No one thought that all his ideas were great or even correct but his willingness to challenge the consensus and bring new analysis to any area was acknowledged by all.
The majority there were Labour supporters but when asked who was the Gove of the current government they were stymied. No one could make a case for any cabinet minister in Starmer's government being capable of bringing new thought to anything. It was quite depressing really. Their highest aspiration is to be more effective administrators of the status quo than the last lot (an incredibly low bar that they are generally falling over).
A large tactical error committed by the Biden administration was not attempting to involve Musk in his net zero initiatives. More obvious in retrospect, but deliberately snubbing him seemed wrong at the time.
The guy is a massive arse, but that shouldn't have driven policy. And of course it's now the arse who is driving policy.
Again, I strongly recommend Walter Isaacson’s biography of Musk
To understand him (and we all need to understand him) you really need to read it
It is clear he can be a world class arsehole, it is also clear he has an incredible brain married to a frankly incredible work ethic
And BTW it is openly discussed by his friends and colleagues that he is very obviously Asperger’s, there is no dispute (or high functioning autistic if you don’t like the longer A word)
I would politely suggest that this was an unsuccessful attempt to mute the sting of his remarks by phrasing them politely, and the Guardian should have pointed this out.
He said you can't be brown and English, how is he not racist?
Also, you can be Hindu and English. Which religions do you have to follow in order to forfeit being English according to this arse?
Any religion not Church of England presumably and on his definition unless most of your ancestry is Anglo Saxon and/or Norman you aren't properly English?
Well, I don't claim to be English, although I was born in England. My father was Welsh, my mother English. I'm British.
Having read the story it’s bullshit chaff thrown up by the Mirror with a misleading headline. They are playing games to try and protect Labour.
This wasn’t on his CV. It was on his website bio. And it wasn’t a claim about a job or a qualification - it was a statement that he was the “youngest ever Cabinet Minister”.
Of course he’s a boastful idiot but it’s not in the same league as claiming to be a solicitor when you are not.
The complaint about Reeves was about her website bio too, not an actual CV.
Just bullshit chaff, then. Good to sort that out.
If Reeves isn't to be fired for doing a crap job, then this stuff is irrelevant.
Serious question is Reeves doing a crap job? Specifically is she doing a worse job than other Chancellors of the Exchequer? I don't think she is even nearly Kwarteng bad. The comparisons I think are Hunt and Sunak.
She’s made a number of really important fuck ups*
- talking the economy down and destroying confidence - Increasing the cost of employment - undermining the case for tax rises by making up a “black hole” while being perceived to throw money at her pet projects - Messing up the politics of cancelling the winter fuel allowance
And the latest I heard this morning - cancelling the VAT rebate for repairs to churches under the listed places of worship scheme with an immediate cap of £25,000 for outstanding claims. While it’s reasonable (although I would disagree) to not want to spend money it is unfair to not allow an exemption for projects *that have already started work*. For example Radio 4 had a case this morning - Wilberforce’s church in Clapham - where they had been fundraising for a £7m rebuild and expansion for 5 years, have just torn down and started the foundations and have suddenly been told they need to find another £1m in taxes…
* Amusingly autocorrect changed this to “fuck iOS”
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.
This scheme only exists as a sap to ‘the Conservative Party at prayer’ after George Osborne abolished VAT relief on church repairs in his omnishambles budget.
And as has been pointed out on pb, what Reeves' budget shares with Osborne's omnishambles budget is in being a politically naive pick-and-mix from the Treasury's wishlist.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
Yes. Tax rises. For the most part, at least on an intellectual level, I support taxing capital gains at the same level as income. That includes taxing real estate ownership properly. I would prefer income taxes to come down so that more people can accumulate capital and invest, if they so wish. That is the way capitalism is supposed to work after all.
I agree on some of your principles, but you've so far left Government funding broadly the same. We cannot pay for the vast metastasing state and the services and infrastructure needed for massive level of low income immigration with that.
Once again - you want to cut public sector - show me, I don't know, say £20bn of savings?
Are you serious? £20bn can be reached without even noticing. Chagos? Great British Energy? End either the Treasury's agreement to indemnify the Bank of England for losses on its QT programme, or the QT programme itself - Bank's choice.
