Because today I went through a suburban village called "Tingley" and I thought, my God, what a shit-hole, it looks like something you USED to see in Eastern Europe
I'm kinda hoping it is one of the worst areas of Leeds otherwise, Eeek
A lot of south Leeds is not great. Holbeck? Beeston?
But on the other hand, a lot of north Leeds is perfectly acceptable.
Because today I went through a suburban village called "Tingley" and I thought, my God, what a shit-hole, it looks like something you USED to see in Eastern Europe
I'm kinda hoping it is one of the worst areas of Leeds otherwise, Eeek
A lot of south Leeds is not great. Holbeck? Beeston?
But on the other hand, a lot of north Leeds is perfectly acceptable.
Because today I went through a suburban village called "Tingley" and I thought, my God, what a shit-hole, it looks like something you USED to see in Eastern Europe
I'm kinda hoping it is one of the worst areas of Leeds otherwise, Eeek
A lot of south Leeds is not great. Holbeck? Beeston?
But on the other hand, a lot of north Leeds is perfectly acceptable.
Because today I went through a suburban village called "Tingley" and I thought, my God, what a shit-hole, it looks like something you USED to see in Eastern Europe
I'm kinda hoping it is one of the worst areas of Leeds otherwise, Eeek
A lot of south Leeds is not great. Holbeck? Beeston?
But on the other hand, a lot of north Leeds is perfectly acceptable.
Farage has retweeted the Telegraph article about restoring the WFA & scrapping the two child cap… so looks like it’s true
He must be calculating that the Tories are in such a mess at the moment that economically right-wing RefUK voters aren't going to back to them.
Yes reversing the 2 child benefit cap is not designed to appeal to southern economic Thatcherites nor is reinstating WFA in full to all pensioners (even Kemi wants to means test it at a higher threshold).
Farage's proposals may appeal to social conservatives and low income parents and pensioners in the redwall though which is no doubt his target audience
I just don't know where Farage is going to get the money from without raising taxes.
Farage has retweeted the Telegraph article about restoring the WFA & scrapping the two child cap… so looks like it’s true
He must be calculating that the Tories are in such a mess at the moment that economically right-wing RefUK voters aren't going to back to them.
Yes reversing the 2 child benefit cap is not designed to appeal to southern economic Thatcherites nor is reinstating WFA in full to all pensioners (even Kemi wants to means test it at a higher threshold).
Farage's proposals may appeal to social conservatives and low income parents and pensioners in the redwall though which is no doubt his target audience
I just don't know where Farage is going to get the money from without raising taxes.
Farage has retweeted the Telegraph article about restoring the WFA & scrapping the two child cap… so looks like it’s true
Kemi then should go hard no on 2 child cap increase. No gain on the bandwagon but a useful dividing line if SKS does it and it all goes tits up
Yes, I agree. I am not sure I agree with keeping the cap, but there's definitely an argument for it. I'd use the public finances argument though - when Suella (and presumably other Tories) agree with scrapping it, it's tricky to go in two-footed.
Because today I went through a suburban village called "Tingley" and I thought, my God, what a shit-hole, it looks like something you USED to see in Eastern Europe
I'm kinda hoping it is one of the worst areas of Leeds otherwise, Eeek
A lot of south Leeds is not great. Holbeck? Beeston?
But on the other hand, a lot of north Leeds is perfectly acceptable.
Google mapping Tingley can't see much wrong with it. I'd recommend Manningham, Edlington and Page Hall
Yeah, Page Hall is definitely a hole. Shame, because there's plenty of green space around even if it was primarily used for burning cars.
Didn't think much of Eston in Middlesbrough either, although at least half the terraces there have already been leveled, leaving grids of streets with no houses..
Because today I went through a suburban village called "Tingley" and I thought, my God, what a shit-hole, it looks like something you USED to see in Eastern Europe
I'm kinda hoping it is one of the worst areas of Leeds otherwise, Eeek
A lot of south Leeds is not great. Holbeck? Beeston?
