Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Whatever happened to Rebecca Long-Bailey? She was the future once. – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,552
edited July 1 in General
Whatever happened to Rebecca Long-Bailey? She was the future once. – politicalbetting.com

I was reviewing some older political betting markets and I found this from December 2019 after Jeremy Corbyn lost another general election and announced his resignation. I often wonder about the road not taken, like Starmer she is a lawyer and we know how well they win elections, see here, but would her Corbynite leanings held her back?

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,779
    First
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,827
    Second like Corbyn
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,779
    ***Tumbleweed***
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,047
    Restore Rebecca
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,109
    Onk-onk-onk for Mr Seal.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,827
    DougSeal said:

    ***Tumbleweed***

    "The goddam Cook's a SEAL???"
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,856
    I still regret the Tories defeating that other one in Durham. She'd have beaten Starmer and been very entertaining.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,434
    Made a bit of money laying RLB.

    Lost it all backing Con for most seats at next GE at around the same time :disappointed:
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,366
    edited July 1
    tlg86 said:

    I still regret the Tories defeating that other one in Durham. She'd have beaten Starmer and been very entertaining.

    Pidders. Laura Pidcock
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,134
    @kaitlancollins

    President Trump on Elon Musk: "DOGE is going to look at Musk. If DOGE looks at Musk, we're going to save a fortune...I don't think he should be playing that game with me."
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,294
    Sir Keir Starmer is to change the law to block taxpayer-funded compensation for Gerry Adams over his detention as a suspected terrorist in the 1970s.

    The Prime Minister has sanctioned a legal change that aims to reinstate the Tory government’s block on the former Sinn Féin leader’s compensation without breaching human rights laws.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/01/labour-ira-gerry-adams-compensation-human-rights-starmer/
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,294
    Thai prime minister suspended over leaked phone call
    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vrrj72xy7o

    We haven't had a military coup in Thailand for a couple of years.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,937
    Good afternoon

    I have listened to the debate in the HOC this afternoon, including Rebecca Long Bailey and Richard Burgon amongst others and simply agreed with everything they said

    Indeed the mps seem near unanimous in their contempt for the bill and support Maskell's amendment

    I expect it to pass, but if so many labour mps will have deep concerns about creating a 2 tier benefit scheme that disadvantages future disabled people's legitimate claim
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,714
    Apologies for reposting my question, it was too late on the previous. Is access to the site likely to improve or are we sub-human classes likely to go on having limited access?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,581
    AnneJGP said:

    Apologies for reposting my question, it was too late on the previous. Is access to the site likely to improve or are we sub-human classes likely to go on having limited access?

    The upgrades are due to finish on Friday, so we should be back to normal.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,616
    Ironically, RLB spoke in the debate about ten minutes ago.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,616
    Scott_xP said:

    @kaitlancollins

    President Trump on Elon Musk: "DOGE is going to look at Musk. If DOGE looks at Musk, we're going to save a fortune...I don't think he should be playing that game with me."

    Don't all the DOGE kids work for Musk?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,581

    Thai prime minister suspended over leaked phone call
    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vrrj72xy7o

    We haven't had a military coup in Thailand for a couple of years.

    Bring back Trashcan Sinatra.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,134

    Scott_xP said:

    @kaitlancollins

    President Trump on Elon Musk: "DOGE is going to look at Musk. If DOGE looks at Musk, we're going to save a fortune...I don't think he should be playing that game with me."

    Don't all the DOGE kids work for Musk?
    Not any more !
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,616
    Whispers of more concessions from Reeves and co. Including delay PIP points changes until after Timm's review.

    So shelving the main complaint of those against but losing a good deal of the cost savings which is the only reason they are doing this now in July and not in a year's time as a properly thought out Bill.

    What a frigging mess.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,047

    Thai prime minister suspended over leaked phone call
    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vrrj72xy7o

    We haven't had a military coup in Thailand for a couple of years.

    Bring back Trashcan Sinatra.
    It's gone Pete Tong for the Sinatras.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,616
    Jessica Elgot
    @jessicaelgot
    ·
    14m
    “If they move on this, it’s deal done,” one leading rebel says
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,937
    edited July 1

    Whispers of more concessions from Reeves and co. Including delay PIP points changes until after Timm's review.

    So shelving the main complaint of those against but losing a good deal of the cost savings which is the only reason they are doing this now in July and not in a year's time as a properly thought out Bill.