Working age health related benefits, currently £48bn (up from £36bn in 2019-20 ai says), that can (and must) come down by £10bn for starters.
That's without touching any departmental budgets, which must also come down massively, as well as (or perhaps instead of) winding up QUANGOs and bringing their responsibilities back into the departments.
How does moving non-departmental public bodies around necessarily save cash? If a task needs doing, then we need to employ someone to do it. Maybe some savings in centralising HR etc. but most of them use central services anyway.
Taking work out of government requires the much harder process of getting rid of the worst performers, and using fewer, better, staff to do more; as well as deciding to stop doing some things at all.
Because you wouldn't increase departmental headcount.
Department does X. Quango does Y. Move Quango into the Department and the Department has to do X and Y. The workload and therefore the number of people hasn't dropped. If you aren't increasing the Department head count, who is doing job Y?
Now you might get efficiencies in putting them together and I am sure there are huge efficiencies to be had in Govt, but Govts of all shades have promised these umpteen times and failed.
You aren't creating any massive costs cuts here by actually removing any tasks from Govt entirely, unless you are saying the Quango does nothing useful. And you didn't as you suggested its role gets moved into the Department. You are just asking Departments to do both roles with the same staff and be more efficient which has been asked of them umpteen times before.
I was at a party in Edinburgh last night. There was a fair bit of political talk. One of the people I was speaking to was a former chair of a school trust in London. He spoke very highly of Gove's reforms in education and we lamented the self satisfied smugness of the Scottish system where we have no new ideas, are unwilling to experiment and spend our time on self-congratulation as standards fall ever further.
As against that, I was talking to a friend of mine this morning who works as a teacher in a school that since being force academised five years ago has lost four headteachers, including one last week following the latest OFSTED report - each one being more damning than the last.
I think it's fair to say that however well intentioned Gove's ideas (and a lot of them were very good in theory) they have had significant drawbacks in their implementation...
Journalists writing stories about how disgraceful it is that some politicians have fibbed on their CVs reminds me very much of journalists writing stories about how disgraceful it is some politicians have snorted cocaine.
I was at a party in Edinburgh last night. There was a fair bit of political talk. One of the people I was speaking to was a former chair of a school trust in London. He spoke very highly of Gove's reforms in education and we lamented the self satisfied smugness of the Scottish system where we have no new ideas, are unwilling to experiment and spend our time on self-congratulation as standards fall ever further.
This led to a more general discussion about the role of a Gove in bringing new ideas and thinking into each area he was given responsibility for. No one thought that all his ideas were great or even correct but his willingness to challenge the consensus and bring new analysis to any area was acknowledged by all.
The majority there were Labour supporters but when asked who was the Gove of the current government they were stymied. No one could make a case for any cabinet minister in Starmer's government being capable of bringing new thought to anything. It was quite depressing really. Their highest aspiration is to be more effective administrators of the status quo than the last lot (an incredibly low bar that they are generally falling over).
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
Yes. Tax rises. For the most part, at least on an intellectual level, I support taxing capital gains at the same level as income. That includes taxing real estate ownership properly. I would prefer income taxes to come down so that more people can accumulate capital and invest, if they so wish. That is the way capitalism is supposed to work after all.
I agree on some of your principles, but you've so far left Government funding broadly the same. We cannot pay for the vast metastasing state and the services and infrastructure needed for massive level of low income immigration with that.
Once again - you want to cut public sector - show me, I don't know, say £20bn of savings?
Are you serious? £20bn can be reached without even noticing. Chagos? Great British Energy? End either the Treasury's agreement to indemnify the Bank of England for losses on its QT programme, or the QT programme itself - Bank's choice.
Working age health related benefits, currently £48bn (up from £36bn in 2019-20 ai says), that can (and must) come down by £10bn for starters.
That's without touching any departmental budgets, which must also come down massively, as well as (or perhaps instead of) winding up QUANGOs and bringing their responsibilities back into the departments.
How does moving non-departmental public bodies around necessarily save cash? If a task needs doing, then we need to employ someone to do it. Maybe some savings in centralising HR etc. but most of them use central services anyway.
Taking work out of government requires the much harder process of getting rid of the worst performers, and using fewer, better, staff to do more; as well as deciding to stop doing some things at all.
Because you wouldn't increase departmental headcount.