But on the other hand, a lot of north Leeds is perfectly acceptable.
'was', not 'is'.
It literally depends on the Member of Parliament. It's all bad now. And RefUK won't change that.
Farage has retweeted the Telegraph article about restoring the WFA & scrapping the two child cap… so looks like it’s true
He must be calculating that the Tories are in such a mess at the moment that economically right-wing RefUK voters aren't going to back to them.
Yes reversing the 2 child benefit cap is not designed to appeal to southern economic Thatcherites nor is reinstating WFA in full to all pensioners (even Kemi wants to means test it at a higher threshold).
Farage's proposals may appeal to social conservatives and low income parents and pensioners in the redwall though which is no doubt his target audience
Reform's support is heavily concentrated among C2, D & E. (They have 39% in the Yougov tracker vs 22% among A, B & C1.)
It makes political sense for them to promise generous benefits to voters.
"Inside Labour plot to oust Keir Starmer as PM is given 12 months to turn things around
This week’s dramatic winter fuel U-turn has not been enough to stop speculation about the future of Starmer as leader, as political editor David Maddox found out"
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not an IF it's a fact. Research proves that people are only willing to pay high taxes for a welfare state and their fellow citizens IF they feel a genetic link to them. "My people", "my tribe", etc. This makes Darwinian sense
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
Total and utter cod and chips. I require no such feeling of "genetic link" to be willing to pay enough tax to fund welfare and public services in this country that I live in.
"Migration flows have diversified western societies, challenging the political viability of inclusive welfare states. This is very clear in research on perceptions of deservingness to social benefits, which consistently shows that immigrants are considered as less deserving of collective help than natives"
The more diverse a society gets, and the larger the influx of immigrants, the less willing "natives" will be to the idea of handing out taxes to the incomers, especially in the form of social benefits
Frankly. this should be bloody obvious. It's basic human nature. Even Angela Rayner gets it
It's certainly "basic". But no, the further back a person can trace their British ancestry, the more deserving they are of state help with their lives - I don't think this (racist) view is a majority one.
How can that be a racist view if we've been diverse forever?
If we've been diverse forever why do racists have a problem with diversity?
They don't realise they're mogrels themselves, and they dislike mongrels whose mixture is different.
Before I log off to watch Eternauts, I note that HMRC is very keen to test people's "attachments" to the UK to see if they are liable for tax. How long you've lived here, how long you've owned or used a home here, do you have kids here, do you use the UK as your main base, were you born here, etc. All these are taken into account when the Inland Revenue comes for your income tax (and fair enough, if you or your kids or relatives are benefiting from the welfare state, you should pay your way)
And yet we apparently do NOT look at the same criteria when handing out benefits? Why not? If you arrived last week or five years ago you should be much less eligible for help - in housing or health - than someone who has lived here all her life and has kids born here etc
This is, I think, the only way to keep the UK health, welfare and pension system from collapse. We have no choice
Good night PB, good night
They use the Habitual Residence Test for benefits which is broadly the same.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not an IF it's a fact. Research proves that people are only willing to pay high taxes for a welfare state and their fellow citizens IF they feel a genetic link to them. "My people", "my tribe", etc. This makes Darwinian sense
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
Total and utter cod and chips. I require no such feeling of "genetic link" to be willing to pay enough tax to fund welfare and public services in this country that I live in.
"Migration flows have diversified western societies, challenging the political viability of inclusive welfare states. This is very clear in research on perceptions of deservingness to social benefits, which consistently shows that immigrants are considered as less deserving of collective help than natives"
The more diverse a society gets, and the larger the influx of immigrants, the less willing "natives" will be to the idea of handing out taxes to the incomers, especially in the form of social benefits
Frankly. this should be bloody obvious. It's basic human nature. Even Angela Rayner gets it
It's certainly "basic". But no, the further back a person can trace their British ancestry, the more deserving they are of state help with their lives - I don't think this (racist) view is a majority one.
How can that be a racist view if we've been diverse forever?
If we've been diverse forever why do racists have a problem with diversity?