    What a frigging mess.

    Too little to late

    It most likely will pass but at what cost to labour
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,616
    Scott_xP said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @kaitlancollins

    President Trump on Elon Musk: "DOGE is going to look at Musk. If DOGE looks at Musk, we're going to save a fortune...I don't think he should be playing that game with me."

    Don't all the DOGE kids work for Musk?
    Not any more !
    I mean aren't they all on secondment from Musk companies?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,714

    AnneJGP said:

    Apologies for reposting my question, it was too late on the previous. Is access to the site likely to improve or are we sub-human classes likely to go on having limited access?

    The upgrades are due to finish on Friday, so we should be back to normal.
    Many thanks, that's good to hear.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,134

    Scott_xP said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @kaitlancollins

    President Trump on Elon Musk: "DOGE is going to look at Musk. If DOGE looks at Musk, we're going to save a fortune...I don't think he should be playing that game with me."

    Don't all the DOGE kids work for Musk?
    Not any more !
    I mean aren't they all on secondment from Musk companies?
    Apparently not. Big Balls was just rehired by one of the Government agencies
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,294
    edited July 1
    Danish women now face being called up for 11 months of military service when they turn 18, after a change in the law came into effect.

    Under new rules passed by Denmark's parliament, women are to join teenage males in a lottery system that could require them to undertake a period of conscription. Denmark is following the example of neighbouring Sweden and Norway, which both brought in conscription for women in recent years.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1e0094n5d3o
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,294
    edited July 1
    At what point have they made so many concessions, they might as well not bother at all? Seems very much like they are Bodger and Badgering it in real time just to get something through.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,922
    edited July 1
    Leon said:

    Thanks for the ideas. The Baltics are tempting. I’ve only dabbled

    I like Ireland but I’ve seen much of it. Esp the west coast

    Has any PB-er ever been to the far north of Scandinavia? The lofoten islands? Lapland?

    My first Scandinavian road trip, my original idea was to go right to the top of Norway, then come down through Finland. But when I started working on the logistics, there is so much stunning fjord scenery to see in the west of Norway that I didn’t have enough time to see everything and do the whole trip (my ground rules for travel with the dog are planning on ideally no more than 3.5 hrs driving a day, and at least one non-driving day for every day on the road). So I went as far north as Lovund, then cut down through Swedish Lapland, getting the Umea-Vasa ferry to Finland, and after southern Finland returning to Germany on the long ferry from Helsinki.

    The second trip I am doing now, skipping the fjords as I’ve seen them, working more directly up Norway, with a detour to Lofoten, then Narvik, Tromso, and returning south through Finland as originally intended. Because I learned from experience that Finland is stunningly dull to drive through, such that keeping the speed limit is difficult, I’m using Finnish motorail to get from Lapland to Helsinki - which incredibly, for me, the dog, the car and a cabin, cost only about €170. Doing motorrail from France or Belgium fifteen years ago cost about £600-700 even then, so the Finland offer is incredibly cheap, presumably subsidised because of Lapland.

    You could of course skip Norway altogether, and do Sweden, Finland and the Baltics, linked by ferries, or come back through Poland. A future trip I have in mind.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,134
    The Mad King is now ranting about prosecuting CNN for the heinous crime of accurately reporting shit
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,937

    At what point have they made so many concessions, they might as well not bother at all? Seems very much like they are Bodger and Badgering it in real time just to get something through.
    It does make you wonder just who thought that guaranteeing PIP payments to existing claimants but not future ones with identical health issues would be acceptable
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,616

    At what point have they made so many concessions, they might as well not bother at all? Seems very much like they are Bodger and Badgering it in real time just to get something through.
    It's a joke now. Drop it and do the Timm's review.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,366

    At what point have they made so many concessions, they might as well not bother at all? Seems very much like they are Bodger and Badgering it in real time just to get something through.
    They are now at the point of putting 'cannot get anything through' on the statute book.
    The markets will love it, looooooooove it
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,937

    At what point have they made so many concessions, they might as well not bother at all? Seems very much like they are Bodger and Badgering it in real time just to get something through.
    It's a joke now. Drop it and do the Timm's review.
    That would be the right thing to do and probably less damaging
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,366

    At what point have they made so many concessions, they might as well not bother at all? Seems very much like they are Bodger and Badgering it in real time just to get something through.
    It's a joke now. Drop it and do the Timm's review.
    Its sheer bloody mindedness now. Myopic.
    Kendalls career is over, as is Reeves shortly after
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,922

    At what point have they made so many concessions, they might as well not bother at all? Seems very much like they are Bodger and Badgering it in real time just to get something through.
    It’s more about saving some face now, rather than some money.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,366
    Diane Abbot just laughed at Kendall trying to reassure about future disabled involvement in reforms
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,366
    Do Labour need an intervention?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,134

    Do Labour need an intervention?