Such "efficiency savings" won't provide anything like the money needed to make a substantial difference, either in the US or here. The serious money is what is spent by government, not what it spends on admin.
You're more honest when you suggest cutting working age benefits by 20%. Good luck with that as a manifesto commitment.
Reform want to copy Musk's gutting of the state here in the UK... I think this interview will come back and haunt Reform badly. There is no appetite for this in the broad electorate...
Depends on whether you think partisan opinion is malleable.
Musk and others have shaped opinion in the US because MAGA supporters follow deductive reasoning: that Trump and his cabal are right, so if they decide it’s right to gut the government or switch sides and ally with Russia then that must be the correct position. Not a new phenomenon - something religions and political movements have exploited since Moses came down from Mt Sinai.
There is little choice but to reform and vastly shrink the size of the state. Do those who oppose it instead favour big tax rises? On who? On what? Labour will have already (haphazardly and inefficiently) started the process by the time the election comes round, so there won't exaclty be a debate around the matter.
The biggest problem with the moronic and hamfisted DOGE disaster is that it will kill attempts at real regulatory and governmental reform for a generation.
We are already hearing measured regulatory reform by the current U.K. government being called Trumpian, by its opponents.
I don't think it will in the US, and if it does here that's not really the US' issue more our internal inertia
Having read the story it’s bullshit chaff thrown up by the Mirror with a misleading headline. They are playing games to try and protect Labour.
This wasn’t on his CV. It was on his website bio. And it wasn’t a claim about a job or a qualification - it was a statement that he was the “youngest ever Cabinet Minister”.
Of course he’s a boastful idiot but it’s not in the same league as claiming to be a solicitor when you are not.
The complaint about Reeves was about her website bio too, not an actual CV.
Just bullshit chaff, then. Good to sort that out.
If Reeves isn't to be fired for doing a crap job, then this stuff is irrelevant.
Serious question is Reeves doing a crap job? Specifically is she doing a worse job than other Chancellors of the Exchequer? I don't think she is even nearly Kwarteng bad. The comparisons I think are Hunt and Sunak.
She’s made a number of really important fuck ups*
- talking the economy down and destroying confidence - Increasing the cost of employment - undermining the case for tax rises by making up a “black hole” while being perceived to throw money at her pet projects - Messing up the politics of cancelling the winter fuel allowance
And the latest I heard this morning - cancelling the VAT rebate for repairs to churches under the listed places of worship scheme with an immediate cap of £25,000 for outstanding claims. While it’s reasonable (although I would disagree) to not want to spend money it is unfair to not allow an exemption for projects *that have already started work*. For example Radio 4 had a case this morning - Wilberforce’s church in Clapham - where they had been fundraising for a £7m rebuild and expansion for 5 years, have just torn down and started the foundations and have suddenly been told they need to find another £1m in taxes…
* Amusingly autocorrect changed this to “fuck iOS”
Thanks for the reply. My thinking on your points:
- talking the economy down and destroying confidence. - this is possible. I'm not quite sure what is the dynamic and how chancellors talk up, or talk down, the economy in a real way.
- Increasing the cost of employment. Factually correct. Reeves did have to raise taxes and chose I think the politically least damaging way to do so, although other routes might have had fewer perverse economic effects.
- undermining the case for tax rises by making up a “black hole” while being perceived to throw money at her pet projects. Disagree. The black hole was actually bigger than claimed. And given we're making comparisons between Chancellors that black hole is a big negative against Jeremy Hunt. I don't believe Reeves has particularly thrown money against projects if you take inflation into account and arguably she's not throwing money at projects enough
- Messing up the politics of cancelling the winter fuel allowance. Interesting that this is a political judgment issue rather than a fiscal one. Which is a valid complaint of course. CofE is a political job
Having read the story it’s bullshit chaff thrown up by the Mirror with a misleading headline. They are playing games to try and protect Labour.
This wasn’t on his CV. It was on his website bio. And it wasn’t a claim about a job or a qualification - it was a statement that he was the “youngest ever Cabinet Minister”.
Of course he’s a boastful idiot but it’s not in the same league as claiming to be a solicitor when you are not.
The complaint about Reeves was about her website bio too, not an actual CV.
Just bullshit chaff, then. Good to sort that out.