They don't realise they're mogrels themselves, and they dislike mongrels whose mixture is different.
Aren't all the English people also migrants from France & Germany ?
I think only the Celtic nations (Welsh, Scots & Irish) are the true traditional owners of the land ?
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not an IF it's a fact. Research proves that people are only willing to pay high taxes for a welfare state and their fellow citizens IF they feel a genetic link to them. "My people", "my tribe", etc. This makes Darwinian sense
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
Total and utter cod and chips. I require no such feeling of "genetic link" to be willing to pay enough tax to fund welfare and public services in this country that I live in.
"Migration flows have diversified western societies, challenging the political viability of inclusive welfare states. This is very clear in research on perceptions of deservingness to social benefits, which consistently shows that immigrants are considered as less deserving of collective help than natives"
The more diverse a society gets, and the larger the influx of immigrants, the less willing "natives" will be to the idea of handing out taxes to the incomers, especially in the form of social benefits
Frankly. this should be bloody obvious. It's basic human nature. Even Angela Rayner gets it
It's certainly "basic". But no, the further back a person can trace their British ancestry, the more deserving they are of state help with their lives - I don't think this (racist) view is a majority one.
How can that be a racist view if we've been diverse forever?
If we've been diverse forever why do racists have a problem with diversity?
They don't realise they're mogrels themselves, and they dislike mongrels whose mixture is different.
Aren't all the English people also migrants from France & Germany ?
I think only the Celtic nations (Welsh, Scots & Irish) are the true traditional owners of the land ?
The English are Anglo-Saxons. If you want to undo past events then good luck persuading the Turks to restore the Eastern Roman Empire, something that happened about a thousand years more recently than the arrival of the English.
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
Personally I think we should have given the Chagos Islands back to the Chagosians decades ago and could have used some of that money we are using to bribe Mauritius to actually support the Chagosians rebuilding their lives.
Two things are wrong/bad about the Chagos deal (ignoring the fact that Mauritius had no claim in the first place) and I think will come back to haunt us.
Firstly we have simply ignored the prople who actually inhabited the islands and should have been the ones we were returning them to.
And secondly we are going to see the utter detrsuction of the one of the largest marine reserves in the world.
These two combined make this a 'bad' decision.
We treated the Chagossians badly. However, the problem with giving the island to them is that it’s highly questionable that they would form a viable, independent state.
Surely that is for them to decide not us. The idea that these islanders are not capable of ruling themselves is one of the those colonial arguments that got us into this mess in the first place.
I’m not questioning their ability to rule themselves. Duh.
It’s a small population on a remote island: it’s difficult for states like that to be financially independent.
Most microstates don't have a ready made cash cow on their doorstep.
If you leave the US airbase there, where do the Chagossians go? Diego Garcia is by far the largest island and about half the total area. Nor do the Americans want anyone even nearby. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s not a straightforward solution, to say the least.
Well, predictions and bets have been a bit rubbish this year, but I've laid Piastri at 1.63 for the podium. Starts 3rd but is close to Norris so if there's a brief window (VSC) for a cheap stop he could be disadvantaged. He's also been brushing the walls a lot. In the three races prior to 2024, twice the man starting third failed to finish top 3.
Because today I went through a suburban village called "Tingley" and I thought, my God, what a shit-hole, it looks like something you USED to see in Eastern Europe
I'm kinda hoping it is one of the worst areas of Leeds otherwise, Eeek
A lot of south Leeds is not great. Holbeck? Beeston?
But on the other hand, a lot of north Leeds is perfectly acceptable.
'was', not 'is'.
It literally depends on the Member of Parliament. It's all bad now. And RefUK won't change that.
Tingley is Wakefield not Leeds.
Belle Isle and Middleton are the worst areas of south Leeds.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not an IF it's a fact. Research proves that people are only willing to pay high taxes for a welfare state and their fellow citizens IF they feel a genetic link to them. "My people", "my tribe", etc. This makes Darwinian sense
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
Total and utter cod and chips. I require no such feeling of "genetic link" to be willing to pay enough tax to fund welfare and public services in this country that I live in.