    Don't you need friends for that?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,819
    All I know about Svalbard (apart from the seed vault) is it was the location of some of the last German troops to surrender in World War 2.

    They were forgotten about in the chaos at the beginning od May and it wasn't until September someone went and found them and told them the war was over.

    The second last to hear were the Germans stationed on Les Minquieres who surrendered to a passing fishing boat.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,366
    Scott_xP said:

    Do Labour need an intervention?

    Don't you need friends for that?
    We can pretend to give a shit about them i suppose
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,294
    edited July 1
    Question now is who Starmer throws under the bus for this mess. Obviously he had nothing to do with, never read it, was too tired after NATO meeting.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,937

    Question now is who Starmer throws under the bus for this mess. Obviously he had nothing to do with, never read it, was too tired after NATO meeting.

    Kendall and Reeves?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,366
    Richard Burgon is right for once - this is an Albatross all Labour MPs voting for will be carrying round their neck from now on.
    Its got 'tuition fees'/LDs written all over it. Its NOT LABOUR but they are gagging to vote it through
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,366
    edited July 1

    Question now is who Starmer throws under the bus for this mess. Obviously he had nothing to do with, never read it, was too tired after NATO meeting.

    Kendall and Reeves?
    Yes because Timms has the review in his name.
    McSweeney is safe, Starmer rode out to bat for him at cabinet this am
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,936

    At what point have they made so many concessions, they might as well not bother at all? Seems very much like they are Bodger and Badgering it in real time just to get something through.
    It's a joke now. Drop it and do the Timm's review.
    Its sheer bloody mindedness now. Myopic.
    Kendalls career is over, as is Reeves shortly after
    Looks like Kendall and Reeves are safe, then. :)
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,001
    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,366

    At what point have they made so many concessions, they might as well not bother at all? Seems very much like they are Bodger and Badgering it in real time just to get something through.
    It's a joke now. Drop it and do the Timm's review.
    Its sheer bloody mindedness now. Myopic.
    Kendalls career is over, as is Reeves shortly after
    Looks like Kendall and Reeves are safe, then. :)
    Ha. I claim stopped clock rights
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,616

    At what point have they made so many concessions, they might as well not bother at all? Seems very much like they are Bodger and Badgering it in real time just to get something through.
    It's a joke now. Drop it and do the Timm's review.
    Its sheer bloody mindedness now. Myopic.
    Kendalls career is over, as is Reeves shortly after
    Reeves has to be shuffled out to another department now.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,494
    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    The size of the majority is such that there is zero chance of becoming a minister - so I would probably be tending towards the awkward squad - never enough to lose the whip but definitely voting towards my constituents rather than the party
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,047
    Common sense from Le Pen:

    https://x.com/MLP_officiel/status/1940003469487677683

    Air conditioning saves lives.

    Leaving children, the elderly, or vulnerable people to suffer because there is no air conditioning, rather than developing an air conditioning plan, is completely absurd.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,922
    stodge said:

    All I know about Svalbard (apart from the seed vault) is it was the location of some of the last German troops to surrender in World War 2.

    They were forgotten about in the chaos at the beginning od May and it wasn't until September someone went and found them and told them the war was over.

    The second last to hear were the Germans stationed on Les Minquieres who surrendered to a passing fishing boat.

    Other pertinent things about Svalbard: anyone can live there; it requires no visas. Cats are forbidden. You need a special card to purchase alcohol and there is a limit of two bottles of spirits and 24 cans of beer per person per month. Both being born or dying there are strongly discouraged, the former because it doesn’t have full medical facilities and the latter because the frozen ground means they don’t want the bodies and there is no crematorium. Also no trees. And you aren’t allowed to leave the main town on the island unless you are both carrying a gun capable of killing a polar bear and are certified as having been trained to use it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,294
    edited July 1
    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    Its a total dog dinners now of a bill. They need to go back and think more carefully about any reforms. Making policy on the fly in real time is rarely likely to lead to a good result.