If Reeves isn't to be fired for doing a crap job, then this stuff is irrelevant.
Serious question is Reeves doing a crap job? Specifically is she doing a worse job than other Chancellors of the Exchequer? I don't think she is even nearly Kwarteng bad. The comparisons I think are Hunt and Sunak.
She’s made a number of really important fuck ups*
- talking the economy down and destroying confidence - Increasing the cost of employment - undermining the case for tax rises by making up a “black hole” while being perceived to throw money at her pet projects - Messing up the politics of cancelling the winter fuel allowance
And the latest I heard this morning - cancelling the VAT rebate for repairs to churches under the listed places of worship scheme with an immediate cap of £25,000 for outstanding claims. While it’s reasonable (although I would disagree) to not want to spend money it is unfair to not allow an exemption for projects *that have already started work*. For example Radio 4 had a case this morning - Wilberforce’s church in Clapham - where they had been fundraising for a £7m rebuild and expansion for 5 years, have just torn down and started the foundations and have suddenly been told they need to find another £1m in taxes…
* Amusingly autocorrect changed this to “fuck iOS”
Amongst all the noise the actual data is horrendous. Last week the Government raised £4,5bn less in taxes than planned. In essence the Government bet it could raise taxes without shrinking the tax base and lost. Note this is before the big hit in April from the Rachel Reeves budget. The only thing she has got right is that the previous Tory Government left a big mess.
The petty tax rises such as the Church VAT wont make a dent in the deficit. The only real option is massive cuts to welfare or watch inflation take off. Whilst Liz Truss budget was a car crash this one is a slow motion train wreck. This budget could do potentially more long term harm before it is reversed.
Wasn't the "the 4.5Bn less than planned" receipts for the tax year 23/24. So down to the previous administration
I don't think this is quite the same, Jenrick did open himself to challenge on his bios with his attacks on Reynolds' CV but all he said was he was the youngest Cabinet Minister. That didn't turn out to be quite true eg Hague was younger but it doesn't really relate to his skills and experience.
If I were Jenrick I would just keep my head down and focus on my Shadow Justice brief and holding Labour to account in that area. Then hope Badenoch loses the next general election with a high Reform vote, probably with some form of Labour and LD government following, so he can say 'told you so' and be in prime position to be next Conservative leader with a clear aim to shift further right on issues like immigration and the ECHR to cut back Reform
Quite.
I feel most men on the Clapham Omnibus given a summary of this:
"He's criticised Reeves for exaggerating on her CV, but it turns out his own website bio says that he was the youngest ever cabinet minister but someone else actually was."
Would return a blank look.
So if I were him I'd ignore it and keep buggering on. I don't think the Tories have enough active MPs (or even active Shadow Cabinet members) for him to stop expanding his brief - he's one of the few Tories actually doing anything.
They are both irrelevances, but it rather blunts his role as an attack dog on that front - which arguably should be someone else anyway, as the best attack dogs are those, usually veterans, without higher ambitions, as they can say stuff with relative impunity. It used to be the 'Michael Fallon' job.
If Reeves is a (relatively - these things are) successful chancellor it'll be long forgotten. As they will with Jenrick if he ultimately leads the Tories even halfway back from the wilderness. I don't think he would regard remaining as an effective Shadow Justice Secretary as a success.
A large tactical error committed by the Biden administration was not attempting to involve Musk in his net zero initiatives. More obvious in retrospect, but deliberately snubbing him seemed wrong at the time.
The guy is a massive arse, but that shouldn't have driven policy. And of course it's now the arse who is driving policy.
Again, I strongly recommend Walter Isaacson’s biography of Musk
To understand him (and we all need to understand him) you really need to read it
It is clear he can be a world class arsehole, it is also clear he has an incredible brain married to a frankly incredible work ethic
And BTW it is openly discussed by his friends and colleagues that he is very obviously Asperger’s, there is no dispute (or high functioning autistic if you don’t like the longer A word)
Who came up with the army typology where you want clever+lazy in charge, with clever+hardworking carrying out their orders?
On balance, I'd be much more comfortable with Musk making things happen than deciding what should happen. Trouble is, Musk and his mini Musks don't have the peace in themselves to do that.
(See also Churchill on boffins- on tap, not on top.)