"Migration flows have diversified western societies, challenging the political viability of inclusive welfare states. This is very clear in research on perceptions of deservingness to social benefits, which consistently shows that immigrants are considered as less deserving of collective help than natives"
The more diverse a society gets, and the larger the influx of immigrants, the less willing "natives" will be to the idea of handing out taxes to the incomers, especially in the form of social benefits
Frankly. this should be bloody obvious. It's basic human nature. Even Angela Rayner gets it
It's certainly "basic". But no, the further back a person can trace their British ancestry, the more deserving they are of state help with their lives - I don't think this (racist) view is a majority one.
How can that be a racist view if we've been diverse forever?
If we've been diverse forever why do racists have a problem with diversity?
They don't realise they're mogrels themselves, and they dislike mongrels whose mixture is different.
Aren't all the English people also migrants from France & Germany ?
I think only the Celtic nations (Welsh, Scots & Irish) are the true traditional owners of the land ?
The early Celts were preceded by a Neolithic farming population who had originally come from the Near East, and they were preceded by a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer population.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not an IF it's a fact. Research proves that people are only willing to pay high taxes for a welfare state and their fellow citizens IF they feel a genetic link to them. "My people", "my tribe", etc. This makes Darwinian sense
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
Total and utter cod and chips. I require no such feeling of "genetic link" to be willing to pay enough tax to fund welfare and public services in this country that I live in.
"Migration flows have diversified western societies, challenging the political viability of inclusive welfare states. This is very clear in research on perceptions of deservingness to social benefits, which consistently shows that immigrants are considered as less deserving of collective help than natives"
The more diverse a society gets, and the larger the influx of immigrants, the less willing "natives" will be to the idea of handing out taxes to the incomers, especially in the form of social benefits
Frankly. this should be bloody obvious. It's basic human nature. Even Angela Rayner gets it
It's certainly "basic". But no, the further back a person can trace their British ancestry, the more deserving they are of state help with their lives - I don't think this (racist) view is a majority one.
How can that be a racist view if we've been diverse forever?
If we've been diverse forever why do racists have a problem with diversity?
They don't realise they're mogrels themselves, and they dislike mongrels whose mixture is different.
Aren't all the English people also migrants from France & Germany ?
I think only the Celtic nations (Welsh, Scots & Irish) are the true traditional owners of the land ?
The early Celts were preceded by a Neolithic farming population who had originally come from the Near East, and they were preceded by a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer population.
And that's before we get to the Scots being Irish who took over Pictish territory.
Comments
But on the other hand, a lot of north Leeds is perfectly acceptable.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rfyJy77kKJ1tZTPN7
It is not Leeds but Wakefield.
It's basic but there thousands of worse places to live in Britain.
There are
Today looks like the day that literally everyone has abandoned any idea of running the country in a responsible way.
Didn't think much of Eston in Middlesbrough either, although at least half the terraces there have already been leveled, leaving grids of streets with no houses..
It literally depends on the Member of Parliament. It's all bad now. And RefUK won't change that.
It makes political sense for them to promise generous benefits to voters.
This week’s dramatic winter fuel U-turn has not been enough to stop speculation about the future of Starmer as leader, as political editor David Maddox found out"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-labour-leadership-plot-angela-rayner-b2757214.html
F1: going to check a few things then browse the markets. Hamilton's got a 3 place grid penalty, it seems, weather should be dry.
I think only the Celtic nations (Welsh, Scots & Irish) are the true traditional owners of the land ?
Well, predictions and bets have been a bit rubbish this year, but I've laid Piastri at 1.63 for the podium. Starts 3rd but is close to Norris so if there's a brief window (VSC) for a cheap stop he could be disadvantaged. He's also been brushing the walls a lot. In the three races prior to 2024, twice the man starting third failed to finish top 3.
https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/05/monaco-grand-prix-2025-pre-race.html
Belle Isle and Middleton are the worst areas of south Leeds.
NEW THREAD