    I am reminded of a different time when government were proposing much more sweeping changes to benefits. The reform to pensions under the Coalition. When we compare that, people still lost out, but the person in charge Steve Webb really knew his onions and they had thought really carefully about how to go about such a reform.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,366

    At what point have they made so many concessions, they might as well not bother at all? Seems very much like they are Bodger and Badgering it in real time just to get something through.
    It's a joke now. Drop it and do the Timm's review.
    Its sheer bloody mindedness now. Myopic.
    Kendalls career is over, as is Reeves shortly after
    Reeves has to be shuffled out to another department now.
    She wont take a demotion from the great offices of state. And if shes not good enough to see out the parliament as CoE as guaranteed by SKS less than 6 months ago, shes not fit to run any department
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,616
    One term latest:

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    26m
    This is how governments die. Every Labour MP, Minister and Cabinet Minister knows the welfare bill is no longer fit for purpose. But they’re going to blindly force it through anyway. Then spend the rest of the parliament saying to each other “why did we do that”.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,616

    At what point have they made so many concessions, they might as well not bother at all? Seems very much like they are Bodger and Badgering it in real time just to get something through.
    It's a joke now. Drop it and do the Timm's review.
    Its sheer bloody mindedness now. Myopic.
    Kendalls career is over, as is Reeves shortly after
    Reeves has to be shuffled out to another department now.
    She wont take a demotion from the great offices of state. And if shes not good enough to see out the parliament as CoE as guaranteed by SKS less than 6 months ago, shes not fit to run any department
    Not even Accounts?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,922

    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    Its a total dog dinners now of a bill. They need to go back and think more carefully about any reforms. Making policy on the fly in real time is rarely likely to lead to a good result.

    I am reminded of a different time when government were proposing much more sweeping changes to benefits. The reform to pensions under the Coalition. When we compare that, people still lost out, but the person in charge Steve Webb really knew his onions and they had thought really carefully about how to go about such a reform.
    A lot of stories from the coalition, the LibDems contributed a lot of the common sense and level headedness that the Tories seemed to lack. And got no credit for it whatsoever.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,616
    IanB2 said:

    stodge said:

    All I know about Svalbard (apart from the seed vault) is it was the location of some of the last German troops to surrender in World War 2.

    They were forgotten about in the chaos at the beginning od May and it wasn't until September someone went and found them and told them the war was over.

    The second last to hear were the Germans stationed on Les Minquieres who surrendered to a passing fishing boat.

    Other pertinent things about Svalbard: anyone can live there; it requires no visas. Cats are forbidden. You need a special card to purchase alcohol and there is a limit of two bottles of spirits and 24 cans of beer per person per month. Both being born or dying there are strongly discouraged, the former because it doesn’t have full medical facilities and the latter because the frozen ground means they don’t want the bodies and there is no crematorium. Also no trees. And you aren’t allowed to leave the main town on the island unless you are both carrying a gun capable of killing a polar bear and are certified as having been trained to use it.
    Well, the 'no cats' sounds right up @Leon 's street but not sure about that alcohol quota.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,913
    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    defect to Reform
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,047
    IanB2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    Its a total dog dinners now of a bill. They need to go back and think more carefully about any reforms. Making policy on the fly in real time is rarely likely to lead to a good result.

    I am reminded of a different time when government were proposing much more sweeping changes to benefits. The reform to pensions under the Coalition. When we compare that, people still lost out, but the person in charge Steve Webb really knew his onions and they had thought really carefully about how to go about such a reform.
    A lot of stories from the coalition, the LibDems contributed a lot of the common sense and level headedness that the Tories seemed to lack. And got no credit for it whatsoever.
    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/nuclear-plants-may-not-be-built-says-clegg-mddt5gjqf7s

    Nick Clegg has vowed to veto a new generation of nuclear plants if they require a single penny of public money.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,922
    edited July 1

    IanB2 said:

    stodge said:

    All I know about Svalbard (apart from the seed vault) is it was the location of some of the last German troops to surrender in World War 2.

    They were forgotten about in the chaos at the beginning od May and it wasn't until September someone went and found them and told them the war was over.

    The second last to hear were the Germans stationed on Les Minquieres who surrendered to a passing fishing boat.