Having read the story it’s bullshit chaff thrown up by the Mirror with a misleading headline. They are playing games to try and protect Labour.
This wasn’t on his CV. It was on his website bio. And it wasn’t a claim about a job or a qualification - it was a statement that he was the “youngest ever Cabinet Minister”.
Of course he’s a boastful idiot but it’s not in the same league as claiming to be a solicitor when you are not.
The complaint about Reeves was about her website bio too, not an actual CV.
Just bullshit chaff, then. Good to sort that out.
If Reeves isn't to be fired for doing a crap job, then this stuff is irrelevant.
Serious question is Reeves doing a crap job? Specifically is she doing a worse job than other Chancellors of the Exchequer? I don't think she is even nearly Kwarteng bad. The comparisons I think are Hunt and Sunak.
She’s made a number of really important fuck ups*
- talking the economy down and destroying confidence - Increasing the cost of employment - undermining the case for tax rises by making up a “black hole” while being perceived to throw money at her pet projects - Messing up the politics of cancelling the winter fuel allowance
And the latest I heard this morning - cancelling the VAT rebate for repairs to churches under the listed places of worship scheme with an immediate cap of £25,000 for outstanding claims. While it’s reasonable (although I would disagree) to not want to spend money it is unfair to not allow an exemption for projects *that have already started work*. For example Radio 4 had a case this morning - Wilberforce’s church in Clapham - where they had been fundraising for a £7m rebuild and expansion for 5 years, have just torn down and started the foundations and have suddenly been told they need to find another £1m in taxes…
* Amusingly autocorrect changed this to “fuck iOS”
Amongst all the noise the actual data is horrendous. Last week the Government raised £4,5bn less in taxes than planned. In essence the Government bet it could raise taxes without shrinking the tax base and lost. Note this is before the big hit in April from the Rachel Reeves budget. The only thing she has got right is that the previous Tory Government left a big mess.
The petty tax rises such as the Church VAT wont make a dent in the deficit. The only real option is massive cuts to welfare or watch inflation take off. Whilst Liz Truss budget was a car crash this one is a slow motion train wreck. This budget could do potentially more long term harm before it is reversed.
Last month’s tax data were not to do with any Labour tax policies.
1. The NIC changes don’t come in until April
2. January is the month government collects payments from self assessment tax returns. That’s why the numbers are always very high. Those tax payments are for liabilities run up in the 2023/24 fiscal year. Entirely under the last government.
You can blame Labour for
- spending overruns (to some extent, because many would still be based on previous decisions) - Slow economic growth, thanks to the doommongering last autumn and the chilling effect of NIC increases already being anticipated
You can’t blame Labour for the tax take in January.
Comments
We have had 3 years of 10% pa rises in council tax
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/council-tax-conwy-looks-set-30790728
“We cannot keep spending the same on the state” is deductive reasoning. It requires evidence to back it up.
But more to the point there’s an implicit non sequitur there: even if you believe strongly that the state must shrink, there is no reason to believe the best way to do it is the Musk way. Which is a classic example of day zero revolutionary practice. We must burn it all down so that we can rebuild from the ashes.
But that’s back to my original post - people like Musk have been able to bring MAGA supporters with them simply through a form of teleology that says if they do it, it must be right.
Jenrick in particular has this problem.
Here is one of his stranger interventions recently.
Nothing at all about the Govt in which he was Minister for Local Govt having starved them of resources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuvvhwspPZM
Out of university I applied for a job in an office, and I didn't get it and they said I didn't have office experience as I'd never worked in one before (perhaps this was just a polite way of telling me I was no good, IDK). It was just a basic admin* entry level thing without special requirements or skills, and I got a very similar job shortly afterwards with the same lack of experience and did just fine. If I'd lied and said I had experience I wouldn't have found I couldn't do the job.
*some admin jobs you really will need experienced administrators if you don't want to do more harm than good.
By his logic Shirley Bassey and Tom Jones aren’t Welsh.
The only bum note is that Caine’s character is supposed to be a Geordie. Mercifully he at least didn’t attempt the accent.
More obvious in retrospect, but deliberately snubbing him seemed wrong at the time.
The guy is a massive arse, but that shouldn't have driven policy. And of course it's now the arse who is driving policy.
Jenrick issue - irrelevant
Reeves - damaging her integrity, but not politically fatal
Reynolds - should be politically fatal
If Trump droned someone in Britain, then politicians who carried on defending him might suffer, but I don't think there's much chance of that.
I think there remain Reform supporters for whom Russia’s victory in Ukraine would count as relevant to domestic politics.
I enjoyed his book, it was decently written and I agreed with plenty of its arguments and his story of coming to the West and how it is better than what he grew up with and should be defended more vigorously from some of the internal flagellation that we see . But he just seems to have run out of things to talk about and so just escalating, and funnily enough does down the West as much as the people he used to criticise for doing the same thing.
We are already hearing measured regulatory reform by the current U.K. government being called Trumpian, by its opponents.
But a large group of people will look at the headline and conclude that “they are all as bad as each other”.
Mission accomplished
I'm not sure whether northern Lincolnshire should be pleased or displeased that the film was relocated to Tyneside.
In this context "can't" means "can't without being racist". If you have any other problems with English comprehension I'm happy to help.
It was suggested he was thinking that 3% should happen by 2035 and there lies his problem as it just cannot be deferred until then
Hard decisions have to be made but Starmer and Labour are not going to be able to square the circle without cutting some cherished areas
In the last 4 weeks the world has changed and I am not convinced the government have actually realised the immediacy of our defence other than fine words
I would just say Starmer has the opportunity to act as the statesman, and to be honest to all our Lib Dems colleagues on here ridiculous name calling by Ed Davey is not what is needed, cool heads are
For example, I would look at hiring into the civil service experts on procurement negotiation - there are too many examples of poor contracting by government.
I would replace consultancies with an in house (within civil service) function. It’s job would be to work though the system, reworking processes and automating where appropriate. This kind of stuff is never finished. Bit like painting a bridge. So make it a permanent piece of the system. The deliverable is improved productivity.
*real investment, not consultants, or pay rises.
However important it is, Ukraine just isn't the same kind of issue. There's not going to be an equivalent of Reg Keys standing against Starmer in the next election.
The ironic thing about Musk's mad dash to cut federal waste by firing government employees seemingly randomly is that the share of federal jobs has never been this low since WW2
https://x.com/valen10francois/status/1893624582101156178?s=46
Has since transitioned into an online political troll. It's at that point that most people stop paying attention to such people, and then then either fade away or they become more extreme to please the fans that remain. See also Russell Brand.
Every employee should report it to their manager who will in turn report it up the chain of command until all the agency directors get the decision and likely tell Musk he will be ignored.
Working age health related benefits, currently £48bn (up from £36bn in 2019-20 ai says), that can (and must) come down by £10bn for starters.
That's without touching any departmental budgets, which must also come down massively, as well as (or perhaps instead of) winding up QUANGOs and bringing their responsibilities back into the departments.
Note the WH insisted the data be sent by email, and not more secure means.
C.I.A. Sent an Unclassified Email With Names of Some Employees to Trump Administration
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/us/politics/cia-names-list.html
Both of us disagreed with what the person had said, but my friend thought they should never have said it, whereas my take was I was glad they had felt able to be open and honest about what they thought, as better to know what people think, so it can be reacted to, than they still think it but conceal it from others.
When I was unemployed a few years ago I applied for a number of minimum wage service jobs that I would have enjoyed and was different from what I was doing previously. The problem was, with few formal requirements there was a lot more competition and I didn't stand out. It was easier to get a professional job where I had the required skills.
That Trumpian cricitism is all these people have. They should welcome reform by the current Government - it's not going to be so pleasant from the next one.
Even in the more hectic world of the USA the Musk approach surely cannot be the most effective way to achieve the desired result, if one thinks the result is good?
Spamming emails that everyone will be fired if they don't respond with bullet points of what they did in the last week is just plain dumb in terms of what positive info you get versus the negative blowback. There have to be better ways to shrink the state, which these actions might make more difficult, not easier.
Which ministry would you start with, if you were able to do only one ?
If I were Jenrick I would just keep my head down and focus on my Shadow Justice brief and holding Labour to account in that area. Then hope Badenoch loses the next general election with a high Reform vote, probably with some form of Labour and LD government following, so he can say 'told you so' and be in prime position to be next Conservative leader with a clear aim to shift further right on issues like immigration and leaving the ECHR to cut back Reform
All is impermanence.