    Other pertinent things about Svalbard: anyone can live there; it requires no visas. Cats are forbidden. You need a special card to purchase alcohol and there is a limit of two bottles of spirits and 24 cans of beer per person per month. Both being born or dying there are strongly discouraged, the former because it doesn’t have full medical facilities and the latter because the frozen ground means they don’t want the bodies and there is no crematorium. Also no trees. And you aren’t allowed to leave the main town on the island unless you are both carrying a gun capable of killing a polar bear and are certified as having been trained to use it.
    Well, the 'no cats' sounds right up @Leon 's street but not sure about that alcohol quota.
    It’s also supposed to have an excellent Thai restaurant, as well as a lot of Thai residents, apparently because one Norwegian took his Thai bride there in the 80s, and when she found out you could move there without a visa, persuaded tons of her extended family and friends to join her there. Presumably she kept quiet about the climate - or maybe after living in Thailand’s open air sauna, it doesn’t seem so bad?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,937
    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    The size of the majority is such that there is zero chance of becoming a minister - so I would probably be tending towards the awkward squad - never enough to lose the whip but definitely voting towards my constituents rather than the party
    Sky saying Starmer has conceded the review will be published before any changes to PIP in a desperate attempt to pass the bill
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,616
    Wait a minute. Maybe the concession isn't a concession?

    Delay the 4 point rule change until Timm's reports. Timms review is due "autumn 2026".

    But 4 point rule wasn't due until then anyway.

    So unless the rebels are confident the review can be steered away from ruling out 100,000s of people on the lower end of disability then they have gained nothing.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,581

    At what point have they made so many concessions, they might as well not bother at all? Seems very much like they are Bodger and Badgering it in real time just to get something through.
    It's a joke now. Drop it and do the Timm's review.
    Its sheer bloody mindedness now. Myopic.
    Kendalls career is over, as is Reeves shortly after
    Looks like Kendall and Reeves are safe, then. :)
    I heard both of them had a curry and beer one time.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,508

    Common sense from Le Pen:

    https://x.com/MLP_officiel/status/1940003469487677683

    Air conditioning saves lives.

    Leaving children, the elderly, or vulnerable people to suffer because there is no air conditioning, rather than developing an air conditioning plan, is completely absurd.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heatwave

    14800 excess deaths in France
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,366

    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    The size of the majority is such that there is zero chance of becoming a minister - so I would probably be tending towards the awkward squad - never enough to lose the whip but definitely voting towards my constituents rather than the party
    Sky saying Starmer has conceded the review will be published before any changes to PIP in a desperate attempt to pass the bill
    Why pass it at all then? It achieves nothing at all except highlighting the 4.5 billion pound black hole Reeves now has to fill
    Inept
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,913
    IanB2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    Its a total dog dinners now of a bill. They need to go back and think more carefully about any reforms. Making policy on the fly in real time is rarely likely to lead to a good result.

    I am reminded of a different time when government were proposing much more sweeping changes to benefits. The reform to pensions under the Coalition. When we compare that, people still lost out, but the person in charge Steve Webb really knew his onions and they had thought really carefully about how to go about such a reform.
    A lot of stories from the coalition, the LibDems contributed a lot of the common sense and level headedness that the Tories seemed to lack. And got no credit for it whatsoever.
    at least that explains why they have a clown leading them now. No point being level headed.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,294
    edited July 1
    IanB2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    Its a total dog dinners now of a bill. They need to go back and think more carefully about any reforms. Making policy on the fly in real time is rarely likely to lead to a good result.

    I am reminded of a different time when government were proposing much more sweeping changes to benefits. The reform to pensions under the Coalition. When we compare that, people still lost out, but the person in charge Steve Webb really knew his onions and they had thought really carefully about how to go about such a reform.
    A lot of stories from the coalition, the LibDems contributed a lot of the common sense and level headedness that the Tories seemed to lack. And got no credit for it whatsoever.
    At that time the LibDem Orange Bookers had done a lot of work thinking about policy. The likes of Alexander, Webb, Lamb took that, parked a lot of the party political stuff and got on with the job. Other couldn't put differences aside and were pretty shit e.g. Vince Cable (and he had no real excuse as he did have the experience for the role).

    I think there were some reasonably component Tory ministers as well. Osborne had done his homework on the situation he faced, Hague, Clarke, Hunt (having to clean up Lansley mess). But there were stinkers too.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,366

    Wait a minute. Maybe the concession isn't a concession?