It just seems to be overly forgiving of a potentially incompetent approach, on the basis the heart is in the right place, and I don't think we tend to extend that kind of forgiveness to opponents, and there is still reasonable grounds to separate out criticism of the goal - which is political choice - and execution.
- talking the economy down and destroying confidence
- Increasing the cost of employment
- undermining the case for tax rises by making up a “black hole” while being perceived to throw money at her pet projects
- Messing up the politics of cancelling the winter fuel allowance
And the latest I heard this morning - cancelling the VAT rebate for repairs to churches under the listed places of worship scheme with an immediate cap of £25,000 for outstanding claims. While it’s reasonable (although I would disagree) to not want to spend money it is unfair to not allow an exemption for projects *that have already started work*. For example Radio 4 had a case this morning - Wilberforce’s church in Clapham - where they had been fundraising for a £7m rebuild and expansion for 5 years, have just torn down and started the foundations and have suddenly been told they need to find another £1m in taxes…
* Amusingly autocorrect changed this to “fuck iOS”
I feel most men on the Clapham Omnibus given a summary of this:
"He's criticised Reeves for exaggerating on her CV, but it turns out his own website bio says that he was the youngest ever cabinet minister but someone else actually was."
Would return a blank look.
So if I were him I'd ignore it and keep buggering on. I don't think the Tories have enough active MPs (or even active Shadow Cabinet members) for him to stop expanding his brief - he's one of the few Tories actually doing anything.
Rather it's a gutting and a takeover. It's about making sure the state struggles to function as it should because it's in perpetual chaos so Musk and others can pick over the carcass.
DOGE's actions have already arguably set back American scientific programmes back years if not decades (the UK should absolutely be offering visas to American scientists btw).
Now I wonder why tech bros are relaxed and even gleeful about that, given their own financial bets on what could pick up the pieces?
Taking work out of government requires the much harder process of getting rid of the worst performers, and using fewer, better, staff to do more; as well as deciding to stop doing some things at all.
Can you the answer the following questions?
“What have Quango’s ever done for us?”
“What has state taxing and spending and intervening before breakfast, before lunch, before tea and before dinner, ever done for us?”
I’ll spare you the “the Arguments for the Chagos Deal” ask because I don’t think you are capable of it, you are probably not even aware how many NATO allies failed to back us over Chagos and how isolated US and UK were.
Marine Le Pen however is far sharper, as is Bardella. They have already taken the RN to over 30% and first in the first round of the legislative election and Marine got 41% in the 2nd round of the last presidential election.
Their aim is for Le Pen to be next French President and Bardella next PM for which they need to get over 50% in the 2nd round.
Hence they have distanced themselves from the AfD and Bardella cancelled a CPAC speech after Bannon's salute
I certainly wouldn't do DOGE the US way, but I would do it with equal determination. The pushback is going to be huge. The incoming Government will have to have their entire programme drafted and ready from the get-go.
Great British Energy again - a long term figure which when broken down ain't much per year.
So basically your idea is cut working age benefits - hope you have very comprehensive health insurance because a lot of people don't..
And btw £36bn in 2019 is the equivalent to £45bn today - so the increase is really only £3bn over 6 years or 6.5%. Given the impact of Covid on long term health alongside the large increases in house rental prices that really is remarkably small.
He might have made transactionally a good deal, but he would have undermined Europe’s security, rewarded an invasion of a peaceful neighbouring state and trashed America’s reputation while fatally undermining the Western Alliance.
The costs may not be immediately obvious to you but the damage is immense
(Apparently he never tried. He did do these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXcNBDCNzaY )
Amongst all the noise the actual data is horrendous. Last week the Government raised £4,5bn less in taxes than planned. In essence the Government bet it could raise taxes without shrinking the tax base and lost. Note this is before the big hit in April from the Rachel Reeves budget. The only thing she has got right is that the previous Tory Government left a big mess.
The petty tax rises such as the Church VAT wont make a dent in the deficit. The only real option is massive cuts to welfare or watch inflation take off. Whilst Liz Truss budget was a car crash this one is a slow motion train wreck. This budget could do potentially more long term harm before it is reversed.