    Delay the 4 point rule change until Timm's reports. Timms review is due "autumn 2026".

    But 4 point rule wasn't due until then anyway.

    So unless the rebels are confident the review can be steered away from ruling out 100,000s of people on the lower end of disability then they have gained nothing.

    He's gambling rebels are just looking for any off ramp. Many probably are with their balsa wood backbones
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,134
    Trump's bill passes the senate
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,111
    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    I would concede on this but would not have conceded on the Winter Fuel payment.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,366

    At what point have they made so many concessions, they might as well not bother at all? Seems very much like they are Bodger and Badgering it in real time just to get something through.
    It's a joke now. Drop it and do the Timm's review.
    Its sheer bloody mindedness now. Myopic.
    Kendalls career is over, as is Reeves shortly after
    Reeves has to be shuffled out to another department now.
    She wont take a demotion from the great offices of state. And if shes not good enough to see out the parliament as CoE as guaranteed by SKS less than 6 months ago, shes not fit to run any department
    Not even Accounts?
    No, nor complaints. And definitely not voice training
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,131
    IanB2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    Its a total dog dinners now of a bill. They need to go back and think more carefully about any reforms. Making policy on the fly in real time is rarely likely to lead to a good result.

    I am reminded of a different time when government were proposing much more sweeping changes to benefits. The reform to pensions under the Coalition. When we compare that, people still lost out, but the person in charge Steve Webb really knew his onions and they had thought really carefully about how to go about such a reform.
    A lot of stories from the coalition, the LibDems contributed a lot of the common sense and level headedness that the Tories seemed to lack. And got no credit for it whatsoever.
    The common sense of the LiDems was why the Tories went after them 2014-15. Couldn't have sensible, practical people anywhere near Cameron and Osborne for long.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,294
    edited July 1

    IanB2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    Its a total dog dinners now of a bill. They need to go back and think more carefully about any reforms. Making policy on the fly in real time is rarely likely to lead to a good result.

    I am reminded of a different time when government were proposing much more sweeping changes to benefits. The reform to pensions under the Coalition. When we compare that, people still lost out, but the person in charge Steve Webb really knew his onions and they had thought really carefully about how to go about such a reform.
    A lot of stories from the coalition, the LibDems contributed a lot of the common sense and level headedness that the Tories seemed to lack. And got no credit for it whatsoever.
    The common sense of the LiDems was why the Tories went after them 2014-15. Couldn't have sensible, practical people anywhere near Cameron and Osborne for long.
    I don't think that is 100% true. I don't think I have ever heard any of those leading Tories bad mouth the likes of Alexander, Webb or Lamb over their time in Coalition. Didn't Osborne put Alexander for a really big international job post 2015.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,913

    IanB2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.
    Cnrid
    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    Its a total dog dinners now of a bill. They need to go back and think more carefully about any reforms. Making policy on the fly in real time is rarely likely to lead to a good result.

    I am reminded of a different time when government were proposing much more sweeping changes to benefits. The reform to pensions under the Coalition. When we compare that, people still lost out, but the person in charge Steve Webb really knew his onions and they had thought really carefully about how to go about such a reform.
    A lot of stories from the coalition, the LibDems contributed a lot of the common sense and level headedness that the Tories seemed to lack. And got no credit for it whatsoever.
    The common sense of the LiDems was why the Tories went after them 2014-15. Couldn't have sensible, practical people anywhere near Cameron and Osborne for long.
    Chris Huhne lol
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,109

    Common sense from Le Pen:

    https://x.com/MLP_officiel/status/1940003469487677683

    Air conditioning saves lives.

    Leaving children, the elderly, or vulnerable people to suffer because there is no air conditioning, rather than developing an air conditioning plan, is completely absurd.

    To fail to plan is to plan to fail.

    Which planet is she on?

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,001
    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    The size of the majority is such that there is zero chance of becoming a minister - so I would probably be tending towards the awkward squad - never enough to lose the whip but definitely voting towards my constituents rather than the party
    Fair enough yes. I think I might too. But when does prioritising principles over collective loyalty become self-indulgence? Awkward question, I know. We all instinctively like the idea of politicians putting principles over party.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,073
    It suddenly feels freezing although in fact it's 22 degrees (with a 10 mph north-easterly wind).
  • isamisam Posts: 42,128
    Never mind Rebecca Long-Bailey, what happened to Keir Starmer?