Milei in Argentina seems to have gotten some recognition and praise for his actions (up til accidentally promoting a crypto scam anyway).
Though I do wonder about someone making that boast, true or false. "I was the joint youngest cabinet minister" makes me think "haven't you got anything else going for you?"
Anglo Saxon and/or Norman you aren't properly English?
This led to a more general discussion about the role of a Gove in bringing new ideas and thinking into each area he was given responsibility for. No one thought that all his ideas were great or even correct but his willingness to challenge the consensus and bring new analysis to any area was acknowledged by all.
The majority there were Labour supporters but when asked who was the Gove of the current government they were stymied. No one could make a case for any cabinet minister in Starmer's government being capable of bringing new thought to anything. It was quite depressing really. Their highest aspiration is to be more effective administrators of the status quo than the last lot (an incredibly low bar that they are generally falling over).
To understand him (and we all need to understand him) you really need to read it
It is clear he can be a world class arsehole, it is also clear he has an incredible brain married to a frankly incredible work ethic
And BTW it is openly discussed by his friends and colleagues that he is very obviously Asperger’s, there is no dispute (or high functioning autistic if you don’t like the longer A word)
I'm British.
This scheme only exists as a sap to ‘the Conservative Party at prayer’ after George Osborne abolished VAT relief on church repairs in his omnishambles budget.
And as has been pointed out on pb, what Reeves' budget shares with Osborne's omnishambles budget is in being a politically naive pick-and-mix from the Treasury's wishlist.
Now you might get efficiencies in putting them together and I am sure there are huge efficiencies to be had in Govt, but Govts of all shades have promised these umpteen times and failed.
You aren't creating any massive costs cuts here by actually removing any tasks from Govt entirely, unless you are saying the Quango does nothing useful. And you didn't as you suggested its role gets moved into the Department. You are just asking Departments to do both roles with the same staff and be more efficient which has been asked of them umpteen times before.
I think it's fair to say that however well intentioned Gove's ideas (and a lot of them were very good in theory) they have had significant drawbacks in their implementation...
The serious money is what is spent by government, not what it spends on admin.
You're more honest when you suggest cutting working age benefits by 20%.
Good luck with that as a manifesto commitment.
He was barely coherent on stage at CPAC
Seacoal: “An Absolute Vision of Hell"
https://citizan.org.uk/blog/2018/Nov/01/blyth-seacoal-get-carter-an-absolute-vision-of-hell/
Note the 30 mile jump cut towards the end of the film.
I did visit the car park when it was still there
- talking the economy down and destroying confidence. - this is possible. I'm not quite sure what is the dynamic and how chancellors talk up, or talk down, the economy in a real way.
- Increasing the cost of employment. Factually correct. Reeves did have to raise taxes and chose I think the politically least damaging way to do so, although other routes might have had fewer perverse economic effects.
- undermining the case for tax rises by making up a “black hole” while being perceived to throw money at her pet projects. Disagree. The black hole was actually bigger than claimed. And given we're making comparisons between Chancellors that black hole is a big negative against Jeremy Hunt. I don't believe Reeves has particularly thrown money against projects if you take inflation into account and arguably she's not throwing money at projects enough
- Messing up the politics of cancelling the winter fuel allowance. Interesting that this is a political judgment issue rather than a fiscal one. Which is a valid complaint of course. CofE is a political job
If Reeves is a (relatively - these things are) successful chancellor it'll be long forgotten. As they will with Jenrick if he ultimately leads the Tories even halfway back from the wilderness. I don't think he would regard remaining as an effective Shadow Justice Secretary as a success.
And don't get me started about the carpark...
On balance, I'd be much more comfortable with Musk making things happen than deciding what should happen. Trouble is, Musk and his mini Musks don't have the peace in themselves to do that.
(See also Churchill on boffins- on tap, not on top.)
1. The NIC changes don’t come in until April
2. January is the month government collects payments from self assessment tax returns. That’s why the numbers are always very high. Those tax payments are for liabilities run up in the 2023/24 fiscal year. Entirely under the last government.
You can blame Labour for
- spending overruns (to some extent, because many would still be based on previous decisions)
- Slow economic growth, thanks to the doommongering last autumn and the chilling effect of NIC increases already being anticipated
You can’t blame Labour for the tax take in January.