    You can't believe this is the same person running the Country today, it's like Chalk and Cheese

    https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1940073205227823161?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,047
    MattW said:

    Common sense from Le Pen:

    https://x.com/MLP_officiel/status/1940003469487677683

    Air conditioning saves lives.

    Leaving children, the elderly, or vulnerable people to suffer because there is no air conditioning, rather than developing an air conditioning plan, is completely absurd.

    To fail to plan is to plan to fail.

    Which planet is she on?
    Planet normal. Climate austerity is killing people. Every home should have air conditioning.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,131
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    stodge said:

    All I know about Svalbard (apart from the seed vault) is it was the location of some of the last German troops to surrender in World War 2.

    They were forgotten about in the chaos at the beginning od May and it wasn't until September someone went and found them and told them the war was over.

    The second last to hear were the Germans stationed on Les Minquieres who surrendered to a passing fishing boat.

    Other pertinent things about Svalbard: anyone can live there; it requires no visas. Cats are forbidden. You need a special card to purchase alcohol and there is a limit of two bottles of spirits and 24 cans of beer per person per month. Both being born or dying there are strongly discouraged, the former because it doesn’t have full medical facilities and the latter because the frozen ground means they don’t want the bodies and there is no crematorium. Also no trees. And you aren’t allowed to leave the main town on the island unless you are both carrying a gun capable of killing a polar bear and are certified as having been trained to use it.
    Well, the 'no cats' sounds right up @Leon 's street but not sure about that alcohol quota.
    It’s also supposed to have an excellent Thai restaurant, as well as a lot of Thai residents, apparently because one Norwegian took his Thai bride there in the 80s, and when she found out you could move there without a visa, persuaded tons of her extended family and friends to join her there. Presumably she kept quiet about the climate - or maybe after living in Thailand’s open air sauna, it doesn’t seem so bad?

    I have a clear memory of my three year old Thai granddaughter's moment when her parents brought her to Essex for her first British Christmas;
    She stood in our doorway, looked up at me and said "It's cold in your world!"
    Later that night it snowed, so next morning she and her mother had their first experience of a 'white world'.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,616
    Scott_xP said:

    Trump's bill passes the senate

    That's the GOP stuffed then once MAGA voters especially in rural counties realise what it actually means for them.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,134

    Scott_xP said:

    Trump's bill passes the senate

    That's the GOP stuffed then once MAGA voters especially in rural counties realise what it actually means for them.
    Only if there are votes in future
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,001

    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    I would concede on this but would not have conceded on the Winter Fuel payment.
    The original WF change was a good one and should have been ridden out? If that's what you're saying, I agree.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,616
    Vance tie break vote
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,131

    IanB2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.
    Cnrid
    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    Its a total dog dinners now of a bill. They need to go back and think more carefully about any reforms. Making policy on the fly in real time is rarely likely to lead to a good result.

    I am reminded of a different time when government were proposing much more sweeping changes to benefits. The reform to pensions under the Coalition. When we compare that, people still lost out, but the person in charge Steve Webb really knew his onions and they had thought really carefully about how to go about such a reform.
    A lot of stories from the coalition, the LibDems contributed a lot of the common sense and level headedness that the Tories seemed to lack. And got no credit for it whatsoever.
    The common sense of the LiDems was why the Tories went after them 2014-15. Couldn't have sensible, practical people anywhere near Cameron and Osborne for long.
    Chris Huhne lol
    It's a fair cop, guv!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,001

    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    defect to Reform
    I meant PBers who it's possible - however remotely - to imagine as a Labour MP.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,109

    MattW said:

    Common sense from Le Pen:

    https://x.com/MLP_officiel/status/1940003469487677683

    Air conditioning saves lives.

    Leaving children, the elderly, or vulnerable people to suffer because there is no air conditioning, rather than developing an air conditioning plan, is completely absurd.

    To fail to plan is to plan to fail.

    Which planet is she on?
    Planet normal. Climate austerity is killing people. Every home should have air conditioning.
    She needs to work on her plan imo. "Aircon" alone is a tailpipe solution, treating a symptom.

    Traditional air conditioning is horribly inefficient, and it is far better done via heat pumps - which run at approx 1/3 to 1/4 of the energy use and cost, and passive measures before that.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,366
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    The welfare cuts. Tricky one for a Labour MP.

    You can see it's a problem how the cost of health-related benefits is increasing and set to keep doing so when the finances are so stressed. Furthermore you don't want to defeat your own government and give succour to political opponents, most of whom would be tougher on welfare claimants than this is.

    So, being rational, vote for it? Yes, I think so.

    But hang on, forget all that and get back to basics - should any government, let alone a Labour one, be doing something that makes the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country worse unless they truly have to? And do they truly have to?

    If it's 'no' and 'no' to that, how can you vote for it even if you've just convinced yourself you should?

    I wonder what PBers would do if they were a Labour MP?

    defect to Reform
    I meant PBers who it's possible - however remotely - to imagine as a Labour MP.
    I'm not a monster so i'd vote against
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,616
    Nothing from Musk yet on the passing of the Bill.

    He did post earlier on the enforcement of federal contempt of court orders thing that was slipped into the sprawling bill and another step to Trump being King.

    Is he realising he's been totally conned?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,047
    edited July 1
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Common sense from Le Pen:

    https://x.com/MLP_officiel/status/1940003469487677683

    Air conditioning saves lives.

    Leaving children, the elderly, or vulnerable people to suffer because there is no air conditioning, rather than developing an air conditioning plan, is completely absurd.

    To fail to plan is to plan to fail.

    Which planet is she on?
    Planet normal. Climate austerity is killing people. Every home should have air conditioning.
    She needs to work on her plan imo. "Aircon" alone is a tailpipe solution, treating a symptom.

    Traditional air conditioning is horribly inefficient, and it is far better done via heat pumps - which run at approx 1/3 to 1/4 of the energy use and cost, and passive measures before that.
    Traditional air conditioning is a heat pump.

    Aircon is no more treating a sympton than heating is. We have technology that allows us to make our living environment more comfortable and only lunatics would try to prevent people from using it.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,134

    @Smyth_Chris

    Timms confirms that 4-point rule is being dropped. Clause 5 dropped entirely

    Full retreat
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,294
    Scott_xP said:


    @Smyth_Chris

    Timms confirms that 4-point rule is being dropped. Clause 5 dropped entirely

    Full retreat

    Sounds like when all said and done all they will have to show for this is a very large printing bill.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,819
    edited July 1
    Apparently 28 million are supporting another 28 million according to our esteemed Conservative leader who really is taking "economical with the actualite" to new levels.

    Her performance in the Commons this afternoon is the usual shambolic mix of half truths and half facts. She's the gift that keeps on giving.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,446
    Long Bailey clearly got overtaken by Rayner as the candidate of the left in the Labour Party
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,109

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Common sense from Le Pen:

    https://x.com/MLP_officiel/status/1940003469487677683

    Air conditioning saves lives.

    Leaving children, the elderly, or vulnerable people to suffer because there is no air conditioning, rather than developing an air conditioning plan, is completely absurd.

    To fail to plan is to plan to fail.

    Which planet is she on?
    Planet normal. Climate austerity is killing people. Every home should have air conditioning.
    She needs to work on her plan imo. "Aircon" alone is a tailpipe solution, treating a symptom.

    Traditional air conditioning is horribly inefficient, and it is far better done via heat pumps - which run at approx 1/3 to 1/4 of the energy use and cost, and passive measures before that.
    Traditional air conditioning is a heat pump.

    Aircon is no more treating a sympton than heating is. We have technology that allows us to make our living environment more comfortable and only lunatics would try to prevent people from using it.
    So you approve of heat pumps then?

    It does the same job more efficiently, so is the better solution.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 15,665

    MattW said:

    Common sense from Le Pen:

    https://x.com/MLP_officiel/status/1940003469487677683

    Air conditioning saves lives.

    Leaving children, the elderly, or vulnerable people to suffer because there is no air conditioning, rather than developing an air conditioning plan, is completely absurd.

    To fail to plan is to plan to fail.

    Which planet is she on?
    Planet normal. Climate austerity is killing people. Every home should have air conditioning.
    She, like most climate contrarians, is on planet non sequitur.

    I have put a/c in the bedrooms in our French house. It was reasonably priced. It’s powered almost entirely by solar panels, especially on hot days like today. Nobody in France is preventing me from installing it.

    Planet non sequitur. It’s almost up there with “electricity is expensive so we should build less generating capacity” and similar British idiocies.
Sign In or Register to comment.